U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

94–599 WASHINGTON : 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2015

114–49 

Calendar No. 88 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 

REPORT 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1376]

ON

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 FOR 

MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND 

FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

MAY 19, 2015.—Ordered to be printed 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTScongress.#13
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOM TILLIS, North Carolina 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

CHRISTIAN BROSE, Staff Director 

ELIZABETH L. KING, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Purpose of the Bill ................................................................................................... 1 

Committee Overview ................................................................................. 2 

Summary of Discretionary Authorizations and Budget Authority Implication .................................................................................................. 4 

Budgetary Effects of This Act (Sec. 4) ..................................................... 5 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS ................. 7 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT ................................................................................... 7 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 7 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101) .............................................. 7 

Subtitle B—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 7 

Amendment to cost limitation baseline for CVN–78 class aircraft 

carrier program (sec. 111) ..................................................................... 7 

Limitation on availability of funds for USS John F. Kennedy (CVN– 

79) (sec. 112) .......................................................................................... 8 

Limitation on availability of funds for USS Enterprise (CVN–80) 

(sec. 113) ................................................................................................. 8 

Modification of CVN–78 class aircraft carrier program (sec. 114) ........ 9 

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

115) ......................................................................................................... 10 

Extension and modification of limitation on availability of funds for 

Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 116) ............................................................ 11 

Construction of additional Arleigh Burke destroyer (sec. 117) .............. 11 

Fleet replenishment oiler program (sec. 118) ......................................... 11 

Reporting requirement for Ohio-class replacement submarine program (sec. 119) ....................................................................................... 12 

Subtitle C—Air Force Programs ...................................................................... 12 

Limitations on retirement of B–1, B–2, and B–52 bomber aircraft 

(sec. 131) ................................................................................................. 12 

Limitation on retirement of Air Force fighter aircraft (sec. 132) .......... 12 

Limitation on availability of funds for F–35A aircraft procurement 

(sec. 133) ................................................................................................. 14 

Prohibition on retirement of A–10 aircraft (sec. 134) ............................. 15 

Prohibition on availability of funds for retirement of EC–130H Compass Call aircraft (sec. 135) ................................................................... 16 

Limitation on transfer of C–130 aircraft (sec. 136) ................................ 17 

Limitation on use of funds for T–1A Jayhawk aircraft (sec. 137) ......... 17 

Restriction on retirement of the Joint Surveillance Target Attack 

Radar System (JSTARS), EC–130H Compass Call, and Airborne 

Early Warning and Control (AWACS) aircraft (sec. 138) ................... 18 

Sense of the Congress regarding the OCONUS basing of the F– 

35A aircraft (sec. 139) ........................................................................... 18 

Sense of Congress on F–16 Active Electronically Scanned Array 

(AESA) radar upgrade (sec. 140) .......................................................... 18 

Subtitle D—Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters ........................ 18 

Report on Army and Marine Corps modernization plan for small 

arms (sec. 151) ....................................................................................... 18 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 18 

Army ........................................................................................................... 18 

Common missile warning system ..................................................... 18 

PAC–3 Missile Segment Enhancement ............................................ 18 

Army Tactical Missile System ........................................................... 19 

Improved recovery vehicle ................................................................. 19 

Precision sniper rifle .......................................................................... 19 

Compact semi-automatic sniper system ........................................... 19 

Common remotely operated weapons station .................................. 19 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

IV 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Army—Continued 

Handgun ............................................................................................. 19 

Sniper rifle modifications .................................................................. 20 

Items less than $5.0 million .............................................................. 20 

Army ammunition decrease .............................................................. 20 

Transportable Tactical Command Communications ....................... 20 

Prophet Ground System .................................................................... 20 

Counterfire radars .............................................................................. 20 

Global Combat Support System—Army ........................................... 21 

Automated data processing equipment ............................................ 21 

Non-system training devices ............................................................. 21 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 21 

F/A–18E/F aircraft procurement ....................................................... 21 

F–35C .................................................................................................. 21 

F–35B .................................................................................................. 21 

AV–8 series aircraft ........................................................................... 22 

F–18 series kill chain enhancements ............................................... 22 

V–22 Osprey ....................................................................................... 22 

Tomahawk .......................................................................................... 22 

Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile ................................... 23 

Ordnance support equipment ............................................................ 23 

Virginia-class submarines ................................................................. 23 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers ......................................................... 24 

Afloat Forward Staging Base ............................................................ 24 

Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA) Replacement ................................ 24 

LX(R) ................................................................................................... 25 

Landing craft utility replacement ..................................................... 25 

T–ATS(X) ............................................................................................ 25 

Destroyer modernization ................................................................... 25 

Littoral Combat Ship Mine Countermeasures Mission Module ..... 25 

Remote Minehunting System ............................................................ 26 

Submarine towed arrays .................................................................... 26 

Surface electronic warfare improvement program .......................... 26 

Tube-launched, optically-tracked, wireless-guided missile ............. 27 

Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar ..................................................... 27 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 27 

F–35A .................................................................................................. 27 

MQ–9 ................................................................................................... 27 

F–15 capability upgrades .................................................................. 28 

Budget request realignment .............................................................. 28 

C–130H Propulsion System Enhancements ..................................... 28 

C–130H avionics modernization program ........................................ 29 

A–10 Munitions Buyback .................................................................. 29 

Battlefield air operations kits ........................................................... 30 

Air Force Network Procurements ..................................................... 30 

Joint terminal attack controller training and rehearsal system 

simulators ........................................................................................ 30 

Defense Wide ............................................................................................. 30 

MC–12 ................................................................................................. 30 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ...................................................... 31 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 31 

Armored vehicle transmission industrial base ........................................ 31 

Army UH–60A to UH–60L conversions for the National Guard ........... 32 

Combat Logistics Fleet .............................................................................. 32 

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

Structure of the Air Force ..................................................................... 33 

Comptroller General review of the CVN–78 class aircraft carrier 

program .................................................................................................. 34 

Enhance cockpit displays to improve safety and mission effectiveness 35 

Expeditionary Health Services Systems .................................................. 35 

F–35 Joint Strike Fighter program ......................................................... 35 

Joint Standoff Weapon .............................................................................. 37 

Land mobile radio ..................................................................................... 37 

Missile and munitions industrial base .................................................... 37 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

V 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Modernization for Light Armored Vehicles ............................................. 37 

Navy maritime security barriers .............................................................. 38 

Navy training helicopters ......................................................................... 38 

Night Vision Reset .................................................................................... 39 

Patriot Product Improvement Future Lower Tier Sensor Alternatives 39 

Route and area clearance mine protected vehicles ................................. 39 

San Antonio-Class Amphibious Transport Dock program ..................... 40 

Single-source providers of critical acquisition program components .... 40 

Standoff precision guided weapons .......................................................... 40 

Unmanned Undersea Vehicles ................................................................. 41 

Vehicle occupant protection technology ................................................... 42 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION .......... 43 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 43 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201) .............................................. 43 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 43 

Centers for science, technology, and engineering partnership (sec. 

211) ......................................................................................................... 43 

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

(sec. 212) ................................................................................................. 44 

Reauthorization of Defense Research and Development Rapid Innovation Program (sec. 213) ......................................................................... 46 

Reauthorization of Global Research Watch Program (sec. 214) ............ 46 

Science and technology activities to support business systems information technology acquisition programs (sec. 215) ............................. 47 

Expansion of eligibility for financial assistance under Department 

of Defense science, mathematics, and research for transformation 

program to include citizens of countries participating in the technical cooperation program (sec. 216) .................................................... 48 

Streamlining the Joint Federated Assurance Center (sec. 217) ............ 49 

Limitation on availability of funds for development of the Shallow 

Water Combat Submersible (sec. 218) ................................................. 49 

Limitation on availability of funds for distributed common ground 

system of the Army (sec. 219) ............................................................... 50 

Limitation on availability of funds for Distributed Common Ground 

System of the United States Special Operations Command (sec. 

220) ......................................................................................................... 51 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 51 

Assessment of air-land mobile tactical communications and data network requirements and capabilities (sec. 231) .................................... 51 

Study of field failures involving counterfeit electronic parts (sec. 232) 51 

Demonstration of persistent close air support capabilities (sec. 233) ... 52 

Airborne data link plan (sec. 234) ............................................................ 52 

Report on the technology readiness levels of the technologies and 

capabilities critical to the Long Range Strike Bomber aircraft (sec. 

235) ......................................................................................................... 54 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 54 

Army defense research sciences ............................................................... 54 

High-performance computing modernization .......................................... 55 

Infantry support weapons ......................................................................... 55 

Integrated personnel and pay systems for Army and Air Force ........... 55 

Common infrared countermeasures ......................................................... 56 

Aircraft survivability development .......................................................... 56 

Joint Tactical Radio System ..................................................................... 56 

Munitions Standardization, Effectiveness and Safety ........................... 57 

Stryker modification and improvement ................................................... 57 

Navy defense research sciences ................................................................ 57 

Undersea warfare applied research ......................................................... 58 

Capable manpower, enablers, and sea basing ........................................ 58 

Advanced submarine system development .............................................. 58 

USS Gerald R. Ford full ship shock trials .............................................. 58 

LX(R) .......................................................................................................... 59 

Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System .......................................................................................................... 59 

Submarine tactical warfare systems development ................................. 59 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

VI 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

F–35B/C engineering and manufacturing development ......................... 59 

Submarine acoustic warfare development ............................................... 59 

Mk-48 ADCAP ........................................................................................... 60 

Air Force defense research sciences ......................................................... 60 

Nanostructured and biological materials ................................................ 60 

Long range strike—bomber ...................................................................... 60 

F–35A engineering and manufacturing development ............................ 60 

KC–46 aerial refueling tanker aircraft program .................................... 61 

F–15 capability upgrades .......................................................................... 61 

Budget request realignment ..................................................................... 61 

Logistics information technology .............................................................. 62 

Applied research for the advancement of science and technology priorities ...................................................................................................... 62 

Multi-azimuth defense fast intercept round engagement system ......... 62 

Materials and biological technology ......................................................... 62 

Science and technology analytic assessments ......................................... 63 

Joint capability technology demonstration .............................................. 63 

Network-centric warfare technology ........................................................ 63 

Quick Reaction Special Projects ............................................................... 64 

Advanced sensor application program ..................................................... 64 

Corrosion control and prevention funding increase ................................ 64 

Global Combat Support System—Joint Systems engineering ............... 64 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ............................................................. 65 

C–130 terrain following/terrain avoidance radar ................................... 65 

Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance Payload Technology Improvements Program ............................................................................. 66 

Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration and prototyping ......... 66 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 67 

Advancement in radar technologies ......................................................... 67 

Advancements in Antenna Research and Capabilities .......................... 67 

Air Force seismic activity research .......................................................... 67 

Conditions and Capabilities of the Undersea Warfare Test Capabilities ........................................................................................................... 68 

Cost estimate for a land-based electromagnetic railgun program ......... 68 

Database on Department of Defense research grants ............................ 69 

Entrepreneurial sabbatical for Department of Defense laboratory scientists ..................................................................................................... 69 

Expedited approval for attendance at conferences in support of 

science and innovation activities of Department of Defense and 

the National Nuclear Security Administration ................................... 70 

High Power Microwave Counter-electronics Capabilities ...................... 71 

Improved turbine engine program ........................................................... 72 

Improvised Explosive Device Detection Systems .................................... 72 

Market survey of active protection systems ............................................ 72 

Medical evaluation of Anthropomorphic data on vehicle blast testing . 73 

National Defense Education Program ..................................................... 73 

Training Range Upgrades ......................................................................... 73 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 75 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 75 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301) .............................................. 75 

Subtitle B—Energy and the Environment ..................................................... 75 

Modification of energy management reporting requirements (sec. 

311) ......................................................................................................... 75 

Report on efforts to reduce high energy costs at military installations 

(sec. 312) ................................................................................................. 75 

Southern Sea Otter military readiness areas (sec. 313) ........................ 75 

Subtitle C—Logistics and Sustainment .......................................................... 76 

Repeal of limitation on authority to enter into a contract for the 

sustainment, maintenance, repair, or overhaul of the F117 engine 

(sec. 321) ................................................................................................. 76 

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 76 

Modification of annual report on prepositioned materiel and equipment (sec. 331) ....................................................................................... 76 

Subtitle E—Limitations and Extensions of Authority ................................... 76 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

VII 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

Subtitle E—Limitations and Extensions of Authority—Continued 

Modification of requirements for transferring aircraft within the Air 

Force inventory (sec. 341) ..................................................................... 76 

Limitation on use of funds for Department of Defense sponsorships, 

advertising, or marketing associated with sports-related organizations or sporting events (sec. 342) ........................................................ 77 

Temporary authority to extend contracts and leases under ARMS 

Initiative (sec. 343) ................................................................................ 78 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 78 

Streamlining of Department of Defense management and operational 

headquarters (sec. 351) ......................................................................... 78 

Adoption of retired military working dogs (sec. 352) ............................. 80 

Modification of required review of projects relating to potential obstructions to aviation (sec. 353) ............................................................ 80 

Pilot program on intensive instruction in certain Asian languages 

(sec. 354) ................................................................................................. 81 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 81 

Transfer to overseas contingency operations .......................................... 81 

Army and Army Reserve readiness unfunded priorities increases ....... 82 

Insider threat unfunded priorities increases .......................................... 82 

Streamlining Combatant Commands ...................................................... 83 

Army outreach reduction .......................................................................... 83 

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase ......... 83 

Streamlining Management Headquarters ............................................... 84 

Foreign currency fluctuation deductions ................................................. 84 

Bulk fuel savings ....................................................................................... 85 

Army and Air National Guard Operation Phalanx increase ................. 85 

Army National Guard portrait cuts ......................................................... 86 

Army National Guard marketing program reduction ............................ 86 

Army National Guard readiness funding increase ................................. 86 

Marine Corps readiness unfunded priorities increases .......................... 87 

Criminal Investigative Equipment .......................................................... 87 

A–10 to F–15E training transition .......................................................... 87 

Air Force readiness unfunded priorities increases ................................. 88 

Joint Enabling Capabilities Command .................................................... 88 

Air Force Headquarters reductions ......................................................... 88 

Remotely piloted aircraft .......................................................................... 89 

Air Force acquisition tools reduction ....................................................... 89 

Air Force enterprise information technology systems ............................ 89 

Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System reduction ... 89 

EC–130H Buyback .................................................................................... 90 

A–10 Operation and Maintenance Buyback ............................................ 90 

Middle East Assurance Initiative ............................................................ 90 

Department of Defense Rewards Program reduction ............................. 91 

Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program ............................................. 91 

Funding for impact aid ............................................................................. 91 

Defense-wide funding decreases for Office of Economic Adjustment 

(OEA) ...................................................................................................... 92 

Defense-wide funding decrease for base realignment and closure 

planning and support ............................................................................ 92 

Studies of fleet platform architectures for the Navy .............................. 92 

A–10 retirement manpower transfer ....................................................... 92 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 93 

Army and Air Force full spectrum training requirements ..................... 93 

Body armor modernization ....................................................................... 94 

Care of stock in storage ............................................................................ 94 

Category I ammunition items in OCONUS environments .................... 95 

Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) ................................................................ 96 

Commercial innovation in energy technologies ....................................... 96 

Defense Logistics Agency and military services’ integrated demand 

planning for spare parts ........................................................................ 97 

Department of Defense airfield reflective pavement markings ............. 97 

Department of Defense energy security and efficiency technologies .... 98 

Department of Defense fuel consumption estimates .............................. 98 

Department of Defense investment in community relations activities . 99 

Depot maintenance core workload capability ......................................... 99 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

VIII 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Effects of operation and maintenance funding levels ............................. 100 

Encouraging the Use of the Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) 

Program .................................................................................................. 101 

Enhanced Performance Round and Special Operations Science and 

Technology review ................................................................................. 101 

Fabric-based respiratory protective equipment ...................................... 102 

Foreign language training ........................................................................ 102 

Installation access programs and systems .............................................. 103 

Major test range and test facility bases reimbursement ....................... 103 

Medical textile apparel for healthcare workers and patients ................ 103 

Mentor Prote ́ge ́ program ........................................................................... 104 

Obstructions on or near military installations ....................................... 104 

Operational Energy ................................................................................... 104 

Personal protection equipment ................................................................. 105 

Red Hill underground fuel storage facility .............................................. 105 

Report on those at-risk of exposure to perflourochemicals from the 

Haven Well in Portsmouth, New Hampshire ...................................... 106 

Resilience of Department of Defense-owned utility infrastructure ....... 106 

Tubular light-emitting diode technology ................................................. 107 

Utah Test and Training Range ................................................................ 107 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS ............................... 109 

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 109 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) ................................................ 109 

Enhancement of authority for management of end strengths for military personnel (sec. 402) ....................................................................... 109 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 109 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) ........................................ 109 

End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves 

(sec. 412) ................................................................................................. 110 

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413) ............ 110 

Fiscal year 2016 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 

(sec. 414) ................................................................................................. 110 

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support (sec. 415) ................................................ 111 

Chief of the National Guard Bureau authority in increase certain 

end strengths applicable to the Army National Guard (sec. 416) ..... 111 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 111 

Military personnel (sec. 421) .................................................................... 111 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 112 

Military personnel funding changes ........................................................ 112 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY ..................................................... 113 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy .............................................................. 113 

Authority of promotion boards to recommend officers of particular 

merit be placed at the top of the promotion list (sec. 501) ................. 113 

Minimum grades for certain corps and related positions in the Army, 

Navy, and Air Force (sec. 502) .............................................................. 113 

Enhancement of military personnel authorities in connection with 

the defense acquisition workforce (sec. 503) ........................................ 114 

Enhanced flexibility for determination of officers to continue on active duty and for selective early retirement and early discharge 

(sec. 504) ................................................................................................. 114 

Authority to defer until age 68 mandatory retirement for age of 

a general or flag officer serving as Chief or Deputy Chief of Chaplains of the Army, Navy or Air Force (sec. 505) .................................. 115 

Reinstatement of enhanced authority for selective early discharge 

of warrant officers (sec. 506) ................................................................. 115 

Authority to conduct warrant officer retired grade determinations 

(sec. 507) ................................................................................................. 115 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management .............................................. 115 

Authority to designate certain Reserve officers as not to be considered for selection for promotion (sec. 511) ........................................... 115 

Clarification of purpose of reserve component special selection boards 

as limited to correction of error at a mandatory promotion board 

(sec. 512) ................................................................................................. 116 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

IX 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY—Continued 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management—Continued 

Reconciliation of contradictory provisions relating to citizenship 

qualifications for enlistment in the reserve components of the 

Armed Forces (sec. 513) ........................................................................ 116 

Authority for certain Air Force reserve component personnel to provide training and instruction regarding pilot instructor training 

(sec. 514) ................................................................................................. 116 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities ........................................................ 116 

Duty required for eligibility for preseparation counseling for members 

being discharged or released from active duty (sec. 521) ................... 116 

Expansion of pilot programs on career flexibility to enhance retention 

of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 522) ......................................... 117 

Sense of Senate on development of gender-neutral occupational 

standards for occupational assignments in the Armed Forces (sec. 

523) ......................................................................................................... 117 

Subtitle D—Member Education and Training ............................................... 117 

PART I—Educational Assistance Reform ............................................... 117 

Limitation on tuition assistance for off-duty training or education 

(sec. 531) .......................................................................................... 117 

Termination of program of educational assistance for reserve 

component members supporting contingency operations and 

other operations (sec. 532) ............................................................. 118 

Reports on educational levels attained by certain members of 

the Armed Forces at time of separation from the Armed Forces 

(sec. 533) .......................................................................................... 118 

Sense of Congress on transferability of unused education benefits 

to family members (sec. 534) ......................................................... 118 

No entitlement to unemployment insurance while receiving Post9/11 Education Assistance (sec. 535) ............................................ 118 

PART II—Other Matters .......................................................................... 118 

Repeal of statutory specification of minimum duration of inresident instruction for courses of instruction offered as part 

of Phase II Joint Professional Military Education (sec. 536) ...... 118 

Quality assurance of certification programs and standards for 

professional credentials obtained by members of the Armed 

Forces (sec. 537) .............................................................................. 119 

Support for athletic programs of the United States Military 

Academy (sec. 538) ......................................................................... 119 

Online access to the higher education component of the transition assistance program (sec. 539) ................................................ 119 

Subtitle E—Military Justice ............................................................................ 120 

Modification of Rule 304 of the Military Rules of Evidence relating 

to the corroboration of a confession or admission (sec. 546) .............. 120 

Modification of Rule 104 of the Rules for Courts-Martial to establish 

certain prohibitions concerning evaluations of Special Victims’ 

Counsel (sec. 547) .................................................................................. 120 

Right of victims of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice to timely disclosure of certain materials and information 

in connection with prosecution of offenses (sec. 548) .......................... 120 

Enforcement of certain crime victims’ rights by the Court of Criminal 

Appeals (sec. 549) .................................................................................. 121 

Release to victims upon request of complete record of proceedings 

and testimony of courts-martial in cases in which sentences adjudged could include punitive discharge (sec. 550) ............................. 121 

Representation and assistance of victims by Special Victims’ Counsel 

in questioning by military criminal investigators (sec. 551) .............. 121 

Authority of Special Victims’ Counsel to provide legal consultation 

and assistance in connection with various government proceedings 

(sec. 552) ................................................................................................. 121 

Enhancement of confidentiality of restricted reporting of sexual assault in the military (sec. 553) ............................................................. 121 

Establishment of Office of Complex Investigations within the National Guard Bureau (sec. 554) ............................................................. 122 

Modification of deadline for establishment of Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 555) .................................................... 122 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

X 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY—Continued 

Subtitle E—Military Justice—Continued 

Comptroller General of the United States reports on prevention and 

response to sexual assault by the Army National Guard and the 

Army Reserve (sec. 556) ........................................................................ 122 

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

557) ......................................................................................................... 122 

Subtitle F—Defense Dependents’ Education and Military Family Readiness Matters .................................................................................................. 123 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that 

benefit dependents of members of the armed forces and Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 561) ..................................... 123 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 562) ..................... 123 

Authority to use appropriated funds to support Department of Defense student meal programs in domestic dependent elementary 

and secondary schools located outside the United States (sec. 563) . 123 

Biennial surveys of military dependents on military family readiness 

matters (sec. 564) ................................................................................... 123 

Subtitle G—Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements ..................................... 123 

Extension of semiannual reports on the involuntary separation of 

members of the Armed Forces (sec. 571) ............................................. 123 

Remotely piloted aircraft career field manning shortfalls (sec. 572) .... 124 

Subtitle H—Other Matters .............................................................................. 125 

PART I—Financial Literacy and Preparedness of Members of the 

Armed Forces ......................................................................................... 125 

Improvement of financial literacy and preparedness of members 

of the Armed Forces (sec. 581) ...................................................... 125 

Financial literacy training with respect to certain financial services for members of the uniformed services (sec. 582) ................. 125 

Sense of Congress on financial literacy and preparedness of 

members of the Armed Forces (sec. 583) ...................................... 125 

PART II—Other Matters ................................................................................. 125 

Authority for applications for correction of military records to 

be initiated by the Secretary concerned (sec. 586) ....................... 125 

Recordation of obligations for installment payments of incentive 

pays, allowances, and similar benefits when payment is due 

(sec. 587) .......................................................................................... 125 

Enhancements to Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (sec. 

588) .................................................................................................. 126 

Priority processing of applications for Transportation Worker 

Identification Credentials for members undergoing discharge 

or release from the Armed Forces (sec. 589) ................................ 126 

Issuance of Recognition of Service ID cards to certain members 

separating from the Armed Forces (sec. 590) ............................... 126 

Revised policy on network services for military services (sec. 

591) .................................................................................................. 126 

Increase in number of days of Active Duty required to be performed by reserve component members for duty to be considered federal service for purposes of unemployment compensation for ex-servicemembers (sec. 592) ........................................... 127 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 127 

Assessment on Servicemembers lacking post-transition housing ......... 127 

Availability of Special Victims’ Counsel as Individual Military Counsel ............................................................................................................ 128 

Changes to the Joint Travel Regulation .................................................. 128 

Comptroller General of the United States assessment of Department 

of Defense personnel strategies for unmanned aerial systems .......... 129 

Comptroller General report on Department of Defense credentialing 

and licensing programs ......................................................................... 129 

Cyber security training, testing and certification ................................... 130 

Disability pilot program feasibility report ............................................... 130 

Extending Special Victims’ Counsel eligibility for civilian sexual assault survivors ....................................................................................... 131 

Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview ................................................ 132 

Increase in number of persons from U.S. Pacific Command area 

of operations who receive instruction at military academies ............. 133 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XI 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Increasing the transparency of the military justice system .................. 133 

Leadership reorganization of the United States Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps .......................................................................... 133 

National Guard and Reserve headquarters ............................................ 134 

Public Schools on Department of Defense Installations ........................ 135 

Punishment for collateral misconduct revealed by reports of sexual 

misconduct .............................................................................................. 135 

Religious freedom and role of military chaplains ................................... 135 

Report on review of petitions for review of discharge or dismissal 

from the Armed Forces of veterans with mental health issues connected with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury .......................................................................................................... 136 

Report on Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff decisions on combat integration .............................................. 137 

Social Security Number Use Reduction Plan .......................................... 138 

Support for military families impacted by grief, behavioral health 

disorders, or substance abuse ............................................................... 138 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS .......... 139 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 139 

Fiscal year 2016 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) ..................... 139 

Modification of percentage of national average monthly cost of housing usable in computation of basic allowance for housing inside 

the United States (sec. 602) .................................................................. 139 

Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in rates of 

basic allowance for housing (sec. 603) .................................................. 139 

Basic allowance for housing for married members of the uniformed 

services assigned for duty within normal commuting distance and 

for other members living together (sec. 604) ....................................... 139 

Repeal of inapplicability of modification of basic allowance for housing to benefits under the laws administered by the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs (sec. 605) .................................................................... 140 

Limitation on eligibility for supplemental subsistence allowances to 

members serving outside the United States and associated territory 

(sec. 606) ................................................................................................. 140 

Availability of information (sec. 607) ....................................................... 140 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 140 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

reserve forces (sec. 611) ......................................................................... 140 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 

health care professionals (sec. 612) ...................................................... 140 

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear 

officers (sec. 613) .................................................................................... 141 

One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated 

special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614) .............. 141 

One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 

37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615) ................................................ 141 

Increase in maximum annual amount of nuclear officer bonus pay 

(sec. 616) ................................................................................................. 141 

Repeal of obsolete authority to pay bonus to encourage Army personnel to refer persons for enlistment in the Army (sec. 617) ........... 141 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ...................................... 142 

Repeal of obsolete special travel and transportation allowance for 

survivors of deceased members from the Vietnam conflict (sec. 

621) ......................................................................................................... 142 

Subtitle D—Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits ................. 142 

Part I—Retired Pay Reform ..................................................................... 142 

Thrift Savings Plan participation for members of the uniformed 

services (sec. 631) ........................................................................... 142 

Modernized retirement system for members of the uniformed 

services (sec. 632) ........................................................................... 142 

Lump sum payments of certain retired pay (sec. 633) .................... 143 

Continuation pay after 12 years of service for members of the 

uniformed services participating in the modernized retirement 

systems (sec. 634) ........................................................................... 143 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XII 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS—Continued 

Subtitle D—Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits—Continued 

Part I—Retired Pay Reform—Continued 

Authority for retirement flexibility for members of the uniformed 

services (sec. 635) ........................................................................... 143 

Treatment of Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund 

as a qualified trust (sec. 636) ........................................................ 144 

Part II—Other Matters ............................................................................. 144 

Death of former spouse beneficiaries and subsequent remarriages 

under Survivor Benefit Plan (sec. 641) ......................................... 144 

Transitional compensation and other benefits for dependents of 

members of the Armed Forces ineligible to receive retired pay 

as a result of court-martial sentence (sec. 642) ........................... 144 

Subtitle E—Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 

Benefits and Operations ............................................................................... 144 

Commissary system matters (sec. 651) ................................................... 144 

Plan on privatization of the Defense Commissary System (sec. 652) ... 145 

Comptroller General of the United States report on the Commissary 

Surcharge, Non-appropriated Fund, and Privately-financed Major 

Construction Program (sec. 653) .......................................................... 145 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 146 

Comptroller General of the United States assessment of potential 

costs and benefits from privatizing Department of Defense commissaries ................................................................................................. 146 

Comptroller General of the United States review of the Department 

of Defense special and incentive pay program .................................... 147 

Comptroller General of the United States review of the Gold Star 

Advocate Program .................................................................................. 147 

Report on wait-times at child development centers ............................... 148 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS ......................................................... 151 

Subtitle A—Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits ................................... 151 

Urgent care authorization under the TRICARE program (sec. 701) .... 151 

Modifications of cost-sharing requirements for the TRICARE pharmacy benefits program (sec. 702) ......................................................... 151 

Expansion of continued health benefits coverage to include discharged and released members of the Selected Reserve (sec. 703) ... 152 

Expansion of reimbursement for smoking cessation services for certain TRICARE beneficiaries (sec. 704) ................................................. 152 

Pilot program on treatment of members of the Armed Forces for 

post-traumatic stress disorder related to military sexual trauma 

(sec. 705) ................................................................................................. 152 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration ....................................................... 152 

Access to health care under the TRICARE program (sec. 711) ............. 152 

Portability of health plans under the TRICARE program (sec. 712) .... 153 

Improvement of mental health care provided by health care providers 

of the Department of Defense (sec. 713) .............................................. 153 

Comprehensive standards and access to contraception counseling for 

members of the Armed Forces (sec. 714) ............................................. 153 

Waiver of recoupment of erroneous payments due to administrative 

error under the TRICARE Program (sec. 715) .................................... 153 

Designation of certain non-Department mental health care providers 

with knowledge relating to treatment of members of the Armed 

Forces (sec. 716) ..................................................................................... 154 

Limitation on conversion of military medical and dental positions 

to civilian medical and dental positions (sec. 717) .............................. 154 

Extension of authority for joint Department of Defense-Department 

of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 

718) ......................................................................................................... 154 

Extension of authority for DOD–VA Health Care Sharing Incentive 

Fund (sec. 719) ....................................................................................... 155 

Pilot program on incentive programs to improve health care provided 

under the TRICARE program (sec. 720) .............................................. 155 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters ......................................................... 155 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XIII 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS—Continued 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters—Continued 

Publication of certain information on health care provided by the 

Department of Defense through the Hospital Compare web site 

of the Department of Health and Human Services (sec. 731) ............ 155 

Publication of data on patient safety, quality of care, satisfaction, 

and health outcome measures under the TRICARE program (sec. 

732) ......................................................................................................... 155 

Annual report on patient safety, quality of care, and access to care 

at military medical treatment facilities (sec. 733) .............................. 156 

Report on plans to improve experience with and eliminate performance variability of health care provided by the Department of Defense (sec. 734) ....................................................................................... 156 

Report on plan to improve pediatric care and related services for 

children of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 735) .......................... 156 

Report on preliminary mental health screenings for individuals becoming members of the Armed Forces (sec. 736) ................................ 157 

Comptroller General report on use of quality of care metrics at military treatment facilities (sec. 737) ....................................................... 157 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 157 

Annual report on autism care demonstration program ......................... 157 

Antimicrobial coatings .............................................................................. 158 

Continued support for diagnosis and treatment for traumatic brain 

injury ...................................................................................................... 158 

Intensive behavioral counseling ............................................................... 158 

Mild traumatic brain injury research ...................................................... 159 

Molecular diagnostics ................................................................................ 159 

Newborn infant screening evaluation and treatment ............................ 159 

Preseparation counseling on opioid therapy for chronic pain management ........................................................................................................ 160 

Prosthetic socket manufacturing cells ..................................................... 160 

Reform of the TRICARE program ............................................................ 161 

Training for physician assistants specializing in psychiatric care ........ 161 

TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration ........................ 162 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS ......................................................................................... 163 

Acquisition policy reform overview ................................................................. 163 

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management .......................................... 166 

Role of service chiefs in the acquisition process (sec. 801) .................... 166 

Expansion of rapid acquisition authority (sec. 802) ............................... 167 

Middle tier of acquisition for rapid prototyping and rapid fielding 

(sec. 803) ................................................................................................. 167 

Amendments to other transaction authority (sec. 804) .......................... 167 

Use of alternative acquisition paths to acquire critical national security capabilities (sec. 805) ..................................................................... 168 

Secretary of Defense waiver of acquisition laws to acquire vital national security capabilities (sec. 806) ................................................... 169 

Acquisition authority of the Commander of United States Cyber Command (sec. 807) ...................................................................................... 170 

Advisory panel on streamlining and codifying acquisition regulations 

(sec. 808) ................................................................................................. 171 

Review of time-based requirements process and budgeting and acquisition systems (sec. 809) ........................................................................ 173 

Improvement of program and project management by the Department of Defense (sec. 810) .................................................................... 173 

Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations ............................................................................................. 174 

Preference for fixed-price contracts in determining contract type for 

development programs (sec. 821) ......................................................... 174 

Applicability of cost and pricing data and certification requirements 

(sec. 822) ................................................................................................. 174 

Risk-based contracting for smaller contract actions under the Truth 

In Negotiations Act (sec. 823) ............................................................... 174 

Limitation of the use of reverse auctions and lowest priced technically acceptable contracting methods (sec. 824) ............................... 175 

Rights in technical data (sec. 825) ........................................................... 175 

Procurement of supplies for experimental purposes (sec. 826) .............. 176 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XIV 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations—Continued 

Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced 

in countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec. 

827) ......................................................................................................... 177 

Reporting related to failure of contractors to meet goals under negotiated comprehensive small business subcontracting plans (sec. 

828) ......................................................................................................... 177 

Competition for religious services contracts (sec. 829) ........................... 177 

Treatment of interagency and state and local purchases when the 

Department of Defense acts as contract intermediary for the General Services Administration (sec. 830) ............................................... 177 

Pilot program for streamlining awards for innovative technology 

projects (sec. 831) ................................................................................... 177 

Subtitle C—Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs ... 178 

Acquisition strategy required for each major defense acquisition program (sec. 841) ....................................................................................... 178 

Risk reduction in major defense acquisition programs (sec. 842) ......... 178 

Designation of milestone decision authority (sec. 843) .......................... 179 

Revision of Milestone A decision authority responsibilities for major 

defense acquisition programs (sec. 844) ............................................... 179 

Revision of Milestone B decision authority responsibilities for major 

defense acquisition programs (sec. 845) ............................................... 180 

Tenure and accountability of program managers for program development periods (sec. 846) .......................................................................... 181 

Tenure and accountability of program managers for program execution periods (sec. 847) ............................................................................ 181 

Repeal of requirement for stand-alone manpower estimates for major 

defense acquisition programs (sec. 848) ............................................... 182 

Penalty for cost overruns (sec. 849) ......................................................... 182 

Streamlining of reporting requirements applicable to Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering regarding major 

defense acquisition programs (sec. 850) ............................................... 183 

Configuration steering boards for cost control under major defense 

acquisition programs (sec. 851) ............................................................ 183 

Subtitle D—Provisions Related to Commercial Items ................................... 183 

Inapplicability of certain laws and regulations to the acquisition of 

commercial items and commercially available off-the-shelf items 

(sec. 861) ................................................................................................. 183 

Market research and preference for commercial items (sec. 862) ......... 183 

Continuing validity of commercial item determinations (sec. 863) ....... 184 

Treatment of commercial items purchased as major weapon systems 

(sec. 864) ................................................................................................. 184 

Limitation on conversion of procurements from commercial acquisition procedures (sec. 865) ...................................................................... 185 

Treatment of goods and services provided by a non-traditional contractors as commercial items (sec. 866) ............................................... 186 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 187 

Streamlining of requirements relating to defense business systems 

(sec. 871) ................................................................................................. 187 

Acquisition workforce (sec. 872) ............................................................... 187 

Unified information technology services (sec. 873) ................................. 187 

Cloud strategy for Department of Defense (sec. 874) ............................. 188 

Development period for Department of Defense information technology systems (sec. 875) ...................................................................... 188 

Revisions to pilot program on acquisition of military purpose nondevelopmental items (sec. 876) ............................................................. 189 

Extension of the Department of Defense Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ pilot program (sec. 877) ....................................................................................... 189 

Improved auditing of contracts (sec. 878) ................................................ 189 

Survey on the costs of regulatory compliance (sec. 879) ........................ 189 

Government Accountability Office report on bid protests (sec. 880) ..... 190 

Steps to identify and address potential unfair competitive advantage 

of technical advisors to acquisition officials (sec. 881) ........................ 190 

HUBZone qualified disaster areas (sec. 882) .......................................... 191 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XV 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle E—Other Matters—Continued 

Base closure HUBZones (sec. 883) ........................................................... 191 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 191 

AbilityOne Program .................................................................................. 191 

Acquisition of Commercial Test, Research, and Measurement Capability ........................................................................................................ 191 

Barriers to innovation from non-traditional and commercial contractors .......................................................................................................... 192 

Competition in the procurement of collaboration services ..................... 193 

Inspector General report on pricing of engine sustainment contract ... 193 

Mitigation strategy to prevent fraud and abuse in the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program ................................. 194 

Obtaining technical data for operations, maintenance, installation, 

and training purposes ........................................................................... 195 

Review of should-cost process Security and facility clearances ............. 196 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 197 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management ......................................... 197 

Update of statutory specification of functions of Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff relating to advice on requirements, programs, 

and budget (sec. 901) ............................................................................. 197 

Reorganization and redesignation of Office of Family Policy and Office of Community Support for Military Families with Special 

Needs (sec. 902) ..................................................................................... 197 

Repeal of requirement for annual Department of Defense funding 

for Ocean Research Advisory Panel (sec. 903) .................................... 197 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 198 

Special Operations Policy and Oversight Council .................................. 198 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 199 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 199 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) .................................................... 199 

Annual audit of financial statements of Department of Defense components by independent external auditors (sec. 1002) ....................... 199 

Treatment as part of the base budget of certain amounts authorized 

for overseas contingency operations upon enactment of an act revising the Budget Control Act discretionary spending limits for fiscal 

year 2016 (sec. 1003) ............................................................................. 199 

Sense of Senate on sequestration (sec. 1004) .......................................... 200 

Subtitle B—Counter-Drug Activities .............................................................. 200 

Extension of authority to support unified counter-drug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011) ....................................... 200 

Extension and expansion of authority to provide additional support 

for counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments (sec. 

1012) ....................................................................................................... 201 

Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 201 

Studies of fleet platform architectures for the Navy (sec. 1021) ........... 201 

Amendment to National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (sec. 1022) ......... 202 

Extension of authority for reimbursement of expenses for certain 

Navy mess operations afloat (sec. 1023) .............................................. 203 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism ......................................................................... 203 

Prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the 

United States to house detainees transferred from United States 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1031) ............................ 203 

Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals detained at 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo (sec. 1032) ...................... 203 

Reenactment and modification of certain prior requirements for certifications relating to transfer of detainees at Untied States Naval 

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to foreign countries and other 

foreign entities (sec. 1033) .................................................................... 204 

Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at United 

States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States 

for emergency or critical medical treatment (sec. 1034) ..................... 204 

Prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release to Yemen of individuals detained at United States Naval Facility, Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba (sec. 1035) ............................................................................ 205 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XVI 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism—Continued 

Report on current detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, determined or assessed to be high risk or medium risk (sec. 1036). ............................................................................ 205 

Report to Congress on memoranda of understanding with foreign 

countries regarding transfer of detainees at United States Naval 

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1037). ...................................... 205 

Semiannual Reports on use of United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and any other Department of Defense or Bureau 

of Prisons prison or other detention or disciplinary facility in recruitment and other propaganda of terrorist organizations (sec. 

1038). ...................................................................................................... 206 

Extension and modification of authority to make rewards for combating terrorism (sec. 1039) .................................................................. 206 

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations ............................... 206 

Assistance to secure the southern land border of the United States 

(sec. 1041) ............................................................................................... 206 

Protection of Department of Defense installations (sec. 1042) .............. 206 

Strategy to protect United States national security interests in the 

Arctic region (sec. 1043) ........................................................................ 207 

Extension of limitations on the transfer to the regular Army of AH– 

64 Apache helicopters assigned to the Army National Guard (sec. 

1044) ....................................................................................................... 207 

Treatment of certain previously transferred Army National Guard 

helicopters as counting against number transferrable under exception to limitation on transfer of Army National Guard helicopters 

(sec. 1045) ............................................................................................... 207 

Management of military technicians (sec. 1046) .................................... 207 

Sense of Congress on consideration of the full range of Department 

of Defense manpower worldwide in decisions on the proper mix 

of military, civilian, and contractor personnel to accomplish the 

national defense strategy (sec. 1047) ................................................... 208 

Sense of the Senate on the United States Marine Corps (sec. 1048) .... 208 

Subtitle F—Studies and Reports ..................................................................... 208 

Repeal of reporting requirements (sec. 1061) ......................................... 208 

Termination of requirement for submittal to Congress of reports required of the Department of Defense by statute (sec. 1062) .............. 210 

Annual submittal to Congress of munitions assessments (sec. 1063) ... 210 

Potential role for United States ground forces in the Pacific theater 

(sec. 1064) ............................................................................................... 211 

Subtitle G—Other Matters .............................................................................. 211 

Technical and clerical amendments (sec. 1081) ...................................... 211 

Authority to provide training and support to personnel of foreign 

ministries of defense (sec. 1082) ........................................................... 212 

Expansion of outreach for veterans transitioning from serving on 

Active Duty (sec. 1083) .......................................................................... 212 

Modification of certain requirements applicable to major medical facility lease for a Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic 

in Tulsa, Oklahoma (sec. 1084) ............................................................ 212 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 212 

Air and Missile Defense Radar backfit .................................................... 212 

Analysis of domestic Department of Defense installations’ gas and 

oil reserves ............................................................................................. 213 

Comptroller General of the United States study on options for the 

Department of Defense close air support mission ............................... 213 

Congressional Defense Review to Prepare for Future Strategic Challenges ...................................................................................................... 214 

Cruiser and dock landing ship phased modernization ........................... 215 

Human industrial operations augmentation technology ........................ 215 

National Guard Counterdrug Program ................................................... 216 

Shipbuilding industrial base and workload allocation ........................... 216 

Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) Program ........................................................................................................ 216 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS ................................................. 219 

Legislative Provisions ...................................................................................... 219 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XVII 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS—Continued 

Legislative Provisions—Continued 

Required probationary period for new employees of the Department 

of Defense (sec. 1101) ............................................................................ 219 

Delay of periodic step increase for civilian employees of the Department of Defense based upon unacceptable performance (sec. 1102) . 219 

Procedures for reduction in force of Department of Defense civilian 

personnel (sec. 1103) ............................................................................. 219 

United States Cyber Command workforce (sec. 1104) ........................... 219 

One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on pay for federal civilian 

employees working overseas (sec. 1105) .............................................. 220 

Five-year extension of expedited hiring authority for designated defense acquisition workforce positions (sec. 1106) ................................ 220 

One-year extension of discretionary authority to grant allowances, 

benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel on official duty in 

a combat zone (sec. 1107) ...................................................................... 220 

Extension of rate of overtime pay for Department of the Navy employees performing work aboard or dockside in support of the nuclear aircraft carrier forward deployed in Japan (sec. 1108) ............. 221 

Expansion of temporary authority to make direct appointments of 

candidates possessing bachelor’s degrees to scientific and engineering positions at science and technology reinvention laboratories 

(sec. 1109) ............................................................................................... 221 

Extension of authority for the civilian acquisition workforce personnel demonstration project (sec. 1110) ............................................. 221 

Pilot program on dynamic shaping of the workforce to improve the 

technical skills and expertise at certain Department of Defense 

laboratories (sec. 1111) .......................................................................... 221 

Pilot program on temporary exchange of financial management and 

acquisition personnel (sec. 1112) .......................................................... 222 

Pilot program on enhanced pay authorities for certain acquisition 

and technology positions in the Department of Defense (sec. 1113) . 223 

Pilot program on direct hire authority for veteran technical experts 

into the defense acquisition workforce (sec. 1114) .............................. 223 

Direct hire authority for technical experts into the defense acquisition workforce (sec. 1115) ...................................................................... 223 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 223 

Report on comparison of cost performance of functions by Department of Defense civilian personnel with cost of performance of 

functions by Department contractors ................................................... 223 

Report on Department of Defense application of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act ........................................................................... 224 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS .......................... 227 

Subtitle A—Training and Assistance .............................................................. 227 

One-year extension of funding limitations for authority to build the 

capacity of foreign security forces (sec. 1201) ...................................... 227 

Extension, expansion, and modification of authority for reimbursement to the Government of Jordan for border security operations 

(sec. 1202) ............................................................................................... 227 

Extension of authority to conduct activities to enhance the capability 

of foreign countries to respond to incidents involving weapons of 

mass destruction (sec. 1203) ................................................................. 227 

Redesignation, modification, and permanent extension of National 

Guard State Partnership Program (sec. 1204) .................................... 227 

Authority to provide support to national military forces of allied 

countries for counterterrorism operations in Africa (sec. 1205) ......... 228 

Authority to build the capacity of foreign military intelligence forces 

(sec. 1206) ............................................................................................... 228 

Prohibition on assistance to entities in Yemen controlled by the 

Houthi movement (sec. 1207) ............................................................... 228 

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

1208) ....................................................................................................... 228 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq .............. 228 

Drawdown of United States forces in Afghanistan (sec. 1221) .............. 228 

Extension and modification of Commanders’ Emergency Response 

Program (sec. 1222) ............................................................................... 229 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XVIII 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS—Continued 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq—Continued 

Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense services to the military and security forces of Afghanistan 

(sec. 1223) ............................................................................................... 229 

Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement of certain 

coalition nations for support provided to United States military 

operations (sec. 1224) ............................................................................ 229 

Prohibition on transfer to violent extremist organizations of equipment or supplies provided by the United States to the Government 

of Iraq (sec. 1225) .................................................................................. 230 

Report on lines of communication of Islamic State of Iraq and the 

Levant and other foreign terrorist organizations (sec. 1226) ............. 231 

Modification of protection for Afghan allies (sec. 1227) ......................... 231 

Extension of authority to support operations and activities of the 

Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1228) ............................... 231 

Sense of Senate on support for the Kurdistan Regional Government 

(sec. 1229) ............................................................................................... 231 

Subtitle C—Matters Relating to Iran ............................................................. 231 

Modification and extension of the annual report on the military 

power of Iran (sec. 1241) ....................................................................... 231 

Subtitle D—Matters Relating to the Russian Federation ............................. 232 

Ukraine security assistance initiative (sec. 1251) .................................. 232 

Eastern European Training Initiative (sec. 1252) .................................. 232 

Increased presence of United States ground forces in Eastern Europe 

to deter aggression on the border of the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (sec. 1253) ........................................................................ 233 

Sense of Congress on European Defense and North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization spending (sec. 1254) ........................................................ 233 

Additional matters in annual report on military and security developments involving the Russian Federation (sec. 1255) .......................... 233 

Report on alternative capabilities to procure and sustain nonstandard 

rotary wing aircraft historically procured through Rosoboronexport 

(sec. 1256) ............................................................................................... 233 

Subtitle E—Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region .............................. 234 

South China Sea Initiative (Sec. 1261) ................................................... 234 

Sense of Congress reaffirming the importance of implementing the 

rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region (Sec. 1262) .................................. 234 

Sense of the Senate on Taiwan Asymmetric Military Capabilities 

and Bilateral Training Activities (Sec. 1263) ...................................... 234 

Subtitle F—Reports and Related Matters ...................................................... 235 

Item in quarterly reports on assistance to counter the Islamic State 

in Iraq and the Levant on forces ineligible to receive assistance 

due to a gross violation of human rights (sec. 1271) .......................... 235 

Report on bilateral agreement with Israel on joint activities to establish an anti-tunneling defense system (sec. 1272) .............................. 235 

Sense of Senate and report on Qatar fighter aircraft capability contribution to regional security (sec. 1273) ............................................. 235 

Subtitle G—Other Matters .............................................................................. 235 

NATO Special Operations Headquarters (sec. 1281) ............................. 235 

Two-year extension and modification of authorization for non-conventional assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1282) .................................. 236 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 236 

Additional Analysis of People’s Liberation Army Cyber Capabilities ... 236 

Annual report on the military power of Iran .......................................... 236 

Briefing on United States Unmanned Aerial System Export Requests ...................................................................................................... 237 

Countering Russian propaganda .............................................................. 238 

Designation of lead Inspector General for Overseas Contingency Operations in Afghanistan ......................................................................... 238 

Organizational management of Department of Defense security assistance programs .................................................................................. 239 

Report on capability of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to 

respond to unconventional or hybrid warfare tactics such as used 

by the Russian Federation in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine ............. 240 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XIX 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Support of foreign forces participating in operations against the 

Lord’s Resistance Army ......................................................................... 240 

United States-Indonesia military cooperation ........................................ 241 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ....................................... 243 

Subtitle A—Funding Allocations ..................................................................... 243 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 1301) .......... 243 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) ................................................................ 243 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ........................................................... 245 

Subtitle A—Military Programs ........................................................................ 245 

Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401) .......................................................... 245 

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402) .............................................. 245 

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1403) ....... 245 

Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 

1404) ....................................................................................................... 245 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1405) ..................................................... 245 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1406) ........................................................ 245 

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 245 

Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund 

for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois (sec. 

1411) ....................................................................................................... 245 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home 

(sec. 1412) ............................................................................................... 246 

Inspections of the Armed Forces Retirement Home by the Inspector 

General of the Department of Defense (sec. 1413) .............................. 246 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 246 

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase ......... 246 

Drug Demand Reduction Program ........................................................... 247 

Department of Defense Inspector General Research, Development, 

Test & Evaluation reduction ................................................................. 247 

Department of Defense Inspector General procurement reduction ....... 247 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1406) ........................................................ 247 

Foreign currency fluctuation deduction ................................................... 248 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 248 

Clarification of funding available for additional support for counterdrug activities and activities to counter transnational organized 

crime ....................................................................................................... 248 

Comptroller General review of electronic waste recycling ..................... 248 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ................................................... 251 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional Appropriations .............................. 251 

Purpose (sec. 1501) .................................................................................... 251 

Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502) .......................................... 251 

Procurement (sec. 1503) ............................................................................ 251 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1504) ....................... 251 

Operation and Maintenance (sec. 1505) .................................................. 251 

Military personnel (sec. 1506) .................................................................. 251 

Working capital funds (sec. 1507) ............................................................ 251 

Drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-wide (sec. 

1508) ....................................................................................................... 251 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509) ..................................................... 252 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1510) ........................................................ 252 

Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (sec. 1511) ................................... 252 

Subtitle B—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 252 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521) ............................... 252 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1522) ...................................................... 252 

Subtitle C—Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters .................................. 252 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1531) ........................................ 252 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1532) ................. 252 

Availability of Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund funds 

for training of foreign security forces to defeat improvised explosive 

devices (sec. 1533) .................................................................................. 253 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 253 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund .................................... 253 

Office of Security Cooperation—Iraq ....................................................... 253 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XX 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support provided to 

United States military operations ........................................................ 254 

Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund ...................................................... 254 

Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative .................................................... 255 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 255 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Analysis Tool .................................. 255 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE 

MATTERS ............................................................................................................. 257 

Subtitle A—Space Activities ............................................................................ 257 

Integrated policy to deter adversaries in space (sec. 1601) ................... 257 

Principal advisor on space control (sec. 1602) ........................................ 258 

Exception to the prohibition on contracting with Russian suppliers 

of rocket engines for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program (sec. 1603) ..................................................................................... 258 

Elimination of launch capabilities contracts under Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program (sec. 1604) ............................................ 259 

Allocation of funding for Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program (sec. 1605) ..................................................................................... 260 

Inclusion of plan for development and fielding of a full-up engine 

in rocket propulsion system development program (sec. 1606) ......... 260 

Limitations on availability of funds for the Defense Meteorological 

Satellite Program (sec. 1607) ................................................................ 261 

Quarterly reports on Global Positioning System III space segment, 

Global Positioning System operational control segment, and Military Global Positioning System User Equipment acquisitions programs (sec. 1608) ................................................................................... 262 

Plan for consolidation of acquisition of commercial satellite communications services (sec. 1609) ................................................................ 263 

Council on oversight of the Department of Defense Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Enterprise (sec. 1610) ........................................... 263 

Analysis of Alternative for Wide-band Communications (sec. 1611) .... 263 

Expansion of goals for pilot program for acquisition of commercial 

satellite services (sec. 1612) .................................................................. 264 

Streamline commercial space launch activities (sec. 1613) ................... 264 

Subtitle B—Cyber Warfare, Cyber Security, and Related Matters .............. 264 

Authorization of Military Cyber Operations (sec. 1621) ........................ 264 

Designation of Department of Defense entity responsible for acquisition of critical cyber capabilities (sec. 1622) ........................................ 265 

Incentive for submittal to Congress by President of integrated policy 

to deter adversaries in cyberspace (sec. 1623) .................................... 266 

Authorization for procurement of relocatable Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (sec. 1624) .............................................. 266 

Evaluation of cyber vulnerabilities of major weapon systems of the 

Department of Defense (sec. 1625) ....................................................... 266 

Assessment of capabilities of United States Cyber Command to defend the United States from cyber attack (sec. 1626) ......................... 267 

Biennial exercises on responding to cyber attacks against critical 

infrastructure (sec. 1627) ...................................................................... 268 

Subtitle C—Nuclear Forces ............................................................................. 269 

Designation of Air Force officials to be responsible for policy on 

and procurement of Nuclear Command and Control Communications Systems (sec. 1631) ...................................................................... 269 

Comptroller General of the United States review of recommendations 

relating to the Nuclear Security Enterprise (sec. 1632) ..................... 269 

Assessment of global nuclear environment (sec. 1633) .......................... 270 

Deadline for Milestone A decision on Long-Range Standoff Weapon 

(sec. 1634) ............................................................................................... 272 

Availability of Air Force procurement funds for certain commercial 

off-the-shelf parts for intercontinental ballistic missiles fuzes (sec. 

1635) ....................................................................................................... 272 

Sense of Congress on policy on the nuclear triad (sec. 1636) ................ 272 

Subtitle D—Missile Defense Programs ........................................................... 272 

Plan for expediting deployment time of continental United States 

interceptor site (sec. 1641) .................................................................... 272 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XXI 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE 

MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle D—Missile Defense Programs—Continued 

Additional missile defense sensor coverage for the protection of the 

United States homeland (sec. 1642) ..................................................... 273 

Air defense capability at North Atlantic Treaty Organization missile 

defense sites (sec. 1643) ........................................................................ 274 

Availability of funds for Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system 

(sec. 1644) ............................................................................................... 274 

Israeli cooperative missile defense program codevelopment and potential coproduction (sec. 1645) .................................................................. 274 

Development and deployment of multiple-object kill vehicle for missile defense of the United States homeland (sec. 1646) ...................... 275 

Requirement to replace capability enhancement I exoatmospheric kill 

vehicles (sec. 1647) ................................................................................ 275 

Airborne boost phase defense system (sec. 1648) ................................... 276 

Extension of limitation on providing certain sensitive missile defense 

information to the Russian Federation (sec. 1649) ............................. 277 

Extension of requirement for Comptroller General of the United 

States review and assessment of missile defense acquisition programs (sec. 1650) ................................................................................... 277 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 277 

Measures in response to violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty by the Russian Federation (sec. 1661) ................ 277 

Modification of notification and assessment of proposal to modify 

or introduce new aircraft or sensors for flight by the Russian 

Federation under the Open Skies Treaty (sec. 1662) ......................... 278 

Milestone A decision for the conventional prompt global strike weapons system (sec. 1663) ........................................................................... 279 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 279 

Conventional prompt global strike ........................................................... 279 

Divert attitude control system in support of multi-object kill vehicle .. 279 

Fiber combining laser prototype .............................................................. 279 

Funding for U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs ............ 280 

Multiple Object Kill Vehicle ..................................................................... 280 

Operationally Responsive Space program ............................................... 280 

Redesigned Kill Vehicle ............................................................................ 281 

Sharkseer zero day defense for enterprise email .................................... 281 

Standard Missile-3 block IB ..................................................................... 282 

U.S. Cyber Command technology development ...................................... 282 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 282 

Assessment of the information security threats of wireless-enabled 

capabilities at Department of Defense facilities ................................. 282 

Comptroller General review of space system acquisition and acquisition oversight ......................................................................................... 283 

Continuation of nuclear command, control and communications assessments by the Government Accountability Office .......................... 283 

Missile Defense Agency assessment of capabilities to defend against 

current and projected missile threats .................................................. 284 

Organization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear 

Deterrence Mission ................................................................................ 284 

Report on Advanced Extremely High Frequency Terminals for bomber aircraft ............................................................................................... 285 

Report on Follow-On Commander’s Evaluation Tests and Demonstration and Shake Out tests ...................................................................... 285 

Report on space-based missile defense interceptor ................................ 285 

Reserve component Cyber Protection Teams .......................................... 286 

Solid Rocket Motor industrial base .......................................................... 287 

Space control modeling and simulation range ........................................ 287 

The importance and use of U.S. FAA licensed spaceports ..................... 287 

Upgrades to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System .................. 288 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ................... 291 

Summary and explanation of funding tables .......................................... 291 

Short title (sec. 2001) ................................................................................ 291 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified 

by law (sec. 2002) ................................................................................... 291 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................. 293 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XXII 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION—Continued 

Summary .................................................................................................... 293 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2101) ....................................................................................................... 293 

Family housing (sec. 2102) .............................................................................. 294 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103) ......................... 294 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104) ........................................ 294 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 project 

(sec. 2105) ...................................................................................................... 294 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 2106) . 294 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec. 2107) . 294 

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

2108) ............................................................................................................... 294 

Limitation on construction of new facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

(sec. 2109) ...................................................................................................... 295 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 297 

Summary .................................................................................................... 297 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2201) ....................................................................................................... 298 

Family housing (sec. 2202) .............................................................................. 298 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) ......................... 298 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) ........................................ 298 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 

2205) ............................................................................................................... 298 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec. 

2206) ....................................................................................................... 298 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ................................ 299 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 299 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2301) ............................................................................................................... 299 

Family housing (sec. 2302) .............................................................................. 299 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) ......................... 299 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) .................................. 300 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 project 

(sec. 2305) ...................................................................................................... 300 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2014 project 

(sec. 2306) ...................................................................................................... 300 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2015 project 

(sec. 2307) ...................................................................................................... 300 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2012 project (sec. 2308) ... 300 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 project (sec. 2309) ... 300 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION .............. 303 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 303 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2401) ...................................................................................................... 303 

Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) ..................................... 303 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403) .................... 303 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2012 project 

(sec. 2404) ...................................................................................................... 304 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 

2405) ............................................................................................................... 304 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec. 

2406) ............................................................................................................... 304 

Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2014 project (sec. 2407) ................................................................................ 304 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY 

INVESTMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................. 305 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 305 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501) ... 305 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) ....................................... 305 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES ........................ 307 

Summary ........................................................................................................... 307 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorizations of Appropriations . 307 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2601) ................................................................................. 307 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2602) ............................................................................................... 307 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XXIII 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES—Continued 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorizations of Appropriations—Continued 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction 

and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) ............................................. 308 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2604) ................................................................................. 308 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2605) ................................................................................. 308 

Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 

2606) ....................................................................................................... 308 

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 308 

Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain fiscal 

year 2013 project (sec. 2611) ................................................................. 308 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2015 projects 

(sec. 2612) ............................................................................................... 308 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 

2613) ....................................................................................................... 309 

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

2614) ....................................................................................................... 309 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES ............ 311 

Summary and explanation of tables ............................................................... 311 

Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account (sec. 

2701) ............................................................................................................... 311 

Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and closure 

(BRAC) round (sec. 2702) ............................................................................. 311 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS ....... 313 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ......................................................................................................... 313 

Authority for acceptance and use of contributions for certain mutually beneficial projects (sec. 2801) ........................................................ 313 

Change in authorities relating to scope of work variations for military construction projects (sec. 2802) ................................................... 313 

Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas outside 

the United States (sec. 2803) ................................................................ 313 

Modification of reporting requirement on in-kind construction and 

renovation payments (sec. 2804) .......................................................... 313 

Lab modernization pilot program (sec. 2805) .......................................... 314 

Conveyance to Indian tribes of certain housing units (sec. 2806) ......... 314 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 314 

Utility systems conveyance authority (sec. 2811) ................................... 314 

Leasing of non-excess property of military departments and defense 

agencies; treatment of value provided by local education agencies 

and elementary and secondary schools (sec. 2812) ............................. 314 

Modification of facility repair notification requirement (sec. 2813) ...... 315 

Increase of threshold of notice and wait requirement for certain 

facilities for reserve components and parity with authority for unspecified minor military construction and repair projects (sec. 

2814) ....................................................................................................... 315 

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 315 

Release of reversionary interest retained as part of the conveyance 

to the economic development alliance of Jefferson County, Arkansas (sec. 2821) ........................................................................................ 315 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 315 

Kwajalein Atoll infrastructure ................................................................. 315 

Military construction delay report ........................................................... 316 

Military construction supporting major range and test facility bases .. 316 

Military training ranges for Special Operations Forces ......................... 317 

Redevelopment of the former Indiana Army Ammunition Plant .......... 318 

Repair by replacement .............................................................................. 318 

Safe and suitable housing for junior enlisted servicemembers ............. 319 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................... 321 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................. 321 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XXIV 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS—Continued 

Overview ............................................................................................................ 321 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 321 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) .......................... 321 

Defense environmental clean-up (sec. 3102) ........................................... 322 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) ......................................................... 322 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 322 

Responsive capabilities program (sec. 3111) ........................................... 322 

Long-term plan for meeting national security requirements for 

unencumbered uranium (sec. 3112) ..................................................... 323 

Defense nuclear nonproliferation management plan (sec. 3113) ........... 323 

Plan for deactivation and decommissioning of nonoperational defense 

nuclear facilities (sec. 3114) .................................................................. 323 

Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant contract oversight (sec. 3115) ..................................................................................... 323 

Assessment of emergency preparedness of defense nuclear facilities 

(sec. 3116) ............................................................................................... 324 

Laboratory-and facility-directed research and development programs 

(sec. 3117) ............................................................................................... 324 

Limitation on bonuses for employees of the National Nuclear Security 

Administration who engage in improper program management (sec. 

3118) ....................................................................................................... 324 

Modification of authorized personnel levels of the Office of the Administrator for Nuclear Security (sec. 3119) ....................................... 325 

Modification of submission of assessments of certain budget requests 

relating to the nuclear weapons stockpile (sec. 3120) ........................ 325 

Repeal of phase three review of certain defense environmental cleanup projects (sec. 3121) ........................................................................... 325 

Modifications to cost-benefit analysis for competition of management 

and operating contracts (sec. 3122) ...................................................... 326 

Review of implementation of recommendations of the Congressional 

Advisory Panel on the governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise (sec. 3123) ..................................................................................... 326 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 326 

Defense Environmental Cleanup, Los Alamos National Laboratory .... 326 

Deferred Maintenance ............................................................................... 326 

Enhanced surveillance .............................................................................. 326 

Plutonium disposition program ................................................................ 327 

Responsive capabilities program .............................................................. 329 

Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund ..... 329 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 329 

Ability of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to communicate with the Secretary of Energy ..................................................... 329 

Interoperable Warhead—1 ........................................................................ 330 

Lithium supply and demand .................................................................... 331 

Microlab Technology Transfer .................................................................. 331 

Report on program management at the National Nuclear Security 

Administration ....................................................................................... 331 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............. 333 

Authorization for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3201) ....... 333 

DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES ....................................................................... 333 

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001 ) ............................... 333 

Clarification of applicability of undistributed reductions of certain operation and maintenance funding among all operation and maintenance 

funding (sec. 4002) ........................................................................................ 333 

Funding tables (secs. 4101–4701) .................................................................... 333 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT .............................................................................. 343 

Procurement (sec. 4101) ................................................................................... 344 

Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4102) ...................... 386 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION ..... 395 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201) .............................. 396 

Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4202) ....................................................................................... 429 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................... 431 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301) .......................................................... 432 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Page

XXV 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations (sec. 

4302) ............................................................................................................... 452 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL .............................................................. 463 

Military personnel (sec. 4401) ......................................................................... 464 

Military personnel for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4402) ............. 465 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS .......................................................... 467 

Other authorizations (sec. 4501) ..................................................................... 468 

Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4502) ........ 472 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ....................................................... 475 

Military construction (sec. 4601) ..................................................................... 476 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................. 497 

Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 4701) .................... 511 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 511 

Departmental Recommendations ............................................................. 511 

Committee Action ...................................................................................... 511 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................ 514 

Regulatory Impact ..................................................................................... 514 

Changes in Existing Law .......................................................................... 515 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS ............................................................................................. 516 

Additional Views of Mr. Reed ................................................................... 516 

Additional Views of Mr. Inhofe ................................................................ 518 

Additional Views of Ms. Ayotte ................................................................ 520 

Additional Views of Mr. Tillis .................................................................. 524 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
Calendar No. 88 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 114–49 

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 FOR MILITARY 

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR 

SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

MAY 19, 2015.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. MCCAIN, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1376] 

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original 

bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year ———— for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for 

other purposes, and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL 

This bill would: 

(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) research, development, test and evaluation, (c) operation and 

maintenance and the revolving and management funds of the 

Department of Defense for fiscal year 2016; 

(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each military 

active duty component of the Armed Forces for fiscal year 

2016; 

(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected 

Reserve of each of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

for fiscal year 2016; 

(4) impose certain reporting requirements; 

(5) impose certain limitations with regard to specific procurement and research, development, test and evaluation actions 

and manpower strengths; provide certain additional legislative 

authority, and make certain changes to existing law; 

(6) authorize appropriations for military construction programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2016; and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

(7) authorize appropriations for national security programs 

of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2016. 

Committee overview 

For seven decades, the U.S. military has been the most reliable 

guarantor of the foundations of international order that American 

statesmen of both parties helped to establish in the aftermath of 

World War II. The relative security and prosperity that our nation 

has enjoyed, and made possible for so many others across the 

world, has been painstakingly maintained through the deterrence 

of adversaries, the cooperation with allies and partners, the global 

leadership of the United States, and the credibility and capability 

of our Armed Forces. 

The committee is concerned that growing threats abroad and continued limitations on defense spending at home are increasingly 

harming the ability of the United States, and its military, to play 

an effective leadership role in the world. Indeed, military readiness 

and capabilities have deteriorated to the point where senior military leaders have warned that we are putting at risk the lives of 

the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. There is a 

growing consensus that we must reverse this damage so that we 

can respond adequately to a host of disturbing challenges to the 

international order that adversely impact our national security. 

These challenges include: 

• In Ukraine, Russia has sought to redraw an international 

border and annex the territory of another sovereign country 

through the use of military force. It continues aggressively to 

destabilize Ukraine, with troubling implications for security in 

Europe. 

• A terrorist army with tens of thousands of fighters, many 

holding Western passports, has taken over a vast swath of territory and declared an Islamic State in the heart of the Middle 

East. Nearly 3,000 U.S. troops have returned to Iraq to combat 

this threat, with U.S. aircraft flying hundreds of strike missions a month over Iraq and Syria. 

• Amid negotiations over its nuclear program, Iran continues to pursue its ambitions to challenge regional order in 

the Middle East by increasing its development of ballistic missiles, support for terrorism, training and arming of pro-Iranian 

militant groups, and other malign activities in places such as 

Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Bahrain, and Yemen. 

• Yemen has collapsed, as a Shia insurgency with ties to the 

Iranian regime has toppled the U.S.-backed government in 

Sanaa, Al-Qaeda continues to use parts of the country to plan 

attacks against the West, the U.S. Embassy has been evacuated, and a U.S.-backed coalition of Arab nations has intervened militarily to reverse the gains of the Houthi insurgency 

and to restore the previous government to power. 

• Libya has become a failed state, beset by civil war and a 

growing presence of transnational terrorist groups, such as alQaeda and ISIL, similar to Afghanistan in 2001. 

• North Korea, while continuing to develop its nuclear arsenal and ever-more capable ballistic missiles, committed the 

most destructive cyberattack ever on U.S. territory. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

• China is increasingly taking coercive actions to assert expansive territorial claims that unilaterally change the status 

quo in the South and East China Seas and raise tensions with 

U.S. allies and partners, all while continuing to expand and 

modernize its military in ways that challenge U.S. access and 

freedom of movement in the Western Pacific. 

The men and women of our armed forces—as well as the civilians 

and contractors who support them—have worked honorably and 

courageously to address these challenges on our behalf, often at 

great personal risk and significant sacrifice to themselves and their 

families. The committee, Congress, and the American people owe 

them a debt of gratitude for this service. 

Despite the challenges we face and our commitment to the men 

and women of the Department of Defense (DOD), the President’s 

budget for fiscal year 2016 proposes reductions in force structure 

and compensation that increase risk for our nation and for the men 

and women who protect us. These reductions are driven by fiscal 

limitations that Congress dictated when we enacted the Budget 

Control Act of 2011 and reaffirmed (with minor relief in fiscal years 

2014 and 2015 for the DOD and other agencies) in the Bipartisan 

Budget Act of 2013. The impact of these budget limitations on our 

Armed Forces has been a major oversight priority for the committee. 

To date, in this 1st Session of the 114th Congress, the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services has conducted 49 hearings and formal briefings on the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2016. 

We have received testimony from many of America’s most respected statesmen, thinkers, and former military commanders and 

these leaders have all conveyed a similar message: We are experiencing a nearly unprecedented period of global turmoil and at current sequestration levels will not be able effectively respond to 

these threats. In order to provide a framework for the consideration 

of these matters, the committee identified 10 guidelines for its consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2016. These guidelines are as follows: 

(1) Ensure the long-term viability of the all-volunteer force 

by sustaining the quality of life of the men and women of the 

total force (active duty, National Guard and Reserves) and 

their families, as well as Department of Defense civilian personnel, through fair pay, policies and enhanced retirement benefits, and by addressing the needs of the wounded, ill and injured service members and their families. 

(2) Ensure that our men and women in uniform have the advanced equipment they need to succeed in future combat 

against technologically sophisticated adversaries, in the most 

efficient and effective manner that provides best value to the 

taxpayers, by initiating a comprehensive overhaul of the acquisition system. 

(3) Initiate a reorganization of the Department of Defense in 

order: 

a. to focus limited resources on operations rather than administration 

b. ensure military personnel can develop critical military 

skills 

c. stabilize organizations and programs 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

(4) Drive innovation by allocating funds for advanced technology development and next generation capabilities. 

(5) Build capacity and capability by reducing the strike fighter shortfall, munitions deficit, and increasing fleet capabilities 

(6) Advance our ability to protect our eastern European 

friends and allies 

(7) Reduce our Nation’s strategic risk by taking action aimed 

at restoring, as soon as possible, the readiness of the military 

services to conduct the full range of their assigned missions. 

(5) Enhance the capability of the U.S. armed forces and the 

security forces of allied and friendly nations to defeat ISIL, al 

Qaeda, and other violent extremist organizations. 

(6) Improve the ability of the armed forces to counter emerging and nontraditional threats, focusing on terrorism, cyber 

warfare, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction 

and their means of delivery. 

(7) Address the threats from nuclear weapons and materials 

by strengthening nonproliferation programs, modernizing our 

nuclear deterrent, and ensuring the safety, security and reliability of the stockpile, the delivery systems, and the nuclear 

infrastructure. 

(8) Terminate troubled or unnecessary programs and activities, identify efficiencies, and reduce defense expenditures in 

light of the Nation’s budget deficit problems. Ensure the future 

capability, viability, and fiscal sustainability of the all-volunteer force. 

(10) Promote aggressive and thorough oversight of the Department’s programs and activities to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with relevant laws and 

regulations. 

SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION 

The administration’s budget request for national defense discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee 

on Armed Services for fiscal year 2016 was $604.1 billion. Of this 

amount, $534.2 billion was requested for base Department of Defense (DOD) programs, $19.0 billion was requested for national security programs in the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), and $50.9 billion 

was requested for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). 

The committee recommends an overall discretionary authorization of $604.1 billion in fiscal year 2016, including $496.5 billion for 

base DOD programs, $18.7 billion for national security programs in 

the DOE and the DNFSB, and $88.9 billion for OCO. 

The two tables preceding the detailed program adjustments in 

Division D of this bill summarize the direct discretionary authorizations in the committee recommendation and the equivalent 

budget authority levels for fiscal year 2016 defense programs. The 

first table summarizes the committee’s recommended discretionary 

authorizations by appropriation account for fiscal year 2016 and 

compares these amounts to the request. The second table summarizes the total budget authority implication for national defense by 

including national defense funding for items that are not in the jurisdiction of the defense committees or are already authorized. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT (SEC. 4) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the budgetary effects of this Act be determined in accordance with 

the procedures established in the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 

2010 (title I of Public Law 111–139). 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(7) 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for procurement activities at the levels identified in 

section 4101 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Navy Programs 

Amendment to cost limitation baseline for CVN–78 class aircraft carrier program (sec. 111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would further 

amend section 122 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) as amended 

by section 121(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) by striking ‘‘$11,498,000,000’’ 

and inserting ‘‘$11,398,000,000’’. While the lead ship (CVN–78) cost 

cap remains $12.9 billion, this change would apply to CVN–79 and 

subsequent CVN–78 class nuclear aircraft carriers. 

The initial CVN–78 class aircraft carrier cost cap was established 

by the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), which set the cost cap for the 

lead ship at $10.5 billion, plus adjustments for inflation and other 

factors, and at $8.1 billion for subsequent CVN–78 class carriers, 

plus adjustments for inflation and other factors. The cost cap was 

amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 (Public Law 113–66) to $12.9 billion and $11.5 billion, respectively. 

While the estimated procurement cost of each of the first three CVN–78 class aircraft carriers increased more than $2.0 billion 

since 2008, the Navy has held cost relatively constant over the past 

three years. The committee is encouraged by the fiscal year 2016 

budget request, which indicates the lead ship is on track to deliver 

in March 2016 at its cost cap and the estimated procurement costs 

for CVN–79 and CVN–80 are decreasing. From the fiscal year 2015 

budget request to the fiscal year 2016 budget request, the estimated procurement costs for CVN–79 and CVN–80 decreased by 

$150.0 million and $402.2 million, respectively. 

In recognition of the gains made in controlling the cost of CVN– 

78 class aircraft carriers and to allow for $50.0 million of unexpected growth in the CVN–79 procurement cost, the committee recommends reducing the cost cap by $100.0 million from $11.5 billion 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

to $11.4 billion, plus adjustments for inflation and other factors, for 

CVN–79 and subsequent aircraft carriers. 

Limitation on availability of funds for USS John F. Kennedy 

(CVN–79) (sec. 112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit $100.0 

million in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy procurement funds 

for USS John F. Kennedy (CVN–79) subject to the submission of a 

certification regarding full ship shock trials and two reports. 

The committee is concerned by the Navy’s decision to delay by 

up to 7 years full ship shock trials on CVN–78 class nuclear aircraft carriers from the lead ship, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN–78), 

to CVN–79. While the committee understands the Navy is concerned with the cost of the test and potential deployment delay, it 

is the committee’s view that the benefits outweigh these concerns. 

With the abundance of new technology, including the catapult, arresting gear, and radar, as well as the reliance on electricity rather 

than steam to power key systems, there continues to be a great 

deal of risk in this program. Testing CVN–78 will not only improve 

the design of future carriers, but also reduce the costs associated 

with retrofitting engineering changes. Even more importantly, the 

thought that CVN–78 could deploy and potentially fight without 

this testing would be imprudent and puts sailors at risk. As a result, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to certify that 

the Navy will conduct by not later than September 30, 2017, full 

ship shock trials on CVN–78. 

The committee is also concerned by the cost growth in CVN–78 

class aircraft carrier program and the potential for further growth 

in the future. The committee understands the $2.4 billion in CVN– 

78 cost growth is attributable to government furnished equipment, 

design and engineering changes, and shipbuilder performance. The 

committee views cost reduction efforts in all three of these areas 

as essential. As a result, the committee directs the specified report. 

The committee views CVN–78 class aircraft carriers as extraordinarily important instruments of U.S. national military power. 

However, with costs ranging from $11.5 billion to more than $13.0 

billion, these ships are also extraordinarily expensive, and only one 

shipbuilder in the world is capable of building these ships. Since 

the first advance procurement funding for this program was appropriated in fiscal year 2001, each of the first three ships in the class 

have experienced more than $2.0 billion in procurement cost 

growth. In view of the vital importance of aircraft carriers to national defense, the cost per ship, lack of competition, and history 

of cost overruns, the committee directs a report, which examines 

potential requirements, capabilities, and alternatives for future development of aircraft carriers that would replace or supplement 

CVN–78 class aircraft carriers. 

Limitation on availability of funds for USS Enterprise 

(CVN–80) (sec. 113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit $191.4 

million in advance procurement funds for USS Enterprise (CVN– 

80), until the Secretary of the Navy submits a certification and report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and of the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

House of Representatives. $191.4 million is the sum of funding requested for plans (detailed) and basic construction for CVN–80. The committee is concerned by the $13.5 billion estimated pro- curement cost of CVN–80. This cost is $2.1 billion, or 18 percent 

greater, than the estimated procurement cost of USS John F. Kennedy (CVN–79). While the committee understands inflation contributes to this cost increase, the committee believes greater savings 

should be achieved through a stable design and the benefits of industrial base learning curve efficiencies. 

As a result, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to submit a certification that the design of CVN–80 will repeat that of CVN–79, 

with exceptions only as specified, and pursuant to section 114 of 

this Act. In addition, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to submit a report on the plans costs of CVN–80, including a detailed description and justification of the cost elements. 

Modification of CVN–78 class aircraft carrier program (sec. 

114) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subsection (f) of section 122 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364; 120 Stat. 

2104), as added by section 121(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66; 127 Stat. 

692), by adding a reporting requirement to the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN–79) quarterly report. 

The committee is concerned by the continuing substantial plans 

costs, design changes, and engineering changes associated with the 

CVN–78 class aircraft carrier program. While non-recurring plans 

costs are expected for the lead ship in a class, the committee would 

expect these costs to drop substantially once the class design is 

complete and the follow-on ships enter construction. The plans cost 

for the lead ship, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN–78), amounts to $3.3 

billion, which is 25 percent of the overall ship cost ($12.9 billion). 

The plans cost for the next ship, CVN–79, is estimated at $880.0 

million. The committee understands these costs are attributable to 

detail design and lead yard services, which include: planning, material sourcing, engineering, and program management performed 

by the shipbuilder. 

The committee is also acutely aware of past cost growth and 

schedule delays associated with design and engineering changes to 

this program. The committee believes design and engineering 

changes to this program should be limited to operational necessity, 

safety, or cost reduction initiatives that meet threshold requirements. 

As a result, beginning January 1, 2016, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Navy to submit, as part of the CVN–79 quarterly 

report, a description of new design and engineering changes to 

CVN—78 class aircraft carriers that exceed $5.0 million and occurred during the reporting period. The report shall include program or ship cost increases for each design or engineering change 

and any cost reduction achieved. The Secretary of the Navy and 

Chief of Naval Operations shall each personally sign (not autopen) 

this additional reporting requirement. This certification may not be 

delegated. The certification shall include a determination that each 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

change serves the national security interests of the United States; 

cannot be deferred to a future ship due to operational necessity, 

safety, or substantial cost reduction; and was personally reviewed 

and endorsed by the Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations. 

Limitation on availability of funds for Littoral Combat Ship 

(sec. 115) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit 75 percent of fiscal year 2016 funds for research and development, design, 

construction, procurement or advance procurement of materials for 

the upgraded Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), designated as LCS–33 

and subsequent, until the Secretary of the Navy submits to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and of the House of 

Representatives: a capabilities based assessment to assess capability gaps and associated capability requirements and risks for the 

upgraded LCS, an updated capabilities development document for 

the upgraded LCS, and a report describing the upgraded LCS modernization. 

The committee understands that the Secretary of Defense directed the Navy to explore ‘‘alternative proposals to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant, generally consistent with 

the capabilities of a frigate’’. The outcome of this analysis, subsequently approved by the Secretary of Defense, was modifications to 

the two existing variants of the LCS. The committee recognizes the 

significant analysis the Navy did accomplish, which is similar to an 

analysis of alternatives in defense acquisition. 

However, the committee is concerned by the absence of analysis 

to identify the specific capability gaps and mission needs that the 

Navy is seeking to address, which would have been appropriate 

prior the Secretary of Defense’s initial tasking. Without this analysis, it is unclear why the capabilities of the current LCS are inadequate and if the proposed modifications will be sufficient to address a defined warfighting gap. In addition, given the significant 

proposed changes to the LCS, the committee believes an updated 

capabilities development document is warranted and understands 

the Navy is pursuing this action. 

Finally, the committee believes this modernization of the LCS 

class needs to be pursued in a comprehensive and analytically-derived manner, particularly because these ships are planned to be 

in service until 2050. Large surface combatants, submarines, and 

tactical aircraft follow documented, proven modernization processes 

to outpace the advances of potential adversaries. Most relevant for 

the LCS is the advanced capability build process for large surface 

combatants, which is based on a naval capabilities document. The 

14 sections of this document are listed in the recommended provision. 

Therefore, this provision would direct the Navy to deliver a capabilities based assessment, an updated capabilities development document certified by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and 

a report on LCS modernization. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

Extension and modification of limitation on availability of 

funds for Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 116) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 123 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113– 

291) by extending the limitation on funds for LCS–25 and LCS–26 

until pre-existing requirements are met and would additionally require the Navy to provide to the congressional defense committees 

the following: an acquisition strategy for LCS–25 through LCS–32; 

a LCS mission module acquisition strategy; a plan to outfit Flight 

0 and Flight 0+ Littoral Combat Ships with capabilities identified 

for the upgraded Littoral Combat Ship; and a current test and 

evaluation master plan for the Littoral Combat Ship mission modules. 

The committee believes the additional requirements are in keeping with defense acquisition policies and best practices. The committee is concerned that the introduction of an upgraded LCS, beginning with LCS–33, will further complicate configuration management of the LCS seaframes and mission modules. Opportunistic 

modifications or ‘‘backfits’’ of existing LCS with some, but not all, 

of these upgraded capabilities are another source of concern. The 

committee needs clarity on the LCS seaframe acquisition strategy, 

requirement for mission modules in light of the upgraded LCS decision, cost and schedule of the Navy’s plan to modify or ‘‘backfit’’ existing LCS, and how the Navy will achieve developmental and 

operational testing for each component and mission module. 

Construction of additional Arleigh Burke destroyer (sec. 

117) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a contract beginning with the fiscal 

year 2016 program year for the procurement of one Arleigh Burke- class destroyer in addition to the ten DDG–51s in the fiscal year 

2013 through 2017 multiyear procurement contract or for one 

DDG–51 in fiscal year 2018. The Secretary may employ incremental funding for such procurement. 

Additional funding and incremental funding authority would 

help relieve pressure on the shipbuilding budget as funding requirements grow for the Ohio-class replacement program over the 

next several years. As a result, the committee recommends incremental funding authority for 1 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in addition to the 10 DDG–51s in the fiscal year 2013–2017 multiyear 

procurement contract or for a DDG–51 in fiscal year 2018. 

Fleet replenishment oiler program (sec. 118) 

The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 

Secretary of the Navy contracting authority to procure up to six 

fleet replenishment oilers (T–AO(X)). This new ship class is a nondevelopmental recapitalization program based on existing commercial technology and standards. The ship design is considered to be 

low risk by the Navy, with the design scheduled to be complete 

prior to the start of construction on the lead ship. This provision 

would generate an estimated $45.0 million in savings per ship compared to annual procurement cost estimates. In addition, the proviVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

sion would provide a long-term commitment to the shipbuilder and 

vendors, which would enable workforce stability and planning efficiency. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit Ohio-class replacement submarine 

cost tracking information, together with annual budget justification 

materials. While the first Ohio-class replacement submarine is not 

planned to be authorized until fiscal year 2021, the national importance of this program and significant cost will continue to merit 

close oversight by the congressional defense committees. In response to a committee request, the Navy provided the committee 

an information paper dated February 3, 2015 with the following 

elements in fiscal year 2010 dollars and then-year dollars: lead 

ship end cost (with plans), lead ship end cost (less plans), lead ship 

non-recurring engineering cost, average follow-on ship (hulls 2–12) 

cost, operations and sustainment cost per hull per year, Office of 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics (OSD AT&L) average follow-on ship (hulls 2–12) affordability target, and OSD AT&L operations & sustainment cost per 

hull per year affordability target (including disposal). The committee recommends this format continue to be used to enable cost 

visibility, direct comparison of cost elements, and year-on-year 

trend analysis. 

Subtitle C—Air Force Programs 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the retirement of B–1, B–2, or B–52 bomber aircraft to be retired during 

a fiscal year prior to initial operational capability (IOC) of the Long 

Range Strike Bomber (LRS–B) unless the Secretary of Defense certifies, in the materials submitted in support of the budget of the 

President for that fiscal year as submitted to Congress, that: 

(1) the retirement of the aircraft is required to reallocate 

funding and manpower resources to enable LRS–B to reach 

IOC and full operational capability (FOC); and 

(2) the Secretary has concluded that retirements of B–1, B– 

2, and B–52 bomber aircraft in the near-term will not detrimentally affect operational capability. 

The committee acknowledges the need to recapitalize the Air 

Force’s bomber fleet with the LRS–B and recognizes the need for 

a carefully phased retirement of legacy bomber aircraft to facilitate 

this transition as LRS–B approaches IOC. 

Limitation on retirement of Air Force fighter aircraft (sec. 

132) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 8062 of title 10, United States Code, by adding a new subsection requiring the Secretary of the Air Force to maintain a minimum total active inventory of 1,950 fighter aircraft, within which 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

the Secretary must also maintain a minimum of 1,116 fighter aircraft as primary mission aircraft inventory (combat-coded). 

The provision would also provide additional limitations on fighter 

retirements by requiring the Secretary of the Air Force to certify 

to the defense committees that: 

(1) the retirement of such fighter aircraft will not increase 

the operational risk of meeting the National Defense Strategy; 

and 

(2) the retirement of such aircraft will not reduce the total 

fighter force structure below 1,950 fighter aircraft or primary 

mission aircraft inventory below 1,116 and would require a report setting forth the following: 

(a) The rationale for the retirement of existing fighter 

aircraft and an operational analysis of replacement fighter 

aircraft that demonstrates performance of the designated 

mission at an equal or greater level of effectiveness as the 

retiring aircraft; 

(b) An assessment of the implications for the Air Force, 

the Air National Guard, and the Air Force Reserve of the 

force mix ratio of fighter aircraft; and 

(c) Such other matters relating to the retirement of 

fighter aircraft as the Secretary considers appropriate. 

Lastly, the provision would also require a report at least 90 days 

prior to the date on which a fighter aircraft is retired that includes 

the following: 

(1) A list of each aircraft in the inventory of fighter aircraft, 

including for each such aircraft: 

(a) the mission design series type; 

(b) the variant; and 

(c) the assigned unit and military installation where 

such aircraft is based. 

(2) A list of each fighter aircraft proposed for retirement, including for each such aircraft: 

(a) the mission design series type; 

(b) the variant; and 

(c) the assigned unit and military installation where 

such aircraft is based. 

(3) A list of each unit affected by a proposed retirement listed under (2) above and how such unit is affected. 

(4) For each military installation and unit listed under (2)(c) 

above, changes, if any, to the designed operational capability 

(DOC) statement of the unit as a result of a proposed retirement. 

(5) Any anticipated changes in manpower authorizations as 

a result of a proposed retirement listed under (2) above. 

The committee understands the Air Force determined through 

extensive analysis that a force structure of 1,200 primary mission 

aircraft and 2,000 total aircraft is required to execute the National 

Defense Strategy with increased operational risk. Subsequently, 

based on the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance and fiscal constraints, analysis showed the Air Force could decrease fighter force 

structure by approximately 100 additional aircraft; however, at an 

even higher level of risk. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

The committee acknowledges that the original F–35 procurement 

plan projected 516 F–35A variants to be delivered by fiscal year 

2016, but schedule delays and subsequent re-baselining of the program now projects only 103 F–35A aircraft delivered by fiscal year 

2016. This occurred simultaneously with the Air Force retiring over 

400 fighter aircraft in the period since fiscal year 2010. These factors result in a fighter aircraft shortfall that will gradually improve 

as the F–35A procurement rate increases. 

The Air Force currently fields 54 fighter squadrons in fiscal year 

2015. The proposed fiscal year 2016 retirement of an additional five 

A–10 combat squadrons would reduce the total to 49 fighter squadrons. Of the 49 squadrons remaining in fiscal year 2016, the Air 

Force estimates less than half would be fully combat mission ready. 

Therefore, the committee has proposed a provision elsewhere in 

this act prohibiting the retirement of additional A–10 aircraft. The 

limitation on total aircraft numbers proposed by the committee in 

the provision would allow the Air Force to stand down one 24 primary assigned aircraft squadron at Hill Air Force Base in fiscal 

year 2016, in order to transition the people and resources of the 

squadron to the F–35A aircraft. 

The committee believes further reductions in fighter force capacity, in light of ongoing and anticipated operations in Iraq and Syria 

against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, coupled with a 

potential delay of force withdrawals from Afghanistan, poses excessive risk to the Air Force’s ability to execute the National Defense 

Strategy, causes remaining fighter squadrons to deploy more frequently, and drives even lower readiness rates across the combat 

air forces. The committee expects the Air Force to execute the fiscal 

year program in accordance with the spirit and intent of this provision. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

availability of fiscal year 2016 funds for F–35A procurement to not 

more than $4.3 billion until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the 

congressional defense committees that F–35A aircraft delivered in 

fiscal year 2018 will have full combat capability with currently 

planned Block 3F hardware, software, and weapons carriage. 

The committee acknowledges that in light of increasing potential 

adversary capabilities and growing anti-access/area denial threat 

environments around the globe, the requirement for a robust fifth 

generation fighter capability is a necessary element for our combatant commanders’ continued ability to execute their warfighting responsibilities. The committee also acknowledges the F–35 Joint 

Strike Fighter program represents our only in-production fifth generation fighter aircraft and is a crucial capability that cannot be 

understated. The committee encourages the Secretary to exhibit increased management oversight of this critical program to ensure 

compliance with cost, schedule, and performance objectives. 

The committee is concerned, however, that the 57 percent increase in F–35A production to 44 aircraft in the budget request, 

over the fiscal year 2015 level of 28 aircraft, presents an increased 

risk of cost growth and schedule delays. The ongoing System DevelVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

opment and Demonstration (SDD) phase is now approximately 65 

percent complete, and continues development, testing, and evaluation concurrently with production. Any further software development delays or test and evaluation deficiency discoveries and 

deferments could incur increased retrofit costs for delivered aircraft, and delay required capabilities to the warfighter. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of any funds during fiscal year 2016 to retire, prepare to retire, 

or place in storage any A–10 aircraft. The provision would also require the Secretary of the Air Force to maintain a minimum of 171 

A–10 aircraft in primary mission aircraft inventory (combat-coded) 

status. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 

commission an independent entity outside the Department of Defense to conduct an assessment of the required capabilities and 

mission platform to replace the A–10 aircraft. The committee expects the Air Force to execute the fiscal year program in accordance with the spirit of this provision. 

The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the retirement of the A–10 fleet purely on the basis of the fiscal environment 

and not on grounds of the ability of the combat air forces to effectively meet the requirements of the combatant commanders and defense strategy. The committee also believes that with the A–10 

fleet currently engaged in operations against the Islamic State of 

Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), providing a theater security package in 

Europe to assure our allies and partners, and continuing rotational 

deployment operations to Afghanistan, divesting this capability at 

this time incurs unacceptable risk in the capacity and readiness of 

the combat air forces without a suitable replacement available. 

Additionally, in fiscal year 2015 the Air Force implemented the 

move of 18 A–10s to backup aircraft inventory status, reducing all 

but two of the A–10 fleet’s combat squadrons to 18 primary assigned aircraft each. 

Specifically, the Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that 

the Air Force does not close or consolidate A–10 units, make 

changes to standard sustainment processes, or reduce A–10 pilot 

training or A–10 flying hours disproportionally to reductions applied to pilots or flying hours for other Air Force aircraft. Additionally, the provision would require the Secretary of the Air Force to 

ensure that the Air Force maintains a minimum of 171 A–10 aircraft designated as primary mission aircraft inventory (PMAI) to 

retain viable combat squadron sizes through sufficient primary assigned aircraft. 

The committee also recommends an increase of $279.7 million for 

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force; $16.2 million for Research, 

Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force; and $38.5 million for 

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force. 

The committee recommends no increase in Air Force military 

personnel accounts. The Air Force is encouraged to find the billets 

necessary to fill A–10 and F–35 manpower authorizations from 

within the 2,200 billets reduced from its management headquarters 

and its 6,000 billet increase request authorized in title IV of this 

Act. The committee expects that the Secretary and Chief of Staff 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

of the Air Force will use some of the thousands of military positions freed up in the 4-year, 30 percent reduction of headquarter 

and defense agency staffs to recruit the necessary maintenance personnel for these aircraft. The committee believes that combat capability, not headquarter staffs, should be the priority of the service 

leaders. 

Prohibition on availability of funds for retirement of EC– 

130H Compass Call aircraft (sec. 135) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of any funds during fiscal year 2016 to retire, prepare to retire, 

or place in storage any EC–130H Compass Call aircraft. The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the retirement of 

EC–130H Compass Call aircraft purely on the basis of the fiscal 

environment and not on grounds of the ability of the Air Force to 

meet effectively the requirements of the combatant commanders 

and the national defense strategy. 

The EC–130H Compass Call provides an unparalleled capability 

for our combatant commanders to disrupt enemy command and 

control communications and limit adversary coordination essential 

for enemy force management. As a manned platform, Compass Call 

is able to operate independently in a degraded communications environment. The Compass Call is also flexible since the crew includes electronic warfare officers and linguists who can make realtime decisions in the execution of electronic warfare. 

The committee was concerned with the Air Force’s fiscal year 

2015 budget proposal to retire half the EC–130H fleet beginning in 

fiscal year 2016. The Senate report accompanying S. 2410 (S. Rept. 

113–176) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 

113–291) directed the Air Force to develop a plan, including milestones and resource requirements, to replace, modernize, or re-host 

the current Compass Call capabilities. 

In the Air Force’s report transmitted to the committee by the 

Under Secretary of the Air Force in September 2014, the Air Force 

stated, ‘‘. . . budget realities have forced the Air Force to extreme 

measures to cut costs and yet attempt to maintain capabilities. The 

decision to reduce the Compass Call fleet by nearly half after [fiscal 

year 2015] is one of those extreme measures . . .’’ 

Additionally, the Air Force stated, ‘‘This decision is not without 

risk, in that the Air Force will NOT be able to meet combatant 

commander operations plan capacity requirements, however, it is 

made fully informed of those risks. Because of this, alternatives to 

ensure capabilities will not be lost to combatant commanders will 

be analyzed, assessed, and selected in a disciplined, rigorous fashion, with answers expected no later than [fiscal year 2017].’’ 

The committee believes the Air Force response in the report indicates it has not yet sufficiently identified, through studies and 

analysis, how it will continue to provide the required capability and 

capacity to meet combatant commander requirements for this segment of the airborne electronic attack mission at acceptable risk, 

and will not gain insight through observations and conclusions 

until at least fiscal year 2017. Additionally, the Air Force has 

placed the restoration of the EC–130H Compass Call fleet on its 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

fiscal year 2016 unfunded priority list received by the committee in 

March 2015. 

The committee also notes that while the primary mission electronic warfare capabilities are critical, the EC–130H is not the 

ideal platform for anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) combat environments, and gaps may continue to exist even with planned platform 

upgrades. 

The committee understands there may be options available to 

transition Compass Call capabilities to a new platform that can address capability requirements in combatant commander operations 

plans. The committee is interested in ways the Air Force could potentially use existing and future EC–130H modernization and 

sustainment funds to begin procurement of a new platform to meet 

an initial operations capability in 2019, provide full-spectrum electronic attack capabilities against an advanced threat in highly contested environments, and thereby obviate mission capability gaps. The committee recommends an increase of $27.3 million for Op- eration and Maintenance, Air Force and $28.7 million for Aircraft 

Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends no increase 

for Air Force military personnel accounts and directs the Air Force 

to examine its existing force structure and reduction of management headquarters military personnel billets to adequately staff 

the EC–130H fleet at its current operational capability. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would place a limitation on all of the funds authorized or appropriated by this Act or 

otherwise made available for fiscal year 2016 for the Air Force that 

may be obligated or expended to transfer from one facility of the 

Department of Defense to another any C–130H aircraft, initiate 

any C–130 manpower authorization adjustments, retire or prepare 

to retire any C–130H aircraft, or close any C–130H unit until 90 

days after the date on which the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Secretary of the Army, and after certification by 

the commanders of the XVIII Airborne Corps, 82nd Airborne Division, and United States Army Special Operations Command, certifies to the committees on Armed Services of the Senate and of the 

House of Representatives that: 

(1) the United States Air Force will maintain dedicated C– 

130 wings to support the daily training and contingency requirements of the XVIII Airborne Corps, 82nd Airborne Division, and United States Army Special Operations Command at 

manning levels required to support and operate the number of 

aircraft that existed as part of the regular and reserve Air 

Force operations in support of such units as of September 30, 

2014; and 

(2) failure to maintain such Air Force operations will not adversely impact the daily training requirement of those airborne 

and special operations units. 

Limitation on use of funds for T–1A Jayhawk aircraft (sec. 

137) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit all the 

funds authorized or appropriated by this Act or that otherwise may 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

be obligated or expended for fiscal year 2016 for avionics modifications to the T–1A Jayhawk aircraft until 30 days after the Secretary of the Air Force submits to the congressional defense committees the report required under section 142 of the Carl Levin and 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291). 

Restriction on retirement of the Joint Surveillance Target 

Attack Radar System (JSTARS), EC–130H Compass Call, 

and Airborne Early Warning and Control (AWACS) aircraft (sec. 138) 

The committee recommends a provision that would restrict the 

Secretary of the Air Force from retiring any Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), EC–130H Compass Call, and 

Airborne Early Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft 

until the follow-on replacement aircraft program enters low-rate 

initial production. 

Sense of the Congress regarding the OCONUS basing of the 

F–35A aircraft (sec. 139) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress regarding basing of the F–35A aircraft outside 

of the continental United States. 

Sense of Congress on F–16 Active Electronically Scanned 

Array (AESA) radar upgrade (sec. 140) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Congress on F–16 Active Electronically Scanned Array 

(AESA) radar upgrades. 

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

Report on Army and Marine Corps modernization plan for 

small arms (sec. 151) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretaries of the Army and Navy to jointly submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives 

a report on the plan of the Army and Marine Corps to modernize 

small arms. 

Budget Items 

Army 

Common missile warning system 

The budget request included $78.3 million in Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA) for common missile warning system. The committee recommends an increase of $26.0 million in APA for procurement of common missile warning systems. Additional funding 

for common missile warning systems was included on the Chief of 

Staff of the Army’s unfunded priorities list. 

PAC–3 Missile Segment Enhancement 

The budget included $414.9 million in Missile Procurement, 

Army (MPA) for PAC–3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) misVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

siles for use in the Medium Extended Air Defense System and Patriot missile defense systems. The PAC–3 MSE provides substantial improvement in interceptor altitude, range, propulsion, 

lethality and agility while furthering insensitive munitions compliance. The committee recommends an increase of $200.0 million in 

MPA for procurement of MSE missiles. Additional funding was included on the Chief of Staff of the Army’s unfunded priority list. 

Army Tactical Missile System 

The budget request included $30.1 million in Missile Procurement, Army (MPA) for Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) 

modifications. The committee is concerned about the Army’s plan 

to enter into a production contract prior to the completion of testing. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in MPA for ATACMS. 

Improved recovery vehicle 

The budget request included $123.6 million in Weapons and 

Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for improved recovery vehicles (M88A2 Hercules). The committee recommends an increase 

of $72.0 million in WTCV for the procurement of 16 additional 

M88A2s. Additional funding for the improved recovery vehicle was 

included on the Chief of Staff of the Army’s unfunded priorities list. 

Precision sniper rifle 

The budget request included $2.0 million in Weapons and 

Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for the precision sniper 

rifle. Given this requirement is early to need, the committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million in WTCV for the precision 

sniper rifle due to program delay. 

Compact semi-automatic sniper system 

The budget request included $1.5 million in Weapons and 

Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for the compact semiautomatic sniper system. Given this requirement is early to need, 

the committee recommends a decrease of $1.5 million in WTCV for 

the compact semi-automatic sniper system due to program delay. 

Common remotely operated weapons station 

The budget request included $8.4 million in Weapons and 

Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for common remotely operated weapons station (CROWS). At the Army’s request, the committee recommends an increase of $6.4 million in WTCV for the 

CROWS. The Army will use the additional funds to synchronize the 

conversion and fielding of systems in a sustainable configuration. 

Handgun 

The budget request included $5.4 million in Weapons and 

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


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

Sniper rifle modifications 

The budget request included $2.4 million in Weapons and 

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

Items less than $5.0 million 

The budget request included $391,000 in Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for items less than $5.0 million. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in WTCV 

for the items less than $5.0 million. The Army would use the additional funds to procure nonstandard weapons for Regionally 

Aligned Forces training. 

Army ammunition decrease 

The budget request included $1.2 billion in Procurement of Am- munition, Army (PAA), of which $7.7 million was for LI 

1450EA3000 CTG, Handgun, All Types and $79.9 million was for 

LI 3222ER8001 CTG, 40mm, All Types. 

The committee believes that funding related to both line items 

are requested ahead of need. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $952,000 in LI 1450EA3000 PAA for CTG, Handgun, All Types and $10.0 

million in LI 3222ER8001 CTG, 40mm, All Types. 

Transportable Tactical Command Communications 

The budget request included $45.0 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA), for the Transportable Tactical Command Communications (T2C2) system. The committee notes that the program’s Milestone C decision has been delayed to late fiscal year 2015. Therefore, a portion of the funds requested for fiscal year 2016 are early 

to need. The committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million in 

OPA for T2C2. 

Prophet Ground System 

The budget request included $63.6 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA) for Prophet ground systems. The committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million in OPA for the Prophet due 

to unjustified growth in production. 

Counterfire radars 

The budget request included $217.4 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for counterfire radars (AN/TPQ–53). The committee notes that this program is delayed due to problems discovered during initial operational test and evaluation resulting in unobligated funds available from prior year appropriations. Procurement funds requested for fiscal year 2016 are not operationally urgent and appear early to need. The committee recommends a decrease of $75.0 million in OPA for counterfire radars to allow the 

program test and production schedules to synchronize in fiscal year 

2017. 

The committee directs that not later than 180 days after the 

dates of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

submit to the congressional defense committees a report on 

counterfire radars explaining the under execution of fiscal year 

2014 and fiscal year 2015 funds as well as repair problems. The report should also include actions planned and taken to correct the 

deficiencies. Specifically, the report should address problems discovered during initial operation testing and evaluation. The committee directs that not later than 60 days after the report of the 

Secretary, the Comptroller General of the United States shall review the report and submit to the congressional defense committees an assessment of the matter contained in the report. 

Global Combat Support System—Army 

The budget request included $162.7 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Global Combat Support System—Army 

(GCSS–A). The committee recommends a decrease of $16.0 million 

in OPA for GCSS–A due to unjustified program growth. 

Automated data processing equipment 

The budget request included $106.4 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for automated data processing equipment. The 

committee recommends a decrease of $12.0 million to this program. 

The committee recommends that the Army should ensure that information technology procurements are not redundant with capabilities available under joint, other Service, or other agency programs. 

Non-system training devices 

The budget request included $303.2 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices. The committee 

recommends a decrease of $25.0 million in OPA for non-system 

training devices due to unjustified cost growth. 

Navy 

F/A–18E/F aircraft procurement 

The budget request included no funds in Aircraft Procurement, 

Navy (APN), for F/A–18E/F aircraft. Procuring additional F/A– 

18E/F aircraft will reduce near-term strike fighter inventory gaps 

and risk. This item was included on the Chief of Naval Operations’ 

unfunded priorities list. Therefore, the committee recommends an 

increase of $1.2 billion in APN for 12 F/A–18E/F aircraft and initial 

spares. 

F–35C 

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

F–35B 

The budget request included $1.5 billion in Aircraft Procurement, 

Navy (APN), for nine F–35B aircraft. The committee recommends 

a decrease of $25.1 million in APN due to anticipated efficiencies 

savings and excess support equipment cost growth. Additionally, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

the committee recommends an increase in F–35B procurement to 

a total quantity of 15 F–35B aircraft to mitigate the strike fighter 

shortfall. This request was on the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps’ unfunded priority list. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.1 billion 

in APN for the procurement of six additional F–35B aircraft. 

AV–8 series aircraft 

The budget request included $83.2 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for AV–8 series aircraft. Link 16 upgrades are 

necessary for the fleet of AV–8 aircraft to improve pilot situational 

awareness, joint communications, and force protection. Therefore, 

the committee recommends an increase of $3.3 million in APN. 

This item was included on the Commandant of the Marine Corps’ 

unfunded priorities list. 

F–18 series kill chain enhancements 

The budget request included $986.8 million in Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN), for F–18 series aircraft modifications. The committee recommends an increase of $170.0 million in APN for F–18 

aircraft series radio frequency kill chain enhancements to counter 

sophisticated digital weapons and combat systems currently proliferated around the world. This item was included on the Chief of 

Naval Operations’ unfunded priorities list. 

V–22 Osprey 

The base budget request included $121.2 million for procurement 

of V–22 Osprey. The committee notes the Commandant of the Marine Corps’ unfunded requirement for MV–22 integrated aircraft 

survivability ($15.0 million) and MV–22 ballistic protection ($8.0 

million). As a result, the committee recommends an increase of 

$23.0 million to this program. 

Tomahawk 

The budget request included $184.8 million in Weapons Procurement, Navy to procure 100 Tomahawk missiles. The future years 

defense program envisions shutting down the Tomahawk production line after the fiscal year 2016 procurement. 

The committee is concerned about the Navy’s decision to truncate 

production. The Tomahawk is a combat-proven missile, having 

been used well over 2,000 times in the last two decades, most recently against targets in Syria during Operation Inherent Resolve 

in September 2014 and remains the country’s first-strike weapon 

of choice. The Navy has stated that the current Tomahawk inventory is sufficient for munitions requirements and will meet the 

Navy’s needs until its replacement is operational in the mid-2020s. 

The Next Generation Land Attack Weapon, however, is only in initial planning stages and is not due to enter service until 2024. The 

committee believes the assumption of this much risk in a capability 

as important as long-range strike is not prudent in the current and 

projected security environment. 

Additionally, the Navy plans to begin recertification of its existing Block IV missiles beginning in 2019. By its own analysis, the 

Navy recognizes that the existence of a production gap between the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
23 

end of new missile builds and the start of recertification will put 

tremendous strain on the Tomahawk supplier base and involve millions of dollars to requalify suppliers for recertification. The committee is concerned by the Navy’s plan as it moves toward recertification. 

The committee believes that it would be imprudent to ramp down 

and close production of the Tomahawk missile at this time. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million to 

keep Tomahawk production at the minimum sustaining rate of 196 

missiles per year. 

Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile 

The budget request included $192.9 million in Weapons Procurement, Navy funding to procure 192 Advanced Medium Range Airto-Air Missiles (AMRAAM). The AMRAAM remains the preeminent 

all-weather, radar-guided missile fielded by the U.S. Navy and Air 

Force. The most up-to-date version, the AIM–120D, provides enhanced lethality to the warfighter and is essential to success in any 

potential conflict involving air combat. Chief of Naval Operations 

Jonathan Greenert testified to the Navy’s shortfall in AMRAAM 

before the committee. The committee believes the Navy needs to 

address the shortfall and therefore recommends an increase of 

$15.0 million to procure additional missiles. 

Ordnance support equipment 

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

Virginia-class submarines 

The budget request included $2.0 billion in advance procurement and $3.3 billion in procurement in Shipbuilding and Conversion, 

Navy for Virginia-class submarines. 

The committee notes that the Virginia-class submarine program 

has continued to perform well, delivering submarines early and 

within budget to combatant commanders. As Assistant Secretary of 

Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition Sean Stackley 

testified on March 18, 2015, ‘‘Submarines’ stealth and ability to 

conduct sustained forward-deployed operations in anti-access/areadenial environments serve as force multipliers by providing highquality intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance as well as indication and warning of potential hostile action. In addition, attack 

submarines are effective in anti-surface warfare and undersea warfare in almost every environment, thus eliminating any safe-haven 

that an adversary might pursue with access-denial systems. As 

such, they represent a significant conventional deterrent.’’ 

Despite these important capabilities and the success of the Virginia-class submarine program, the committee notes that on March 

18, 2015, Vice Admiral Joseph P. Mulloy testified that the Navy is 

only meeting approximately 54 percent of combatant commander 

requests for attack submarines. 

The Navy has a validated requirement for 48 attack submarines, 

and currently has a fleet of 53 attack submarines. However, the 

committee notes that the Navy’s attack submarine fleet will drop 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
24 

to 41 submarines in fiscal year 2029. This smaller attack submarine fleet, combined with an increasing demand for the unique 

capabilities they provide, could result in the Navy meeting an even 

smaller percentage of combatant commander requests for attack 

submarines. The committee believes it is important that the Navy 

procure two Virginia-class submarines per year in fiscal years 2016 

to 2020. 

The committee understands that the Virginia Payload Module 

(VPM) will help mitigate the nearly 60 percent decrease in undersea strike capacity associated with the declining number of attack 

submarines and retirement of the Navy’s guided missile submarines (SSGNs) in the 2020s. The VPM will increase the capacity 

of Virginia-class submarines from 12 to 40 cruise missiles. The 

committee believes it is essential to accelerate as soon as practicable the inclusion of the VPM on Virginia-class submarines. Furthermore, once inclusion of the VPM is determined to be feasible, 

the committee supports inclusion of the VPM on every new construction Virginia-class submarine. 

Therefore, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to submit a report to the committee no later than December 1, 2015 on the feasibility of accelerating the VPM introduction to Virginia-class submarines, as well as an assessment of the industrial base impact of 

building Ohio-class replacement submarines, Virginia-class submarines with the VPM, and Virginia-class submarines without the 

VPM, simultaneously. 

Furthermore, in light of the importance of Virginia-class submarines and the VPM, the committee recommends an increase of 

$800.0 million in advance procurement and the full requested 

amount in procurement for Virginia-class submarines. 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers 

The budget request included $3.1 billion in Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy for procurement of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (DDG–51). Additional funding and incremental funding authority would help relieve pressure on the shipbuilding budget as funding requirements grow for the Ohio-class replacement program over 

the next several years. As a result, the committee recommends an 

increase of $400.0 million and incremental funding authority for 1 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in addition to the 10 DDG–51s in the 

fiscal year 2013–2017 multiyear procurement contract or for a 

DDG–51 in fiscal year 2018. 

Afloat Forward Staging Base 

The budget request included no funding in Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy for advance procurement of afloat forward staging base (AFSB). The committee notes the Navy has procured two 

AFSBs and has a new requirement to provide support to the Crisis 

Response Security Force that justifies an increase in AFSBs from 

two to three. As a result, the committee recommends an increase 

of $97.0 million to this program for advance procurement. 

Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA) Replacement 

The budget request included $277.5 million in Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy for advance procurement of amphibious assault 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
25 

ship (LHA) replacement. The committee notes additional advance 

procurement funding would expedite delivery of this ship enabling 

the Navy to reach the force structure assessment objective of 11 

large deck amphibious ships as early as fiscal year 2023. As a result, the committee recommends an increase of $199.0 million to 

this program. 

LX(R) 

The budget request included no funding in Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy for advance procurement of LX(R), which is expected to functionally replace LSD–41 and LSD–49 class ships. The 

committee notes accelerating the delivery of LX(R) class ships to 

the fleet will enable the Navy to meet a greater amount of combatant commander demand for amphibious warships. As a result, the 

committee recommends an increase of $51.0 million in advance procurement for this program. 

Landing craft utility replacement 

The budget request included no funding in Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy for procurement of landing craft utility replacement. The committee understands accelerating this program from 

fiscal year 2018 to 2016 has acceptable technical risk and will alleviate some pressure on the shipbuilding budget in future years. 

As a result, the committee recommends an increase of $34.0 million 

to this program to procure one landing craft utility replacement. 

T–ATS(X) 

The budget request included no funding in Shipbuilding and 

Conversion, Navy for procurement of T–ATS(X). The committee 

notes T–ATS(X) will replace two ship classes—Safeguard-class salvage and rescue ships (T–ARS) and Powhatan-class fleet ocean 

tugs (T–ATF). The committee understands accelerating this program by one year from fiscal year 2017 to 2016 has acceptable 

technical risk and will alleviate some pressure on the shipbuilding 

budget in future years. As a result, the committee recommends an 

increase of $75.0 million to this program to procure one T–ATS(X). 

Destroyer modernization 

The budget request included $364.2 million in Other Procurement, Navy for DDG modernization. The committee notes the 

Navy’s DDG modernization program increases the Fleet’s Navy Integrated Fire Control—Counter Air and Ballistic Missile Defense 

capacity, which improves the U.S. ability to pace high-end adversary weapons systems. Procuring one additional combat system 

ship set in fiscal year 2016 will allow the Navy to modernize an 

additional DDG in fiscal year 2018 with these capabilities. As a result, the committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million to this 

program. This was a Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priority. 

Littoral Combat Ship Mine Countermeasures Mission Module 

The budget request included $85.1 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy to procure Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Mine Countermeasures (MCM) mission modules. The committee notes the Navy 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
26 

has two MCM mission modules delivered and four MCM mission 

modules procured through fiscal year 2015. The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) has stated that only one 

MCM module of each increment is required to complete operational 

testing. During developmental testing, as noted by DOT&E, ‘‘attempts to demonstrate the sequence of events necessary for an LCS 

to complete end-to-end mine clearance operations have been limited 

by low operator proficiency, software immaturity, system integration problems, and poor reliability of MCM components including 

RMS/RMMV.’’ As a result, the committee recommends a decrease 

of $55.8 million for this program due to procurement in excess of 

need ahead of satisfactory operational testing. 

This reduction would reduce the hardware components to the 

manufacturer minimum sustaining rate—a reduction from two to 

one Airborne Mine Neutralization Systems (AMNS), two to one Airborne Laser Mine Detection Systems (ALMDS), six to one AN/ 

AQS–20A Minehunting Sonars, and two to zero COBRA systems 

(two other COBRA systems are requested in LI 2624, which satisfies the manufacturer minimum sustaining rate). 

Remote Minehunting System 

The budget request included $87.6 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy for the Remote Minehunting System (RMS). In January 2015, 

the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation noted in his annual report, ‘‘RMS had not demonstrated sufficient performance or 

successful integration with interfacing LCS systems to demonstrate 

the Navy’s minimum Increment 1 warfighting capability, and developmental testing completed in the first quarter of fiscal year 

2015 demonstrated continued performance issues and RMS mission 

package integration challenges.’’ The committee believes that upgrading two previously procured systems may provide further assets for testing to demonstrate whether upgrades improve performance and reliability. As a result, the committee recommends a decrease of $65.6 million for this program due to procurement in excess of need, ahead of satisfactory developmental and operational 

testing. 

Submarine towed arrays 

The budget request included $214.8 million in Other Procurement, Navy for fast attack submarine (SSN) acoustics. The committee notes TB–29X and TB–34X submarine towed arrays improve 

detection, classification, and tracking capabilities for deployed Virginia-class SSNs. Accelerating procurement by four additional TB– 

29X and four additional TB–34X arrays will improve operational 

availability of advanced towed sensors and flexibility of operational, forward-deployed submarines. This was a Chief of Naval 

Operations’ unfunded priority. As a result, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to this program. 

Surface electronic warfare improvement program 

The budget request included $324.7 million in Other Procurement, Navy for AN/SLQ–32. The committee notes the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) provides for upgraded electromagnetic sensing capabilities for surface ships. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
27 

SEWIP Block II provides an upgraded receiver/antenna group and 

improved electromagnetic interference mitigation and combat system interface. Procuring two additional units in fiscal year 2016 

would outfit two additional ships in fiscal year 2018. This was a 

Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priority. As a result, the committee recommends an increase of $28.0 million to this program. 

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

The budget request included $12.5 million in Procurement, Marine Corps (PMC) for tube-launched, optically-tracked, wirelessguided (TOW) missiles. The committee recommends an increase of 

$140.0 million in PMC for TOW missiles to replenish a depleted inventory. The additional funding was included on the Commandant 

of the Marine Corps’ unfunded priority list. 

Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar 

The budget request included $130.7 million in Procurement, Marine Corps (PMC) for the Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ 

ATOR). The committee notes that excessive concurrency makes the 

G/ATOR program a relatively high risk development effort. This 

has been demonstrated in poor developmental test results to date 

and a major system design change introducing a less mature technology not tested in previous radars. G/ATOR continues to struggle 

with software performance and reliability problems resulting in significant schedule delays. The committee recommends a decrease of 

$32.1 million in PMC for G/ATOR procurement. 

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

the Secretary of the Navy shall submit to Congress a report on G/ 

ATOR regarding the procurement in excess of need and ahead of 

satisfactory testing. The report should explain the poor development test results and why there has been major system changes. 

Furthermore, the report should address the software performance 

and reliability problems that have resulted in significant schedule 

delays. Not later than 60 days after the report of the Secretary is 

submitted, the Comptroller General of the United States shall review the report and submit to the congressional defense committees an assessment of the matters contained in the report. 

Air Force 

F–35A 

The budget request included $5.3 billion in Aircraft Procurement, 

Air Force (APAF) for 44 F–35A aircraft. The committee recommends a decrease of $99.1 million in APAF due to anticipated 

efficiencies savings and excess support equipment cost growth. 

MQ–9 

The budget request included $553.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for 29 MQ–9 aircraft. The committee recommends an increase of $480.0 million in APAF for 24 additional 

MQ–9 aircraft and initial spares to support increased combatant 

commander requirements for medium altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support. Additional funding was inVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
28 

cluded on the Chief of Staff of the Air Force’s unfunded priorities 

list. 

The committee also recommends under title V in this Act a provision that would direct the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a 

report on actions the Air Force will take to rectify persistent remotely piloted aircraft career field manning shortfalls. The committee expects the Air Force to take required actions to correct 

these shortfalls to facilitate these additional aircraft to fulfill combatant commander requirements. 

F–15 capability upgrades 

The budget request included $464.4 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for F–15 fighter aircraft modifications. 

The F–15 series of fighter aircraft will be operated through the 

2030 decade, and must have capability upgrades to increase its 

operational effectiveness against advanced threats and operate in 

increasingly contested environments, and training aircraft modified 

to mirror combat configurations for the most effective aircrew 

training. Additional funding was included in the Chief of Staff of 

the Air Force’s unfunded priorities list. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $11.6 million for the Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System 

(EPAWSS), an increase of $48.0 million for six F–15C advanced 

electronically scanned array (AESA) radar upgrades, an increase of 

$192.5 million for 24 F–15D AESA radar upgrades, and an increase 

of $10.0 million for Advanced Display/Core Processor II (ADCP II) 

upgrades to support AESA upgrades. The total recommended increase for APAF is $262.1 million. 

Budget request realignment 

At the Air Force’s request, the committee recommends realignments in the following table to correct various errors in the budget 

request for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), and Other Procurement, Air Force (OPAF). 

AIR FORCE REQUESTED REALIGNMENTS 

(in millions) 

Item Quantity Account Line Item Amount 

QF–16 .............................................................................................. APAF 12 ¥25 

F–15 ................................................................................................ APAF 22 ¥$12.8 

F–15 ................................................................................................ RDTEAF 136 +$12.8 

C2ISR TDL ........................................................................................ APAF 59 ¥$2.2 

COMSEC Equip ................................................................................ OPAF 11 +$2.2 

C–130H Propulsion System Enhancements 

The budget request included $7.0 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for C–130 modifications. The Air National 

Guard and Air Force Reserve will operate C–130H aircraft for the 

next two decades. Enhancements to the C–130H propulsion system 

will provide increased performance, improved fuel efficiency, and 

greater reliability. Therefore, the committee recommends increases 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
29 

of $33.2 million for T–56 3.5 Engine Modifications, $1.5 million for 

In-flight Propeller Balancing System certification, and $13.5 million for Electronic Propeller Control System for a total increase in 

APAF of $48.2 million. 

C–130H avionics modernization program 

The budget request included no funding in Aircraft Procurement, 

Air Force (APAF), for the C–130H Avionics Modernization Program 

(AMP). The committee believes the term ‘‘avionics modernization 

program of record for C–130 aircraft’’ in section 134 of the Carl 

Levin and Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) includes C– 

130H safety modifications and airspace compliance modifications 

that will be required to operate in both Federal Aviation Administration-controlled airspace and International Civil Aviation Organization-controlled airspace after January 1, 2020. 

The current Air Force plan includes making those airspace compliance modifications within the C–130H Avionics Modernization 

Program (AMP) effort. However, as the Air Force plan for making 

airspace compliance modifications (AMP Increment 1) would not 

achieve airspace compliance for the entire C–130H aircraft fleet 

until well after that deadline, the committee expects the Air Force 

to accelerate the AMP Increment I schedule as rapidly as possible. 

Additionally, the committee also expects the Air Force to accelerate 

the effort for AMP increment 2 modifications, using previously purchased components and leveraging research and development efforts to the maximum extent practical. The committee expects the 

Air Force to comply with the spirit and intent of section 134 of the 

Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) for executing the C–130H AMP program of record. 

The committee understands that the Air Force is restructuring 

the AMP program of record, but also recognizes that it has no completed design, cost estimates, or schedule plan on how it will execute AMP Increment 2. The committee expects the Air Force to 

continue to execute AMP and field C–130H aircraft previously upgraded by the AMP program until the Air Force provides a concrete 

plan that describes the final modification configuration for AMP Increment 2, a service cost position, and a procurement and installation schedule that would realistically support a fleet viability requirement. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $75.0 million in APAF for C–130H AMP aircraft modifications. 

A–10 Munitions Buyback 

The budget request included $1.7 billion for Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force (PAAF) of which $131.1 million was for LI 

352010 Cartridges. 

The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the retirement of the A–10 fleet purely on the basis of the fiscal environment 

and not on grounds of the ability of the combat air forces to effectively meet the requirements of the combatant commanders and defense strategy. The committee also believes that with the A–10 

fleet currently engaged in operations against the Islamic State of 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
30 

Iraq and the Levant, providing a theater security package in Europe to assure our allies and partners, and continuing rotational 

deployments operations to Afghanistan, divesting this capability at 

this time incurs unacceptable risk in the capacity and readiness of 

the combat air forces without a suitable replacement available. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $38.5 million for LI 352010 Cartridges for munitions for the A–10 buyback. 

Battlefield air operations kits 

The budget request included $13.1 million in Other Procurement, 

Air Force (OPAF), for mobility command and control equipment. 

The committee recommends an increase of $19.9 million in OPAF 

for additional battlefield air operations kits which decrease the risk 

of fratricide and lowers by 30 percent the weight of equipment carried by battlefield airmen. Additional funding was included on the 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force’s unfunded priorities list. 

Air Force Network Procurements 

The budget request included $103.8 million in Other Procurement, Air Force for Air Force network (AFNet) procurements. The 

committee recommends a decrease of $17.0 million for this program. The committee notes that many network and maintenance 

functions can be outsourced to reduce costs and leverage commercial technologies. The committee also notes that some of the systems being procured will be better delivered through the Department-wide Joint Information Environment. 

Joint terminal attack controller training and rehearsal system simulators 

The budget request included $81.6 million in Other Procurement, 

Air Force (OPAF), for tactical communications-electronics equipment. The committee recommends an increase of $36.0 million in 

OPAF for additional Joint Terminal Attack Controller Training and 

Rehearsal System Simulators to increase availability of Joint Terminal Attack Control personnel and increase unit readiness for 

combat deployments. Additional funding was included on the Chief 

of Staff of the Air Force’s unfunded priorities list. 

Defense Wide 

MC–12 

The budget request included $63.2 million in Procurement, Defense-Wide (PDW), to modify MC–12 aircraft that were to be transferred from the Air Force to U.S. Special Operations Command 

(SOCOM) to replace the existing U–28 fleet and support the tactical airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) 

requirements of deployed special operations forces. The committee 

notes that the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113– 

291) prohibited the transfer of MC–12 aircraft from the Air Force 

to SOCOM until an analysis and justification for the transfer of 

such aircraft was submitted to the congressional defense committees. According to the resulting analysis of alternatives, SOCOM 

identified the U–28 as the most cost-effective ISR platform to meet 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
31 

special operations requirements through 2020. Therefore, at the request of SOCOM, the committee recommends a transfer of $63.2 

million from PDW for MC–12 modifications (P–1 Line # 41) to 

PDW for U–28 modifications (P–1 Line #45). 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

The budget request included $11.7 million in Procurement, Defense-Wide (PDW), for the acquisition and support of special operations-unique mission kits for the MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

(UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is responsible 

for the rapid development and acquisition of special operations capabilities to, among other things, effectively carry out operations 

against terrorist networks while avoiding collateral damage. 

The committee understands that the budget request only partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its fleet 

of MQ–9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase 

of $10.0 million in PDW for the MQ–9 UAV. 

The committee strongly supports SOCOM’s efforts to accelerate 

fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging technologies 

on its fleet of MQ–9 UAVs. The committee has authorized additional funds above the budget request in each of the last 3 years 

to enhance these efforts and understands that SOCOM has successfully developed and acquired a number of new capabilities, including improved weapon effectiveness, target location and tracking, 

image resolution, and video transmission during that time. 

Items of Special Interest 

Armored vehicle transmission industrial base 

The committee remains interested in the Army’s management of 

strategic risk in the armored vehicle industrial base, including its 

related transmission industrial base. 

Accordingly, last year’s Senate report accompanying S. 2410 (S. 

Rept. 113–176) the Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2015 required the Secretary of the Army to conduct 

a business case analysis of the armored vehicle transmission industrial base. The required analysis would assess the costs, benefits, 

risks, feasibility, and advisability of strategies to manage risks in 

the armored vehicle transmission industrial base including, but not 

limited to, increased competition, consolidation, or other industrial 

approaches across public depot, private commercial, and public-private partnership entities and facilities. 

The committee was recently notified by the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (ASA–ALT) 

that the analysis required by last year’s committee report has been 

delayed until June 2015. Included with this notification the ASA– 

ALT indicated that the Army is working with its current transmission suppliers to carefully manage increasingly constrained resources, maintain combat vehicle fleet readiness, foster future competition, reset production facilities, invest as necessary in selected 

critical and fragile suppliers to sustain capabilities, and use investments in science and technology to retain important engineering 

capabilities. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
32 

The committee agrees that successful management of risk in this 

important sector of the industrial base will require the Army to develop plans and programs, sufficiently funded, to address each of 

these areas. Although the current fiscal environment is challenging, it could be an opportunity to develop new technologies, implement creative partnerships, and take advantage of opportunities 

for competition that may achieve improved technical performance, 

cost savings, and greater value for the warfighter and taxpayers. 

The committee expects the Army’s final report no later than June 

30, 2015. 

Army UH–60A to UH–60L conversions for the National 

Guard 

The committee is aware that the UH–60 Black Hawk helicopter 

is one of the most versatile and heavily used aviation capabilities 

in the Army National Guard, as well as by all the states in which 

they serve. The UH–60A is the oldest model Black Hawk in service 

and currently flown almost exclusively by the Army National 

Guard. Although old, these A-model Black Hawks continue to provide a reliable and critically important medium-lift capability to 

the National Guard in support of its state role in homeland defense 

and support for civil authorities in response to emergencies. While 

the Army National Guard currently uses UH–60A Black Hawk helicopters for the range of state and domestic requirements for medium-lift, the lack of modern on-board capabilities means these helicopters are not ordinarily available for deployment overseas into 

hostile environments without significant upgrades to their current 

configuration. 

The committee notes that based on the Army’s current budget 

projections Army National Guard units will not replace their aging 

UH–60A Black Hawk helicopters until the end of fiscal year 2025. 

This naturally results in higher operational tempo and increased 

flight hours for the rest of the Army’s rotary wing aviation in support of overseas contingency operations. To sustain the readiness 

and increase the availability of the Army National Guard’s UH–60 

fleet, and close the A-model capability gap, the committee encourages the Army to review the feasibility of accelerating the replacement of all UH–60A aircraft through the production of new UH– 

60M helicopters, the UH–60V upgrade program, and the conversion 

of A-model Black Hawks to UH–60L model aircraft. 

Combat logistics fleet 

The ability of U.S. naval forces to deter aggression and rapidly 

respond to crisis around the world is sustained by Military Sealift 

Command ships. U.S. global logistics capability provides a significant advantage over the regionally focused fleets of potential adversaries. With challenges to U.S. allies and interests growing, the 

committee believes U.S. naval forces must be able to remain deployed and at sea, even in the face of enemy anti-access/area-denial 

(A2/AD) threats. 

The size and structure of today’s logistics force appears to be 

based on a longstanding operating concept in which naval forces 

operate almost exclusively in strike groups or ready groups with 

accompanying logistics ships. While such a model applied in the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
33 

years following the end of the Cold War, today a smaller fleet, new 

missions, such as ballistic missile defense and counter-piracy, and 

improving adversary A2/AD capabilities cause strike groups and 

ready groups to disperse over more expansive areas. Additionally, 

global shipping systems place fuel and supplies at depots closer to 

naval forces, enabling logistics ships to shuttle them out to the 

fleet as opposed to having to carry them for the whole deployment. 

As the Navy finalizes the requirements for the new oiler, T– 

AO(X), the changes in naval operations and threats since its predecessor, the Henry J. Kaiser-class, was designed should be a foremost consideration. Therefore, the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with U.S. Pacific Command, is directed to provide the committee a report no later than February 1, 2016, describing the requirements for T–AO(X) that addresses the following elements: 

(1) Ship’s capacity for fuel, dry stores, and chilled or frozen 

stores; 

(2) Operational concept for fleet resupply that forms the 

basis for the T–AO(X) requirement, including how T–AO(X) 

will complement existing T–AKE class logistics ships and how 

the concept will evolve over the life of the T–AO(X) class; 

(3) Number of T–AO(X) hulls required, how this requirement 

addresses a more dispersed fleet and combat losses likely in a 

modern conflict, and how the requirement may evolve over the 

next 30 years; 

(4) How the T–AO(X) will be protected from missile and submarine attack as it supports a more widely distributed fleet; 

and 

(5) An analysis of various fleet resupply force structures to 

meet projected mission needs in the 2025 timeframe, including: 

the current program of record, an alternative consisting a larger number of smaller ships with the same overall resupply capacity, and a mixture of the program of record and smaller 

ships. 

Comptroller General of the United States review of the implementation of recommendations from the National 

Commission on the Structure of the Air Force 

Section 1055 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public 

Law 113–291) requires that, not later than 30 days after the date 

of the submittal to Congress pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, 

United States Code, of the budget of the President for each of fiscal 

years 2016 through 2019, the Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the response of the Air Force to the 42 specific recommendations of the 

National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force in the report of the Commission pursuant to section 363(b) of the National 

Commission on the Structure of the Air Force Act of 2012 (subtitle 

G of title III of Public Law 112–19 239; 126 Stat. 1704). The committee received the initial report from the Secretary of the Air 

Force in March 2015. 

The committee is concerned that although the Air Force was required by the statute to provide discernible milestones for review 

of the recommendations or preliminary implementation plans, none 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
34 

were included in the initial report. Additionally, several of the 

Commission’s recommendations concerned the force mix ratio between the active and reserve components, which the Air Force 

elected to review through its High Velocity Analysis process. None 

of the analysis from this process was included in the report. 

Additionally, section 138 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ 

McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 

(Public Law 113–291) required the Secretary of the Air Force to 

submit to the congressional defense committees an assessment of 

the costs and benefits of the proposed transfer from one facility of 

the Department of Defense to another of C–130H or C–130J aircraft. The committee received this report in April 2015. 

The committee is concerned that while the Air Force stated it 

would provide a review of the force mix balance between the active 

and reserve components through its High Velocity Analysis process, 

and in response to specific recommendations of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force, no reference to observations, conclusions, or recommendations are found in the C–130 

force structure report that refers to this High Velocity Analysis review process on the C–130 mission area. 

In addition, the report also contains no range or weighting of criteria, similar to the Air Force’s strategic basing process, that would 

determine the operational effectiveness of stationing C–130 units 

at one location over another. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to review the Air Force’s methodology and effectiveness in 

its effort to plan for and implement the National Commission recommendations. The review should include, at a minimum, assessments of: 

(1) the Air Force’s plans for review and implementation of 

the Commission’s recommendations; 

(2) the sufficiency of the Air Force’s High Velocity Analysis 

process to provide decision level information to senior Air Force 

leaders on appropriate force mix balance between the components; 

(3) the applicability and appropriateness of the models used 

in the High Velocity Analysis process; 

(4) the decision process used following data collection and 

analysis; and 

(5) any other matters the Comptroller General determines 

are appropriate during the review. 

The Comptroller General shall submit a preliminary review to 

the congressional defense committees not later than August 31, 

2015, and a final report to follow on February 1, 2016. 

Comptroller General review of the CVN–78 class aircraft 

carrier program 

The committee notes the estimated procurement costs for the 

first three CVN–78 class aircraft carriers are $12.9 billion, $11.3 

billion, and $13.5 billion, respectively. In fiscal year 2008, the procurement costs for these ships were estimated to be $10.5 billion, 

$9.2 billion, and $10.7 billion, respectively. The committee remains 

concerned with the current and potential future cost growth in this 

program. In light of the significant cost growth since the original 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
35 

estimates and substantial costs that continue to be requested for 

the CVN–78 aircraft carrier program, the committee directs the 

Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report, not 

later than February 1, 2016, that includes analysis and recommendations for the following: 

(1) Cost estimates and cost estimating practices for the development and acquisition of the first three CVN–78 class aircraft carriers, including the factors that contributed to the 

quality of these estimates and the extent to which the cost estimates are reliable; 

(2) Effectiveness of current cost accounting and cost surveillance practices in providing reliable information for budget and 

program planning and execution, in light of the cost caps; and 

(3) Reporting format for CVN–78 aircraft carrier program 

costs, including annual budget requests and selected acquisition reports. 

Enhance cockpit displays to improve safety and mission effectiveness 

The committee notes that advancements in cockpit display technologies have the potential to improve safety and mission effectiveness for military aircrews operating a wide range of fixed wing and 

rotary aircraft. These technologies include but are not limited to 

enhanced vision and video overlays, integration of aircraft data 

with real world and stored imagery, ability to display three dimensional information, and ability to share information both on and off 

the aircraft. The committee also understands these technologies 

may be available as commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics to investigate recently developed 

cockpit display technologies to improve flight safety and enhance 

mission effectiveness through improved situational awareness. The 

committee believes that Department of Defense may be able to improve flight safety, reduce aircrew workload and increase combat 

effectiveness by incorporating new cockpits display technologies 

into aircraft cockpits, to include the use of existing COTS systems. 

Expeditionary Health Services Systems 

The committee supports the Department of the Navy’s Expeditionary Health Services Systems (EHSS) and notes with interest 

the goal of transitioning dated legacy systems to rapidly erectable 

Expeditionary Medical Facilities (EMF). Improving and/or correcting performance and safety issues in the EMF legacy systems 

should be a high priority in the Navy’s EHSS Equipment Purchases. Therefore, the committee urges the Department of the 

Navy to make the modernization and upgrading of the EMFs a priority focused on improving the safety of legacy systems while upgrading their performance. This would include fast-tracking improved material technology insertion for immediate impact on legacy equipment. 

F–35 Joint Strike Fighter program 

The committee supports, and is committed to, the F–35 Joint 

Strike Fighter program. The committee notes the progress made in 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
36 

the System Development and Demonstration phase since the program was re-baselined following the Nunn-McCurdy breach in 

2011, generally achieving program schedule goals and driving aircraft flyaway costs downward despite ongoing technological challenges and deficiencies revealed in both hardware and software 

testing. The committee desires to increase the annual procurement 

quantities for all three variants insofar as program performance 

and available funding allow. 

The committee is concerned with the growing fighter force structure capacity shortfalls in the Departments of the Air Force and 

Navy due to delays in the F–35 program, noting the original program delivery plan expected to have 1,013 aircraft of all three 

variants delivered by fiscal year 2016, with actual and currently 

planned deliveries now only totaling 179. These program delivery 

delays occurred while legacy fighter aircraft continue to reach the 

end of their designed service lives, become increasingly less capable 

due to adversaries’ technological advances, or are being divested in 

significant numbers due to shrinking defense budgets. 

The committee is also concerned that the Department of Defense 

established the requirement for the F–35 program of record total 

buy quantity under very different strategic circumstances nearly 20 

years ago. In addition, prospective adversary technological advances and increased capabilities with regard to establishing contested combat environments, combined with updated threat assessments and an evolving national defense strategy, have significantly 

changed the calculus for force sizing constructs. 

The committee notes that the rapid pace of new technological developments in such areas as unmanned systems, robotics, cyber, directed energy, propulsion, hypersonics, nanotechnology, and composites, among many others, is pointing the way to the future. 

Moreover, with many significant defense modernization programs 

scheduled to peak simultaneously in the middle of the next decade, 

informed strategic choices must be made on how the nation’s resources will be applied to meet 21st century challenges. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report, within 180 days following the enactment of this Act, 

to either revalidate the current requirement for the F–35 Joint 

Strike Fighter total program of record quantity, or identify a new 

requirement for the total number of F–35 aircraft the Department 

would ultimately procure. The report should include the relevant 

portions of the defense strategy, critical assumptions, priorities, 

and force sizing construct used to revalidate the current requirement. If a new requirement is identified, the report should include 

the overarching plan for fielding complementary weapons systems 

to meet combatant commander objectives and fulfilling warfighting 

capability and capacity requirements in the areas of an optimized 

force mix of long-range versus medium/short-range ISR/strike platforms; manned versus unmanned platforms; observability characteristics; land-based versus sea-based; advanced fourth-generation 

platforms of proven design; next generation air superiority capabilities; and promising, game-changing, advanced technology innovations. 

The required report may be classified, but must include an unclassified executive summary. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
37 

Joint Standoff Weapon 

The committee is concerned with the lack of clarity in the Navy’s 

proposal to terminate the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW). The Secretary of the Navy is directed to provide to the congressional defense committees, within 60 days of the enactment of this act, a detailed analysis of Navy JSOW inventory, wartime requirements 

and the impact of termination on U.S. war plans and JSOW Foreign Military Sales. Should the Navy’s analysis determine the need 

for more JSOWs, the committee would be supportive of additional 

procurement. 

Land mobile radio 

The committee is aware that some U.S. Army Europe 

(USAREUR) installations may be operating with outdated installation security and public safety communications systems that do not 

support multiple-party conversations in the event of an emergency. 

A land mobile radio (LMR) study conducted by the Naval Surface 

Warfare Center—Crane found that insufficient radio coverage could 

occur between installations over large distances within the Army’s 

Installation Management Command—Europe (IMCOM–E). In order 

to improve radio coverage, the study recommended that the Army 

join an initiative with the U.S. Air Force—Europe (USAFE) on its 

Enterprise Land Mobile Radio program. The committee also notes 

that cost savings may be realized if IMCOM–E and USAFE pursue 

a joint LMR system rather than if IMCOM–E upgrades its LMR 

independently. Additionally, migrating to a joint USAREUR– 

USAFE installation security network could allow for the reuse of 

system frequencies throughout the area, resulting in reduced spectrum use. Accordingly, the committee encourages IMCOM–E and 

USAFE to coordinate efforts to find and implement an effective and 

affordable system that meets requirements. 

Missile and munitions industrial base 

The committee is concerned by the fragility of the missile and 

munitions industrial base. Unstable and declining budgets and a 

lack of new start programs continue to pressure tier two and tier 

three suppliers, particularly in the solid rocket motor, fuse and energetic materials segments. The committee notes the importance of 

sustaining design engineering and systems integration skills and 

the critical sub-tier supply chain and is encouraged by Department 

of Defense efforts to mitigate some of the most acute risks. The 

committee looks forward to working with the Department to ensure 

a healthy missile and munitions industrial base. 

Modernization for Light Armored Vehicles 

The committee finds that the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) Family of Vehicles (FoV) has been plagued by inadequate and unreliable power due to technological increases in communications, command and control, situational awareness, modern weapon systems, 

and an aging electrical infrastructure. The committee encourages 

the Secretary of the Navy to continue to seek ways to modernize 

the LAV FoV to meet the existing and future vehicle power requirements. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
38 

Navy maritime security barriers 

Given the continued terrorist threat to U.S. military personnel 

and installations, the committee believes the department must seek 

to continually improve force protection measures. Security at Navy 

shipyards and bases depends not only on land-based security measures, but also on effective maritime barriers. As we tragically observed in the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, an attack against a 

U.S. vessel in port can result in a significant loss of American life. 

The committee understands that the maritime barriers on many 

Naval bases and shipyards may utilize dated technology that may 

not provide the best available protection. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later 

than March 31, 2016. That report should: (1) assess the force protection capability of maritime barriers used by the Navy; (2) assess 

the force protection capability of maritime barriers that are currently available on the commercial market; (3) describe whether 

additional force protection capability could be achieved by employing new maritime barriers; (4) estimate acquisition costs for the alternative maritime barriers currently available on the commercial 

market; (5) compare the operating and support costs of current barriers with the projected operating and support costs of maritime 

barriers available on the commercial market; and (6) evaluate 

whether any potential increase in force protection capability, as 

well as potential reduced operating and support costs, would be 

worth the costs of deploying that capability. In assessing potential 

differences in force protection capability, the Secretary should examine such factors as the estimated stopping power and stopping 

distance of the respective maritime barriers. 

Navy training helicopters 

The committee is aware that the Navy and Army have used the 

TH–57 Sea Ranger and TH–67 Creek helicopters respectively for 

initial pilot training for more than 30 years. The TH–57 Sea Ranger has been a reliable and affordable training aircraft, however, 

this fleet of aircraft is becoming increasingly expensive to maintain 

and may require significant upgrades to extend the fleet’s service 

life. The committee also notes that the Army has started to divest 

itself of the TH–67 Creek trainers and is procuring a modern, dualengine training helicopter to improve initial pilot training and 

make pilot transitions to operational aircraft more effective and efficient. 

Given the challenges associated with the sustainment and cost to 

extend the life of the Navy’s aging TH–57 fleet, the committee is 

interested to know the Navy’s near and long-term plans for training helicopter modernization. Accordingly, the committee directs 

the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report on the TH–57 fleet 

to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate no later than 

September 30, 2015. That report should provide: (1) an assessment 

of the current and a 5-year projection of TH–57 fleet reliability, including related maintenance and sustainment costs; and (2) the 

Navy’s 10-year plan for training helicopter modernization, including funding profile and schedule assumed in the future years defense program, as provided in the fiscal year 2016 budget request. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
39 

Night Vision Reset 

Night vision systems are an essential capability for successful 

conventional military and counterterrorism operations. 

As night vision technologies continue to proliferate around the 

world, the committee believes it is crucial that the Department of 

Defense maintains and where possible extends its technological advantage in night vision systems. The committee notes that the 

Army has plans and programs in place to address the technological 

opportunities, operational requirements, and industrial base challenges associated with current and future night vision systems. In 

this regard, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Army 

to develop and implement a comprehensive night vision systems research, development, acquisition, reset maintenance, and 

sustainment strategy that improves readiness, identifies and delivers promising new or emerging technologies, and ensures the affordability of night vision systems by managing cost throughout 

their life cycle. 

Patriot Product Improvement Future Lower Tier Sensor Alternatives 

The Congress supports retention of the Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) technical superiority in balance with affordability to protect our forces and our coalition partners. To that end, 

the Army is conducting an analysis of alternatives (AoA) to determine the future path for IAMD Lower Tier investment and modernization within the overarching IAMD Strategy. 

To achieve this end state, the Army should thoroughly assess 

and consider all alternatives for modernizing the Lower Tier Patriot radar, including system solutions incorporating Active Electronic Scan Array (AESA) and Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology 

insertion into the existing Lower Tier Patriot radar. The committee 

believes the Army analysis should also consider relative risks, affordability and lead times of alternatives to maintain this capability. 

The committee directs the Army to report within 90 days of completion of the AoA on the overall results of the AoA and on the relative merits of various technology options to sustain and modernize 

the existing Patriot radar. 

Route and area clearance mine protected vehicles 

The budget request included $131.0 million in Other Procurement, Army for the modification of in service equipment that would 

upgrade a mix of route and area clearance mine protected vehicles. 

Route and area clearance mine protected vehicles, such as the Panther, Husky, Buffalo, and RG31, are special purpose vehicles with 

a combination of on board mine detection and clearing capabilities. 

All of these vehicles have been proven effective by U.S. forces and 

those of other nations in detecting and countering improvised explosive devices in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The committee notes that the Army plans to retain 1,840 of these 

route and area clearance mine protected vehicles for distribution to 

units, pre-positioned stocks, training, and for repair cycle spares. 

Of these, 650 would be Husky and 324 would be Buffalo vehicles. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
40 

The committee understands that the budget request would complete the Army’s acquisition objective for the Buffalo and Husky, 

however, the committee is concerned that to date neither of them 

has a sustainment or modernization plan. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Secretary of the Army to provide the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives, no 

later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, a 

report detailing plans to sustain and modernize the route and area 

clearance mine protected vehicle fleet. The report required shall include details regarding the plan’s schedule as well as funding profiles in relevant research and development and procurement accounts from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2020. 

San Antonio-Class Amphibious Transport Dock program 

The committee recognizes final requirements are still under development for the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock 

ship designated LPD–28 and expects the fiscal year 2017 budget 

request to fully fund LPD–28 in the future years defense program. 

Single-source providers of critical acquisition program components 

The committee notes with concern the February 2015 fire in the 

United Kingdom that destroyed the factory of the single-source provider of propellers for C–130J aircraft. 

While the committee received assurances from the Air Force that 

actions have been taken to avoid C–130J manufacturing delays, the 

committee is concerned there are other single-source or single-location providers of critical components of major defense acquisition 

programs where the loss of which, for any reason, could undermine 

the national security interests of the United States. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a classified report to the congressional defense committees, not later than February 1, 2016, that identifies major defense acquisition programs 

with operational implications, a list of critical components of such 

major defense acquisition programs provided by single-source and/ 

or single-provider suppliers, the severity of the operational impact 

of the loss of such suppliers, and risk management actions with associated implementation plans and timelines the Department will 

take to prevent negative operational impact in the event of such 

loss. 

Standoff precision guided weapons 

As the air and missile defense capabilities of potential adversaries rapidly advance, the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to employ short-range precision guided weapons such as Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) will be increasingly challenged. The capability to employ precision guided weapons at standoff ranges in 

large numbers will be necessary to ensure operational success in 

any high-end engagement. Advanced weapons such as the Joint 

Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile—Extended Range (JASSM–ER), the 

Longe Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), the Tomahawk missile 

and others will be key elements in attack execution, but are cost 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
41 

prohibitive to use in the numbers that future strike scenarios may 

require. 

The committee is concerned the Navy is not adequately planning 

for a future environment in which large scale use of standoff precision guided munitions is a prerequisite for victory. The committee 

directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide, prior to submission of 

the fiscal year 2017 budget request, a report on the Navy’s plan for 

standoff precision guided munitions in the 2025–2030 timeframe to 

include ship-, submarine- and air-launched weapons. The report 

should include what actions are being taken to ensure that cost-effective solutions are part of the planning. The Navy should provide 

this information in an unclassified report with an accompanying 

classified annex. 

Unmanned Undersea Vehicles 

The sophistication and endurance of autonomous undersea vehicles (AUVs) are dramatically improving as they incorporate new civilian and military technologies. Vehicles in development will likely 

be able to take over some missions performed today by submarines, 

reducing stress on the force and enabling greater capacity for undersea warfare. The decision-making limitations of AUVs, however, 

will constrain the degree to which they can replace or augment 

submarines for the foreseeable future. 

A large number of AUVs are in development. However, the committee is concerned that the size and capabilities of these AUVs are 

not necessarily well suited for the missions they can perform. For 

example, AUVs that are small enough to be carried on submarines 

are not likely to have space for the redundant power and control 

systems needed to support independent long-endurance operations. 

They may be best suited for missions where the AUV is expended 

or acts as an extension of the host submarine’s sensors or weapons. 

Conversely, large AUVs that can carry redundant power and control systems are likely to be launched from shore or large surface 

ships, and may be best suited for long-endurance surveillance or 

transport missions. Vehicles in the middle, such as the Large Displacement Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (LDUUV), are too large 

and expensive to deploy in quantity but are likely too small to host 

the systems needed for long-endurance independent operations. 

As AUVs transition from science and technology projects to acquisition programs, the Navy should assess the number and type 

of AUVs needed so it can most effectively use the resources allocated to these systems. Therefore, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to provide the committee a report no later than February 1, 

2016, describing its projected AUV force structure requirement for 

2025 that addresses the following: 

(1) The missions expected to be conducted by different AUV 

classes and how this mission set relates to current and future 

submarine mission sets; 

(2) The different AUV classes, as well as other deployable 

undersea sensor and communications systems, anticipated in 

this timeframe and their host platform(s), as appropriate; and 

(3) The required number of AUVs in each class and the impact, if any, on submarine force structure requirements. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
42 

In the report on the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Report 

113–176), the committee expressed its belief that the Navy should, 

where feasible, take full advantage of existing expertise and infrastructure at the public shipyards for unmanned undersea vehicle 

development and maintenance. 

The committee continues to expect the Navy to capitalize, where 

feasible, on existing expertise and infrastructure at the public shipyards for research, development, engineering, configuration management, acquisition support, technical problem solving, and operations and logistics support, including life-cycle maintenance and 

mission package support. 

Vehicle occupant protection technology 

The committee has followed with interest the development of 

unique technology to detect and autonomously respond to 

underbody explosive incidents with an active response to counter 

vehicle flight and reduce the physical effects on occupants. The 

committee is interested in the testing conducted under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement between industry and 

the Army. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report within 90 days of enactment of this Act which evaluates the results of the testing on this technology. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(43) 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 

AND EVALUATION 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201) 

This provision would authorize the appropriations for research, 

development, test, and evaluation activities at the levels identified 

in section 4201 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Centers for science, technology, and engineering partnership (sec. 211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Chapter 139 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a program that 

would enhance the Department of Defense laboratories with innovative academic and industry partners in research and development activities. The provision would enable more effective transfer 

of laboratory-generated innovations to small businesses and other 

industry partners to promote their transition into military systems 

or for development into commercial technologies. The provision 

would also improve the overall quality of research efforts, while reducing the costs of ownership and maintenance of world-class research infrastructure, and enhance the return on taxpayer investment in facilities and personnel at the laboratories. The provision 

is modeled on similar authority that has been provided to Department of Defense agencies by Congress under the Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence program. The provision is also supportive of the Department’s ‘‘Better Buying Power’’ efforts to ‘‘improve the return on investment in Department of Defense laboratories.’’ 

The labs have a tradition of partnerships with industry and academia that has led to significant advances in mission areas and 

technologies ranging from robotics to cyber security to aeronautics. 

A recent example is the development of the Army Research Laboratory’s (ARL’s) ‘‘Open Campus’’’ initiative, the goal of which is to develop processes and engagements through which the academic community, industry, small business, and other government laboratories can efficiently engage with ARL’s specialized research staff 

and unique technical facilities in a broad range of Army technology 

mission areas. Another is the Air Force Research Laboratory partnership with the Wright Brothers Institute on the Tec¥Edge Innovation and Collaboration Center, which promotes public-private research partnerships in unmanned air systems, advanced sensors, 

and rapid prototyping of advanced materials. The committee beVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
44 

lieves that more can be done to encourage and strengthen these 

types of activities. 

A recent report by the Institute for Defense Analyses indicates 

that mutually beneficial partnerships between Department of Defense laboratories and academia ‘‘are not as abundant as those in 

the intramural research programs at the Department of Energy.’’ 

The committee believes that this provision would support the enhancement of beneficial activities with both academia and the private sector. 

Department of Defense technology offset program to build 

and maintain the military technological superiority of 

the United States (sec. 212) 

The committee notes with concern that the United States has not 

faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of 

World War II, and that taken together, they constitute the greatest 

challenge in a generation to the integrity of the liberal world order, 

which has consistently been underwritten by U.S. military technological superiority. At the same time, the committee is alarmed by 

the apparent erosion in recent years of this technological advantage, which is in danger of disappearing altogether. To prevent 

such a scenario and to maintain the country’s global military technological edge, the committee recommends a provision that would 

establish a new $400.0 million initiative. 

In doing so, the committee notes that the Defense Department is 

facing an emerging innovation gap. Commercial research and development in the United States now represents 80 percent of the 

national total, and the top four U.S. defense contractors combined 

spend only one-quarter of what the single biggest internet company 

does on research and development. Furthermore, global research 

and development is now more than twice that of the United States. 

The committee also notes that defense innovation is moving too 

slowly—in cycles that can last up to 18 years, whereas commercial 

innovation can be measured in cycles of 18 months or less. 

The committee understands that accessing sources of innovation 

beyond the Defense Department is critical for national security, 

particularly in the areas of directed energy, low-cost high-speed 

munitions, cyber capabilities, autonomous systems, undersea warfare, and intelligence data analytics. However, there are currently 

too many barriers that limit cooperation with U.S. allies and global 

commercial firms, posing a threat to the country’s future military 

technological dominance. 

For the past several years, U.S. adversaries have been rapidly 

improving their own military capabilities to counter our unique advantages. Structural trends, such as the diffusion of certain advanced military technologies, pose new operational challenges to 

U.S. armed forces. As a result, the dominance of the United States 

military can no longer be taken for granted. Consequently, the Department of Defense must remain focused on the myriad potential 

threats of the future and thus maintain technological superiority 

against potential adversaries. 

The committee notes that since 1960, the department has invested more than $6.0 billion in directed energy science and technology initiatives. The committee is concerned that, despite this 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
45 

significant investment, the department’s directed energy initiatives 

are not resourced at levels necessary to transition them to fullscale acquisition programs. The committee is encouraged by the 

Navy’s demonstration a 100–150 kilowatt prototype laser and by 

the Air Force’s demonstration of high-powered electromagnetic 

weapons capabilities. However, the committee is concerned about 

the future of directed energy technologies as a whole. The committee notes that there is no inter-service entity dedicated to advancing promising directed energy platforms beyond the development point towards acquisition. 

The committee is encouraged that the department established a 

department-wide Defense Innovation Initiative in November 2014 

to pursue innovative ways to sustain and advance our military superiority and to improve business operations throughout the department. However, the committee is concerned by the possibility 

that this initiative is not being implemented in an appropriate and 

expeditious manner. 

In response to these factors, the committee recommends a provision that would establish an initiative within the Department of 

Defense to maintain and enhance the military technological superiority of the United States. The provision would establish a program 

to accelerate the fielding of offset technologies, including, but not 

limited to, directed energy, low-cost high-speed munitions, autonomous systems, undersea warfare, cyber technology, and intelligence 

data analytics, developed by the department and to accelerate the 

commercialization of such technologies. As part of this program, 

the committee expects that the Secretary of Defense would also establish updated policies and new acquisition and management 

practices that would speed the delivery of offset technologies into 

operational use. 

The provision would authorize $400.0 million for fiscal year 2016 

for the initiative, of which $200.0 million would be authorized specifically for directed energy technology. Accordingly, the provision 

would mandate the Secretary to develop a directed energy strategy 

to ensure that appropriate technologies are developed and deployed 

at an accelerated pace, and update it every 2 years. The committee 

expects that this strategy would include a recommendation on 

rationalizing the roles and authorities of the Joint Technology Office for High Energy Lasers. The provision would further direct the 

Secretary to submit this strategy to the Senate Armed Services 

Committee and the House Armed Services Committee no later than 

90 days after completing the strategy, and biennially thereafter. 

To speed up the development of these vitally needed national security capabilities, the committee directs that the Secretary of Defense shall consider all appropriate flexible acquisition authorities 

granted in law and in this Act. These should include the management structure and streamlined procedures for rapid prototyping 

outlined in section 803 of this Act on the middle tier of acquisition 

for rapid prototyping and rapid fielding, and the procedures and 

authorities to be considered under section 805 of this Act on use 

of alternative acquisition paths to acquire critical national security 

capabilities to include other transactions, rapid acquisition, and 

commercial item authorities. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
46 

The committee expects that the Secretary of Defense would keep 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services regularly updated on progress of activities under this technology offsets initiative. 

Reauthorization of Defense Research and Development 

Rapid Innovation Program (sec. 213) 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

established a Rapid Innovation Program to accelerate the fielding 

of innovative technologies, as authorized in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 

111–383). The committee further notes that the DOD has established a competitive, merit-based process to solicit proposals from 

interested contractors, review and select projects based on military 

needs and standardized evaluation criteria, and award contracts to 

execute program projects. The committee is encouraged that the 

military services and the congressional defense components participating in the program have practices and tools in place to manage 

and monitor the execution of projects. 

According to the Government Accountability Office, some completed projects have already successfully transitioned technology to 

acquisition programs and other military users through the Rapid 

Innovation Program. In addition, the DOD estimates that 50 percent of all fiscal year 2011 funding projects have out-year funding 

commitments from military users indicating the likelihood that 

they will transition technologies. The Government Accountability 

Office assessed projects scheduled to be completed through July 

2014 and found that 50 percent successfully transitioned to acquisition programs or other users. Although it is too soon to accurately 

assess the overall success of the Rapid Innovation Program, the 

committee is encouraged by the results achieved thus far. The committee notes that the Rapid Innovation Program has been highlighted as a part of the department’s Better Buying Power Acquisition Initiative. 

The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize 

the Rapid Innovation Program for an additional 5 years. At the 

same time, the committee recommends that the DOD takes steps 

to ensure that the selection of projects through the Program is not 

subject to improper influence outside of the established selection 

process. 

Reauthorization of Global Research Watch Program (sec. 

214) 

The committee notes that since its inception in 2003, the Global 

Research Watch Program has made significant progress toward its 

program goals, as outlined in the original authorizing legislation. 

The committee also notes that the current authorization in section 

2365 of title 10, United States Code, will expire on September 30, 

2015. 

Consequently, the committee recommends a provision that would 

reauthorize the program for an additional 10 years. The committee 

further recommends that the program be expanded to include private sector persons as part of its global focus. The definition of 

‘‘person’’ is in section 1 of title 1, United States Code, and it inVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
47 

cludes corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, 

societies, and joint stock companies. 

Science and technology activities to support business systems information technology acquisition programs (sec. 

215) 

The committee recommends a provision that would mandate the 

establishment of science and technology activities that would help 

reduce the technical risk and life cycle costs of major information 

technology acquisition programs. The committee notes that the 

Government Accountability Office and the Director of Operational 

Test and Evaluation have repeatedly reported to Congress failures 

in the acquisition of major information technology business systems 

programs. Among these are the Expeditionary Combat Support 

System and the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System, which spent billions of dollars and delivered no useful capability. 

The committee notes that current information technology programs, including those intended to support efforts at achieving 

audit ability, track pay and personnel records, and manage health 

care information, are also not performing in a manner that inspires 

confidence in the delivery of useful technologies within current cost 

and schedule estimates. 

The committee believes that failures of these acquisition programs are the result of myriad causes, one of which is the weakness of the Department of Defense’s acquisition workforce in developing and deploying these systems. The Department does not internally employ or have external access to expertise that can develop 

and technically manage these programs. The Department also does 

not maintain sufficient expertise to support the modification of antiquated business processes, thereby precluding department-wide 

organizational support by commercially-available modern information technology products and services. Furthermore, the Department does not have the testing infrastructure or workforce expertise to adequately ensure that systems will perform when deployed. 

The committee believes another cause of failure is the expensive 

and technically complex modification of commercially available software to support perceived departmental needs. The business systems covered in this provision support business functions that are 

similar to those found in the private sector, such as accounting, 

contract management, health records, and pay systems. The Department lacks the expertise to modify their antiquated and laborintensive business processes so that lower-cost, commercially-available solutions can be applied to support departmental operations. 

Instead, the Department employs contractors to customize commercial software programs with the expectation that they can support 

existing processes, thereby expending minimal effort or rigor to 

modify the processes themselves. 

Finally, the committee believes these programs are suffering 

from the same cybersecurity challenges that all private and public 

sector information technology programs are facing. Given the importance of these systems in supporting departmental operations 

and deployed forces, they can be inviting targets for cyberattack. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
48 

The committee’s recommended provision is based on the precepts 

built into the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 and 

in the strong tradition of developing technical expertise to improve 

acquisition outcomes of conventional weapons systems. The provision would require the Department to fund appropriate research, 

development, and capability-building activities to make it a ‘‘smarter buyer’’ of these programs. Activities under the program would 

include using industry, academic, and government expertise to: develop technologies and processes that manage the customization of 

commercial software in a cost-effective manner; control problems 

when attempting to scale commercial solutions to the scope of the 

defense enterprise; and secure the networks, computers, and information associated with these programs. The provision would also 

support the development of smaller-scale information technology 

prototypes with limited deployments that can then be scaled to full 

operational capability. 

The provision, if implemented, would also spur the Department 

to engage with industry and academia to address the business 

process and management issues that currently haunt these programs. The committee notes that there is significant business management expertise resident in academia and the private sector, yet 

it is rarely engaged to address management challenges facing department and costing taxpayers billions of dollars. 

The committee believes that successful implementation of this 

provision would help build the expertise and tools necessary to develop information technology business systems in the future. The 

committee also believes that these efforts, when applied to the 

management of business information technology systems, would 

improve cost, schedule, and performance outcomes. 

Expansion of eligibility for financial assistance under Department of Defense science, mathematics, and research 

for transformation program to include citizens of countries participating in the technical cooperation program 

(sec. 216) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2192a of title 10, United States Code, to expand the Department of Defense’s Science, Mathematics, and Research for Transformation (SMART) program, which awards service-based scholarships to students studying in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, to include students from the United 

Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The selection of 

these countries is based on those which are currently parties to the 

Technical Cooperation Program Memorandum of Understanding of 

October 24, 1995. 

Current authority for the program limits scholarship awards to 

only U.S. citizens. However, National Science Foundation data indicate that over 50 percent of engineering doctorates are granted 

to foreign graduate students, with the percentage growing annually. By removing this restriction, the Department can recruit foreign nationals from these four countries to participate in the program, with the goal of bringing on the best and brightest students 

to defense laboratories. The limited easing of this restriction would 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
49 

serve as a pilot project for assessing potential future expansion of 

this authority to other friendly countries. 

Streamlining the Joint Federated Assurance Center (sec. 

217) 

The committee recommends a provision that would streamline 

the structure of the Joint Federated Assurance Center (JFAC). 

Section 937 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) established JFAC to serve as a 

joint, department-wide federation of existing capabilities to ensure 

security in the software and hardware developed, acquired, maintained, and used by the Department of Defense. Section 937 directed the Center for Assured Software of the National Security 

Agency to coordinate research and development to improve software assurance and the Defense Microelectronics Activity to coordinate research and development to improve hardware assurance. 

These designations resulted in an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy 

in the JFAC structure and should be eliminated. 

Limitation on availability of funds for development of the 

Shallow Water Combat Submersible (sec. 218) 

The committee remains concerned about cost and schedule overruns associated with U.S. Special Operations Command’s (SOCOM) 

undersea mobility acquisition programs generally and, specifically, 

the Shallow Water Combat Submersible (SWCS) program. 

According to the Government Accountability Office, approxi- mately $677.5 million was expended to develop and procure the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) to fill SOCOM’s requirement for a dry combat submersible for special operations personnel, 

more than $600.0 million over original budget projections. The 

ASDS program suffered from ineffective contract oversight, technical challenges, and reliability and performance issues. Unfortunately, the SWCS program has experienced many of the same deficiencies as its predecessor. 

In June 2014, the SWCS program was re-baselined as a result 

of significant cost and schedule overruns. Less than a year after 

this re-baselining, the SWCS program is again 19 percent over 

budget and 21 percent behind schedule (as of January 2015). Overall, the committee understands the engineering and management 

development phase of the program is approximately 126 percent 

over budget and more than a year behind schedule. 

The committee has sought to encourage better acquisition oversight of the SWCS program through various legislative provisions 

and report language in past National Defense Authorization Acts. 

For example, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) directed the Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Special Operations and Low-intensity Conflict (ASD 

SOLIC) to provide a report to the congressional defense committees 

on cost and schedule overruns associated with the SWCS program 

and efforts to correct such deficiencies. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) also clarified that the SOCOM Acquisition Executive is subordinate to the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD AT&L) for acquisition matters and directed the USD 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
50 

AT&L and ASD SOLIC to improve oversight of SOCOM acquisition 

programs—particularly those special operations-peculiar platforms, 

like SWCS, that are at greatest risk of incurring delays and additional costs. Lastly, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) directed increased oversight of 

SOCOM undersea acquisition programs by the USD AT&L, but exempted the SWCS program from such requirements at the request 

of SOCOM due to perceived program stability and low technological 

risk at the time. 

Given the concerns outlined above, the committee recommends a 

provision that would prohibit the expenditure of more than 25 percent of the funds available for the SWCS program for fiscal year 

2016 until the USD (AT&L) designates a civilian official within his 

office responsible for providing oversight and assistance to SOCOM 

for all undersea mobility programs and, in coordination with the 

ASD SOLIC, provides the congressional defense committees a report on the SWCS program outlining: 

(1) An analysis of the reasons for cost and schedule overruns 

associated with the SWCS program; 

(2) The revised timeline for SWCS initial and full operational capability; 

(3) The projected cost to meet the basis of issue requirement; 

(4) A plan to prevent, identify, and mitigate any additional 

cost and schedule overruns; 

(5) Any opportunities to recover cost or schedule; 

(6) Any lessons learned from the SWCS program that could 

be applied to future undersea mobility acquisition programs; 

and 

(7) Any other matters the Under Secretary deems relevant. 

Limitation on availability of funds for distributed common 

ground system of the Army (sec. 219) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2016 for the 

Department of Defense by section 201 and available for research, 

development, test, and evaluation, Army, for the distributed common ground system of the Army (DCGS–A), not more than 75 percent may be obligated or expended until the Secretary of the Army 

reviews program planning and submits to congressional defense 

committees, the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, 

and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House 

of Representatives a report. The report is to address segmentation 

of software components; identification of commercial software capable of fulfilling DCGS–A system requirements; cost analysis; determination of commercial software compliance relative to guidance in 

Intelligence Community Technology Enterprise, the Defense Intelligence Information Enterprise, and the Joint Information Environment; identification of software which may be acquired through 

competitive means; an acquisition plan; and a review of the time 

table for the DCGS–A program. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
51 

Limitation on availability of funds for Distributed Common 

Ground System of the United States Special Operations 

Command (sec. 220) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

availability of research, development, test, and evaluation funds for 

the distributed common ground system of the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) until the Commander of SOCOM submits a report to the committee. 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Assessment of air-land mobile tactical communications and 

data network requirements and capabilities (sec. 231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) to 

contract with an independent entity to conduct a comprehensive assessment of current and future requirements and capabilities to determine the technological feasibility, achievability, suitability, and 

survivability of a tactical communications and data network. Subject to the submission of the independent entity’s report, the provision would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from obligating more 

that 50 percent of funds available in Other Procurement, Army 

(OPA) for the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN–T), 

Increment 2. 

WIN–T, in its current or previous forms, has been in development for over 10 years with numerous changes in requirements, 

technology, architecture, and acquisition strategy. Most recently, 

the committee has received notice from the Secretary of the Army 

of a Nunn-McCurdy significant breach for WIN–T. 

WIN–T is designed to ensure effective and efficient mission command both ‘‘at-the-halt’’ and while ‘‘on-the-move.’’ WIN–T’s currently fielded configuration, called ‘‘Increment 1’’, was assessed as 

providing suitable and effective enterprise tactical communications 

and data networking ‘‘at the halt’’ or while stationary or in fixed 

sites. Technology improvements planned for WIN–T’s next configuration, called ‘‘Increment 2’’, are intended to achieve communications and data networking for forces ‘‘on the move.’’ Increment 2, 

however, faces many challenges. 

Given these technical challenges, the committee is concerned 

about the feasibility of an effective and affordable mobile tactical 

communications and data network. The budget request included 

$783.1 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for WIN–T. The 

committee recommends a decrease of $200.0 million in OPA only 

for WIN–T, Increment 2. 

Study of field failures involving counterfeit electronic parts 

(sec. 232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to task the Joint Federated Assurance Center 

(JFAC) to conduct a hardware assurance study to assess the presence, scope, and effect on Department of Defense operations of 

counterfeit electronic parts that have passed through the Department of Defense supply chain and into fielded systems. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
52 

In recent years, the committee has expressed concern about 

counterfeit electronic parts in the Department of Defense supply 

chain. To address this threat, the committee established JFAC to 

support the trusted defense system needs of the Department of Defense. At the direction of the committee, both Department of Defense and the Comptroller General of the United States have reviewed and analyzed reports relating to counterfeit or suspect 

counterfeit electronic parts submitted to the Government Industry 

Data Exchange Program (GIDEP). While past reports based on 

GIDEP data have provided insight into counterfeit parts detected 

in the supply chain, they have not addressed those counterfeit 

parts that have made it through the supply chain and into fielded 

systems. 

Demonstration of persistent close air support capabilities 

(sec. 233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Army, and the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) 

to jointly conduct a demonstration of the Persistent Close Air Support (PCAS) capability in fiscal year 2016. The provision would require that the Air Force use in the demonstration at least two platforms with which the Air Force intends to employ future CAS missions. 

The demonstration would require operations featuring multiple 

tactical radio networks representing diverse ground force user communities; two-way digital exchanges of situational awareness data, 

video, and calls for fire between aircraft and ground users without 

modification to aircraft operational flight programs (OFP); realtime sharing of friendly forces, aircraft, and target location data to 

reduce fratricide risks; and lightweight digital tools, such as tablets 

and smart phones, based on commercial-off-the-shelf technology for 

pilots and joint terminal air controllers (JTACs). The provision 

would require operations in both simple and complex operating environments—the latter to stress the process of synchronization between pilots and JTACs. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of the Air Force, 

the Secretary of the Army, and the Director of DARPA to jointly 

assess the impact of the demonstrated capabilities on the time required to conduct CAS operations, on friendly force effectiveness in 

achieving tactical objectives, and on the risk of fratricide and collateral damage; and to estimate the costs that would be incurred 

in transitioning this technology to the Army and the Air Force. 

The committee notes that despite advances in networking, computer processing, and digital displays, close air support has not materially changed in the decades since the introduction of precisionguided munitions. In many cases, pilots and ground controllers still 

rely on voice communications and paper maps to try to achieve a 

common understanding to exactly identify and locate desired targets. In complex urban environments, this synchronization process 

can take up to an hour and still not adequately reduce the risk of 

fratricide or collateral damage. 

This situation has persisted because there are dozens of aircraft 

that perform close air support (CAS), even more numbers of difVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
53 

ferent types of sensors employed, and a large array of different radios, target designation methods, peripheral equipment, and displays. Additionally, OFPs to update software embedded in aircraft 

avionics systems are all on different and lengthy upgrade cycles. 

In response to this problem, the Joint Requirements Oversight 

Council, in 2009, in its Close Air Support Capabilities-Based Assessment, recommended that ‘‘Platforms should field flexible systems that utilize an improved architecture which migrates the 

processing of digital messages to a Commercial-off-the-Shelf 

(COTS) based processor and away from the [aircraft] operational 

flight programs.’’ 

DARPA has achieved some level of success in implementing that 

recommendation through its PCAS program, shrinking synchronization time by a factor of five in simple environments and a factor 

of 10 in more complex situations. DARPA achieved this with offthe-shelf commodity products and radios in lightweight and easily 

installable form factors, without affecting individual aircraft OFPs. 

The Marine Corps and U.S. Special Operations Command 

(SOCOM) are currently transitioning PCAS into fielded capabilities 

with over 5,000 and 2,000 users, respectively. The committee is 

persuaded that DARPA’s approach holds sufficient promise of rapid 

and affordable improvements in close air support—with the potential to save lives and win on the battlefield—to warrant serious 

consideration by the Army and the Air Force, the largest consumer 

and provider of close air support in the Department of Defense. 

Airborne data link plan (sec. 234) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to jointly 

develop a plan, in consultation with the Secretary of the Air Force 

and the Secretary of the Navy, to enable secure and survivable 

communications between and among fifth- and fourth-generation 

fighter aircraft, and the aircraft that support them, in anti-access/ 

area denial environments. The capabilities to be covered by the 

plan include gateways and direct data links for the reception and 

dissemination of intelligence from and to low-observable aircraft 

and fifth-generation fighters of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine 

Corps. 

The provision would require the plan to achieve these communication capabilities with minimal changes to the outer surfaces of 

the aircraft and to the operational flight programs of these aircraft. 

The provision would also require that the plan include non-proprietary and open systems approaches that are compatible with the 

Open Missions Systems initiative of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (AFRCO) and the Future Airborne Capability Environment of the Navy. 

Finally, the provision would prohibit the obligation and expenditure of funds on the Talon Hate and Multi-domain Adaptable Processing System interim or bridge solutions to these interoperability 

problems until the congressional defense committees are briefed on 

the plan. 

The committee is concerned by the Department’s failure to address a critical shortfall with regard to secure and survivable comVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
54 

munications among and between advanced and legacy platforms. 

There is widespread agreement that next-generation air dominance 

hinges on highly networked ‘‘systems of systems,’’ and yet the Department lacks an integrated plan to securely share national-level 

intelligence information with combat aircraft, or to receive data 

from the sophisticated sensors on board those aircraft. The Nation’s 

premier fifth-generation fighters, built by the same prime contractor, utilize unique proprietary data links that cannot securely 

communicate with one another, nor with fourth-generation fighters 

and other supporting aircraft. 

The Air Force is expending substantial funds on interim solutions in the form of pods or other gateway solutions on a small 

fraction of the F–15 fleet, but these are neither robust nor survivable. The Air Force sponsored a promising demonstration called 

Project Missouri, to link the F–22 and the F–35 via an L-band lowprobability of intercept data link using existing common apertures 

in conformance with the AFRCO Open Mission Systems initiative, 

but is no longer pursuing the effort. The Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD) mandated the use of the F–35 Multi-function Advanced Data Link (MADL) on the F–22 and B–2, but the Air Force 

has refused to comply due to cost and complexity barriers. OSD 

will not rescind its mandate, thus discouraging innovation and 

competition. 

Report on the technology readiness levels of the technologies and capabilities critical to the Long Range 

Strike Bomber aircraft (sec. 235) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress, not later than 

180 days after enactment of this Act, on the technology readiness 

levels of the technologies and capabilities critical to the Long 

Range Strike Bomber aircraft. The provision would also direct the 

Comptroller General of the United States to review the report and 

provide an assessment to the congressional defense committees of 

the matters contained in the report. 

Budget Items 

Army defense research sciences 

The budget request included $239.1 million in PE 61102A for defense research sciences. The committee notes that the budget request for Army basic research has been reduced across the board 

by almost 8 percent relative to the amount enacted in fiscal year 

2015. Such reductions would likely have a significant negative impact on the Department of Defense’s ability to advance technology 

development. 

The committee notes that basic research activities focused in 

technical areas of interest to Department missions lay the foundation upon which other technology development and new defense 

systems are built. These programs fund efforts at universities, 

small businesses, and government laboratories. These investments 

also serve to help train the next generation of scientists and engineers who may work on defense technology problems in government, industry, and academia. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
55 

To help address the significant reduction in basic research funding, the committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million in PE 

61102A. The committee directs that these funds be awarded 

through well-established and competitive processes that already 

exist for defense research sciences. 

High-performance computing modernization 

The budget request included $177.2 million in PE 63461A for the 

high-performance computing modernization program. The committee notes that the budget request in this program has been reduced by over $40.0 million relative to the amount enacted in fiscal 

year 2015. The committee believes, however, that greater efforts 

could be made to take advantage of commercially-available technology, which is often as sophisticated, if not more sophisticated, 

than technology developed by the Department of Defense. The committee believes that additional savings could be found by engaging 

more comprehensively with the private sector and the Department 

of Energy national labs. Therefore, the committee recommends a 

program decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63461A. 

Infantry support weapons 

The budget request included $74.1 million in PE 64601A for infantry support weapons of which $20.3 million would be for small 

arms improvement and $3.1 million would be for the common remotely operated weapons station (CROWS). The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 64601A of which $1.5 

million would be for small arms improvement and $1.0 million 

would be for CROWS. 

Integrated personnel and pay systems for Army and Air 

Force 

The budget request included $136.0 million in PE 65018A for Integrated Personnel and Pay System—Army (IPPS–A) and $69.7 

million in PE 65018F for AF Integrated Personnel and Pay System 

(AFIPPS). These two integrated personnel and pay systems are Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) business system intended to replace legacy human resource systems used by the Army and Air 

Force. 

The committee is concerned that the current life-cycle costs for 

IPPS–A and AFIPPS are now $2.0 billion and $1.8 billion respectively. 

The committee believes the Army and Air Force should each restructure their versions of integrated pay and personnel systems to 

achieve a low-risk, low-cost improvement to human resource challenges. Doing so would allow the Army and Air Force greater resources to address its combat readiness and modernization needs. 

The committee directs the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force, 

in coordination with the Deputy Chief Management Officer, to develop alternatives to the current integrated personnel and pay system strategy of ERP implementation. These alternative strategies 

should: 

(1) Reduce errors for pay and benefits for servicemembers, 

including reserve component servicemembers; 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
56 

(2) Provide accurate, timely, and reliable information about 

pay and benefits accessible by servicemembers and auditors (as 

appropriate); 

(3) Reduce costs for the Department in administering pay 

and benefits with a significant return on investment (ROI) of 

less than 2 years; 

(4) Provide accurate financial information with strong internal controls that is retrievable, traceable, and reproducible for 

financial statement audits; and 

(5) Leverage the existing investment and capabilities of the 

Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) for military 

and civilian pay. 

The committee notes that these strategies will not be limited to 

the implementation or improvement of a business system solution 

only but must also address the business processes of the Army and 

the Air Force for their respective human resource activity. 

As a result of this restructuring, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million for research and development of IPPS–A 

and a decrease of $45.4 million for AFIPPS. 

Further, the committee directs the Army and Air Force to provide an interim report on its restructure alternatives by March 30, 

2016 and a final report by September 30, 2016. 

Common infrared countermeasures 

The budget request included $77.6 million in PE 65035A for common infrared countermeasures (CIRCM). The committee recommends an increase of $24.0 million in PE 65035A for CIRCM. 

Additional funding for CIRCM system development was included 

on the Chief of Staff of the Army’s unfunded priorities list. 

Aircraft survivability development 

The budget request included $18.1 million in PE 65051A for aircraft survivability development. The committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million in PE 65051A for common missile warning 

system. Additional funding for common missile warning system development was included on the Chief of Staff of the Army’s unfunded priorities list. 

Joint Tactical Radio System 

The budget request included $13.0 million in PE 65380A for the 

Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) of which $6.8 million would be 

for the Small Airborne Link 16 Terminal (SALT) radio. The committee notes that the Army is installing an already available Link 

16 capability onto its attack helicopter fleet and may reevaluate 

whether SALT will be the objective capability for Army aviation. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $6.8 million in PE 

65380A only for the SALT radio. 

The committee directs that not later than 180 days after the 

dates of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall 

submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the 

Link 16 Terminals, which are currently being installed onto its attack helicopter fleet and the Army’s plan for communication and 

data interoperability with ground forces. The committee directs 

that not later than 60 days after the report of the Secretary, the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
57 

Comptroller General of the United States shall review the report 

and submit to the congressional defense committees an assessment 

of the matter contained in the report. 

Munitions Standardization, Effectiveness and Safety 

The budget request included $32.6 million in PE 65805A for munitions standardization, effectiveness, and safety. Due to 

unexecuted prior years’ funds, the committee recommends a decrease of $8.0 million in PE 65805A for munitions standardization. 

Stryker modification and improvement 

The budget request included $257.6 million in PE 23735A for the 

combat vehicle improvement program of which $105.8 million 

would be for Stryker improvement. 

The committee notes that Army deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan placed a strain on its combat vehicle fleets prompting a significant investment in the force protection and survivability of the 

Stryker family of wheeled combat vehicles in order to protect soldiers against rocket propelled grenades, anti-armor grenades, and 

improvised explosive devices (IED). In this regard, the committee 

commends the Army for the success of the double-V hull modification to the Stryker providing improved protection from under belly 

IED blasts. 

The committee understands that these high priority often operationally urgent vehicle modifications for force protection and survivability resulted in the deferral of lower priority investments for 

improved vehicle lethality. 

The committee has also learned that the Army has recently approved an operational needs statement requesting a significant 

lethality upgrade for some, but not all Stryker infantry carrier and 

reconnaissance vehicles. The committee is aware that the Army is 

considering the delivery of such a Stryker lethality upgrade, when 

identified and proven feasible and suitable, to its forward stationed 

Stryker brigade. 

The committee supports the Army’s efforts to improve Stryker 

lethality and recommends an increase of $40.0 million in PE 

23735A only for development and testing of Stryker lethality upgrades. 

Navy defense research sciences 

The budget request included $451.6 million in PE 61153N for defense research sciences. The committee notes that the budget request for Navy basic research has been reduced across the board 

by almost 10 percent relative to the amount enacted in fiscal year 

2015. Such reductions would likely have a significant negative impact on the department’s ability to advance technology development. 

The committee notes that basic research activities focused in 

technical areas of interest to Department of Defense missions lay 

the foundation upon which other technology development and new 

defense systems are built. These programs fund efforts at universities, small businesses, and government laboratories. These investments also serve to help train the next generation of scientists and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
58 

engineers who may work on defense technology problems in government, industry, and academia. 

To help address the significant reduction in basic research fund- ing, the committee recommends an increase of $55.0 million in PE 

61153N. The committee directs that these funds be awarded 

through well-established and competitive processes that already 

exist for defense research sciences. 

Undersea warfare applied research 

The budget request included $123.8 million in PE 62747N for research, development, test, and evaluation of undersea warfare applied research. The committee notes the promise of developing systems in the following areas: remote detection of ocean acoustic 

fields using light detection and ranging (LIDAR), upper ocean 

acoustic structure, high strain materials for sonar applications, 

surface decluttering, and novel anti-submarine warfare detection 

methods. As a result, the committee recommends an increase of 

$18.6 million to this program. 

Capable manpower, enablers, and sea basing 

The budget request included $258.9 million in PE 63673N for future naval capabilities advanced technology developments. The activities listed under this program element include capable manpower, enterprise and platform enablers, and sea basing. The committee believes that the work plans for fiscal year 2016 on these 

activities do not warrant the level of funding included in the budget request, and is concerned about the ability of the activities to absorb the requested funds. In addition, the committee notes that 

many of the technologies being developed under these programs are 

also in development by the private sector and savings could be extracted through increased external collaboration. Consequently, the 

committee recommends an aggregate decrease of $10.0 million in 

PE 63673N to be distributed appropriately from capable manpower, 

enterprise and platform enablers, and sea basing. 

Advanced submarine system development 

The budget request included $87.2 million in PE 63561N for research, development, test, and evaluation of advanced submarine 

system development. The committee notes the promise of the fleet 

modular autonomous unmanned vehicle (FMAUV) and submarine 

launched unmanned aerial system (UAS). The committee understands additional funding could be used to accelerate getting both 

capabilities to the fleet. As a result, the committee recommends an 

increase of $11.0 million to this program. 

USS Gerald R. Ford full ship shock trials 

The budget request included $48.1 million in PE 64112N for research, development, test, and evaluation of the USS Gerald R. 

Ford-class nuclear aircraft carrier. The committee notes the Department of Defense is reviewing the Navy decision to delay full 

ship shock trials from CVN–78 to CVN–79. The committee urges 

the Department of Defense to restore full ship shock trials to CVN– 

78. As a result, the committee recommends an increase of $79.1 

million to this program. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
59 

LX(R) 

The budget request included $46.5 million in PE 64454N for research, development, test, and evaluation of LX(R), which is expected to functionally replace LSD–41 and LSD–49 class ships. The 

committee notes accelerating the delivery of LX(R) class ships to 

the fleet will enable the Navy to meet a greater amount of combatant commander demand for amphibious warships. As a result, the 

committee recommends an increase of $29.0 million for this program. 

Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and 

Strike System 

The budget request included $134.7 million in PE 64501N for the 

Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike 

(UCLASS) system. The committee notes the directed pause in the 

program during the Department of Defense’s Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Strategic Portfolio Review, which 

will inform the Department’s fiscal year 2017 budget submission. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $134.7 million 

due to excess fiscal year 2015 funds that may be used to wholly offset fiscal year 2016 budget requirements. 

The committee looks forward to reviewing the results of the Department of Defense ISR Strategic Portfolio Review and also the report directed in section 217 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. 

‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2015. 

Submarine tactical warfare systems development 

The budget request included $48.2 million in PE 64562N for research, development, test, and evaluation of submarine tactical 

warfare systems development. The committee notes that additional 

funding would enable acceleration of the Fleet requested ‘‘Attack In 

a Minute’’ capability, support Torpedo Advanced Processor Build 

(APB) 5+ upgrade, and cybersecurity and information assurance capability improvements. As a result, the committee recommends an 

increase of $12.0 million to this program. 

F–35B/C engineering and manufacturing development 

The budget request included $537.9 million in PE 64800M for F– 

35B engineering and manufacturing development, and $504.7 million in PE 64800N for F–35C engineering and manufacturing development. The committee recommends a decrease of $12.5 million 

in each PE, $25.0 million total, due to funding early to need for 

Block 4 software development. 

Submarine acoustic warfare development 

The budget request included $3.9 million in PE 11226N for research, development, test, and evaluation of submarine acoustic 

warfare development. The committee notes the Compact Rapid Attack Weapon is a rapid development project to address emerging 

Fleet capability needs. Additional funding would provide the Navy 

with an advanced countermeasure for submarines. As a result, the 

committee recommends an increase of $0.8 million to this program. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
60 

Mk–48 ADCAP 

The budget request included $42.2 million in PE 25632N for research, development, test, and evaluation of Mk–48 ADCAP torpedo. The committee notes that additional funding would enable 

hardware and software upgrades to the weapon system and accelerate implementation, validation, and verification of advanced 

weapon performance models. As a result, the committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million to this program. 

Air Force defense research sciences 

The budget request included $329.7 million in PE 61102F for defense research sciences. The committee notes that the budget request for Air Force basic research has been reduced across the 

board by almost 12 percent relative to the amount enacted in fiscal 

year 2015. Such reductions would likely have a significant negative 

impact on the department’s ability to advance technology development. 

The committee notes that basic research activities focused in 

technical areas of interest to Department of Defense missions lay 

the foundation upon which other technology development and new 

defense systems are built. These programs fund efforts at universities, small businesses, and government laboratories. These investments also serve to help train the next generation of scientists and 

engineers who may work on defense technology problems in government, industry, and academia. 

To help address the significant reduction in basic research fund- ing, the committee recommends an increase of $45.0 million in PE 

61102F. The committee directs that these funds be awarded 

through well-established and competitive processes that already 

exist in defense research sciences. 

Nanostructured and biological materials 

The budget request included $125.2 million in PE 62102F for ma- terials, of which $8.7 million was requested for nanostructured and 

biological materials, and $16.5 million for sensing technologies. The 

committee believes that while such work is of scientific importance, 

these are areas in which significant savings could be gained 

through closer collaboration and interaction with the private sector 

and other government agencies. Particularly during a time of constrained budgets and vigilance for overlapping efforts, the committee believes that such work can be coordinated more fully to reduce costs. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of 

$10.0 million in PE 62102F for nanostructured and biological materials and for sensing technologies. 

Long range strike—bomber 

The budget request included $1.2 billion in PE 64015F for the 

Long Range Strike Bomber. The committee recommends a decrease 

of $460.0 million in PE 64015F due to availability of unobligated 

prior year funds. 

F–35A engineering and manufacturing development 

The budget request included $589.5 million in PE 64800F for F– 

35A engineering and manufacturing development. The committee 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
61 

recommends a decrease of $25.0 million in PE 64800F due to funding early to need for Block 4 software development. 

KC–46 aerial refueling tanker aircraft program 

The budget request included $602.4 million in PE 65221F for 

KC–46A tanker development and $2.4 billion in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for 12 KC–46A tanker aircraft. The KC– 

46 tanker aircraft is being developed and procured to replace the 

aging Department of the Air Force KC–135 aerial refueling tanker 

fleets. 

The committee continues its long-standing support of the KC– 

46A tanker aircraft program, and believes that the KC–46A tanker 

aircraft is necessary to meet current and future warfighter requirements for aerial refueling and airlift. However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified $200.0 million of funds authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2015 for KC–46A development 

that are excess to need because engineering change orders planned 

for fiscal year 2015 have not occurred, and these funds could be 

used to meet fiscal year 2016 requirements. The GAO has also 

identified $24.0 million of fiscal year 2015 KC–46A procurement 

funds that are excess to need for a similar reason. Department of 

the Air Force KC–46A program officials agree with the GAO determination. 

The committee understands that the reduction of funds in fiscal 

year 2016 will not impact the program delivery schedule of the 

KC–46A tanker aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $200.0 million in PE 65221F and $24.0 million in APAF due to availability 

of unobligated prior year funds. 

F–15 capability upgrades 

The budget request included $186.5 million in PE 27171F for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force. The committee recommends an increase of $28.0 million for nonrecurring 

engineering in support of Advanced Display/Core Processor II 

(ADCP II) upgrades, and an increase of $1.5 million for flight test 

support. The total recommended increase in PE 27171F is $29.5 

million. 

Budget request realignment 

At the Air Force’s request, the committee recommends the realignment in the following table to correct an error in the budget 

request for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force 

(RDTEAF), and Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF). 

AIR FORCE REQUESTED REALIGNMENT 

(In millions) 

Item Account Line Item Amount 

NATO AGS ................................................................................... RDTEAF 216 ¥$59.1 

NATO AWAC ................................................................................ SAPAF 79 +$59.1 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
62 

Logistics information technology 

The budget request included $112.3 million in PE 78610F for Logistics Information Technology to develop a software system as a 

follow-on to the Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS). 

The committee recommends a decrease of $31.0 million to this program. The committee notes that the significant growth in this program has not been justified given that the program schedule has 

been delayed and that the Department has requested funding be 

transferred out of this program in a recent reprogramming action. 

The committee also notes that the independent assessment of the 

program required by the Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Senate Report 113–176, has not yet 

been delivered to the Congress. 

Applied research for the advancement of science and technology priorities 

The budget request included $48.2 million in PE 62251D8Z for 

applied research for the advancement of science and technology priorities. The committee appreciates the need for this program and 

the importance of creating communities of interest to identify gaps 

in collaborative funding. However, the committee notes that only 

24 percent of the enacted funds for fiscal year 2014 have thus far 

been expended, and none of the enacted funds for fiscal year 2015, 

calling into question the efficiency of the activities under this program. Accordingly, the committee is concerned that the program 

will be unable to incorporate the large increase in funds requested 

for fiscal year 2016. Consequently, the committee recommends a 

general program decrease of $15.0 million for PE 62251D8Z. Furthermore, the committee recommends that the Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Research and Engineering continue to focus on existing activities to demonstrate the effectiveness of this program. 

Multi-azimuth defense fast intercept round engagement system 

The budget request included $314.6 million in PE 62702E for tac- tical technology, of which $17.7 million was requested for the 

multi-azimuth defense fast intercept round engagement system. 

The committee notes that this request for the engagement system 

represents an almost 50 percent increase in funding above the 

amount enacted in fiscal year 2015, and is concerned about the 

ability of this activity to grow at such a fast rate. In addition, the 

committee is concerned about transition potential for this technology, particularly two years into the program. Accordingly, the 

committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million in PE 62702E for 

multi-azimuth defense fast intercept round engagement system. 

Materials and biological technology 

The budget request included $220.1 million in PE 62715E for 

materials and biological technology. The committee notes that this 

request represents an almost 50 percent increase in funding relative to the amount enacted in fiscal year 2015, and includes several programs which do not show much promise for transition. 

While the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is well-positioned to focus on these activities and drive technological developVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
63 

ments, the committee is concerned about the Agency’s ability to use 

fully such a large increase in funds within 1 year, and about transition opportunities. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in PE 62715E to decrease program growth. 

Science and technology analytic assessments 

The budget request included $14.6 million in PE 63288D8Z for 

science and technology analytic assessments. The committee supported the establishment of this program in fiscal year 2015, believing that the need to develop innovative capabilities to counter 

emerging threats should be a top priority for the Department of 

Defense. At the same time, the committee believes it is too early 

to make an assessment on the impact and success of the activities 

in this program, and that providing an increase in funds is thus 

premature. The committee is particularly concerned about the slow 

progress in the area of anti-access/area denial environments. Consequently, the committee recommends a general decrease of $5.0 

million in PE 63288D8Z. The committee expects the Department to 

focus on demonstrating the utility and effectiveness of this program. 

Joint capability technology demonstration 

The budget request included $141.5 million in PE 63648D8Z for 

joint capability technology demonstration. The committee notes 

that the request represents an increase of over $20.0 million relative to the amount enacted in fiscal year 2015, and also notes that 

the program is supporting several activities that appear to have 

limited potential for transitioning into service programs of records. 

As a result, the committee recommends a general decrease of $10.0 

million in PE 63648D8Z. The committee further recommends that 

the Department use this program to emphasize and prioritize prototypes that have greater potential for transition. 

Network-centric warfare technology 

The budget request included $452.9 million in PE 63766E for 

network-centric warfare technology. The committee is encouraged 

by the focus that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

is placing on advanced technology development, the umbrella budget activity for this program element. Addressing high-payoff opportunities to develop and rapidly mature advanced technologies, as 

well as transition them to appropriate services or the private sector, is of prime importance in developing and maintaining the technological advantage of the United States. 

At the same time, the committee is concerned that the Agency 

appears to be developing this technology independently. Given the 

vast expertise on network-centric technology in the United States 

and abroad, the committee would expect that development of network-centric technologies would take advantage of the significant 

commercial technologies that may already be available. The committee is further concerned that efforts to work with traditional defense industry contractors to develop system of systems architecture are not likely to transfer successfully to the military services. 

The committee believes that costs in this program can be reduced 

through more aggressive interaction and engagement with the priVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
64 

vate sector. Consequently, the committee recommends a general decrease of $20.0 million in PE 63766E. 

Quick Reaction Special Projects 

The budget request included $90.5 million in PE 63826D8Z for 

Quick Reaction Special Projects (QRSP). The committee notes that 

QRSP is intended to invest in technology opportunities that might 

arise during the execution of the fiscal year 2016 budget. The committee further notes that this program has not fully executed its 

appropriated funds for fiscal year 2014 or 2015 to date, and that 

many other programs in the Department of Defense are similarly 

intended to accelerate research program advances into deployable 

systems. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of 

$20.0 million for this program. The committee recommends the Department fully fund research efforts to assure the trust of hardware and software systems used in defense systems, which are supported within this program. 

Advanced sensor application program 

The budget request included $18.3 billion for Research, Develop- ment, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, of which $15.9 million 

was for PE 0603714D8Z for the Advanced Sensor Application Program (ASAP). 

This represents a reduction from the level funded in fiscal year 2015 of $19.5 million. 

The committee believes that this reduction will cause the program to postpone important testing and experiments. The committee additionally believes that these efforts are too important to 

postpone or cancel. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for PE 0603714D8Z for the Advanced Sensor Application Program (ASAP). 

Corrosion control and prevention funding increase 

The budget request included $6.8 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for Advanced Component Development & Prototypes, of which $1.5 million was for the PE 

604016D8Z Department of Defense Corrosion Program. 

The committee continues to be concerned that the Department 

has consistently underfunded the DOD Corrosion Program since 

fiscal year 2011. The Department estimates that the negative effects of corrosion cost approximately $20.8 billion annually to prevent and mitigate corrosion of its assets, including military equipment, weapons, facilities, and other infrastructure. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in RDT&E, PE 604016D8Z, for the Department of Defense 

Corrosion Program. 

Global Combat Support System—Joint 

The budget request included $15.2 million in PE 65018A for the 

Global Combat Support System—Joint (GCSS–J). The committee 

believes this funding should be realigned to support high priority 

readiness requirements. According, the committee recommends a 

decrease of $10.0 million to this program. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
65 

Systems engineering 

The budget request included $37.7 million in PE 65142D8Z for 

Systems Engineering. In the interest of increasing efficiencies within the Department of Defense, the committee elsewhere in this Act 

is recommending the repeal of several reporting requirements regarding systems engineering. In addition, the committee believes 

that further efficiencies can be found within these activities. Taken 

together, the committee recommends a general decrease of $5.0 

million in PE 65142D8Z. 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

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

mission kits for the MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). U.S. 

Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is responsible for the rapid 

development and acquisition of special operations capabilities to, 

among other things, effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks while avoiding collateral damage. 

The committee understands that the budget request only partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its fleet 

of MQ–9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in RDTEDW for the MQ–9 UAV. 

The committee strongly supports SOCOM’s efforts to accelerate 

fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging technologies 

on its fleet of MQ–9 UAVs. The committee has authorized additional funds above the budget request in each of the last 3 years 

to enhance these efforts and understands that SOCOM has successfully developed and acquired a number of new capabilities, including improved weapon effectiveness, target location and tracking, 

image resolution, and video transmission during that time. 

C–130 terrain following/terrain avoidance radar 

The budget request included $35.5 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), to field terrain following/terrain avoidance (TF/ 

TA) radar with associated controls and displays to fulfill special operations-peculiar requirements for MC–130J aircraft. During the 

development phase of the existing program of record, U.S. Special 

Operations Command (SOCOM) identified significant concerns with 

the TF/TA radar performance and ability meet defined user requirements. After conducting a comprehensive programmatic assessment, SOCOM recently decided to revise its acquisition strategy and adapt an alternative TF/TA capability to meet operational 

needs. Therefore, at the request of SOCOM, the committee recommends a transfer of $15.2 million to Research, Development, 

Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (PE 1160403BB) for the development of a TF/TA radar for its MC–130J fleet. The remaining 

funds requested for TF/TA radar procurement have been identified 

by SOCOM as excess to requirements and, elsewhere in this bill, 

the committee recommends re-purposing such funds for high priority airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
66 

Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance Payload Technology Improvements Program 

The budget request included $1.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), for the development, integration, and testing of special operations-unique intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) sensor technologies on tactical unmanned aerial vehicles. U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is responsible for the rapid development and acquisition of special operations capabilities to, among 

other things, effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks while avoiding collateral damage. 

The committee understands that the budget request only partially addresses ISR sensor technology gaps identified by SOCOM 

on its fleet of tactical UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends 

an additional $2.0 million in RDTEDW for the ISR Payload Technology Improvements Program. 

Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration and prototyping 

The budget request included no funding in PE 64402N for research, development, test, and evaluation of unmanned combat air 

vehicle advanced concept/prototype development. The committee 

notes the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration 

(UCAS–D) successfully demonstrated the first unmanned aircraft 

operation in conjunction with manned aircraft aboard an aircraft 

carrier in 2014 and the first unmanned aerial refueling in 2015. 

The committee believes the two UCAS–D aircraft, Salty Dog 501 

and Salty Dog 502, should continue development and risk reduction 

that will benefit the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Strike and Surveillance (UCLASS) program, including: carrier launch and recovery operations, carrier airspace operations, carrier flight deck handling, automated aerial refueling, and UCLASS mission architecture and common control station integration. As a result, the committee recommends an increase of $350.0 million to the Defensewide Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation account and directs the Secretary of Defense to accomplish this testing in fiscal 

year 2016 to the fullest extent possible. In addition, any contractual arrangements executed with this funding shall ensure that the 

Department has sufficient technical data rights to support competitive prototyping follow-on development efforts. 

Moreover, using the lessons learned from the UCAS–D program, 

including the fiscal year 2016 extension, the Department of Defense shall conduct such a competitive prototyping of at least two 

follow-on air systems that move the Department toward a UCLASS 

program capable of long-range strike in a contested environment. 

As a result, the committee recommends an increase of $375.0 million to the Defense-wide Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, account and directs the Secretary of Defense accomplish this 

competitive prototyping in fiscal year 2017 to the fullest extent possible. 

To speed up the development of this vitally needed national security capability, the committee directs that the Secretary of Defense 

shall consider all appropriate flexible acquisition authorities granted in law and in this Act. These should include the management 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
67 

structure and streamlined procedures for rapid prototyping outlined in section 803 of this Act on the middle tier of acquisition for 

rapid prototyping and rapid fielding, and the procedures and authorities to be considered under section 805 of this Act on use of 

alternative acquisition paths to acquire critical national security 

capabilities. In addition, any contractual arrangements executed 

with this funding shall ensure that the Department has sufficient 

technical data rights to support a subsequent level of competitive 

prototyping follow-on development or future multiple sourced production efforts. 

Overall, the committee recommends an increase of $725.0 million 

to this program. 

Items of Special Interest 

Advancement in radar technologies 

The committee notes that substantial advances have been made 

in the field of radar technologies, allowing for the design of multifunction phased array radars that will be able to track both weather patterns and aircraft simultaneously. The committee considers 

the development of these new radars a critical enabler for the Department of Defense. The committee supports the ongoing efforts 

by the Air Force and expects to be kept updated on current radar 

research and capabilities. This includes efforts by the Air Force Research Laboratories to create radar technologies for multi-mission 

capability. 

Advancements in Antenna Research and Capabilities 

The committee notes that, over the past several years, there have 

been substantive advances in antenna research to include conformal phased array, which have resulted in dramatic leaps forward in the aerodynamic capability of aircraft and the potential for 

reducing the size and weight of both manned and unmanned aircraft. The committee also notes that these antenna advances can 

provide higher performance for communications and electronic warfare missions. The committee believes these capabilities are critical 

to future air operations in congested, contested, and aerial denial 

environments. 

The committee expects the Air Force to keep the committee updated on current antenna research and capabilities to include advance antenna technologies on manned and unmanned aircraft. Accordingly, the committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to incorporate advancements developed through this research into 

legacy and future aircraft, and expects the Secretary to keep the 

committee updated on these efforts. 

Air Force seismic activity research 

The committee notes with concern the continuing threat of nuclear proliferation. The committee also notes and authorizes the Air 

Force’s request for $7.5 million for the Air Force Research Laboratory’s seismic technologies program. The committee supports the 

the laboratory’s efforts to develop seismic technology to improve the 

capability of the United States to monitor nuclear tests. The comVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
68 

mittee expects the Air Force to continue to keep the committee updated on the efforts of the seismic technologies program. 

Conditions and Capabilities of the Undersea Warfare Test 

Capabilities 

The committee is concerned about the state of readiness and 

modernization of test ranges that support undersea warfare missions. The committee notes that in September of 2012, the Commander of the Submarine Force for the U.S. Pacific Fleet noted 

that capabilities at one range had deteriorated, stating, ‘‘Materiel 

conditions at Pacific Missile Range Facility Barking Sands Tactical 

Underwater Range have been deteriorating over several years and 

risk loss of a critical capability here in the Pacific.’’ The committee 

notes that the Navy is attempting to refurbish these facilities as 

resources permit, but is concerned that test capabilities in this critical mission area are still not on a path to meet Navy requirements 

in the future. 

The committee expects the Secretary of the Navy, in conjunction 

with the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics, to keep the committee updated on the current condition of the undersea warfare test range capabilities. Updates 

should include data and analyses on the current use and future 

needs for underwater test range capabilities, and plans for updating and maintaining range equipment and capabilities. 

Cost estimate for a land-based electromagnetic railgun program 

The committee is aware that the efforts within the Navy to develop an electromagnetic railgun have been successful in demonstrating early capabilities for naval applications. Further, the 

committee recognizes that the Navy’s initial success has spawned 

investments within the Strategic Capabilities Office of the Office of 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to pursue development of a land-based electromagnetic 

railgun to support missile defense. 

Recognizing that such investments are still in the demonstration 

phase, the committee believes it is important to do as much as possible to plan concurrently for how to proceed with railgun technology to improve the possibility of transition into a program of 

record. Therefore, the committee directs the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) to conduct a cost estimate for a land-based electromagnetic railgun program, and provide the results to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the 

House Armed Services Committee by January 1, 2016. As part of 

the cost estimate briefing, CAPE should examine the potential 

costs for the projected life cycle of the railgun system, as well as 

comparison of those costs against current systems and other systems supporting missile defense missions projected to be fielded in 

the next 10 years. 

Database on Department of Defense research grants 

The committee recognizes the value of transparency and the ability of publicly available information to drive effective and accountable government. Further, the committee believes that increased 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
69 

transparency regarding the Department of Defense’s external 

grants will improve the coordination of efforts department-wide. 

Consistent with the Administration’s Open Government Initiative, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to establish a publicly-available, searchable database of the Department’s active 

grants. The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that currently active grants remain in the database after the 

completion of the grant, and that all future grants are added. The 

database shall be searchable by a variety of codes, such as type of 

research grant, the research entity managing the grant, the Department of Defense program, and the area of interest. The committee notes that the National Science Foundation has already established an award search database (the ‘‘NSF Funding Opportunities search page’’), and directs the Department to use that database 

as a model for its own, including maintaining accurate data in the 

same categories of information, at a minimum. The committee expects that this database would only be used to aggregate information on grants whose publication would not violate any procedures 

for handling sensitive information. 

Entrepreneurial sabbatical for Department of Defense laboratory scientists 

The Committee directs the Department of Defense to expand an 

authorized program for government scientists, specifically scientists 

at defense laboratories, to take an ‘‘entrepreneurial sabbatical’’ to 

work for a private sector firm. The committee notes that the department’s Developmental Opportunities Program (DOP) currently 

allows scientists to pursue further education by attending business 

school or a war college, for example, but does not explicitly allow 

for pursuing opportunities in the private sector. The committee also 

notes that the Air Force Research Laboratory is implementing 

guidance for its entrepreneurial leave program, which may be a 

good model for an expanded program across the defense research 

enterprise. 

The committee notes that the guidance by the Air Force Research Laboratory explicitly defines an approval process for entrepreneurial sabbatical at the directorate level, and establishes a 

multi-phase program for a sabbatical of between six months and 

two years. The committee notes that the Air Force guidance allows 

for a scientist to be paid by the directorate for up to one year, with 

further funding provided at the discretion of the directorate. The 

committee expects that in carrying out this mandate, all conflictof-interest and other administrative issues would be addressed by 

the defense laboratories in a manner consistent with department 

guidelines. 

In mandating this expansion, the committee notes the success of 

entrepreneurial leave programs established by the Department of 

Energy. For example, 145 employees have taken advantage of the 

Department of Energy’s Sandia National Lab Entrepreneurial Separation to Technology Transfer program since its enactment in 

1994. The committee is encouraged that forty percent of these participants have started new businesses, and sixty percent have expanded existing businesses. Overall, the scientists in the program 

created 49 new companies and positively impacted 99 others. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
70 

The committee notes that the benefits from an entrepreneurial 

sabbatical program to the country, the Department of Defense, and 

defense research laboratories could be significant, and could energize technology transfer from within the department to the regional 

and national economy and ultimately to the warfighter. This committee believes this would increase the department’s ability to competitively recruit top talent, and both create and grow high-tech 

startups and small businesses. The committee also believes that 

the resulting direct interaction between Department of Defense scientists and the private sector would increase the amount of valuable technologies that are placed into operational systems, thereby 

benefiting both national security and economic prosperity. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report on the 

department’s progress and success in implementing an entrepreneurial sabbatical program, including levels of employee participation, and contributions of Department of Defense technologies to 

the formation or growth of private sector companies. The committee further directs that this report be submitted to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services no later than 1 year after the enactment of this Act, and 

annually thereafter. 

Expedited approval for attendance at conferences in support of science and innovation activities of Department 

of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration 

The committee directs the Secretaries of Defense and Energy to 

establish respective expedited approval processes for scientists and 

engineers to attend science and technology conferences. The committee notes with concern that since the two departments implemented updated conference policies, in response to requirements 

from the Office of Management and Budget, attendance at such 

conferences by department personnel has reduced dramatically. According to a report from the Government Accountability Office in 

March 2015, conference attendance from the Army Research Laboratory declined from about 1300 attendees in 2011 to about 100 

attendees in 2013. A similar drop in attendance was reported from 

Sandia National Laboratories. The report highlights that such a 

drop in attendance risks a decline in the quality of scientific research, difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified scientists 

and engineers, and a diminished leadership role for the two departments within the global science and technology community. The report also notes that the new departmental policies are not meeting 

the needs of personnel requesting approval to travel to conferences. 

Given the importance of conference attendance for an active exchange of scientific information and for recruiting and retaining 

high-quality technical talent, the committee is concerned that the 

conference attendance approval policies are undermining the 

science and technology missions of both departments and undermining the ability of personnel to engage in cutting-edge research, 

development, testing, and evaluation. The committee believes that 

technical conference participation is especially important to keep 

program managers aware of new trends in technology, so that they 

may make better informed decisions on behalf of taxpayers. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
71 

To maintain global technology awareness and to support retention of technical staff, the committee believes that the Departments 

should strive to follow the best practices of innovative private and 

academic institutions in developing management and oversight 

practices for conference participation. The committee is concerned 

that in specific technical fields of interest to defense, such as 

hypersonics and cybersecurity, the lack of participation in conferences is ceding U.S. leadership to competitor nations. 

In response to these findings and concerns, the committee directs 

the Secretaries of Defense and Energy to establish processes within 

the Department of Defense and National Nuclear Security Administration, respectively, whereby requests for scientific conference attendance are adjudicated within 1 month, and approvals are granted as appropriate within 1 month. Further, the committee directs 

the Secretaries of Defense and Energy to ensure that any decisions 

to disapprove conference attendance through these processes are 

made if and only if the appropriate officials determine that the disapproval would have a net positive impact on research and development and on program management quality, and not simply default 

disapprovals necessitated by a bureaucratic inability to make a 

timely decision. In addition, the committee directs that these approval processes be implemented no later than 90 days after the 

enactment of this act. 

The committee recommends that, as part of these new approval 

processes, laboratory and test center directors be given the authority to approve conference attendance, provided that the attendance 

would meet the mission of the laboratory or test center and that 

sufficient laboratory or test center funds are available. 

The committee directs the Secretaries of Defense and Energy 

each to report to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the 

House Armed Services Committee with an assessment of the expedited process and its benefits and drawbacks, along with a recommendation on continuing their use. The committee further directs that this report be submitted no later than 1 year after the 

establishment of the approval process. 

High Power Microwave Counter-electronics Capabilities 

The committee notes the development of promising new highpowered microwave technologies that can be used to disable and 

destroy the electronics of threat systems. The committee notes that 

the Air Force is currently investing in a research program to develop a counter-electronics, high-power microwave advanced missile, following from a successful joint capabilities technology demonstration in October 2012. The committee supports efforts to develop an operational prototype of a high-power microwave weapons 

system, and expects the Air Force to keep the committee updated 

on progress towards this goal. 

Improved turbine engine program 

The budget request included $51.2 million in PE 67139A for the 

improved turbine engine program (ITEP). The committee supports 

the Army and its plans to competitively develop, test, qualify, and 

integrate a next generation turboshaft engine for the Blackhawk 

and Apache combat helicopters. The committee notes that funding 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
72 

continues to support at least two engine developers over the next 

few years and through completion of the technology-development 

phase. The committee further notes recent public statements by 

Army civilian and military leadership expressing their commitment 

to reduce risk, achieve appropriate technology maturity, and set 

the conditions for ultimate program success. The committee recommends full funding as requested for ITEP and encourages the 

Army to maintain stability and therefore momentum in the program as resources and technical progress allow. 

Improvised Explosive Device Detection Systems 

The committee understands that improved stand-off 

hyperspectral imaging (HSI) technologies may offer improved detection of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and the explosive 

constituent chemicals and other materials used in the manufacture 

of IEDs, such as nitrates, nitrites, phosphates, and ammonia. 

The committee notes that the goal of these efforts is to develop 

technologies that provide the fastest possible detection, with the 

longest ranges and sensitivities, as well as lowest false alarm rate. 

To achieve this goal, the committee notes the importance of spectral imaging technologies and real time detection hardware and 

software. 

The committee expects the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to keep the committee updated on 

current HSI technologies employed by the Department of Defense 

to counter IEDs, including HSI technologies that are commerciallyavailable, and DOD’s plan for ensuring DOD is employing the best 

technologies available. 

Market survey of active protection systems 

The committee notes that technologies related to active protection systems for armored combat and tactical vehicles may have 

matured since the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation conducted live fire demonstrations at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland in 2010. Accordingly, the committee directs that the Director, 

Operational Test and Evaluation, supported by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and in 

consultation with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, conduct a comprehensive market 

survey to assess, to the extent practical, the current state of the art 

with respect to active protection systems for armored and tactical 

vehicles. The survey should include those U.S. and international 

active protection systems that are fielded, in development with prototypes having completed or undergoing operational tests, or otherwise demonstrating or showing evidence of technology readiness 

levels that the Director deems relevant or appropriate. The Director shall report the findings of this market survey to the congressional defense committees not later than May 1, 2016. The Director’s report shall include an assessment and recommendation as to 

whether or not there has been sufficient technological progress in 

active protection systems since and related to the live fire demonstration in 2010 to justify another live fire demonstration in the 

near future. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
73 

Medical evaluation of Anthropomorphic data on vehicle 

blast testing 

The committee remains concerned with serious injuries and 

deaths that often result from improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and the subsequent vehicle flight and rollover events. The 

committee supports the Army’s future ground vehicle development 

and testing initiatives designed to mitigate these often fatal injuries. As the Army continues evaluating emerging technologies, the 

committee recommends that medical research using 

anthropomorphic testing be included in ongoing Cooperative Research and Development Agreement testing between the commercial sector and the Army on new sensors and active protective technologies. 

National Defense Education Program 

The budget request included $49.5 million in PE 61120D8Z for the National Defense Education Program, of which $3.0 million for 

the P–12 military child STEM educational pilot program consistent 

with section 233 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public 

Law 113–291) and the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2015. The committee notes that this program supports competitive 

awards to programs that improve the effectiveness of educational 

activities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics focused primarily on military children. The committee further notes 

that military children face additional challenges relative to their 

peers due to frequent relocations, the stress of parental deployments, and sometimes underperforming schools in the vicinity of 

military installations. The committee continues to believe that the 

Department of Defense has a distinct obligation for the education 

of military children. Moreover, the committee recognizes the importance of STEM education and its contribution to the technical 

workforce on which the defense industrial base, in particular, depends. As such, the committee believes the Department has a 

unique interest in fostering a robust pipeline of qualified individuals and its promotion of STEM education programs will provide 

both short and long term advantages to military children and the 

nation. 

Training Range Upgrades 

Training operational forces is one of the most important missions 

for which the military services are directly responsible. The committee also notes that the military services have traditionally allocated limited resources to research and development initiatives, including modeling and simulation, or to modernizing training range 

capabilities to support this mission area. The committee believes 

that modernization of training capabilities will both increase operational effectiveness of military forces and potentially reduce costs 

by displacing legacy training techniques and systems with more advanced approaches enabled by new technology. 

The committee believes that the Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program, administered by the Director of the Department 

of Defense Test Resource Management Center, has proven to be an 

effective approach to prioritize and fund the development and deVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
74 

ployment of advanced test capabilities at the test ranges. Similarly, 

the Test and Evaluation Science and Technology program has provided funds to support next generation test capabilities. The committee believes that these approaches may also benefit the modernization of training range capabilities. 

The committee directs the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to develop jointly a strategic plan 

to assess and modernize overall training costs, with the goal of improving overall training range and training systems effectiveness 

and efficiency. The plan should also address policy options that 

can: enable enhanced leveraging of science and technology programs, including those of the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency and the services; increase access to experts and new technologies from industry and academia, including through the use of 

Small Business Innovation Research programs and technology 

prizes; and revise management, resourcing, range charge practices, 

personnel practices, and acquisition practices. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(75) 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301) 

This provision would authorize the appropriations for operation 

and maintenance activities at the levels identified in section 4301 

of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Energy and the Environment 

Modification of energy management reporting requirements 

(sec. 311) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2925(a) of title 10, United States Code, by striking a subsection listing renewable energy credits (RECs) and clarifying and 

strengthening the reporting requirements on commercial and noncommercial utility outages. The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) no longer purchases RECs. The provision 

would also clarify electricity outage reporting requirements to include non-commercial utility outages and DOD-owned infrastructure. 

Report on efforts to reduce high energy costs at military installations (sec. 312) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with the assistant secretaries responsible for 

energy installations and environment for the military services and 

the Defense Logistics Agency, to conduct an assessment of the efforts to achieve cost savings at military installations with high energy costs. 

Southern Sea Otter military readiness areas (sec. 313) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to establish areas, to be known as the Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas, for national defense purposes. The areas are defined by coordinate boundaries in the provision. Sections 4 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1533, 1538) and sections 101 and 102 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371, 1372) would not apply 

with respect to the incidental takings of any southern sea otter in 

the Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas in the course of 

conducting a military readiness activity. For purposes of military 

readiness activities, the otters within the readiness areas would be 

treated, for purposes of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536), as a member of a species that is proposed 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
76 

to be listed as an endangered species or threatened species under 

section 4 of that Act. 

The Secretary of the Interior would be able to revise or terminate 

the exceptions to the Endangered Species Act and the marine 

Mammal Protection Act if the Secretary were to determine, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy and the Marine Mammal 

Commission, that the military activities occurring in the readiness 

areas were impeding southern sea otter conservation or the return 

of the sea otters to optimum sustainable population levels. 

The provision would also repeal section 1 of Public Law 99–625 

(16 U.S.C. 1536 note). 

Subtitle C—Logistics and Sustainment 

Repeal of limitation on authority to enter into a contract for 

the sustainment, maintenance, repair, or overhaul of the 

F117 engine (sec. 321) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal Section 341 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113– 

291; 128 Stat. 3345). 

Subtitle D—Reports 

Modification of annual report on prepositioned materiel and 

equipment (sec. 331) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2229a(a) of title 10, United States Code, to update the list of 

named contingency operations slated for retrograde and subsequent 

inclusion in the prepositioned stocks. 

Subtitle E—Limitations and Extensions of Authority 

Modification of requirements for transferring aircraft within the Air Force inventory (sec. 341) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 345 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111—383) to ease administrative burdens and facilitate non-contentious transfers of aircraft from the 

Air Reserve Components (ARC) to the regular component of the Air 

Force (RegAF). 

The provision would remove uncontentious, routine transfers, 

and short-term transfers from Section 345 reporting requirements. 

The provision also would exempt transfers that terminate the reserve component’s interest in the aircraft (due to aircraft retirement or mission transfer) when that transfer has been the subject 

of prior notification to the defense committees. 

Additionally, the provision would direct administrative changes, 

such as requiring a signature from the Chief of the Air Force Reserve (a staff position) rather than the Commander, Air Force Reserve Command (a command position) and removing references to 

‘‘ownership’’ of the aircraft. Because title vests in the United States 

government, aircraft ownership does not transfer; the components 

are merely assigned possessory rights. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
77 

The provision would clarify that when a written agreement is required, only leaders of the affected components need sign the 

agreement. For example, an agreement documenting a 180-day 

transfer of aircraft from the Air National Guard to the Regular Air 

Force would not require signature by the Chief of the Air Force Reserve. 

The provision would not create an oversight vacuum or allow aircraft transfers to occur without coordination and agreement. The 

Air Force would still be required to comply with Department of Defense Instruction 1225.06, Equipping the Reserve Forces, May 16, 

2012, Enclosure 3, which requires coordination, approval, and a 

written agreement signed by a general officer or civilian equivalent 

for equipment transfers, including aircraft. 

Limitation on use of funds for Department of Defense sponsorships, advertising, or marketing associated with 

sports-related organizations or sporting events (sec. 342) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Department of Defense (DOD) from using appropriated funds to 

procure sponsorships, advertising, or marketing associated with 

sports-related organizations or sporting events until the Director, 

Accessions Policy within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness conducts a review of current departmental activities in this area, including those by the active 

duty, reserve, and guard components to ensure that such activities 

enable the DOD to achieve recruiting goals and provide an appropriate return on investment. The committee is aware that for fiscal 

year 2016, DOD has requested $507.5 million to fund its advertising activities. 

While the committee recognizes that sports marketing and advertising activities can help DOD achieve its recruiting and retention 

goals, the committee is also concerned that in a period of declining 

budgets, the Department may not be ensuring that it is maximizing its return on investment of sports marketing and advertising funds. In particular, the committee is concerned with the Department’s continued use of funds for sports-related sponsorships, 

advertising and marketing. The committee notes that DOD components do not appear to be utilizing specific metrics, such as leads 

generated that lead to recruit accessions, in a uniform and consistent way to measure the return on investment associated with 

these activities. The committee further notes that the approach to 

managing contracts used to procure these activities differs across 

DOD components, and in the case of the Army National Guard, is 

highly decentralized and managed at the individual state level. The 

committee is concerned that such differences and decentralization 

hinder the ability to apply best practices, minimize potential duplication, and ensure that appropriate oversight into these activities 

occurs. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to assess DOD sponsorship, sports marketing 

and advertising activities, including the active duty, and reserve, 

and guard components. The assessment shall include, but not be 

limited to: (1) Whether DOD marketing and advertising activities 

are achieving their stated goals; (2) How DOD determines whether 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
78 

its marketing and advertising activities are effective and providing 

an appropriate return on investment; (3) The extent to which the 

effectiveness of DOD marketing and advertising activities are consistent with best commercial practices; (4) DOD actions to reduce 

unnecessary redundancies in its marketing and advertising activities; and (5) an assessment of the activities required under section 

(a)(1) and (a)(2) in this provision. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to deliver a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives no later than March 1, 2016. 

Temporary authority to extend contracts and leases under 

ARMS Initiative (sec. 343) 

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

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Streamlining of Department of Defense management and 

operational headquarters (sec. 351) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the 

management, headquarters, and organization of the Department of 

Defense (DOD) for purposes of consolidating and streamlining 

headquarters functions. The provision would require the Secretary, 

to the extent practicable, to consult with subject matter experts 

outside of DOD and to submit the required report no later than 

March 1, 2016. To implement this comprehensive plan, the Secretary of Defense shall make required personnel and budget reductions. Section 904 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) required the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for streamlining DOD management headquarters, including the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), 

the Joint Staff, the military services, and others that was to be provided to the congressional defense committees not later than 180 

days after passage. The Secretary has yet to provide the required 

plan. Therefore, the committee initiates the streamlining with a 7.5 

percent reduction to these organizations (except Special Operations 

Command, classified programs, Department of Defense Educational 

Activities, and programs related to sexual assault prevention and 

response) in fiscal year 2016 and increasing the reductions 7.5 percent each year for 4 years. Furthermore, the funding reductions 

should be matched by personnel reductions (military, civilian, and 

contractor) across the defense agencies, OSD, Service Secretariats, 

service military staffs, combatant commands, and service subordinate commands with military personnel transferred to operating 

forces. In executing the plan to reduce the overhead costs, the Secretary is directed to provide details of any personnel or functions 

that are transferred to any other organization in DOD. Elsewhere 

in this bill the committee recommends four provisions that would 

provide the Secretary with the force shaping tools necessary to retain the highest performing workforce when determining which emVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
79 

ployees should be retained. These provisions will: (1) make performance the key factor when the DOD conducts reductions in force 

to its civilian and contractor workforce; (2) require employees receiving a less than satisfactory performance evaluation to be held 

at their current step-level for within-grade increases until they 

achieve satisfactory job performance; (3) extend the probationary 

period for new employees of DOD to 2 years; and (4) direct DOD 

to conduct a study, to be reviewed by the Comptroller General of 

the United States for sufficiency, of the fully-burdened costs to 

DOD for civilian and contractor employees at clerical, mid-level 

manager, and senior management levels. In executing this plan, 

the committee directs that operating forces and organizations such 

as depots, shipyards and similar functions not be cut in order to 

retain headquarter staffing levels. 

To monitor the implementation of this plan, the provision would 

require the Comptroller General, through the end of fiscal year 

2019, to conduct an annual review of DOD’s implementation efforts. Finally, to ensure compliance, the provision would limit the 

availability of funds for contract personnel in OSD should the Secretary fail to achieve the underlying reductions of the provision. In 

addition, the committee would defer two military construction 

projects for headquarters-related functions pending the outcome of 

this review and plan. 

The committee remains concerned with the growth in headquarters, administration, and overhead costs of DOD at a time of 

fiscal austerity and reductions in force structure. According to the 

Comptroller General, the Army Staff has increased by 60 percent, 

from 2,272 in 2001 to 3,639 in 2013. This increase in Army staff 

largely remains intact despite a reduction of the Army’s ActiveDuty, Reserve, and National Guard end strengths. The Air Force 

appears to have avoided OSD requirements to reduce unnecessary 

and duplicative headquarters functions and overhead activity. Instead, the Air Force grew subordinate units by shifting individuals 

from higher headquarters to two newly created subordinate headquarters (e.g., the Twenty-Fifth Air Force and the Installation and 

Mission Support Center). The Air Force appears to have made no 

significant reductions to its overall civilian personnel or obtained 

any savings to the Air Force wide budget. The budget for DOD 

Washington Headquarters Service (WHS), whose job it is to support all the growing headquarters and bureaucracy in the National 

Capital Region, has grown over 40 percent in the last 8 years from 

$443.0 million to $621.0 million. Budget growth in WHS is a clear 

sign the headquarters and overhead at DOD are getting larger, not 

smaller. The Joint Staff has also nearly doubled in size in the last 

five years to over 2,500 military and civilian employees. This 

growth is primarily attributable to the transfer of personnel from 

the supposed closure of United States Joint Forces Command. The 

committee is also concerned that significant duplicative activities 

may exist between OSD, the Joint Staff, the military services, defense agencies, and other temporary organizations within DOD. 

The Defense Business Board estimates DOD could save $25.0 billion per year if it better managed its civilian and contractor workforce through targeted reductions and contract elimination and 

other efficiency initiatives. The National Defense Panel (NDP) 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
80 

noted that ‘‘additional changes are required to right size the civilian Defense Department and federal contracting workforces. Pentagon civilians have continued to grow even after the active duty 

forces have been shrinking for some time. From 2001 to 2012, the 

active duty military grew by 3.4 percent while at the same time the 

size of the USG civilian workforce in the Department has grown by 

15% to over 800,000. CBO calculates that the rising costs of civilian 

pay accounts for two-thirds of projected growth in operations and 

maintenance spending in the next decade. Clearly, controlling or 

reducing civilian pay costs is essential to ensuring that the operations and maintenance accounts can be effectively leveraged to 

provide for the readiness of the Joint Force.’’ The NDP further stated: ‘‘The defense contracting workforce is also in need of review. By 

2012, the number of civilian contractors working inside the Department of Defense had grown to approximately 670,000. While some 

of these contractors are performing critical functions in support of 

the U.S. military, others are a legacy of the tremendous growth in 

the use of civilian contractors that attended the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. We urge the Department to undertake a detailed examination of both the size of it civilian workforce and its reliance on 

civilian contractors in an effort to identify and eliminate excess 

overhead and right-size the civilian workforce.’’ 

Adoption of retired military working dogs (sec. 352) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2583 of title 10, United States Code, to give preference in the 

adoption of retired military working dogs (MWDs) to their former 

handlers, consistent with the best interests of the MWDs. 

The committee recognizes the value MWDs in support of the various training missions and combat operations of the U.S. Armed 

Forces. The committee also recognizes the efforts of the 341st 

Training Squadron at Lackland Air Force Base in their role of 

training and handling MWDs across the Department of Defense. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011 to expand the coverage of the Department of Defense (DOD) Siting Clearinghouse to requests for informal reviews 

from Indian tribes and landowners. The Siting Clearinghouse is an 

office in the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Energy Installations and Environment) that serves as the DOD’s 

point of contact under which the DOD evaluates projects for military mission compatibility and attempts to develop mitigations 

with developers. 

This provision would clarify that information received from private entities, which is frequently confidential business information, 

is not required to be publicly released, as this reduces the willingness of private developers to seek early consultation with the DOD. 

Further, the provision would eliminate an arbitrary and undesirable manner of distinguishing categories of adverse risk impact. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
81 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the National Security 

Education Board, to carry out a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of providing scholarships in accordance with 

the David L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991 (50 

U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) to individuals for intensive language instruction in a covered Asian language where deficiencies exist. 

Budget Items 

Transfer to overseas contingency operations 

The budget request included $210.0 billion in service, component, 

and defense-wide operation and maintenance accounts. The committee recommends a decrease of $39.0 billion in operation and 

maintenance in this title and as specified in the table in section 

4301 and a corresponding increase in operation and maintenance 

accounts in title XV (Overseas Contingency Operations) and as 

specified in the table in section 4302. Recommended decreases and 

increases are summarized in the below table. 

The Budget Control Act limits national defense discretionary 

spending to $523.0 billion for fiscal year 2016. In order to meet the 

defense funding levels requested by the President and avoid triggering automatic cuts, known as sequestration, the committee recommends transferring funding authority from base budget operation and maintenance in this title to Overseas Contingency Operations in title XV. 

The committee believes that the transfer of these funds to title 

XV should seek to limit any complications for the Department of 

Defense in the obligations of these funds. The committee notes the 

Armed Forces has been for the past 13 years, and continues to be 

today, engaged in overseas operations. Currently, the Armed 

Forces is expanding their presence abroad. As such, the budget request included significant overseas contingency operation funding 

in the operation and maintenance account, specifically for the operating forces activities. Therefore, the committee recommends the 

transfer of title III to title XV funds for the activities itemized 

below. The Department of Defense has executed both base and 

overseas contingency operations funding for the activities listed 

below in the past. In addition, in previous years the President has 

deemed the operation and maintenance account eligible for overseas contingency operation funding. 

TRANSFER OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (OM) FUNDS FROM SECTION 4301 TO SECTION 4302 

($ millions) 

Activity ($M) Decrease Sec.4301 Increase Sec. 4302 

OM, Army, Maneuver Units, 10 ................................................................................... 1,094.4 ..............................

OM, Army, Theater Level Assets, 40 ........................................................................... .............................. 763.3 

OM, Army, Land Forces Operations Support, 50 ......................................................... 1,054.3 ..............................

OM, Army, Aviation Assets, 60 .................................................................................... 1,546.1 ..............................

OM, Army, Force Readiness Operations Support, 70 .................................................. 3,158.6 ..............................

OM, Navy, Mission and Other Flight Operations, 10 .................................................. 4,940.4 ..............................

OM, Navy, Aircraft Depot Maintenance, 60 ................................................................. .............................. 897.5 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
82 

TRANSFER OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (OM) FUNDS FROM SECTION 4301 TO SECTION 

4302—Continued 

($ millions) 

Activity ($M) Decrease Sec.4301 Increase Sec. 4302 

OM, Navy, Mission and Other Ship Operations, 90 .................................................... 4,287.7 ..............................

OM, Navy, Ship Depot Maintenance, 110 ................................................................... 5,961.0 ..............................

OM, Marine Corps, Operational Forces, 10 ................................................................. .............................. 931.1 

OM, Marine Corps, Field Logistics, 20 ........................................................................ .............................. 931.8 

OM, Air Force, Primary Combat Forces, 10 ................................................................. 3,336.9 ..............................

OM, Air Force, Combat Enhancement Forces, 20 ....................................................... 1,897.3 ..............................

OM, Air Force, Depot Maintenance, 40 ....................................................................... 6,537.1 ..............................

OM, Air Force, Depot Maintenance, 160 ..................................................................... 1,617.6 1,617.6 

Total Transfer ............................................................................................ 38,955.0 38,955.0 

Army and Army Reserve readiness unfunded priorities increases 

The budget request included $31.7 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance (OMA), of which $1.2 billion was for SAG 123 Land 

Forces Depot Maintenance, $2.6 billion was for SAG 132 Facilities 

Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization (FSRM) and $981.0 million was for SAG 321 Specialized Skill Training. The budget request also included $2.6 billion in Operation and Maintenance, 

Army Reserve (OMAR), of which $59.5 million was for SAG 123 

Land Forces Depot Maintenance. 

The Army has identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that could help accelerate readiness recovery. The committee notes that these recommended increases will restore critical 

depot maintenance as well as increase both cyber and unmanned 

aircraft systems training capabilities. Additionally, the committee 

understands these funds will maintain the operations of strategic 

missile defense test sites. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the following increases 

in OMA: $77.2 million for SAG 123 Land Forces Depot Maintenance, $34.0 million for SAG 132 FSRM, and $33.2 million for SAG 

321 Specialized Skill Training. The committee also recommends an 

increase of $32.4 million in OMAR for SAG 123 Land Forces Depot 

Maintenance. 

Insider threat unfunded priorities increases 

The budget request included $31.7 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance (OMA), of which $7.6 billion was for SAG 131 Base 

Operations Support and $1.1 billion was for SAG 411 Security Programs. 

The Army has identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that could help reduce the risk of insider threat attacks. 

The committee notes that these recommended increases will improve physical security and information management. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of OMA in 

SAG 131 Base Operations Support for $10.5 million and $5.5 million in SAG 411 Security Programs to help reduce the risk of insider threat attacks. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
83 

Streamlining Combatant Commands 

The budget request included $35.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $448.6 million was for SAG 

138 Combatant Commands Direct Mission Support, $42.2 billion 

for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $73.1 million was for SAG 1CCM Combatant Commands Direct Mission 

Support, $38.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force 

(OMAF), of which $900.6 million was for SAG 015A Combatant 

Commands Direct Mission Support. 

The committee is concerned that duplicative activities may exist 

between the staff of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 

Joint Staff, the military services, and many defense agencies. In 

addition, new regulations and procedures have been implemented 

over the years that drive many of these costs. The committee recommends a reduction of 7.5 percent to operation and maintenance 

accounts for Combatant Commands Direct Mission Support. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends undistributed decreases to the following: $12.3 million in OMA to SAG 138 Combatant 

Commands Direct Mission Support, $5.4 million in OMN to SAG 

1CCM Combatant Commands Direct Mission Support, and $15.3 

million in OMAF to SAG 015A Combatant Commands Direct Mission Support. 

Army outreach reduction 

The budget request included $31.7 billion in Operation and Maintenance (OMA), of which $1.1 billion was for SAG 435 Other 

Service Support. 

The committee understands that within the Other Service Sup- port request was an increase of $4.5 million to fund two additional 

cities for the Army’s Spirit of America outreach program. The committee believes these funds should be realigned to support higher 

priority readiness requirements. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.5 million in OMA to SAG 435 Other Service Support. 

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase 

The budget request included $35.1 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $1.1 billion was for Security 

Programs. 

United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) has identified 

specific amounts in this readiness account that could help offset the 

negative impacts from sequestration and resource critical mission 

shortfalls. The committee notes that in written testimony submitted to the committee on March 12, 2015, General John Kelly, 

Commander of SOUTHCOM, stated that in his area of responsibility the ‘‘limited tactical ISR allocation and national technical 

focus is impairing virtually every one of our assigned missions and 

exposing the southern approaches to the United States to significant risk’’.’’ General John Kelly further stated that ‘‘we could be 

talking not high risk anymore, or severe risk, to our plans, but 

really we could be talking defeat if sequestration happens.’’ 

Accordingly, the committee recommends increases in OMA of 

$20.0 million for Security Programs for SOUTHCOM, including airVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
84 

borne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and other intelligence and counter-intelligence support. 

Streamlining Management Headquarters 

The budget request included $35.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $7.4 billion was for Administration and Servicewide Activities, $2.6 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), of which $105.8 million was 

for Administration and Servicewide Activities, $6.7 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of 

which $430.1 million was for Administration and Servicewide Activities, $42.2 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), 

of which $4.3 billion was for Administration and Servicewide Activities, $6.2 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps 

(OMMC), of which $471.8 million was for Administration and 

Servicewide Activities, $1.0 billion for Operation and Maintenance, 

Navy Reserve (OMNR), of which $1.0 billion was for Administration and Servicewide Activities, $277.0 million for Operation and 

Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve (OMMCR), of which $20.5 million was for Administration and Servicewide Activities, $38.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which 

$5.6 billion was for Administration and Servicewide Activities, $3.0 

billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve (OMAFR), 

of which $88.5 million was for Administration and Servicewide Activities, $6.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air National 

Guard (OMANG), of which $54.2 million was for Administration 

and Servicewide Activities, and $32.4 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $7.1 billion was for 

was for Administration and Servicewide Activities. 

The committee is concerned that duplicative activities may exist 

between the staff of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 

Joint Staff, the military services, and many defense agencies. In 

addition, new regulations and procedures have been implemented 

over the years that drive many of these costs. The committee recommends a reduction of 7.5 percent to the Defense-wide and military service operations and maintenance accounts for Administration and Servicewide Activities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends undistributed decreases 

to the following Administration and Servicewide Activities accounts: $238.4 million to OMA, $6.0 million to OMAR, $26.6 million to OMARNG, $209.8 million to OMN, $32.5 million to OMMC, 

$1.3 million to OMNR, $1.4 to OMMCR, $276.2 million to OMAF, 

$4.6 million to OMAFR, $3.0 million to OMANG, and $897.5 million to OMDW for streamlining of headquarters management. 

Foreign currency fluctuation deductions 

The budget request included $35.1 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), $42.2 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.2 billion for Operation and Maintenance, 

Marine Corps (OMMC), $38.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $32.4 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW). 

The committee believes that when foreign currency fluctuation 

(FCF) rates are determined by the Department of Defense, the balVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
85 

ance of the FCF funds should be considered, particularly if the balance is close to the cap of $970.0 million. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has informed the committee that as of March 

2015, the Department has not transferred in any prior year unobligated balances to replenish the account for fiscal year 2015 from 

a beginning balance of $970.0 million. GAO analysis projects that 

the Department will experience a net gain of $739.8 million in fiscal year 2015 due to favorable foreign exchange rates, of which 

$456.1 million is attributed to Operation and Maintenance (O&M). 

Additionally, GAO analysis projects the Department will experience 

a net gain of $891.4 million in fiscal year 2016 in FCF, of which 

$587.4 million is attributed to O&M. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of: $281.5 million to OMA, $59.9 million to OMN, $19.8 million to OMMC, 

$137.8 million to OMAF, and $51.9 million to OMDW for FCF. 

Bulk fuel savings 

The budget request included $35.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), $2.6 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), $6.7 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), $42.2 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.2 billion for Operation 

and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $1.0 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve (OMNR), $277 million for 

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve (OMMCR), 

$38.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), 

$3.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve 

(OMAFR), $6.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air National 

Guard (OMANG), and $32.4 billion for Operation and Maintenance, 

Defense-wide (OMDW). 

The committee understands that as of March 2015, the Department has overstated its projected bulk fuel costs for fiscal year 

2016 by $1.7 billion. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the following decreases: 

$260.1 million to OMA, $7.6 million to OMAR, $25.3 to OMARNG, 

$482.3 million to OMN, $17.0 million to OMMC, $39.7 to OMNR, 

$1.0 million to OMMCR, $618.3 million to OMAF, $101.1 to 

OMAFR, $162.6 million to OMANG, and $36.0 million to OMDW 

for bulk fuel savings. 

Army and Air National Guard Operation Phalanx increase 

The budget request included $6.7 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $88.7 million 

was for SAG 114 Theater Level Assets and $943.6 million was for 

SAG 116 Aviation Assets. The budget request also included $6.9 

billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard 

(OMANG), of which $740.7 million was for SAG 11G Mission Support Operations. 

The committee remains concerned that the southern border of 

the United States remains unsecure. The committee notes that in 

testimony on March 12, 2015, Admiral William Gortney, Commander of U.S. Northern Command stated that ‘‘the southern border can be more secure.’’ At the same hearing General John Kelly, 

Commander of U.S. Southern Command testified that ‘‘with the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
86 

amount of drugs and people that move across our southwest border, it doesn’t seem all that secure to me.’’ 

The committee notes that the Army National Guard has been 

providing support to the Department of Homeland Security along 

the southwest border under a program entitled Operation Phalanx 

since 2010. Since its inception, Operation Phalanx has consisted of 

ground-based Entry Identification Teams, criminal analyst support, 

and aerial surveillance support to civil authorities along the southwest border. According to the Army National Guard, since Operation Phalanx began in July of 2010, operations have contributed 

to the apprehension of over 122,000 individuals and the seizure of 

over 377,000 pounds of marijuana. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the following increases in OMARNG: $7.7 million for SAG 114 Theater Level Assets, and 

$13.0 million for SAG 116 Aviation Assets. Additionally, the committee recommends an increase of $2.6 million in OMANG for SAG 

11G Mission Support Operations. 

Army National Guard portrait cuts 

The budget request included $6.7 billion in Operation and Main- tenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $59.6 million 

was for SAG 431 Administration. 

The committee understands that a portion of the requested increase is for the Chief National Guard Bureau (CNBG) Heritage 

Paintings, which the CNGB commissions each year. The committee 

also understands that this increase would be to pay for a backlog 

of four other paintings at a cost of $62,500 thousand per painting, 

which includes personnel and framing associated costs. The committee believes these funds should be realigned to support higher 

priority readiness requirements. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $250,000 

in OMARNG for SAG 431 Administration. 

Army National Guard marketing program reduction 

The budget request included $283.6 million in Other Personnel 

Support within Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard 

(OMARNG), of which $283.0 million was for SAG 434 Other Personnel Support. 

The committee understands that $11.5 million is an increase to 

the Army Marketing Program. The committee believes that these 

funds should be realigned to support higher priority readiness requirements. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $11.5 million for SAG 434 Other Personnel Support. 

Army National Guard readiness funding increase 

The budget request included $6.7 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $166.8 million 

was for $943.6 million in SAG 116 Aviation Assets and SAG 123 

Land Forces Depot Maintenance. 

The committee understands that the Army National Guard has 

identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that could 

accelerate readiness recovery while also increasing both actual and 

simulated flying hour programs increasing aviator readiness. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
87 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the following increases in OMARNG: $39.6 million in Aviation Assets and $22.5 million for 

SAG 123 Land Forces Depot Maintenance. 

Marine Corps readiness unfunded priorities increases 

The budget request included $42.2 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN) of which $4.9 billion was for SAG 1A1A 

Mission and Other Flight Operations, $376.8 million was for SAG 

1A4N Air System Support, $897.5 million for SAG 1A5A Aircraft 

Depot Maintenance, $544.0 million was for SAG 1A9A Aviation Logistics, $4.4 billion was for BSS1 Base Operating Support, and $6.4 

million for SAG 2B1G Aircraft Activations/Inactivations. 

The committee understands that the Marine Corps has identified 

specific amounts in these readiness accounts that could accelerate 

readiness recovery. Specifically, the committee understands the 

Marine Corps has identified aviation readiness gaps in the CH– 

53E, MV–22, F/A–18, and AV–8B. The committee notes that this 

recommended increase will improve the Marine Corps’ Ready Basic 

Aircraft goal to meet internal goals for the AV–8B Harrier and improve readiness and availability of the MV–22 aircraft. The committee also notes this recommended increase will reduce expected 

maintenance time for the AV–8B Harrier, making additional aircraft available to the fleet. Finally, the committee notes that this 

recommended increase will increase support and counseling services for Marines and their family members. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMN of $3.3 million to SAG 1A1A Mission and Other Flight Operations, 

$13.9 million to SAG 1A4N Air System Support, $17.0 million to 

SAG 1A5A Aircraft Depot Maintenance, $5.3 million to SAG 1A9A 

Aviation Logistics, $14.0 million to SAG BSS1 Base Operating Support, and $0.5 million for SAG 2B1G Aircraft Activations/Inactivations. 

Criminal Investigative Equipment 

The budget request included $6.2 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of which $2.0 billion was for SAG 

BSS1 Base Operating Support. 

The committee is aware the Marine Corps has identified an unfunded requirement that would improve its criminal investigative 

capabilities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.2 million for SAG BSS1 Base Operating Support for criminal investigative equipment. 

A–10 to F–15E training transition 

The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.7 billion was for SAG 

011D Air Operations Training. 

The committee understands that within this budget request is 

$79.6 million to be used to transition training resources from the 

A–10 to the F–15E. 

The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the retirement of the A–10 fleet purely on the basis of the fiscal environment 

and not on grounds of the ability of the combat air forces to effecVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
88 

tively meet the requirements of the combatant commanders and defense strategy. The committee also believes that with the A–10 

fleet currently engaged in operations against the Islamic State of 

Iraq and the Levant, providing a theater security package in Europe to assure our allies and partners, and continuing rotational 

deployments operations to Afghanistan, divesting this capability at 

this time incurs unacceptable risk in the capacity and readiness of 

the combat air forces without a suitable replacement available. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in OMAF of $78.0 million in SAG 011D Air Operations Training. 

Air Force readiness unfunded priorities increases 

The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.8 billion was for SAG 

011C Combat Enhancement Forces and $1.7 billion was for SAG 

011D Air Operations Training. 

The Air Force has identified specific amounts in this readiness 

account that could help accelerate readiness recovery. The committee notes that this recommended increase will improve training 

capabilities at 18 ranges as well as improve cyber incident reporting. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the following increases in OMAF: $4.3 million to SAG 011C Combat Enhancement Forces 

and $37.7 million in OMAF for SAG 011D Air Operations Training. 

Joint Enabling Capabilities Command 

The budget request included $205.1 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for Combatant Commanders Core 

Operations, of which $41.0 million was for Joint Enabling Capabilities Command (JECC). 

The committee notes that JECC provides deployable units for 

planning, communications, and public affairs as a subordinate command to the U.S. Transportation Command. However, since the 

creation and establishment of JECC, combatant commands are now 

organized with planning, communications, and public affairs assets 

or can obtain these planning, communications, and public affairs 

forces through the military services. 

The committee believes this funding should be realigned to support high priority readiness requirements. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $41.0 million in OMAF for JECC. 

Air Force Headquarters reductions 

The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $3.3 billion was for SAG 

011A Primary Combat Forces, $1.8 billion was for SAG 011C Combat Enhancement Forces, $907.4 million was for SAG 012F Tactical 

Intel and Other Special Activities, and $1.1 billion was for SAG 

043A Security Programs. 

The committee is aware of the Air Force’s request for increasing 

civilian end strength within OMAF by 215 full-time employees 

(FTEs). The committee believes the Air Force has not adequately 

justified these 215 additional FTEs, and that any unjustified 

growth in headquarters funding is inconsistent with the 2013 headVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
89 

quarter reductions mandated by then-Secretary of Defense Chuck 

Hagel and communicated to the military departments and agencies 

through a July 31, 2013 memorandum (OSD008519–13) sent by 

then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in OMAF to the following: $2.1 million to SAG 011A Primary Combat Forces, 

$14.0 million to SAG 011C Combat Enhancement Forces, $3.2 million to SAG 012F Tactical Intel and Other Special Activities, and 

$4.9 million to SAG 043A Security Programs. 

Remotely piloted aircraft 

The budget request included $35.4 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $359.3 million was for 

SAG 032A Specialized Skill Training. 

The committee is aware that the remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) 

career field has been under stress due to the high demand of combat operations. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $43.1 million in OMAF to SAG 032A Specialized Skill Training to increase 

RPA training and schoolhouse throughput for pilots. 

Air Force acquisition tools reduction 

The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $862 million was for 

SAG 041B Technical Support Activities. 

The committee understands that the Air Force is requesting a $32.4 million increase for ‘‘Acquisition Tools, Services, and Training’’ within Technical Support Activities. The committee understands that the Air Force intends to use a portion of these funds 

for skills training and officer development within the acquisition 

workforce. The committee believes these efforts are duplicative of 

the work done by the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development 

Fund. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in OMAF of 

$10.0 million for SAG 041B Technical Support Activities. 

Air Force enterprise information technology systems 

The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $3.5 billion was for SAG 

3400F Logistics Operations, of which $1.1 billion is for Base Support. The committee recommends a decrease of $12.0 million to this 

account to reduce support for redundant enterprise information 

systems. The committee notes that the Department of Defense and 

Air Force is working to continue to reduce its computing infrastructure, including data centers and legacy networks, through shutting 

down of legacy systems, consolidation of redundant systems, and 

adoption of advanced commercial technologies, such as cloud computing. 

Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System reduction 

The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $689.7 million was for 

SAG 042A Administration. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
90 

The committee understands that within SAG 042A Administration is a $65.0 million increase request for Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System (DEAMS). The committee is 

aware of $12.6 million allocated to ‘‘Funds required to develop and 

deploy DEAMS’’ and $8.1 million is for ‘‘DEAMS sustainment.’’ The 

committee is aware that within the Research, Development, Test 

and Evaluation funding for DEAMS, separate funds are identified 

for a similar purpose. The committee also understands that, according to the Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, 

DEAMS has experienced significant software problems and that 

the program is not currently mature enough to transition to 

sustainment. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.7 million in OMAF to SAG 042A Administration for DEAMS. 

EC–130H Buyback 

The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF). 

The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the retirement of EC–130H Compass Call aircraft purely on the basis of the 

fiscal environment and not on grounds of the ability of the Air 

Force to meet effectively the requirements of the combatant commanders and the national defense strategy. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $27.3 million in OMAF for EC–130H buyback. 

A–10 Operation and Maintenance Buyback 

The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), $3.0 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force Reserve (OMAFR), and $6.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG). 

The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the retirement of the A–10 fleet purely on the basis of the fiscal environment 

and not on grounds of the ability of the combat air forces to effectively meet the requirements of the combatant commanders and defense strategy. The committee also believes that with the A–10 

fleet currently engaged in operations against the Islamic State of 

Iraq and the Levant, providing a theater security package in Europe to assure our allies and partners, and continuing rotational 

deployments operations to Afghanistan, divesting this capability at 

this time incurs unacceptable risk in the capacity and readiness of 

the combat air forces without a suitable replacement available. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the following increases 

for A–10 buyback: $235.3 million in OMAF, $2.5 million in 

OMAFR, and $42.2 million in OMANG. 

Middle East Assurance Initiative 

The budget request included $495.7 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

of which $9.7 million was for the Combatant Commander Exercise 

Engagement and Training Transformation (CE2T2) program. 

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in 

OMDW for the CE2T2 program for bilateral and multilateral exercises and activities to build the capability, capacity, and interoperVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
91 

ability of allies and partner nations in the Middle East to conduct 

multilateral contingency operations. 

The committee notes the need for enhancements in a region of 

increasing unrest and the importance of the commitment of the 

United States to provide leadership in order to continue to develop 

critical multilateral partner capacity and capability as well as the 

interoperability of those partners with United States forces. 

The committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

in coordination with the Commander of United States Central 

Command, to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate, not later than 

December 31, 2017, with a summary of the activities conducted 

with the additional funding. 

Department of Defense Rewards Program reduction 

The budget request included $1.9 billion in the Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which $12.3 million was for the Department of Defense (DOD) rewards program. 

The committee continues to be concerned that the DOD Rewards 

Program has been hampered by historical under-execution. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 million in OMDW for the DOD Rewards Program (SAG 4GTN). Additionally, the committee is encouraged by the DOD Rewards Program as an effective tool against counterterrorism worldwide. The 

committee is also encouraged by the prospect of DOD developing a 

budgeting forecasting tool to help improve the use of future resources. 

Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program 

The budget request included $32.4 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), of which $32.6 million is for 

the Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program (CFTP). While the 

committee remains supportive of the CTFP, the committee is concerned about the expanding activities and increased operating costs 

of the CTFP at a time of fiscal challenges. The committee encourages the CTFP to focus its activities on its core counterterrorism 

training and education mission and a limited number of regions 

where the threat posed by terrorism is most significant. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.0 million in OMDW for the CTFP. 

Funding for impact aid 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide, includes the following changes from 

the budget request. The provisions underlying these changes in 

funding levels are discussed in greater detail in title V of this committee report. 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Impact aid for schools with military dependent students ............... +25.0 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities .............................. +5.0 

Total ............................................................................................. +30.0 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
92 

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

The budget request included $110.6 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), of which $33.1 million was for the Defense Industry Adjustment (DIA) program and $20.0 million was for water and 

civilian water and wastewater infrastructure improvements. 

The committee believes this funding should be realigned to support high priority readiness and modernization requirements. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $53.1 million in OMDW for the OEA. 

Defense-wide funding decrease for base realignment and 

closure planning and support 

The budget request included $32.4 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $1.3 billion was for 

SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense. The committee understands that $10.5 million was to be used for 

base realignment and closure (BRAC) planning and support. The 

bill recommended by the committee would prohibit the expenditure 

of funds for a new BRAC round. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.5 million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

Studies of fleet platform architectures for the Navy 

The budget request included $1.4 million for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for SAG 4GTN Admin Service-wide Activities. 

This Act includes a provision that would direct the Secretary of 

Defense to commission three studies to be submitted to the congressional defense committees on potential future fleet architectures no later than May 1, 2016. These studies would provide competing visions and alternatives for future fleet architectures. One 

study would be performed by the Department of the Navy, with 

input from the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division. 

The second study would be performed by a federally funded research and development center. The third study would be conducted by a qualified independent, non-governmental institute, as 

selected by the Secretary of Defense. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN Admin Service-wide Activities for 

the performance of these studies. 

A–10 retirement manpower transfer 

The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $3.3 billion was for SAG 

011A Primary Combat Forces (PCF). 

The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the retirement of the A–10 fleet purely on the basis of the fiscal environment, despite concerns that the retirement of the A–10 fleet could 

adversely impact the ability of the combat air forces to effectively 

meet the requirements of the combatant commanders and defense 

strategy. The committee also believes that with the A–10 fleet currently engaged in operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
93 

the Levant (ISIL), providing a theater security package in Europe 

to assure our allies and partners, and continuing rotational deployments operations to Afghanistan, divesting this capability at this 

time incurs unacceptable risk in the capacity and readiness of the 

combat air forces without a suitable replacement available. Additionally, in fiscal year 2015 the Air Force implemented the move 

of 18 primary mission aircraft inventory A–10s to backup aircraft 

inventory status, reducing all but 2 of the A–10 fleet’s combat 

squadrons to 18 primary assigned aircraft each. 

The committee understands that a portion of the requested increase for PCF was for the transfer of manpower towards retirement of the A–10. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.4 million for SAG 011A PCF. 

Items of Special Interest 

Army and Air Force full spectrum training requirements 

The committee notes that for more than a decade, the Army and 

Air Force have focused the training of their forces in support of 

counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Defense established a range of resource-intensive training 

requirements deemed necessary to conduct missions in these locations while deprioritizing training in other areas. The committee 

notes that in the coming years, both the Army and the Air Force 

will confront an increasingly complex security environment that 

will demand a full spectrum of missions, ranging from additional 

counterinsurgency operations to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. To accomplish a broader set of missions, the committee 

is encouraged by both services having established plans to refocus 

their training to conduct the full spectrum of military operations. 

However, the committee notes that under the Budget Control Act 

of 2011 (Public Law 112–25), the Department faces an environment 

of constrained budgetary resources until at least 2021. For example, in fiscal year 2013, the Department’s operation and maintenance accounts—which fund the military services’ training programs—were reduced by approximately $20.0 billion. Due to these 

sequestration-level budget caps, the Army curtailed training for all 

units except those deployed, preparing to deploy, or stationed overseas. Meanwhile, the Air Force ceased flight operations from April 

through June 2013 for about one third of its active duty combat 

units and reduced the number of its larger training exercises. 

Unless the Budget Control Act of 2011 is amended, the Department faces another adverse impact to training and readiness in fiscal year 2016. The committee remains concerned that under sequestration, the Department will be unable to balance necessary 

training investments with available resources. Additionally, if sequestration persists until 2021, the committee notes that the Department may have to fundamentally reexamine the requirements 

for training its forces. Finally, the committee notes that the Department should continue to explore how to best achieve additional 

efficiencies and cost savings during training, while preparing for 

mission requirements. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
94 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to provide the committee with an assessment of 

the Army and Air Force training plans and requirements. This assessment shall include, but not be limited to: the extent to which 

the Army and Air Force have established full-spectrum readiness 

goals, plans, and timeframes to train their forces; have adjusted 

training plans and identified resource requirements in light of prepare ready units for counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; have considered options for increasing the use of simulated training and other technologies to achieve efficiencies or other 

cost savings, while meeting training requirements; and any other 

issues the Comptroller General determines relevant and appropriate with respect to Army and Air Force training. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives no later than March 15, 2016. 

Body armor modernization 

The committee continues to monitor the Department of Defense’s 

plans and actions to ensure the continued availability and improvement of the best possible body armor and other protective equipment for our troops serving in harm’s way. The committee has received the interim technical study and business case analysis of 

body armor plates required by the Carl Levin and Howard P. 

‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2015 (Public Law 113–291). 

The committee looks forward to receiving the final report no later 

than March 1, 2016 which will evaluate the full range of options 

for body armor modernization and sustainment. The committee directs that the final report shall include a strategy to address body 

armor demand and sustainment in light of the current industry 

consolidation and potential restructuring, to ensure that the Department can respond to future warfighter requirements. 

The committee expects the Department to continue to ensure 

that those who fight to protect our nation have the best available 

equipment and protection to meet mission requirements, including 

body armor specifically designed for women. Additionally, the Department is strongly encouraged to apply appropriate resources to 

ensure the modernization of body armor occurs through the appropriate research, development, test, and evaluation. 

Care of stock in storage 

The committee notes that the military services have established 

several locations of pre-positioned stock and equipment around the 

globe in support of combatant commanders’ requirements for operational plans, training, and contingencies. The committee is concerned such military equipment suffers varying degrees of degradation and corrosion while being stored outdoors for extended periods 

of time. Such degradation and corrosion is caused by weatherization and equipment being stored in a stagnant state without minimal levels of care of stock in storage (COSIS). The Government Accountability Office has estimated that the Department of Defense 

incurs over $20.0 billion every year in corrosion costs for its weapon systems and infrastructure. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
95 

The committee is concerned that minimal funding has been allocated to COSIS, historically, and instead has gone to other priorities, which ultimately leads to higher costs in the long-term. Furthermore, the committee believes that moving equipment under 

basic COSIS and cover—even indoor facilities that are not necessarily climate-controlled or using equipment covers—could generate significant cost avoidance for pre-positioned stock and military equipment. 

The committee is aware of a recent effort by the Army in Kuwait 

to move some pre-positioned equipment to indoor storage, but the 

committee is concerned that such a move was merely a target of 

opportunity and not part of a broad strategy backed by effective 

planning and resources. 

Accordingly, the committee strongly urges the Department and 

the military services to identify and implement opportunities to improve the COSIS and covered storage of its pre-positioned stock, 

and to notify the committee of potential opportunities where additional resources could be applied to improve COSIS. 

Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 2016 on 

specific locations and opportunities where COSIS could improve for 

outdoor pre-positioned stock to ensure equipment is stored in a way 

that minimizes weatherization and weapon system degradation. 

The report shall include an estimate of the return on investment 

of storing pre-positioned equipment indoors. 

Category I ammunition items in OCONUS environments 

The committee continues to note that Category I ammunition 

items, including certain man-portable missiles and rockets, are 

highly explosive, extremely lethal, and a potential threat if they 

were to be used by unauthorized individuals or groups. To help protect these items and minimize the risk of loss or theft, it is critical 

that the Department of Defense (DOD), among other security 

measures, have sound inventory controls and accountability while 

transferring custody of Category I ammunition items in outside the 

contiguous United States (OCONUS) environments. The committee 

notes that recent Government Accountability Office reports on inventory management have found that DOD information systems 

used to facilitate inventory management have some limitations 

that prevent DOD’s ability to have Department-wide visibility of its 

inventory, including Category I ammunition items in OCONUS environments. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate the extent to which the military 

Services, in accordance with policies and procedures, have: (1) Have 

conducted physical inventories of Category I ammunition items in 

OCONUS locations and compared the results to records and adjusted the records as needed; (2) Are able to maintain accountability and track Category I ammunition items while they are 

being shipped to OCONUS locations and between OCONUS locations, as well as shipments back to the continental United States; 

and (3) Adhere to policies and procedures for maintaining accountVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
96 

ability over the process for how Category I ammunition items are 

distributed, expended, and turned-in in OCONUS locations. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to deliver a report to the committee no later than March 15, 2016. 

Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) 

The committee notes the vital national security contribution of 

the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) to Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn as well 

as its essential role for the military in quickly responding to crisis 

situations such as humanitarian and disaster relief operations. 

The National Airlift Policy of 1987 established clear policy regarding the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF). The committee directs 

the Department to continue to comply with the National Airlift Policy to maintain the effectiveness of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet 

(CRAF) through appropriate peacetime cargo airlift augmentation 

and training within the military airlift system. 

The committee encourages the Department to continue coordination with the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) on matters of longrange planning, capability, training, and readiness. 

Commercial innovation in energy technologies 

The committee notes that innovation in advanced energy technologies by the commercial sector is frequently generating both significant revenues for industry, as well as enhancing the energy efficiency of organizations that are adopting novel technical solutions. 

Similarly, technologies ranging from more energy efficient engines 

to micro-grids to information technology-based intelligent management of energy and power systems can have significant impacts on 

defense missions, both improving combat capability and reducing 

costs. 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

has had limited success in engaging innovative small businesses 

and university researchers in the development and maturation of 

these types of technologies to meet DOD needs. One example of a 

successful endeavor to identify, develop, and potentially adopt innovative energy technology solutions, especially those being developed 

in the commercial sector is the Marine Corps’ Experimental Forward Operating Base, currently run by the Expeditionary Energy 

Office. The committee believes that this type of effort should be 

replicated by other DOD organizations that have a mission to develop and adopt advanced energy technologies to support military 

missions. 

The committee further notes that DOD has a wide range of authorities that can be used to engage with and potentially invest in 

commercial technologies and non-traditional industry partners to 

develop next generation, game-changing technologies. Specifically, 

the committee notes that DOD makes limited use of the authorities 

to award advanced technology prizes (as codified in section 2374 of 

title 10, United States Code, and in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, Public Law 111–358), funding under 

Small Business Innovation Research program, transition activities 

supported by the Rapid Innovation Program, and other flexible and 

agile acquisition processes. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
97 

Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the Department 

to consider using these types of authorities to identify and engage 

innovation companies. 

Defense Logistics Agency and military services’ integrated 

demand planning for spare parts 

The committee recognizes that the Defense Logistics Agency 

(DLA) and the military services have jointly worked to integrate 

demand planning for consumable items to enhance materiel support at shipyards, depots and industrial operation sites. The committee continues to be concerned about DLA’s ability to ensure the 

timely delivery and availability of spare parts to the depots and industrial sites, such as the Navy’s Shipyards and Fleet Readiness 

Centers, Air Force’s Air Logistics Centers (ALC), and the Army and 

Marine Corps’ depots. While DLA has provided shipyards and depots with 80 percent of required parts in a timely and effective 

manner, our military services need 100 percent of the parts delivered on time to have combat/mission ready equipment. 

Reports by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the 

Department of Defense have identified shortages of spare parts at 

depots and shipyards, which affected maintenance operations and 

weapon system availability and overall readiness. In one report, 

the GAO analysis of Air Force data showed that the average 

monthly backorders and part shortages at the ALCs had grown significantly in recent years. The GAO also identified issues between 

DLA and the Air Force and Navy in support of their depot operations. Specifically, efforts to improve demand forecast accuracy for 

items needed to support the workload at the depots were not managed through a comprehensive framework and were not producing 

the intended outcomes. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate the extent to which: (1) DLA and the 

military services have established a framework for monitoring 

DLA’s supply support depots and industrial operations while meeting performance targets for improving materiel availability, reducing backorders, and minimizing the accumulation of excess inventory; (2) backorders for DLA-managed items at the depots and industrial operation sites have affected the availability and readiness 

of weapon systems; (3) DLA and the military services implemented 

and measured collaborative forecasting efforts—like demand data 

exchange or gross demand planning—to integrate demand planning 

and improve materiel availability in support of efficient operations 

at the depots and industrial sites; and (4) DLA and the military 

services identified and applied leading best practices for integrating demand planning that could be used to enhance the availability of DLA-managed consumable items, decrease the likelihood 

of excess inventory, and improve depot and industrial operations. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a report to the committee no later than March 15, 2016. 

Department of Defense airfield reflective pavement markings 

The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) for 

its continued safe execution of airfield operations to include mainVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
98 

taining and sustaining the airfield environment. The committee understands the Air Force has been assessing its airfield markings to 

include reflective airfield, runway, and taxiway markings. The assessment includes factors such as reflectivity, friction coefficient, 

durability, and life cycle costs. This committee encourages all DOD 

services to assess the different types of reflective materials to maximize safety and ensure Unified Facilities Guide Specifications for 

pavement markings (UFGS 32 17 23.00 20 Pavement Markings, 

UFGS 32 17 24.00 10 Pavement Markings) are adequate for minimum reflective marking requirements for continued safe nighttime 

and low visibility conditions. 

Department of Defense energy security and efficiency technologies 

The committee is aware that new energy security and efficiency 

technology is being tested by the military services at Department 

of Defense (DOD) installations and is supported by the Department. The committee applauds DOD’s efforts to find efficiencies in 

its energy programs. The committee encourages the types of technology that can provide energy infrastructure protections, maintain 

vital energy supplies during man-made and natural disasters and 

achieve energy efficiencies and cost savings. As such, the committee also encourages DOD’s continued testing and evaluation of 

energy security and efficiency technologies and recommends all 

military services and DOD continue to look for additional evaluation and testing opportunities. Lastly, the committee notes that 

microgrid demonstrations that specifically target highest reliability 

of critical infrastructure at low implementation costs will be imperative in today’s fiscally constrained environment. 

Department of Defense fuel consumption estimates 

The committee remains concerned that the Department of Defense (DOD) actual fuel costs have differed considerably from budget estimates. For example, the Department underestimated its fuel 

costs by about $3.0 billion for fiscal years 2010 through 2012. The 

committee notes the inherent challenge the DOD faces in having 

to plan real-time fuel prices well in advance of execution, and the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) found in 2014 that fluctuations in global fuel prices accounted for a large portion of the 

differences between estimated and actual fuel costs. However, the 

GAO also found that differences between the military services’ estimated and actual fuel consumption levels accounted for, on average, 26 percent of the difference between the DOD’s estimated and 

actual fuel costs for fiscal years 2009 through 2013. 

The committee notes that when developing annual operation and 

maintenance budget requests, the military services develop fuel 

funding requirements based on their estimated activity levels, such 

as flying hours, steaming days, tank miles, and base operations, 

along with the standard price of fuel provided to them by the Office 

of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). 

The committee believes that as the DOD transitions from largescale contingency operations in Afghanistan, the services’ consumption estimates should be more consistent as full spectrum training 

resumes. The committee also believes that given recent fuel price 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
99 

fluctuations due to changes in the global oil market, accurate fuel 

consumption estimates become even more important in trying to 

adequately determine budget requests, particularly in times of fiscal constraints. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to provide the committee with an assessment of 

the military services’ approaches to estimating fuel consumption in 

annual budget requests. This assessment shall include, but not be 

limited to: the processes the military services use to estimate their 

fuel consumption requirements each fiscal year, the factors that 

contribute to any differences between actual and estimated fuel 

consumption, and the extent to which DOD and the services have 

considered options for adjusting the approach to estimating fuel 

consumption in light of any differences in recent years between estimated and actual fuel use. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives no later than March 15, 2016. 

Department of Defense investment in community relations 

activities 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) engages in a variety of community relations activities and programs, 

such as aircraft flyovers and musical performances, which have a 

goal of increasing the understanding and mission of the DOD. The 

committee understands that some of these activities are also intended to support recruiting and retention programs. According to 

the DOD Directive 5410.18, the planning and execution of community relation programs are decentralized because of the variety of 

local conditions and environments in which they are used. However, because of their decentralized nature, it is difficult to determine the cost or effectiveness of these activities across the Department. 

For instance, the committee understands the budget request included $37.0 million in Military Construction, Army for an instruction building for the U.S. Army band, which does not include the 

costs of sustainment and operation of the facility. While the committee recognizes that community relations are needed and important, it also is interested in understanding the extent of investment 

in these activities and their benefits. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to identify the personnel, facilities, and other 

support costs associated with community relations activities in the 

Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and evaluate the extent 

to which the military services determine requirements for these activities. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than March 

15, 2016. 

Depot maintenance core workload capability 

The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

maintains many complex weapon systems and equipment that reVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
100 

quire regular and emergency maintenance in order to be available 

for DOD to meet the National Military Strategy. To sustain these 

weapon systems and equipment, at the depot level, DOD uses both 

organic depots and contractors. The committee notes that the military services are constantly in the process of assessing the critical 

skills and competencies necessary by the depot maintenance civilian workforce to support current and future national security requirements, along with projecting trends in the workforce based on 

expected losses due to retirement and other attrition. 

The committee continues to recognize the key role the depots, arsenals, and ammunition plants serve, along with industry. Section 

2464 of title 10 United States Code, required DOD to maintain a 

core maintenance capability—a combination of personnel, facilities, 

equipment, processes, data, and technology that is governmentowned and government-operated—needed to meet mobilization, 

contingency, and emergency requirements. The committee notes 

that as DOD continues to operate in a fiscally-constrained environment, DOD will need to prioritize available funds to support the 

depots to ensure core capabilities are sustained. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate the extent to which DOD: uses core 

capability requirements to manage the current and future depot 

maintenance workloads, is able to provide information that identifies trends in core capability workloads at selected military depots, 

and the effects, if any, they are having on capability; and agreements such as public private partnerships with industry and the 

impact they have on DOD meeting core capability requirements. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives no later than March 15, 2016. 

Effects of operation and maintenance funding levels 

The committee notes that the operation and maintenance (O&M) 

accounts provide the resources for military readiness and fund programs and activities such as training, maintenance, and base operations. The committee also notes that as a result of sequestrationlevel budget caps in fiscal year 2013, the Department of Defense’s 

O&M accounts were reduced by approximately $20.0 billion. Due to 

these sequestration reductions, the military services took a variety 

of actions, such as curtailing training, reducing the number of large 

training exercises, and ceasing flight operations for many combat 

units. As a result of these actions, and given the time required to 

retrain personnel and perform deferred maintenance, the military 

services have faced challenges in restoring their units to pre-sequestration levels of readiness. While the Bipartisan Budget Act of 

2013 (Public Law 113–67) provided some relief to the Department 

by increasing discretionary spending caps, established under the 

Budget Control Act of 2011, for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, the 

committee is concerned that the readiness and cost impacts associated with lower levels of O&M funding over time could lead to a 

high level of risk in the near future, with significant shortfalls in 

both present and future capabilities. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate the effects of budgetary constraints 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
101 

on the O&M accounts, including an assessment of, but not limited 

to the following: the trends in funding provided for the Department’s O&M accounts since fiscal year 2009 and a comparison of 

how O&M resources compared with funding plans; how the Department has identified immediate and long-term readiness and cost 

impacts resulting from any reductions in O&M resources; and how 

the Department assessed any degradation, if any, on core mission 

readiness and identified plans to mitigate such degradation. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives no later than March 15, 2016. 

Encouraging the Use of the Innovative Readiness Training 

(IRT) Program 

The committee is aware of the readiness challenges facing the 

Armed Forces due to the constraints put forth by sequestration. 

Additionally, the committee is aware of the Innovative Readiness 

Training (IRT) program, which contributes to military readiness 

and provides realistic training in a joint environment for National 

Guard, Reserve, and Active-Duty members, preparing them to 

serve during a national crisis at home or abroad. 

The committee understands the IRT program offers complex and 

challenging training opportunities for domestic and international 

crises, opportunities which can seldom be replicated outside of 

these crises. The committee is also aware that states that utilize 

the IRT program include, Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, 

Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Dakota. 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue to utilize the IRT programs as well as the other training opportunities that also provide hands-on and mission-essential training and are available to Active, Reserve, and National Guard 

forces. 

Enhanced Performance Round and Special Operations 

Science and Technology review 

The committee believes that the Army and Marine Corps have 

taken duplicative courses of action to improve its 5.56mm small 

arms ammunition. While the committee recognizes and supports 

the requirement for an improved small arms round against both 

hard and soft targets, the committee also believes that the Department may be incurring unnecessary costs to procure, store, and 

field almost identically-capable small arms ammunition. The committee is also concerned regarding a recent court case alleging that 

the Army infringed upon a patent in developing the enhanced performance round (EPR). 

Additionally, the committee is concerned that an independent 

comparison of the EPR, or M855A1, and Special Operations Science 

and Technology (SOST), round has not been completed, leaving 

both the Army and Marine Corps to develop separate ammunition 

procurement strategies. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 

consultation with the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, to 

submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
102 

and the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 2016. The 

report shall include a comparison and analysis of the EPR and 

SOST rounds to include but not limited to: (1) cost; (2) performance 

including range, accuracy, and lethality; and (3) effects on the 

weapon. The report may include a classified annex, as appropriate. 

Fabric-based respiratory protective equipment 

The committee is aware of emerging technologies in fabrics and 

respiratory protection that are designed to minimize service member exposure to inhalation of sand, dust, smoke, and pollutants. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the relevant military departments and their research, development, test, and evaluation directorates, to submit a report to the 

committee no later than March 1, 2016 on fabric-based respiratory 

protective equipment. The report shall evaluate the technology, and 

document any efforts underway to develop, design, and test wearable fabric-based respiratory protection solutions, and any potential 

applications for service members and military civilians. The report 

shall also include an assessment of the commercial availability of 

any fabric-based respiratory protection. 

Foreign language training 

The committee believes that foreign language proficiency, particularly for slang and other colloquialisms in target languages, is 

an essential component of military readiness. Additionally, the 

committee understands that foreign language proficiency education 

materials are utilized by numerous agencies and services, to include but not limited to the Defense Language Institute, Office of 

the Secretary of Defense, Defense Intelligence Agency, Army, Navy, 

Marine Corps, and Air Force, members of the intelligence community as well as the Department of State and other non-defense customers. The committee is concerned that reductions to such capabilities may have a far reaching impact on the ability of civilian 

and military personnel of the Department of Defense, and possibly 

also the cryptanalytic personnel of other agencies, to support combatant commanders and major commands of the military services. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives not later than 90 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act that identifies capability gaps in advanced foreign language proficiency within the military services 

and other relevant U.S. federal government agencies that support 

Department of Defense and military operations. The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to consult with such agencies, 

including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, in the 

preparation of this report, providing these agencies with an opportunity to submit additional views to the congressional defense committees as they deem necessary. The committee directs that this report should propose a plan for eliminating shortfalls in advanced 

foreign language proficiency and include a recommendation as to 

the most appropriate budget function, such as within a military 

service, other government agencies that support military operations, or the Office of the Secretary of Defense, for advanced foreign language training. The committee further directs that this reVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
103 

port should propose a plan for the aforementioned agencies to identify and reduce duplicative services that could reduce costs while 

increasing information and skill sharing. 

Installation access programs and systems 

The committee continues to be concerned about the lack of coordination among the efforts of the military services and defense 

agencies to support credentialing at defense installations. The Senate report accompanying S. 2410 (S. Rept. 113–176) of the Carl 

Levin National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to provide a report concurrent with the budget submission for fiscal year 2016 that identified DOD credentialing and physical access control programs and 

systems, including commercially contracted services and other commercially provided services. While DOD delivered an interim report, the final report on physical access control systems has not 

been received. 

The committee directs Secretary of Defense to immediately provide the required report on its efforts to deploy physical access control systems. As directed by the committee, this report should cover 

all programs and systems intended to provide credentials and/or 

manage installation access, include all programs and systems the 

services and DOD have operationally deployed, are in research and 

development, or in pilot or prototype demonstration, and include 

both direct and indirect costs. 

Major test range and test facility bases reimbursement 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) established the major range and test facility bases (MRTFBs) management concept to provide effective coordination among military 

installations, promote multi-service use, and reduce unnecessary 

duplication of assets. 

The committee is aware that MRTFBs in the United States currently are reimbursed for training activities by the training units 

upon completion of a training event. The committee understands 

that some training units do not routinely encounter this type of reimbursement process, which may create unnecessary difficulty and 

confusion for reimbursement at MRTFBs. 

Accordingly, the committee urges DOD to examine the current 

reimbursement process for MRTFBs and, where appropriate, simplify the reimbursement process in order to maximize effectiveness 

and efficiency for training units. 

Medical textile apparel for healthcare workers and patients 

The committee is aware of emerging technologies in textiles and 

medical apparel that are designed to minimize unanticipated exposures to blood and bodily fluids, by reducing the amount of pathogens on garments and decreasing the risk of infectious disease 

transmission in healthcare settings. Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to incorporate the effective use 

of such emerging technologies, including innovative textile products 

designed to reduce the chances of spreading infections in 

healthcare settings, where appropriate. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
104 

Mentor Prote ́ge ́ program 

The congressionally-mandated Mentor Prote ́ge ́ program is intended to support efforts of small and disadvantaged businesses to 

partner with established defense suppliers in order to improve 

their ability to deliver needed technologies and services to the Department of Defense. The committee is concerned that the program 

may not always be currently executed to most efficiently achieve 

mandated goals. For example, the committee’s analysis of this program indicates that in some cases, prote ́ge ́ firms participating in 

this program had received millions of dollars in federal prime contract awards prior to the establishment of their Mentor-Prote ́ge ́

agreements. This raises questions as to whether appropriate criteria are in place to ensure that the companies participating as 

prote ́ge ́s truly require the developmental assistance that is being 

provided under this program. In addition, the committee is concerned that in some cases the developmental assistance provided 

by mentors and reimbursed by the Department under this program 

may not be targeted to those activities most critical to enhancing 

the capabilities of the supplier base that the Department needs. 

The committee will continue to work with the Department to ensure that the program meets the policy goals of enhancing the defense supplier base, in the most effective and efficient manner, and 

to determine if there are better ways to incentivize participation in 

the program other than direct reimbursement as well as program 

metrics that would better convey the actual impact of the development assistance on the prote ́ge ́’s business. 

Obstructions on or near military installations 

The committee is concerned that the installation of renewable energy projects on or near military bases may cause unacceptable interference with military operations or safety. The committee 

strongly encourages the Department of Defense to ensure the 

Siting Clearinghouse process appropriately takes into account the 

views of senior military officers of the uniformed services for the 

military compatibility of renewable energy projects. The committee 

believes senior military officials can best assess potential impacts 

to the safety or readiness of military servicemembers as well as the 

effectiveness of mitigation strategies proposed for renewable energy 

projects. 

Operational Energy 

The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense 

(DOD)’s fiscal year 2016 commitment to improving military capability, decrease tactical risk, and reduce cost through efforts to improve energy security and to better manage both operational and 

installation energy. 

The committee understands that generators used by the military 

services consume a large percentage of the fuel used in overseas 

contingency operations and the Department should continue to examine ways to increase fuel efficiency, improve combat capability, 

decrease tactical risk, and reduce cost of generators. 

Additionally, the committee understands that the Army’s 

planned Abrams tank auxiliary power unit will use 92 percent less 

fuel idling and 9 percent less fuel during maneuvers. Similarly, the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
105 

improved turbine engine program for Army Blackhawk and Apache 

helicopters is expected to extend combat range by 85 percent. 

The committee is also encouraged by the Navy’s focus on enhancing combat capability, increasing endurance and range, and using 

energy investments to increase readiness. The committee understands that planned technologies such as improved ship hull coatings, stern flaps, lighting, and bow bulbs may create an additional 

week of steaming days on the same amount of fuel. Hybrid electric 

drives, currently installed in amphibious assault ships, can add 10 

steaming days which would allow the Navy and Marine Corps more 

presence on station and to spend less time refueling and replenishing at sea. 

Consequently, the committee encourages DOD to continue the 

progress made towards improving combat capabilities through appropriate investments in operational and installation energy. 

Personal protection equipment 

The committee notes that section 141 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (P.L. 113–66) required the 

Secretary of Defense to submit, as part of the defense budget materials for each fiscal year, a consolidated budget justification display 

that covers all programs and activities associated with the procurement of personal protection equipment (PPE). 

While the Department of Defense’s fiscal year 2016 budget display for PPE is a positive step, the submission did not provide 

many of the required details regarding body armor components, 

combat helmets, and combat protective eyewear. The committee expects the Department to comply with section 141 of the fiscal year 

2014 NDAA and strongly encourages the Department to consider 

including similar budget displays for environmental and fire resistant clothing, footwear, and organizational clothing and individual 

equipment as well. 

Red Hill underground fuel storage facility 

The committee is aware that the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) has stated that the Red Hill Underground Fuel 

Storage Facility ‘‘serves as a critical asset supporting United States 

Pacific Command operations in peacetime and contingency’’ and 

will ‘‘remain vitally important to our security interests for the next 

thirty years.’’ The committee is also aware that PACOM, the Department of the Navy, and the Defense Logistics Agency have determined the storage requirement at the Red Hill Underground 

Fuel Storage Facility to remain between 13 and 15 operational 

storage tanks to support the most demanding scenario within the 

Pacific theater, with the ability to bring additional tanks online at 

the end of the repair and modernization cycle should future requirements warrant. Additionally, the committee is aware that the 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command is currently conducting an 

engineering assessment to determine the best available practicable 

technological (BAPT) solutions for the recapitalization of the storage tanks to ensure long-term integrity and environmental compliance in a cost effective manner. The committee is further aware 

that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has drafted a proposed rule to amend Title 40 Code of Federal Regulation (Parts 280 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
106 

and 281) to regulate field-constructed underground storage tanks, 

such as those at the facility, and directs the Naval Facilities Engineering Command to factor in these potential regulations in their 

BAPT solutions. 

Report on those at-risk of exposure to perflourochemicals 

from the Haven Well in Portsmouth, New Hampshire 

The committee notes that in April 2014, the Air Force in coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the New 

Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, and the City of 

Portsmouth—discovered the presence of perflourochemicals (PFCs) 

in the Haven Well in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The presence 

of the chemicals in the well in Portsmouth is likely due to the Air 

Force’s use of fire-fighting foam at Pease Air National Guard Base. 

Research has associated exposure to these chemicals with certain 

types of cancer. Portsmouth residents who believe they were at risk 

of exposure have requested tests to check their blood serum levels 

of PFCs. The committee is unaware of any affirmative steps by the 

Air Force to identify and notify everyone at risk of contamination 

from the Haven Well—including the service members and civilians 

who may have been exposed while stationed at the Pease Air Base. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit 

a report to the defense committees no later than September 30, 

2015, detailing the Air Force’s efforts to identify and notify the 

servicemembers and Department of Defense civilian employees who 

may have been exposed while stationed at Pease. If such notification is not complete by the completion of the report, the Secretary 

shall include the Air Force’s plan to complete the notification within 90 days of submission of the report. 

Resilience of Department of Defense-owned utility infrastructure 

The committee notes that Department of Defense (DOD) installations serve as platforms from which the Department deploys forces 

across the full spectrum of military operations. To accomplish their 

missions, DOD installations, inside and outside the continental 

United States, must have assurance that they can continue to operate in the face of man-made and weather-induced utility disruptions that affect electricity, potable water, wastewater, and natural 

gas utility service. The committee notes that threats—such as 

cyberattacks—and hazards—such as severe weather events—pose 

significant risks to the utility infrastructure that provides military 

installations with utility services. The committee also notes that 

DOD installations rely upon utility infrastructure owned by nonDOD entities, such as commercial utility companies, and on-installation infrastructure owned by the Department. 

The committee believes that the condition of the utility infrastructure can play a significant role in a military installation’s resilience to utility disruptions, either by threat or hazard. For example, aging infrastructure is more likely to fail when subjected to extreme weather conditions. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate, (1) from fiscal years 2009 to 2015, 

utility disruptions on DOD installations that have been caused by 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
107 

the failure of DOD-owned infrastructure and what have been the 

operational and fiscal impacts of such disruptions, (2) how DOD 

has assessed the condition of its utility infrastructure on military 

installations and invested in the sustainment of its utility infrastructure, (3) to what extent, if any, is information on the condition 

of DOD-owned utility infrastructure used by the Department when 

it makes utility resilience or other resources decisions; and (4) any 

other issues identified by the Comptroller General. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a 

briefing or deliver a report to the committee no later than March 

15, 2016. 

Tubular light-emitting diode technology 

The committee recognizes that the Department of the Navy is replacing fluorescent light bulbs aboard U.S. Navy vessels with tubular light-emitting diodes (T–LEDs). The committee notes that these 

fixtures may consume less energy, realize life-cycle cost savings, 

and provide a return on investment. Should the Secretary of the 

Navy determine that further investment in this technology will 

lead to consistent return on investments across the fleet and 

ashore, the committee encourages the Secretary to fully develop an 

approved products list for T–LEDs that is broadly available for use 

in vessels and facilities. In addition, the committee encourages the 

Secretary of the Navy to request updates to the Unified Facilities 

Criteria and other related Department of Defense regulations, to 

include new lighting technologies as an option for vessels and facilities. 

Utah Test and Training Range 

The committee recognizes the important role Air Force test and 

training ranges play in maintaining and improving the readiness, 

proficiency, safety, and cost effectiveness of Department of Defense 

personnel and equipment. The committee further recognizes the 

need for the Air Force to enhance and modernize their ranges to 

test and train units on fifth-generation weapons systems to maintain the United States Armed Forces’ technological advantage over 

prospective adversaries. Fifth-generation weapons such as the F–35 

Joint Strike Fighter and F–22 Raptor are approaching or already 

attained benchmarks in operational capacity and use. The Long 

Range Strike Bomber and other advanced weapons continue into 

planning and development stages. The Department must retain 

and sustain the capability to test and train appropriately on these 

technologically advanced weapons systems. 

The Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) provides the largest 

overland safety footprint available in the Department for aircrew 

training and weapons testing, to include fifth-generation and future 

weapons systems. The UTTR provides a realistic and similar terrain to actual combat locations. Each year, the Department submits a Sustainable Ranges Report to Congress, outlining the Department’s position on military training range needs, resources, 

and constraints. Identified in these reports are three needed areas 

of improvement for UTTR: inability to accommodate fifth-generation aircraft and weapons testing, encroachment through natural 

community expansion and environmental constraints, and congesVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
108 

tion with increased unmanned aerial vehicle testing at U.S. Army 

Dugway Proving Grounds. 

To maintain current UTTR mission capability and meet future 

mission requirements, the committee recommends the Air Force, 

Bureau of Land Management, Congress, the State of Utah, local 

governments, and community leaders continue efforts to create 

buffer areas surrounding the range to prevent against encroachment, and provide the Department with the necessary capabilities 

needed to fulfill future mission requirements. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(109) 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Active Forces 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2016, as shown below: 

Service FY 2015 

authorized 

FY 2016 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2016 

request 

FY 2015 

authorized 

Army .......................................................................... 490,000 475,000 475,000 0 ¥15,000 

Navy ........................................................................... 323,600 329,200 329,200 0 +5,600 

Marine Corps ............................................................. 184,100 184,000 184,000 0 ¥100 

Air Force .................................................................... 312,980 317,000 317,000 0 +4,020 

DOD Total ......................................................... 1,310,680 1,305,200 1,305,200 0 ¥5,480 

Enhancement of authority for management of end strengths 

for military personnel (sec. 402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

691 of title 10, United States Code. The provision would also 

amend section 115 of title 10, United States Code, to provide the 

Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries authority to vary 

military personnel end strengths below those authorized in title IV 

of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2016, as shown below: 

Service FY 2015 

authorized 

FY 2016 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2016 

request 

FY 2015 

authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 350,200 342,000 342,000 0 ¥8,200 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 202,000 198,000 198,000 0 ¥4,000 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 57,300 57,400 57,400 0 +100 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 39,200 38,900 38,900 0 ¥300 

Air National Guard .................................................... 105,000 105,500 105,500 0 +500 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 67,100 69,200 69,200 0 +2,100 

DOD Total ......................................................... 820,800 811,000 811,000 0 ¥9,800 

Coast Guard Reserve ................................................ 9,000 7,000 7,000 0 ¥2,000 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
110 

End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the 

reserves (sec. 412) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2016, as shown 

below: 

Service FY 2015 

authorized 

FY 2016 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2016 

request 

FY 2015 

authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 31,385 30,770 30,770 0 ¥615 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 16,261 16,261 16,261 0 0 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 9,973 9,934 9,934 0 ¥39 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 2,261 2,260 2,260 0 ¥1 

Air National Guard .................................................... 14,704 14,748 14,748 0 +44 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 2,830 3,032 3,032 0 +202 

DOD Total ......................................................... 77,414 77,005 77,005 0 ¥409 

The provision also expresses the sense of Senate that the National Guard Bureau should account for States that routinely recruit and retain members of the National Guard in excess of State 

authorizations when allocating full-time duty personnel. The committee further recommends that the Chief of the National Guard 

Bureau shall take into account the actual number of members of 

the Army National Guard of the United States serving in each 

State as of September 20 each year when allocating full-time duty 

personnel in the Army National Guard of the United States. 

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 

413) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

minimum number of military technicians (dual status) for the reserve components of the Army and Air Force as of the last day of 

fiscal year 2016, as shown below: 

Service FY 2015 

authorized 

FY 2016 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2016 

request 

FY 2015 

authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 27,210 26,099 26,099 0 ¥1,111 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 7,895 7,395 7,395 0 ¥500 

Air National Guard .................................................... 21,792 22,104 22,104 0 +312 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 9,789 9,814 9,814 0 +25 

DOD Total ......................................................... 66,686 65,412 65,412 0 ¥1,274 

Fiscal year 2016 limitation on number of non-dual status 

technicians (sec. 414) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2016, as 

shown below: 

Service FY 2015 

authorized 

FY 2016 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2016 

request 

FY 2015 

authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 0 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
111 

Service FY 2015 

authorized 

FY 2016 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2016 

request 

FY 2015 

authorized 

Air National Guard .................................................... 350 350 350 0 0 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 595 595 595 0 0 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 90 90 90 0 0 

DOD Total ......................................................... 2,635 2,635 2,635 0 0 

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on 

active duty for operational support (sec. 415) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support under section 115(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, as of September 30, 2016, as shown below: 

Service FY 2015 

authorized 

FY 2016 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2016 

request 

FY 2015 

authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 17,000 17,000 17,000 0 0 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 13,000 13,000 13,000 0 0 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................................... 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0 

DOD Total ......................................................... 69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0 

Chief of the National Guard Bureau authority in increase 

certain end strengths applicable to the Army National 

Guard (sec. 416) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Chief of the National Guard Bureau with the authority to increase 

the fiscal year 2016 end strength of the Selected Reserve personnel 

of the Army National Guard as specified in section 411(a)(1) by up 

to 3,000 members, the end strength of the Reserves serving on fulltime duty for the Army National Guard as specified in section 

412(1) by 615 Reserves, and military technicians (dual status) for 

the Army National Guard as specified in section 413(1) by 1,111. 

The provision contains a limitation stating that the Chief of the 

National Guard Bureau may only increase an end strength using 

the authority contained in this section if such increase is paid for 

entirely out of the readiness funds appropriated for fiscal year 2016 

for Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard. 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations 

Military personnel (sec. 421) 

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


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
112 

Budget Items 

Military personnel funding changes 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for military personnel 

programs include the following changes from the budget request: 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Military Personnel Underexecution .................................................. ¥987.2 

Additional support for the National Guard’s Operation Phalanx .. +21.7 

Reduction for anticipated cost of TRICARE consolidation .............. ¥85.0 

TRICARE program improvement initiatives .................................... +15.0 

Financial literacy improvement ........................................................ +85.0 

Foreign currency fluctuation adjustment ......................................... ¥304.0 

Total ............................................................................................. ¥1,254.5 

The committee recommends a total reduction in the Military Personnel (MILPERS) appropriation of $1,254.5 million. This amount 

includes: (1) A reduction of $987.2 million to reflect the Government Accountability Office’s most recent assessment of the average 

annual MILPERS underexecution; (2) An increase of $21.7 million 

to fund increased support for the National Guard’s Operation Phalanx mission in support of the United States–Mexico border; (3) A 

reduction of $85.0 million to reflect costs avoided by the Department of Defense relative to its proposal to consolidate the 

TRICARE program; (4) An increase of $15 million to improve access to care, quality of care, health outcomes, and the experience 

of care for military beneficiaries under the TRICARE program; (5) 

An increase of $85.0 million to reflect the additional financial literacy training recommended by the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission; and (6) An adjustment of 

$304 million to reflect the foreign currency fluctuation. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(113) 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy 

Authority of promotion boards to recommend officers of 

particular merit be placed at the top of the promotion 

list (sec. 501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 616 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize an officer promotion board to recommend officers of particular merit to be placed 

at the top of the promotion list. 

Minimum grades for certain corps and related positions in 

the Army, Navy, and Air Force (sec. 502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend various provisions of title 10, United States Code, to revise general or 

flag officer grades in the Army, Navy and Air Force. 

The provision would amend section 3023(a) of title 10, United 

States Code, to require that the Army Chief of Legislative Affairs 

be an officer in a grade above the grade of colonel. 

The provision would amend section 3039(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, to require that the Army Assistant Surgeon General 

be an officer in a grade above the grade of colonel. 

The provision would amend section 3069(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, to require that the Army Chief of the Nurse Corps be 

an officer in a grade above the grade of colonel. 

The provision would amend section 3084 of title 10, United 

States Code, to require that the Army Chief of the Veterinary 

Corps be an officer in a grade above the grade of lieutenant colonel. 

The provision would amend section 5027(a) of title 10, United 

States Code, to require that the Navy Chief of Legislative Affairs 

be an officer in a grade above the grade of captain. 

The provision would amend section 5138 of title 10, United 

States Code, to require that the Navy Chief of the Dental Corps be 

an officer in a grade above the grade of captain. The provision 

would also remove the authority in section 5138(b) that entitles the 

Navy Chief of the Dental Corps to the same privileges of retirement as provided for chiefs of bureaus in section 5133 of title 10, 

United States Code. 

The provision would amend section 5150(c) of title 10, United 

States Code, to require that the Navy Directors of Medical Corps 

be officers in a grade above the grade of captain. 

The provision would amend section 8023(a) of title 10, United 

States Code, to require that the Air Force Chief of Legislative Liaison be an officer in a grade above the grade of colonel. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
114 

The provision would amend section 8069(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, to require that the Air Force Chief of the Nurse Corps 

be an officer in a grade above the grade of colonel. 

The provision would amend section 8081 of title 10, United 

States Code, to require that the Air Force Assistant Surgeon General for Dental Services be an officer in a grade above the grade 

of colonel. 

The provision would provide that in the case of an officer who on 

the date of enactment of the Act is serving in a position that is covered by this provision, the continued service of that officer in such 

position after the date of enactment of the Act shall not be affected 

by the provision. 

Enhancement of military personnel authorities in connection with the defense acquisition workforce (sec. 503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would improve the 

management of the military acquisition workforce and enhance the 

quality and effectiveness of military acquisition personnel. The 

committee is concerned that in the years since the passage of the 

Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 

1986 (Public Law 99–433) the Department of Defense senior leadership’s focus on the importance of the military acquisition workforce 

has declined. This provision is designed to increase the 

attractiveness of acquisition functions to skilled military officers 

and enlisted personnel and would: (1) provide for credit for joint 

duty assignments for acquisition related assignments in order to 

broaden the promotion preference and career opportunities of military acquisition professionals; (2) provide for an enhanced dual 

track career path in combat arms and a functional secondary career in acquisition to more closely align military operational requirements and acquisition; (3) include business and commercial 

training as joint professional military education; and (4) require an 

annual report to Congress on promotion rates for officers in acquisition positions. 

Enhanced flexibility for determination of officers to continue on active duty and for selective early retirement 

and early discharge (sec. 504) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 638(a) of title 10, United States Code, relating to the authority 

for selective early retirement and early discharges. The provision 

would eliminate the restriction that the number of officers recommended for discharge by a selection board may not be more than 

30 percent of the number of officers in each grade, year group, or 

specialty (or combination thereof) in each competitive category. The 

provision would impose the same restriction that applies to boards 

to select officers for early retirement, which provides that the number of officers recommended for retirement may not be more than 

30 percent of the number of officers considered. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
115 

Authority to defer until age 68 mandatory retirement for 

age of a general or flag officer serving as Chief or Deputy Chief of Chaplains of the Army, Navy or Air Force 

(sec. 505) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1253 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize service secretaries to defer the retirement of general and flag officers serving 

as the Chief or Deputy Chief of Chaplains in their respective Services to age 68. Section 1251 of title 10, United States Code, allows 

for the deferred retirement of regular officers serving as chaplains 

in grades below general and flag officer grades to age 68. However, 

no provision is contained in section 1253 of title 10, United States 

Code, to authorize regular officers serving as chaplains in flag or 

general officer grades, the grades associated with service as the 

Chief or Deputy Chief of Chaplains, to serve beyond age 64. 

Reinstatement of enhanced authority for selective early discharge of warrant officers (sec. 506) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 508a of title 10, United States Code, to reinstate authority for 

the service secretaries to convene, if necessary, selection boards to 

consider regular warrant officers on the Active-Duty list for involuntary discharge. The authority to selectively discharge regular 

warrant officers pursuant to section 580a expired on October 1, 

1999. The proposal would authorize such boards during the period 

October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2019. 

Authority to conduct warrant officer retired grade determinations (sec. 507) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1371 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a service secretary to retire warrant officers in the highest grade in which they 

served satisfactorily before retirement. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management 

Authority to designate certain Reserve officers as not to be 

considered for selection for promotion (sec. 511) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the secretaries of the military departments to defer promotion consideration 

for reserve component officers in a non-participatory (membership 

points only) status. Currently, section 14301 of title 10, United 

States Code, requires servicemembers identified on the Reserve Active Status List to be considered for promotion to the next higher 

grade. This includes certain categories of reservists on the Reserve 

Active Status List who, by Department of Defense guidance, are in 

the Individual Ready Reserve and the Standby Reserve and who 

remain eligible for promotion consideration, but are not actively 

participating in Reserve duty because they are in a status in which 

they are receiving membership only points for Reserve credit. 

Under current law, some individuals assigned to the Individual 

Ready Reserve may be discharged from the reserve component 

upon their second deferral for promotion because they are considVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
116 

ered to have twice failed for promotion. This provision would provide the reserve component flexibility to remove individuals from 

promotion consideration during a period when they are least competitive for promotion, and would allow the services to retain 

servicemembers with significant military training as well as civilian technical and professional skills that could contribute to their 

desirability for selection to be promoted should the individual elect 

to return to military service. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 14502(b) of title 10, United States Code, to conform the authority for convening special selection boards for Reserve officers 

with the authority for Active-Duty officers in cases in which an officer is considered by a mandatory promotion board, but is not selected due to a material error of fact, material administrative error, 

or the board did not have before it material information for its consideration. 

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

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

the active components. 

Authority for certain Air Force reserve component personnel to provide training and instruction regarding 

pilot instructor training (sec. 514) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Air Force to utilize, during fiscal year 2016, up to 

50 Active, Guard, and Reserve (AGR) members and dual status 

military technicians to provide training and instruction to active 

duty and foreign military personnel in excess of what is currently 

authorized by the AGR and military technician statutes. The provision would also require the Secretary, by no later than 180 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act, to provide the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a 

report setting forth a plan to eliminate pilot instructor shortages 

within the Air Force using authorities available to the Secretary 

under current law. 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities 

Duty required for eligibility for preseparation counseling 

for members being discharged or released from active 

duty (sec. 521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1142 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary 

concerned to provide pre-separation counseling to all Active-Duty 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
117 

servicemembers and all reserve component servicemembers called 

or ordered to Active Duty or full-time operational support after 

completion of their first 180 continuous days of service whose discharge or release from Active Duty is anticipated as of a specific 

date. 

Expansion of pilot programs on career flexibility to enhance 

retention of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 522) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 533 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) to remove the prohibition for participation by members of the Armed Forces serving 

under an agreement upon entry, or members receiving a critical 

military skill retention bonus under section 355 of title 37, United 

States Code, from participating in pilot programs on career flexibility to enhance retention. The provision would also remove the restriction that limits the number of participants in the program to 

20 officers and 20 enlisted members who may be selected to participate in the pilot program during a calendar year. 

Sense of Senate on development of gender-neutral occupational standards for occupational assignments in the 

Armed Forces (sec. 523) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that: (1) the development of gender-neutral occupational standards is vital in determining the occupational assignments of all members of the Armed Forces; (2) studies being 

conducted by the Armed Forces are important to the development 

of these standards and should incorporate the best scientific practices available; and (3) the Armed Forces should consider these 

studies carefully to ensure they do not result in unnecessary barriers to service and that decisions on occupational assignments be 

based on objective analysis and not negatively impact combat effectiveness, including units whose primary mission is to engage in direct ground combat at the tactical level. 

Subtitle D—Member Education and Training 

Part I—Educational Assistance Reform 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary concerned to determine that off-duty training or education through the tuition assistance program is likely to contribute to the professional development of a servicemember. The 

committee notes that this provision was recommended in the final 

report of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization 

Commission. The committee strongly recommends good stewardship of the tuition assistance program. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
118 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would sunset the 

program of educational assistance for reserve component members 

supporting contingency operations and other operations in 4 years 

after the date of enactment of this Act. The committee agrees with 

the finding of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission that this program is duplicative with the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill, which provides a more robust benefit for service 

members. 

Reports on educational levels attained by certain members 

of the Armed Forces at time of separation from the 

Armed Forces (sec. 533) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require an 

annual report by each Secretary concerned on the educational levels attained by members of the Armed Forces who transferred unused education benefits to family members pursuant to section 

3319 of title 38, United States Code, while serving as members of 

the Armed Forces and separated from the Armed Forces during the 

preceding year. The provision was recommended by the Military 

Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. 

Sense of Congress on transferability of unused education 

benefits to family members (sec. 534) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express a 

sense of Congress that each Secretary concerned should exercise 

the authority to be more selective in permitting the transferability 

of unused education benefits to family members in a manner that 

encourages the retention of individuals in the Armed Forces. 

No entitlement to unemployment insurance while receiving 

Post-9/11 Education Assistance (sec. 535) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that 

individuals receiving Post-9/11 Education Assistance may not also 

receive unemployment insurance while receiving the post-9/11 education benefit. 

Part II—Other Matters 

Repeal of statutory specification of minimum duration of inresident instruction for courses of instruction offered as 

part of Phase II Joint Professional Military Education 

(sec. 536) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2154 of title 10, United States Code to remove the statutory 

minimum residency requirements for Joint Professional Military 

Education Phase II courses taught at the Joint Forces Staff College. The provision would also repeal section 2156 of title 10, 

United States Code, to repeal the requirement that the duration of 

the principal course of instruction offered at the Joint Forces Staff 

College may not be less than 10 weeks of resident instruction, and 

allow the Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
119 

of Staff to designate and certify various curricula and delivery 

methods that adhere to joint curricula content, student acculturation, and faculty requirements. 

Quality assurance of certification programs and standards 

for professional credentials obtained by members of the 

Armed Forces (sec. 537) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2015 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 

551 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) 

to require the Secretaries of the military departments to ensure the 

accreditation provided for servicemembers meet recognized national 

and international standards. 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense must ensure that accrediting bodies meet certain recognized standards in 

order to allow service members to receive credentials that will have 

credibility as they seek employment in the private sector. The committee believes the Secretary is in the best position to determine 

these standards, but urges the Secretary to first review applicable 

national and international standards, such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO/IEC) Standard 17024:2012, 

pertaining to general requirements for bodies operating certification programs. 

Support for athletic programs of the United States Military 

Academy (sec. 538) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 4362 to title 10, United States Code, that would authorize 

the Secretary of the Army to: 

(1) Enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with 

the Army West Point Athletic Association (Association) for the 

purpose of supporting the athletic and physical fitness programs of the United Stated Military Academy (Academy); 

(2) Establish financial controls to account for resources of 

the Academy and the Association, in accordance with accepted 

accounting principles; 

(3) Enter into leases or licenses for the purpose of supporting the athletic and physical fitness programs of the Academy; 

(4) Provide support services to the Association; 

(5) Accept from the Association funds, supplies, and services 

to support the athletic and physical fitness programs of the 

Academy; 

(6) Enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with the 

Association. This provision would also authorize the Association to enter into licensing, marketing, and sponsorship agreements relating to trademark and service marks identifying the 

Academy, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Army. 

Online access to the higher education component of the 

transition assistance program (sec. 539) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to notify service members, veterans, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
120 

or dependents of the availability of the higher education component 

of the Transition Assistance Program on the Transition GPS Standalone Training Internet web site of the Department of Defense. The 

provision would also direct the Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to assess the feasibility 

of providing access for veterans and dependents to the higher education component of the Transition Assistance Program on the 

eBenefits Internet website of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

and tracking the completion of that component through that Internet web site. 

The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report setting forth a description of the cost and length of time required to 

provide access and begin tracking completion of the higher education component of the Transition Assistance Program. 

Subtitle E—Military Justice 

Modification of Rule 304 of the Military Rules of Evidence 

relating to the corroboration of a confession or admission (sec. 546) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Rule 

304(c) of the Military Rules of Evidence to provide that a confession 

by an accused may be considered as evidence against the accused 

only if independent evidence, direct or circumstantial, has been admitted into evidence that would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the confession. 

Modification of Rule 104 of the Rules for Courts-Martial to 

establish certain prohibitions concerning evaluations of 

Special Victims’ Counsel (sec. 547) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require Rule 

104(b) of the Rules for Courts-Martial be modified within 180 days 

after the date of enactment to prohibit giving a less favorable rating to any member of the Armed Forces serving as a Special Victims’ Counsel because of the zeal with which such Counsel represented a victim. 

Right of victims of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to timely disclosure of certain materials 

and information in connection with prosecution of offenses (sec. 548) 

The provision would amend section section 806b(a) of title 10, 

United States Code, (Article 6b(a), UCMJ) to require timely disclosure by the trial counsel to a Special Victims’ Counsel, if the victim 

is so represented, to charges and specifications related to any offenses, motions filed by trial or defense counsel, statements of the 

accused, statements of the victim in connection with the offense, 

portions of the government investigation relating to the victim, and 

the advice, if any, by a staff judge advocate recommending any 

charge or specification not be referred to trial. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
121 

Enforcement of certain crime victims’ rights by the Court of 

Criminal Appeals (sec. 549) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 806b of title 10, United States Code, (Article 6b, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)), to allow an interlocutory appeal by a 

victim based on assertion that the victim’s rights at an Article 32, 

UCMJ investigation were violated. 

Release to victims upon request of complete record of proceedings and testimony of courts-martial in cases in 

which sentences adjudged could include punitive discharge (sec. 550) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 854(e) of title 10, United States Code (article 54(e), UCMJ, to 

expand the circumstances under which an alleged victim must be 

provided a copy of all prepared records of the proceedings of a 

court-martial. 

Representation and assistance of victims by Special Victims’ 

Counsel in questioning by military criminal investigators (sec. 551) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1044e(f) of title 10, United States Code, to require a military 

criminal investigator seeking to question an individual eligible for 

assistance of Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) to inform the victim 

of the right to be represented by a SVC in connection with such 

questioning. If a victim invokes the right then the SVC shall assist 

the victim during questioning, the investigator shall only contact 

the victim through the SVC, and the military criminal investigations may not question the victim without consent of the SVC. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 1044e(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize Special 

Victims’ Counsel to provide legal consultation and assistance to victims of an alleged sex-related offense, in connection with inspector 

general and equal opportunity complaints, requests for information 

under the Freedom of Information Act, and communications with 

Congress. 

Enhancement of confidentiality of restricted reporting of 

sexual assault in the military (sec. 553) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subsection (b) of section 1565b of title 10, United States Code, to provide that federal law protecting the privacy of victims who are 

servicemembers or adult military dependents and who file restricted reports of sexual assault would preempt any State laws 

that require mandatory reporting made to a sexual assault response coordinator, a sexual assault victim advocate, or healthcare 

personnel providing assistance to a military sexual assault victim 

under section 1525b of title 10, United States Code, except when 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
122 

reporting is necessary to prevent or mitigate a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of an individual. 

Establishment of Office of Complex Investigations within 

the National Guard Bureau (sec. 554) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section to Chapter 1101 of title 10, United States Code, that would 

establish an Office of Complex Investigations within the National 

Guard Bureau (NGB), with authority to assist the States in administrative investigations of sexual assault involving members of the 

National Guard, and circumstances involving members of the 

Guard where States have limited jurisdiction or authority and such 

other circumstances as the Chief of the NGB directs. It also allows 

individual investigators established under this provision to request 

information from any Federal, State or local government. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 546(a)(2) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 

113–291) to require the Secretary of Defense to establish the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces not later than 90 days 

after enactment of this Act. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report of the 

extent to which the Army National Guard and Army Reserve have 

in place policies and programs to prevent and respond to incidents 

of sexual assault involving members of the Army National Guard 

and Army Reserve, and provide medical and mental health services 

to members of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve following a sexual assault, and to identify whether service in the 

Army National Guard or Army Reserve pose challenges to the prevention of or response to sexual assault. The Comptroller General 

will provide the initial report Congress not later than April 1, 2016. 

Sense of Congress on the service of military families and on 

sentencing retirement eligible members of the Armed 

Forces (sec. 557) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that military juries should not face the difficult 

choice between imposing a fair sentence or protecting the benefits 

of a member of the Armed Forces for the sake of family members, 

that family members of retirement-eligible members should not be 

adversely affected by the loss of the member’s military benefits as 

a result of a court-martial conviction, and welcoming the opportunity to work with the Department of Defense to develop authoriVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
123 

ties to improve the military justice system and protect benefits that 

military families have helped earn. 

Subtitle F—Defense Dependents’ Education and Military 

Family Readiness Matters 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members of the armed 

forces and Department of Defense civilian employees 

(sec. 561) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$25.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for continuation of the Department of Defense (DOD) assistance program 

to local educational agencies that are impacted by enrollment of dependent children of military members and DOD civilian employees. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for impact aid payments for children with disabilities under section 

8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), using the formula set forth in section 363 of 

the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), for continuation of Department of 

Defense assistance to local educational agencies that benefit eligible dependents with severe disabilities. 

Authority to use appropriated funds to support Department 

of Defense student meal programs in domestic dependent elementary and secondary schools located outside 

the United States (sec. 563) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2243 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the use of 

appropriated funds to support student meal programs in domestic 

defense dependents’ schools located outside of the United States. 

Biennial surveys of military dependents on military family 

readiness matters (sec. 564) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of the Office of Family Policy of the Department of Defense to conduct biennial surveys of adult dependents of members 

of the Armed Forces on matters of military family readiness. 

Subtitle G—Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 525(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to extend the requirement for 

semiannual reports on involuntary separation of members of the 

Armed Forces through calendar year 2017. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
124 

Remotely piloted aircraft career field manning shortfalls 

(sec. 572) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

availability of more than 85 percent of fiscal year 2016 operation 

and maintenance funds for the Office of the Secretary of the Air 

Force until the Secretary submits a report, not later than 60 days 

after enactment of this Act, on remotely piloted aircraft career field 

manning policies and actions the Air Force will take to rectify personnel shortfalls. Such actions should include a description and associated timeline of actions the Air Force will take to increase remotely piloted aircraft career field manpower authorizations and 

manning levels to at least the equal of the normative levels of manning and readiness of all other combat aircraft career fields, and 

also recruitment/retention bonuses, incentive pay, use of enlisted 

personnel, and increased weighting to remotely piloted aircraft personnel on promotion boards as well as ensuring the school house 

for remotely piloted aircraft personnel is sufficient to meet increased manning demands. 

The committee is concerned that the remotely piloted aircraft career field is under severe strain because of increased combatant 

commander requirements, consistently insufficient Air Force personnel policy actions to improve manning levels, and is compounded by the Air Force losing more remotely piloted aircraft pilots than it is training. The increased demand has resulted in lower 

crew ratios, longer duty days, and longer time-on-station assignments for affected personnel, and ultimately less capability than 

required by the combatant commanders. 

The Air Force has been playing catch-up in fielding sufficient 

crews to support the number of medium altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) combat air patrols (CAPs) required to support combatant commander requirements. In 2009, 

the Air Force was tasked to support 50 CAPs. Air Force plans in 

2009 showed that the Air Force would be able to support 50 CAPs 

with sufficient crews by 2011, and have sufficient crews to support 

65 CAPs by fiscal year 2016. Subsequently, the Department increased the demand to 65 CAPs. Last year, the 65–CAP goal was 

reduced to 55 CAPs, but, even with the reduction, Air Force capabilities have not lived up to the demand or achieved its own projections. 

The Air Force still faces a projected annual shortfall in fiscal 

year 2016 of nearly 400 MQ–1/9 aircraft pilots to sustain the regular Air Force requirement of 1,200 pilots. The Air Force’s fiscal 

year 2016 budget request would increase the number of MQ–9 combat air patrols from 55 to 60, and maintain five combat air patrols 

for MQ–1. The Air Force indicated in its budget submission that 

it intends to add 434 personnel authorizations to the MQ–9 force 

structure, but increased authorizations do not necessarily equate to 

additional personnel and sufficient manning levels in squadrons. 

Had the Air Force realized its own proposed manpower authorization increases to the RPA community planned in 2009, we would 

not be experiencing the current manning shortfalls still plaguing 

the career field. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
125 

Subtitle H—Other Matters 

Part I—Financial Literacy and Preparedness of Members of 

the Armed Forces 

Improvement of financial literacy and preparedness of 

members of the Armed Forces (sec. 581) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require servicemember financial literacy training upon arrival at the first duty 

station and upon arrival at each subsequent duty station for 

servicemembers below the pay grade of E–5 in the case of enlisted 

personnel and below the pay grade of O–4 in the case of officers. 

The provision would further require financial literacy training for 

each servicemember at various career and life milestones. The provision would also direct the Department of Defense to include a financial literacy and preparedness survey in the status of forces 

survey. This provision was recommended by the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. 

Financial literacy training with respect to certain financial 

services for members of the uniformed services (sec. 

582) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary concerned to provide financial literacy training to members of the uniformed services under the jurisdiction of such Secretary commencing not later than 6 months after the date of the 

enactment of this Act. The provision is based on the final report 

of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. 

Sense of Congress on financial literacy and preparedness of 

members of the Armed Forces (sec. 583) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Congress that the Secretary of Defense should work 

with other departments, agencies, and nonprofit organizations to 

improve financial literacy and preparedness with support from the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff and service secretaries. 

Part II—Other Matters 

Authority for applications for correction of military records 

to be initiated by the Secretary concerned (sec. 586) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1552(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the service 

secretaries to apply for a correction to military records on behalf 

of an individual. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would provide statutory authority for the long-established practice of the Department 

of Defense (DOD) of obligating bonus and special and incentive pay 

installment payments at the time payment is due and payable. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
126 

This provision is in response to a recent U.S. Government Accountability Office opinion, Comp. Gen. B–325526— ‘‘Obligation of Bonuses under Military Service Agreements,’’ July 16, 2014, which 

concluded that DOD cedes fiscal exposure to servicemembers when 

it enters into such agreements and should change its obligational 

practices to obligate the entire bonus amount when the agreement 

is signed. 

Enhancements to Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program 

(sec. 588) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 582 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181) to enhance and improve the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program for National Guard and Reserve members and their families. The provision would provide flexibility to 

deliver events and activities through alternate methods, and would 

eliminate redundancy by reducing the number of required events 

and activities to a minimum of four during a servicemember’s deployment cycle. The provision would continue strong support for 

suicide prevention efforts and outreach programs led by the states. 

Priority processing of applications for Transportation Worker Identification Credentials for members undergoing 

discharge or release from the Armed Forces (sec. 589) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security to afford a priority in the processing of applications for a 

Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) submitted 

by members of the Armed Forces who are undergoing separation, 

discharge, or release from the Armed Forces under honorable conditions. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense 

and the Secretary of Homeland Security to jointly submit a report 

on the implementation requirements of this provision not later 

than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require Secretary of Defense to issue an identification card that identifies individuals as veterans, personalized with name and photo of the individual. The Secretary of Defense would be authorized to work with 

retailers for reduced prices on services, consumer products, and 

pharmaceuticals. Cards would be issued prospectively from 1 year 

after effective date of the Act. 

Revised policy on network services for military services 

(sec. 591) 

The committee recommends a provision that would generally prohibit the use of uniformed military personnel in the provision of 

network services for military installations in the United States. 

The committee notes that the current budget environment has 

forced the Services to significantly reduce end strength. However, 

the Services now have increasing requirements and demands which 

require additional people. The committee believes that the Services 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
127 

must transfer responsibility for certain missions, such as network 

services, away from military personnel and instead acquire these 

services as a commodity. 

The provision would generally prohibit the use of military personnel to provide network services such as email, voice, file sharing, and directory and Internet services in the United States 2 

years after the date of enactment of this Act. The committee believes this will give the Department of Defense (DOD) time to begin 

a transition plan. 

The provision includes both an exception and a waiver to this 

policy for network services in support of combatant commands, special operations, the intelligence community, or Cyber Command. 

Further, the Secretary of Defense or Chief Information Officer may 

waive this provision for safety reasons or combat operations. 

The bill provision further requires a report from DOD, which also 

requires validation from the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) on the potential savings in both resources 

and military personnel that could be achieved with this section. 

Increase in number of days of Active Duty required to be 

performed by reserve component members for duty to 

be considered federal service for purposes of unemployment compensation for ex-servicemembers (sec. 592) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase from 

90 to 180 days the number of continuous days of Active Duty required to be performed by reserve component members for that 

duty to be considered satisfactory federal service for purposes of 

unemployment compensation for ex-servicemembers. 

Items of Special Interest 

Assessment on Servicemembers lacking post-transition 

housing 

The committee commends the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs in coordinating efforts to combat veteran homelessness. The committee supports the collaboration between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to assist servicemembers during the transition process, particularly the 

program that identifies servicemembers during the Transition Assistance Program who may lack post-transition housing, and who 

may therefore be at greater risk for becoming homeless. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives, by no later than December 1, 2015, a report on the number 

of servicemembers who have indicated a lack of post-transition 

housing during the Transition Assistance process, broken down by 

fiscal year, gender, location, and who were therefore referred to the 

Department of Veterans Affairs. The report required shall include 

an analysis of what steps may be taken to lessen the number of 

servicemembers with no post-transition housing. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
128 

Availability of Special Victims’ Counsel as Individual Military Counsel 

In section 1716 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66), Congress required each 

military department to provide Special Victims’ Counsel to provide 

legal representation to survivors of alleged sex-related offenses. 

Special Victims’ Counsel form an attorney-client relationship 

when representing these survivors throughout the military justice 

process, where they actively advise the survivors, protect their 

legal rights, and help them to navigate the military’s criminal justice system. 

In some cases, survivors also face criminal charges or disciplinary action. Some survivors have expressed a desire to be represented in criminal and adverse administrative actions by their 

Special Victims Counsel with whom they already have an attorneyclient relationship and who understands their personal situation. 

The committee believes that when survivors become the accused 

they should, to the maximum extent possible, have a choice over 

which attorney will represent and advise them. 

Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)(10 U.S.C. 

838), authorizes an accused to be represented by military counsel 

of his or her own selection if that counsel is determined to be reasonably available under applicable regulations. It is the committee’s intent that nothing should preclude a survivor from requesting his or her Special Victims’ Counsel as individual military counsel, and that the Special Victims’ Counsel should be authorized to 

represent the survivor in trials by courts-martial, at non-judicial 

punishment proceedings under Article 15 of the UCMJ (10 U.S.C. 

815), and in connection with adverse administrative actions when 

the counsel is reasonably available. It is the committee’s expectation that survivors be provided with a choice of counsel to the maximum extent possible. 

Changes to the Joint Travel Regulation 

On November 1, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) revised 

Joint Travel Regulations were implemented resulting in a flat rate 

per diem for travelers performing temporary duty travel (TDY) for 

more than 30 days in one location. Depending on the duration of 

the travel, the authorized flat rate was adjusted to reflect 75 percent and 55 percent of the locality rate for long-term TDY with the 

DOD reimbursing travelers for actual lodging and government 

meal rates if suitable lodging at the reduced rate is not available. 

The committee wants to ensure that the current policy does not 

discourage some DOD personnel—including civilian workers at 

shipyards and depots—from volunteering for important TDY assignments. 

The committee supports the DOD’s initiatives to achieve efficiencies, including in the area of temporary duty travel costs. However, the committee expects the DOD to monitor closely the effect 

of this new policy to avoid unintended disincentives and ensure 

that those who volunteer for mission essential travel are fully supported and encouraged. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
129 

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

aerial systems 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting forth the results of a study, conducted by the Comptroller General for the purposes of the report, due no later than March 1, 2016, to examine 

the Department of Defense’s personnel strategies for unmanned 

aerial systems (UAS). The report shall include an examination of 

how the services have done the following: (1) Analyzed the personnel requirements for positions required to fly UAS including the 

existing and future critical skills and competencies needed; (2) examined alternative populations, such as civilians and contractors, 

that could be assigned to UAS units; (3) coordinated their strategies to recruit and retain personnel to operate UAS; and (4) conducted a cost benefit analysis to determine the risks and advantages of the varying personnel assignment strategies they are pursuing for UAS operators. 

Comptroller General report on Department of Defense 

credentialing and licensing programs 

In section 551 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public 

Law 113–291), the committee directed the Secretary of Defense, 

and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast 

Guard, to carry out a credentialing program that would allow 

servicemembers to obtain professional credentials related to their 

military training that were acquired during service in the Armed 

Forces. The purpose of this program is to ensure that 

servicemembers receive professional recognition of skills acquired 

during military service that translate into civilian life. The committee expects that successful implementation of this program will 

reduce veteran unemployment and related unemployment costs 

borne by the military services. The committee is concerned that 

this program is implemented in a timely fashion, and meets the 

needs of servicemembers as veteran unemployment and attendant 

costs remain high. Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review DOD’s credentialing 

and licensing programs, and to provide a briefing on preliminary 

results by no later than May 1, 2016, to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and House of Representatives with a report 

to follow on a date agreed to at the time of the briefing. The review 

should address, at a minimum, the following: (1) The extent to 

which DOD has successfully implemented the credentialing program required by section 551 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015; (2) the challenges that still exist with 

respect to full implementation; (3) the steps the Department has 

taken to ensure quality control over the credentialing process with 

respect to third-party credentialing entities; (4) challenges DOD is 

encountering regarding compatibility between their credentialing 

programs with federal, state, and local credentialing requirements; 

and (5) existing gaps in law and policy with respect to meeting the 

program’s goal of providing professional credentials to 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
130 

servicemembers, on the basis of their military education and training, before they transition to civilian life. 

Cyber security training, testing and certification 

The committee continues to encourage the Department of Defense (DOD) to enhance its ongoing efforts related to providing certifications to personnel pursuant to Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 8570.01. While DODD 8570.01 is highly effective, this 

program is limited to coverage to only DOD personnel with information assurance (IA) job responsibilities. The committee believes 

in addition to these IA functions, technical support and network infrastructure oversight remain critical areas for network defense. 

Ensuring these positions receive training, testing, and industry-recognized certification would enhance the security of DOD networks 

and ensure members of the Armed Forces receive the same credentials recognized in the civilian workforce. By instituting testing 

after training, DOD can ensure that cyber security and IT skills 

are retained. Therefore, the committee urges DOD to include them 

in DODD 8570.01 and any successor directives. 

Disability pilot program feasibility report 

Department of Defense (DOD) civilians with disabilities and 

servicemembers who have been wounded or injured in the line of 

duty serve honorably, meet certain standards required for their positions, and contribute to the national security of the United 

States. 

In recognition of the dedicated service of the DOD’s disabled civilian employees and servicemembers, and in order to evaluate opportunities to employ the full range of abilities that they may contribute to certain military specialties, the committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report assessing the feasibility of a pilot program to determine whether civilians with certain medical conditions that are currently grounds 

for rejection for military service under Department of Defense Instruction 6130.03 may be appointed, enlisted or inducted in the 

military services. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to prepare the report through the Accession Medical Standards Working Group 

(AWSWG) that convened in February 2015. 

The report should specifically describe a plan to conduct a pilot 

program that would evaluate conditions necessary to appoint, enlist, or induct, at a minimum, persons with deafness or hearing impairment, amblyopia or partial visual impairment, a lost or missing 

limb or limbs, paraplegia, a history of surgical procedures, or a history of asthma. The feasibility report should consider whether individuals with certain medical conditions might be more suited to 

certain jobs than able-bodied individuals, as could be the case with 

a deaf individual working in high-noise environments. 

The report should address validity of assumptions contained in 

Department of Defense Instruction 6130.03 that result in individuals with designated medical conditions being rejected for military 

service while currently serving military members with the same or 

a similar disability may be allowed to continue to serve. The report 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
131 

should assess the feasibility of including currently-serving military 

members of DOD and civilians with similar disabilities who are not 

DOD military members or civilians as participants in a pilot program. The report should identify, at a minimum, the potential size 

of the cohort (by specific disability); the disabilities that are amenable to objective evaluation through a pilot program; the optimal 

duration of the potential pilot program; applicability of human subject research requirements to a pilot program; considerations for 

determining the status of individuals selected to participate in the 

pilot program when the pilot program is completed; and the likely 

cost. 

The committee notes that Senate Report 113–211, which accompanied H.R. 4870, directed the Department of the Air Force to 

study the feasibility and advisability of permitting individuals with 

auditory impairment, including deafness, to access as officers in the 

Armed Forces. 

While this reporting requirement is broader in scope than the report required in Senate Report 113–211, the committee expects the 

department to coordinate with the Air Force to benefit from their 

analysis and to avoid duplicative work. 

The committee directs that the feasibility report be submitted to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives no later than March 1, 2016. 

Extending Special Victims’ Counsel eligibility for civilian 

sexual assault survivors 

The statute requiring the military services to provide Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) to certain victims of alleged sex-related offenses identifies the following individuals as eligible for this assistance: (1) Active duty servicemembers and their dependents; (2) Reserve and National Guard members when on active duty or inactive duty and their dependents; (3) retired servicemembers and 

their dependents; and (4) certain civilians overseas. Initial reports 

indicate this novel program that provides victims with their own 

attorney to represent them during the investigation and prosecution of sexual offenses is well-received by survivors of sexual assaults. 

In its initial report, the Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP), established by section 576 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to conduct an independent 

review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted under the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice, expressed the following initial 

observation: ‘‘The JPP is concerned that the statutory basis creating eligibility for SVC services is tied to eligibility for legal assistance services. This requirement precludes the program from supporting all victims of sexual assault perpetrated by 

Servicemembers, because many such individuals are not eligible for 

legal assistance under the statute.’’ The committee agrees with this 

observation. Many civilian survivors of a sexual assault perpetrated by a servicemember are not familiar with the military. 

Navigating the military justice system is especially confusing for civilians unaccustomed to military culture and procedure. Further, 

this lack of familiarity is compounded by fact that many survivors 

are young and financially disadvantaged. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
132 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the feasibility of providing Special Victims’ Counsel to civilian survivors 

of sexual assaults by a servicemember who are not otherwise eligible for legal assistance services from the military and to submit a 

report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives not later than August 31, 2015. The assessment should address the impact on the current SVC program 

of extending SVC eligibility to civilian survivors; views of civilian 

bar associations on providing legal representation to civilians not 

entitled to legal assistance; and the feasibility of a pilot program 

in which National Guard and Reserve judge advocates provide military justice and victim advocacy training to civilian attorneys serving military communities. 

Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview 

The U.S. Army Military Police School is training the next generation of Army criminal investigators and judge advocates in the Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview (FETI), a technique that utilizes the latest information about the parts of the brain that experience trauma, including sexual assault trauma. Because stress and 

trauma routinely interrupt the memory process, FETI techniques 

are an important investigatory tool that reduces the inaccuracy of 

the information obtained from trauma victims, increases the confidence of assault survivors to participate in the criminal justice 

system, and increases the likelihood of successful criminal convictions without revictimizing survivors in the way that traditional 

interviews can. The FETI technique also enhances the questioning 

of suspects, who frequently provide more useful information than 

would be obtained using traditional interrogation techniques. 

Bringing the latest science to the fight against sexual assault provides criminal investigators a better way to relate to the survivors’ 

experience, to identify sex offenders, and to hold them accountable. 

In light of the demonstrated value of FETI, the committee directs 

the service secretaries to submit a report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not 

later than August 31, 2015, that describes how widely FETI training has been provided to criminal investigators and judge advocates of that Service and plans for future training. If any service 

is not utilizing FETI training, the report should include an explanation of the Service’s decision to not employ FETI and a description of the alternative training and techniques used by that Service. 

The committee believes that the U.S. Army is a leader in effective interviewing techniques of sexual assault survivors and recommends that the U.S. Army Military Police School, upon the request of other federal agencies, facilitate FETI training of members 

of that agency whenever possible. 

Finally, the Department of Defense’s Sexual Assault Prevention 

and Response Office (SAPRO) has demonstrated sustained effort to 

eliminate sexual assault in the Armed Forces. The committee encourages SAPRO to incorporate FETI best practices on how to deal 

appropriately with sexual assault survivors into all levels of 

SAPRO’s sexual assault prevention and response training. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
133 

Increase in number of persons from U.S. Pacific Command 

area of operations who receive instruction at military 

academies 

Each service secretary is authorized to permit up to 60 persons 

from foreign countries to receive instruction at the military academy of that Service. The committee encourages service secretaries 

to promote the Asia-Pacific rebalance by increasing, among the 60- 

persons authorized, the percentage of persons from countries in the 

U.S. Pacific Command area of operations who receive instruction at 

the military academies. 

Increasing the transparency of the military justice system 

Making the results of courts-martial public is important to instill 

public confidence in the administration of justice in the military. 

The committee is aware of the current practices of the military 

services to make the results of general and special courts-martial 

available to the general public. The Air Force publishes sexual assault courts-martial convictions periodically on the Air Force Judge 

Advocate General’s Corps website. The Marine Corps posts information on courts-martial actions monthly on the Marine Corps 

homepage. The Army and Navy both publicly release service-wide 

summaries of courts-martial actions, the results of which are routinely published in military magazines. 

The committee believes that transparency of the military justice 

system would be improved by a more consistent practice by all 

services to make the results of court-martial available to the public. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to examine the various reporting methods being used and to prescribe a 

consistent and regular method of making public the results of general and special courts-martial by all the services. The committee 

believes that the public has an interest in knowing, at a minimum, 

the date, location, level of courts-martial, name of the accused if 

convicted, charges, verdict and, if applicable, the sentence adjudged. 

Leadership reorganization of the United States Air Force 

Judge Advocate General’s Corps 

The committee is concerned that the organizational leadership of 

the United States Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps has 

become adversely impacted by the loss of three general officer billets. Former Secretary of Defense Gates directed, in 2011, reductions in flag and general officer billets in the Armed Forces in an 

initiative to streamline headquarters. That reduction resulted in 

the loss of several senior officer billets in the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps. None of the other military services’ judge 

advocates general corps were similarly affected. The committee 

commends the intent of the Gates’ initiative to make needed and 

long overdue reductions in the number of flag and general officers 

in the Armed Forces and is not directing nor does it support an increase in the number of general or flag officers authorized. The impact of the Gates’ initiative to the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps, however, was to eliminate important professional and 

career development opportunities for senior judge advocates who 

form the body of qualified officers from which the Air Force would 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
134 

select the Judge Advocate General. The loss of these billets occurred during a period of unprecedented growth in the important 

role of judge advocates in key mission support areas while our Nation is at war. At the same time, senior judge advocates are the key 

advisers to the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the 

Air Force to implement congressionally-mandated military justice 

reforms and new initiatives to combat sexual assault and sexual 

harassment in the Armed Forces. The essential role for senior 

judge advocates is expected to continue. Elsewhere in this Act, the 

committee has directed significant acquisition reforms which would 

increase the responsibilities of the service chiefs for execution of acquisition of major defense acquisition programs. The Air Force is 

unique among the military departments in the use of judge advocates in acquisition programs while, as a result of the Gates’ initiative, it was required to give up the senior judge advocate general 

officer billet responsible to lead and supervise the Air Force Judge 

Advocate General’s uniformed acquisition attorneys. Accordingly, 

the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, with advice 

from the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force, to determine the 

impact of the elimination of those three general officer positions on 

the legal leadership for the Department of the Air Force and to report any actions that will be implemented by the Air Force to address this leadership shortfall, and to provide recommendations of 

any legislative relief necessary to address such impact, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than September 1, 2015. 

National Guard and Reserve headquarters 

The committee notes that the reserve component, both the National Guard and Reserves, are key components of the Department 

of Defense’s (DOD) organizational structure and strategic capability. Reserve components compromise approximately 50 percent of 

the Army’s total end strength, while reserve components compromise about 30 percent of the Air Force’s total end strength. The 

committee notes that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

found in 2013 that amid the DOD’s efforts to trim budgets by finding efficiencies and reducing overhead, some reserve component 

headquarters have grown. In its report, the GAO found the processes intended to efficiently size and oversee reserve component 

headquarters have not been consistently applied. 

The committee is interested in determining whether DOD has 

taken steps to eliminate overlapping, fragmented, or duplicative 

functions within the National Guard and Reserve headquarters 

could lead to greater efficiencies and cost reductions within the reserve components. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate the extent to which the National 

Guard and Reserves have taken steps to eliminate or consolidate 

overlapping, fragmented, or duplicative functions, and whether the 

National Guard reviewed its Joint Force Headquarters for greater 

efficiencies by consolidating roles that are filled by both Army and 

Air National Guard members. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
135 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives no later than March 15, 2016. 

Public Schools on Department of Defense Installations 

The committee is aware that there are more than 150 public 

schools located on Department of Defense installations, serving a 

significant number of military dependent children. Although these 

schools are on-base, these schools are run by the local public school 

districts, but do not receive DODEA funds. Recognizing that many 

of these schools have severe overcrowding or are in deteriorating 

physical condition, in fiscal year 2011, the Department of Defense 

Office of Economic Adjustment was provided authority to evaluate 

the condition and capacity of such schools, and approved a Priority 

List in July 2011. The committee recognizes that the Department 

of Defense has since provided grants to renovate, repair, or expand 

such public schools on military installations, focusing on the 

schools with the most severe overcrowding or facilities needs in priority order. Since 2011, many schools on the list may have had 

changes in enrollment due to military activity, and may have experienced changes in physical condition. Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense to provide the congressional defense committees, by September 1, 2016, with an updated assessment and priority list on the condition and capacity of public 

schools on military installations not already included in bands 1– 

6 of the July 2011 Priority List. 

Punishment for collateral misconduct revealed by reports of 

sexual misconduct 

The committee agrees with military leaders that a culture of prevention, accountability, dignity, and respect must exist throughout 

the ranks. Toward that end, any barriers that deter 

servicemembers from reporting sexual misconduct must be eliminated, and all who courageously report these crimes must be encouraged and staunchly supported. 

Surveys indicate that the fear of being punished for minor misconduct serves as a deterrent to the reporting of sexual assault. 

The larger goal of ensuring that the Armed Forces are cohesive and 

effective, and that the honor and trust that sustains our Armed 

Forces is preserved, dictates that the elimination of sexual assault 

is more important than the punishment of minor misconduct. 

The committee encourages military leaders to refrain from punishing servicemembers who report sexual misconduct for minor collateral misconduct, such as underage drinking, fraternization, and 

adultery when the underlying minor crimes would not have come 

to the chain of command’s attention but for the servicemember’s report of sexual misconduct. 

Religious freedom and role of military chaplains 

The committee continues to encourage the Department of Defense and Armed Forces to support servicemembers’ right to express their sincerely held religious and moral beliefs. Individual expressions of religious and moral beliefs in the military will be accommodated unless it is determined that such individual actions 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
136 

could have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, 

and good order and discipline. The committee recognizes the vital 

role of religious beliefs and the expression of faith for many 

servicemembers and their families. Preserving a military culture 

that protects the freedom of expression, including the freedom not 

to believe, is important to the morale and to recruiting and retention in the Armed Forces. 

The committee further recognizes that a military chaplain is a 

certified religious military professional of a qualified religious organization who has satisfied the professional religious education and 

ecclesiastical qualifications of his or her endorsing agency and is 

appointed a commissioned officer in an Armed Service’s chaplain 

corps. The chaplain remains a representative of and accountable to 

the endorsing faith group for the religious ministry he or she provides to members of the Armed Services and to their families. The 

committee expects that commanders will ensure a chaplain’s right 

to religious expression and to provide religious exercise and guidance that accurately represent the chaplain’s faith are protected, 

respected, and unencumbered by any means contrary to section 533 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(Public Law 112–239) as amended by section 532 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113– 

66). 

The committee recognizes the role of the military chaplain in the 

Armed Forces to care for the spiritual well-being of servicemembers 

and their families. As part of their service, many chaplains play a 

critical function in providing for the mental health and emotional 

needs of servicemembers and their families by helping them to deal 

with the unique pressures and stresses associated with military 

service. This includes, but is not limited to, suicide prevention, coping with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, sexual 

assault, providing marriage and family counseling, and providing 

religious and moral guidance. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue efforts to integrate military chaplains into the programing for mental health and well-being and to 

provide clear guidance for addressing formations and groups where 

attendance by service members is required. 

The committee also notes the results of a RAND Corporation survey of Army chaplains published on April 7, 2015 which concluded 

that 44 percent of chaplains and 57 percent of chaplain assistants 

believe they need more training in suicide prevention treatment. 

No later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Department of Defense shall provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on 

shortfalls in suicide prevention training for the chaplain corps in 

each service branch and a strategy to address these shortfalls. 

Report on review of petitions for review of discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces of veterans with mental 

health issues connected with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury 

Section 521 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 

113–291) requires that any medical advisory opinion issued to a 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
137 

board for correction of military records regarding a servicemember 

or former servicemember who was diagnosed while serving in the 

military as experiencing a mental health disorder include the opinion of a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist if the individual’s request for correction of records relates to a mental health disorder. 

This section also requires that boards for review of discharge or 

dismissal include, as a member of the board, a clinical psychologist 

or psychiatrist, or a physician with training on mental health 

issues connected with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic 

brain injury, when the board considers a request for review of a 

discharge or dismissal by a former servicemember (1) who was diagnosed as experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury as a consequence of a deployment in support of 

a contingency operation, or (2) who was diagnosed while serving in 

the military as experiencing a mental health disorder. 

In addition, on September 3, 2014, the Secretary of Defense 

issued supplemental guidance to Military Boards for Correction of 

Military/Naval Records considering discharge upgrade requests by 

veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Secretary directed the boards to give liberal consideration to documentation of one or more symptoms which meet the diagnostic criteria of PTSD or related conditions, giving special consideration to 

Department of Veterans Affairs’ determinations which document 

PTSD or PTSD-related conditions connected to military service. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives not later than August 31, 2015, on the 

implementation of these authorities. In addition to describing the 

implementation of these authorities, the report should include the 

number of applications submitted to which these authorities apply, 

and the number of cases in which relief was granted as a result 

of these new authorities. 

Report on Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff decisions on combat integration 

The committee remains interested in the process and results of 

the military services’ and United State Special Operations Command’s (SOCOM) implementation of the January 24, 2013, letter 

from the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff rescinding the direct ground combat exclusion and assignment rule and directing the services and SOCOM to open all closed 

positions to service by women by January 1, 2016, or to request an 

exception to policy prior to that date to keep occupations closed. According to the letter, ‘‘exceptions must be narrowly tailored, and 

based on a rigorous analysis of factual data regarding the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for the position.’’ 

The committee directs the Secretary and Chairman to provide to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 

Representatives by no later than March 1, 2016, a report describing the conclusions reached by the Secretary and Chairman with 

respect to decisions to open closed occupations to service by women, 

and the reasons behind such conclusions, with particular reference 

to the ‘‘rigorous analysis of factual data’’ used in reaching these 

conclusions. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
138 

Social Security Number Use Reduction Plan 

The committee recognizes that service members are increasingly 

vulnerable to identify theft, in part because of overly frequent use 

of Social Security numbers (SSN) in the military for identification 

purposes. The committee commends the Department of Defense for 

establishing the SSN Use Reduction Plan in Department of Defense Instruction 1000.30, dated August 1, 2012. The SSN Use Reduction Plan directs that the collection and use of SSNs be reduced 

or eliminated where possible and requires justification for any continued collection and use of SSNs. The plan identifies the Department of Defense Identification Number as a suitable replacement 

for SSNs in most processes and business needs and directs that Department of Defense Identification Numbers replace the SSN as the 

Geneva Conventions Serial Number on Department of Defense 

identification cards. The committee remains concerned that the collection and use of SSNs remains prolific in Department of Defense 

systems and forms, including record of service forms, travel and 

permanent change of station orders, evaluations, and others. The 

Department of Defense’s continued widespread, unnecessary use of 

SSNs for identification purposes exposes service members to 

heightened and unacceptable risk of identity theft. Therefore, the 

committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense to eliminate the use of SSNs as a method of identifying service members. 

Support for military families impacted by grief, behavioral 

health disorders, or substance abuse 

The committee applauds the Services for their recognition of 

military family readiness and resilience as vital elements of maintaining an effective fighting force. Ready families require knowledge, skills, and support necessary to respond with resilience to the 

challenges of military life, including chronic stressors and traumatic events. 

Children of members of the Armed Forces experience unique 

stressors, such as prolonged separation, permanent changes of station, and higher rates of parental alcohol and prescription drug 

abuse. The committee is aware that childhood and adolescence are 

particularly important periods for investing in resilience, and research shows the single most influential factor in promoting resilience in children is the presence of supportive relationships, especially parents, but also with adults outside the home. Evidence suggests that providing children and adolescents with opportunities to 

develop supportive relationships and coping strategies outside the 

home in environments that provide both warmth and structure contribute positively to resilience building. Accordingly, the committee 

urges the Secretary of Defense to review and evaluate materials, 

resources, and programs available to children of members of the 

Armed Forces dealing with bereavement or a parent, guardian, or 

sibling who suffers from a behavioral health disorder or substance 

abuse and to continue to support partnerships with non-governmental organizations to address any identified gaps in support. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(139) 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER 

PERSONNEL BENEFITS 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances 

Fiscal year 2016 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

pay raise of 1.3 percent for all members of the uniformed services 

in pay grades O–6 and below effective January 1, 2016. 

Modification of percentage of national average monthly cost 

of housing usable in computation of basic allowance for 

housing inside the United States (sec. 602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 403(b) of title 37, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to reduce the monthly amount of the basic allowance for housing (BAH) by up to 5 percent of the national average 

for housing for a given pay grade and dependency status. 

Servicemembers will not see this modification of their BAH until 

they change duty stations. 

Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in 

rates of basic allowance for housing (sec. 603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority of the Secretary of Defense to temporarily increase the rate of basic allowance for housing in areas impacted by 

natural disasters or experiencing a sudden influx of personnel. 

Basic allowance for housing for married members of the 

uniformed services assigned for duty within normal 

commuting distance and for other members living together (sec. 604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 403 of title 37, United States Code, to limit the basic allowance 

for housing (BAH) for dual military married couples who are assigned within normal commuting distance from each other to one 

allowance at the with dependent rate, for the member with the 

higher pay grade. The provision would also limit BAH for uniformed service members above E–3 residing with other uniformed 

service members to 75 percent of their otherwise prevailing rate, 

or the E–4 without dependents rate, whichever is greater. Affected 

members would see no reduction in their BAH as a result of this 

provision so long as they maintain uninterrupted eligibility to receive BAH within a particular housing area. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
140 

Repeal of inapplicability of modification of basic allowance 

for housing to benefits under the laws administered by 

the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (sec. 605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal subsection (b) of section 604 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ 

McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 

(Public Law 113–291) effective January 1, 2016. 

Limitation on eligibility for supplemental subsistence allowances to members serving outside the United States and 

associated territory (sec. 606) 

The committee recommends a provision that would sunset on 

September 30, 2016, the supplemental subsistence allowance for 

servicemembers serving inside the United States. Servicemembers 

serving outside the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or Guam would still be eligible to receive the supplemental subsistence allowance from the 

Department of Defense. The provision is based on the final report 

of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. 

Availability of information (sec. 607) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow for the 

Secretary of Defense to obtain from the Secretary of Agriculture information for the purposes of determining the number of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program applicant households that 

contain one or more members of a regular or reserve component of 

the Armed Forces. 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus, 

the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus, special pay for 

enlisted members assigned to certain high-priority units, the Ready 

Reserve enlistment bonus for persons without prior service, the 

Ready Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with 

prior service, the Selected Reserve enlistment and reenlistment 

bonus for persons with prior service, travel expenses for certain inactive-duty training, and income replacement for reserve component members experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for 

Active-Duty service. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate accession 

bonus, education loan repayment for certain health professionals 

who serve in the Selected Reserve, accession and retention bonuses 

for psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses, incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, special pay for Selected Reserve health professionals in critically short wartime specialties, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
141 

the accession bonus for dental officers, the accession bonus for 

pharmacy officers, the accession bonus for medical officers in critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus for dental 

specialist officers in critically short wartime specialties. 

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for 

nuclear officers (sec. 613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending period of active service, the nuclear career accession 

bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus. 

One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities 

(sec. 614) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the general 

bonus authority for officers, special bonus and incentive pay authorities for nuclear officers, special aviation incentive pay and 

bonus authorities for officers, and special bonus and incentive pay 

authorities for officers in health professions, and contracting bonus 

for cadets and midshipmen enrolled in the Senior Officers’ Training 

Corps. The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to 

pay hazardous duty pay, assignment or special duty pay, skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus, and retention incentives for members qualified in critical military skills or assigned to high priority 

units. 

One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of 

other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus, precommissioning incentive pay for foreign language proficiency, the accession bonus for new officers in 

critical skills, the incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage, the incentive bonus for 

transfer between Armed Forces, and the accession bonus for officer 

candidates. 

Increase in maximum annual amount of nuclear officer 

bonus pay (sec. 616) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

maximum annual amount of nuclear officer bonus pay to $50,000 

for retention purposes. This provision would take effect January 1, 

2016. 

Repeal of obsolete authority to pay bonus to encourage 

Army personnel to refer persons for enlistment in the 

Army (sec. 617) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

3252 of title 10, United States Code. This section authorized the 

Secretary of the Army to pay bonuses to encourage Army personnel 

to refer persons for enlistment in the Army. The committee notes 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
142 

that the recent nationwide Army National Guard Recruiting Assistance Program scandal, which defrauded the American taxpayers of 

millions of dollars, has given the committee serious doubts as to 

the wisdom of authorizing such incentive programs. 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances 

Repeal of obsolete special travel and transportation allowance for survivors of deceased members from the Vietnam conflict (sec. 621) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

481f(d) of title 37, United States Code. 

Subtitle D—Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor 

Benefits 

Part I—Retired Pay Reform 

Thrift Savings Plan participation for members of the uniformed services (sec. 631) 

The committee recommends a series of provisions that would implement recommendations of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission concerning reform and modernization of the military retirement benefit for new entrants into 

service. This provision would provide a government-matching 

Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) element for those who would enter uniformed service on or after January 1, 2018, or a member serving 

before that date who makes a voluntary election to opt-in to the 

new plan. The TSP element would provide a 1 percent automatic 

agency contribution to all uniformed service members who would 

reach 60 days of service and continue until they would reach their 

second year of service. Once a servicemember passes the 2 years 

of service point, that member’s TSP account would vest and the 

Secretary concerned would begin matching TSP contributions up to 

5 percent of that servicemember’s base pay at 2 years and 1 day 

of service. Uniformed service members would be automatically enrolled at 3 percent matching contributions with the option to raise 

or lower their contribution level. TSP government-funded matching 

contributions would continue until a uniformed service member 

reaches 20 years of service. 

The committee notes that all uniformed service members who 

would enter and serve prior to the date of implementation of the 

modernized retirement system would be grandfathered into the old 

retirement system. 

Modernized retirement system for members of the uniformed services (sec. 632) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

new military retirement defined benefit that, when combined with 

the government-matching Thrift Savings Plan, as described elsewhere in this Act, would comprise a new hybrid retirement system. 

This new system would apply to new entrants after January 1, 

2018, and to those already serving members who choose to opt-in 

to the new system. The new defined benefit would continue to 

apply only to those members who reach 20 years of service, with 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
143 

a multiplier rate of 2.0 times years of service rather than the current rate of 2.5 times years of service. 

Lump sum payments of certain retired pay (sec. 633) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the voluntary election of lump sum payments of retired pay for those serving 20 or more years of service. Members who elect to take the 

lump sum may choose to take 100 percent or 50 percent of the discounted present value of their defined retirement benefit that 

would be due to them prior to becoming fully eligible for Social Security. 

The committee strongly urges the Secretaries concerned to coordinate with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on counseling, or 

otherwise informing, new retirees on the impact this election may 

have on their eligibility for certain benefits administered by the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

Continuation pay after 12 years of service for members of 

the uniformed services participating in the modernized 

retirement systems (sec. 634) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary concerned to provide continuation pay to 

servicemembers, serving under the new military retirement system 

described above, who reach 12 years of service contingent upon 

such members agreeing to serve another 4 years of service. A member receiving continuation pay may elect to take the continuation 

pay in a lump sum or in installments of not more than four payments. A member who receives continuation pay and fails to complete the obligated service requirement shall be subject to repayment. 

The rate for active duty continuation pay would be 2.5 times a 

member’s monthly basic pay with the Secretary concerned having 

discretionary authority to increase that amount to up to 13 times 

monthly basic pay for retention and force shaping purposes. The 

rate for members of the reserve components would be 0.5 times a 

reserve member’s monthly basic pay with the Secretary concerned 

having discretionary authority to increase that amount to up to 6 

months of monthly basic pay as needed for retention and force 

shaping purposes. The committee notes that the secretaries concerned would manage continuation pay through their special and 

incentive pay accounts and should take into consideration any 

other incentive pay a member may be receiving with any concurrent service obligations owed. 

Authority for retirement flexibility for members of the uniformed services (sec. 635) 

The committee recommends a provision that would give the Secretary concerned the flexibility to modify the years of service required for non-disability retirement under the new military retirement system for particular occupational specialties or other 

groupings in order to facilitate force shaping or to correct manpower shortages within an occupational specialty. The Secretary 

concerned shall be required to provide notice to Congress 1 year in 

advance of making such a change. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
144 

Treatment of Department of Defense Military Retirement 

Fund as a qualified trust (sec. 636) 

The committee recommends a provision that would treat the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund as a qualified trust 

under title 26, United States Code, section 401(a) for purposes of 

title 26, United States Code, section 1 et seq. 

Part II—Other Matters 

Death of former spouse beneficiaries and subsequent remarriages under Survivor Benefit Plan (sec. 641) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1448(b) of title 10, United States Code, to allow for the election 

of a new spouse beneficiary after the death of a former spouse beneficiary. 

Transitional compensation and other benefits for dependents of members of the Armed Forces ineligible to receive retired pay as a result of court-martial sentence 

(sec. 642) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 1059a to title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry 

out a program that would authorize monthly transitional compensation, including commissary and exchange store access, to dependents or former dependents of a member of the Armed Forces 

who is ineligible to receive retired pay as a result of court-martial 

sentence. The provision would allow the secretary concerned to determine that a dependent or former dependent would not be eligible for transitional compensation if that person was an active participant in the conduct constituting the offense under chapter 47 of 

title 10. 

Subtitle E—Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund 

Instrumentality Benefits and Operations 

Commissary system matters (sec. 651) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2483, 2484, and 2643 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Department of Defense to treat second destination 

transportation costs for commissary goods and supplies overseas 

like transportation costs within the United States by transferring 

those costs to the commissary patron in the price of goods. Those 

costs would be evenly spread across commissary products worldwide, rather than solely in commissaries overseas, to standardize 

the value of the commissary benefit to all customers. This provision 

would also authorize the Department to transfer the cost of obtaining supplies required for the daily operations of commissaries and 

store-level offices dedicated to supporting commissary operations 

from the defense working capital fund to the surcharge fund. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
145 

Plan on privatization of the Defense Commissary System 

(sec. 652) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report, not later than March 1, 

2016, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives, setting forth a plan to privatize the Defense Commissary System, in whole or in part. The plan should ensure the provision of high quality grocery goods and products, savings discounts to patrons, and high levels of customer satisfaction. 

The Secretary should include with the plan any recommendations 

for legislative action required by the Department of Defense to implement the plan. 

The provision would also require the Comptroller General of the 

United States to provide a report that assesses the plan of the Department to privatize the Defense Commissary System to the committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 120 days following submission of the report by 

the Secretary of Defense. 

Following submission of the Comptroller General’s assessment of 

the Department’s commissary privatization plan, the Department 

would be required to carry out a 2-year pilot program at no fewer 

than five commissaries in the largest markets of the commissary 

system to assess the feasibility and advisability of the plan. The 

Secretary of Defense may include, as part of the pilot program, an 

online component to permit eligible beneficiaries, in catchment 

areas of the commissaries selected for the pilot, to order and purchase grocery goods and products through the Internet and to receive those items through home delivery. Within 180 days after 

completion of the pilot program, the Secretary of Defense would 

submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives that provides an assessment of 

the commissary privatization plan. 

Comptroller General of the United States report on the 

Commissary Surcharge, Non-appropriated Fund, and 

Privately-financed Major Construction Program (sec. 

653) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to examine the policies 

and procedures of the Secretary of Defense to ensure timely notification of construction projects proposed to be funded through the 

Commissary Surcharge, Non-appropriated Fund, and Privately-financed Major Construction Program of the Department of Defense 

and to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives a report containing an assessment of this program no later than 180 days after enactment of 

this Act. The committee is aware that the Department of Defense 

has recently completed certain privately-financed major construction projects without prior notification to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, contrary 

to established, long-standing practice and contrary to the committee’s constitutional oversight responsibility and authority. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
146 

Items of Special Interest 

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

of Defense commissaries 

Through the Defense Commissary Agency, the Department of Defense (DOD) operates over 240 military commissaries, in the 

United States and overseas, to sell grocery merchandise and other 

goods at cost plus a 5 percent surcharge primarily to Active-Duty, 

National Guard, Reserve, and retired servicemembers and their 

family members. The Defense Commissary Agency reports that patrons receive an average of 30 percent savings on commissary purchases compared to commercial grocery prices. Military 

servicemembers consider the commissaries an important benefit because savings derived from commissary purchases increase the 

overall purchasing power of their annual pay. 

Defense appropriations subsidize commissary operations, and to 

a large degree, contribute to patron savings. In an effort to reduce 

taxpayer costs of military commissaries, the budget request proposed a reduction in appropriated subsidies to the Defense Commissary Agency over several years. This change in commissary 

funding would ultimately result in reduced patron savings because 

commissary prices would likely increase to compensate for lower 

government subsidies. With the budget request, overseas commissaries and certain commissaries in remote locations in the 

United States would continue to receive subsidies. 

To help Congress better understand the potential impact of operational changes to the commissary system on commissary patrons, 

section 634 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 

113–291) required the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of 

the management, food, and pricing options for the commissary system utilizing an independent organization experienced in grocery 

retail analysis. The committee expects to receive a report in September 2015. The statute, however, did not require an analysis to 

determine whether privatization would be a viable option for reform of commissary operations. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to review opportunities for DOD to privatize the 

commissary system, in whole or in part, and to provide a report on 

the results of the study to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives by February 1, 2016. 

At a minimum, the review should: 

(1) Determine DOD’s requirements and evaluate its methodology for defining the total number and locations of commissaries; 

(2) Determine and evaluate DOD’s costs for commissary operations from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2014; 

(3) Determine and evaluate DOD’s strategy for pricing products sold at commissaries; 

(4) Determine and validate how the Defense Commissary 

Agency calculates savings to its customers as a result of its 

pricing strategy; 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
147 

(5) Determine to what extent DOD has evaluated the costs 

or savings and potential benefits to patrons and the government of privatizing the commissary system; 

(6) Determine whether any barriers exist to privatization of 

the commissary system; and 

(7) Determine and quantify the extent to which patron savings would remain under a commissary privatization model. 

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

Since 2010, the Department of Defense (DOD) has conducted ongoing reviews to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of its 

special and incentive pay programs. The committee also understands that, in addition to these reviews, DOD continues to implement the consolidation of these pays in accordance with subtitle F 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181). Many factors such as emerging technologies 

and new missions impact on the types of skills and competencies 

that the DOD needs to meet mission requirements. The committee 

is concerned that changes may be needed now to ensure the efficacy of the special and incentive pay program. The committee believes that these pays are not an entitlement. The DOD must continue to carefully scrutinize special and incentive pays, ensuring 

they are used where needed, particularly in a fiscal environment 

where every dollar counts, to ensure these pays are used effectively, but not superfluously, to ensure successful recruitment, retention, and assignments in the All-Volunteer Force. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to review the effectiveness of the DOD’s special and incentive pays program and provide preliminary observations no later 

than February 5, 2016, and a report to follow on a date agreed to 

at the time of the preliminary briefing. The review should include: 

(1) an examination of both active and reserve component special 

and incentive pay programs, particularly those programs used to 

recruit and retain individuals for service in high skill occupations 

such as nuclear maintenance and engineering, pilots, critical language skills, information technology, cyber warfare, and special operations; (2) an analysis of a market-based program that would 

incentivize top, difficult to replace talent and consider civilian contractor alternatives for skill sets that can be obtained elsewhere 

and utilized by DOD; and (3) the effect of eliminating or limiting 

authorizations for special and incentive pay for targeted use at critical career points for skills the DOD cannot replace. 

Comptroller General of the United States review of the Gold 

Star Advocate Program 

Section 633 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) required each service secretary to 

designate a servicemember or a civilian employee of their military 

department to assist spouses and other dependents of members (including reserve component members) who die on active duty 

through services of the Gold Star Advocate Program. These services 

include addressing complaints by spouses and other dependents of 

deceased members regarding casualty assistance or receipt of beneVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
148 

fits, providing support to spouses and dependents regarding casualty assistance or receipt of benefits, and making reports to appropriate officials in the Department of Defense or the military department concerned regarding resolution of complaints, including recommendations regarding the settlement of claims with respect to 

benefits, as appropriate. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to review the Gold Star Advocate Program and to provide 

a briefing on preliminary results by March 31, 2016, and a report 

to follow on a date agreed to at the time of the briefing. The review 

should address the following: 

(1) The extent that each military department has designated 

a member of the Armed Forces or a civilian employee as a Gold 

Star Advocate for each of the Armed Forces under their jurisdiction; 

(2) The extent that each military department has effectively 

publicized the Gold Star Advocate Program to surviving 

spouses and dependents; 

(3) The extent and frequency that Gold Star Advocates have 

addressed complaints regarding casualty assistance or receipt 

of benefits by spouses or other dependents; 

(4) The extent that Gold Star Advocates have developed a 

process to provide reports to appropriate officials regarding the 

resolution of complaints or to make recommendations regarding the settlement of claims with respect to benefits; and 

(5) The extent that the Department of Defense has developed 

a standardized comprehensive training program on casualty 

assistance. 

Report on wait-times at child development centers 

The committee understands that it can be difficult for 

servicemembers and Department of Defense (DOD) civilians to 

focus on their duties if they are concerned about the well-being of 

their family members. For this reason, the committee believes it is 

in the best interest of the Department to ensure that children of 

servicemembers and DOD civilians have access to safe, quality, and 

convenient childcare. The committee has learned that at some military bases, the wait-times for enrolling a child in child development 

centers exceed 9 months. The committee expects the Department to 

monitor wait-times closely at DOD child development centers and 

to develop policies to shorten the wait-times of those facilities significantly. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives a report, not later than March 31, 2016, listing all 

DOD child development centers experiencing wait-times greater 

than 3 months. The report should be organized by state or country 

(for overseas child development centers) and provide the wait-time 

at each location as of the date of the report. The report should describe the Department’s goal for wait-times and provide an assessment of the steps necessary to meet wait-time goals at child development centers throughout the Department. Finally, the report 

should include a description of any legislative action required to asVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
149 

sist the Department in reducing wait-times at child development 

centers at military bases. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(151) 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—TRICARE and Other Health Care Benefits 

Urgent care authorization under the TRICARE program 

(sec. 701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

covered beneficiary under the TRICARE program to access up to 

four urgent care visits per year without the need to obtain pre-authorization for such visits. 

The committee understands that the average cost to TRICARE 

for an emergency department visit is $531 while the average cost 

for urgent care is $131 per visit. The committee is also aware that 

TRICARE Prime beneficiaries utilize emergency departments at 

significantly higher rates than civilians in the private sector. The 

committee notes that current TRICARE policy requires TRICARE 

Prime beneficiaries to obtain pre-authorization for urgent care visits. The committee concludes this administrative burden encourages beneficiaries to utilize emergency departments inappropriately 

for urgent care needs. The committee believes this provision would 

help beneficiaries choose the most appropriate source for the health 

care they need and would lower health care costs for the Department of Defense. 

The committee recognizes the intent of TRICARE’s recently introduced Nurse Advice Line is to direct beneficiaries to the most 

appropriate level of health care. The committee encourages the Defense Health Agency and the Services to adopt a policy directing 

military medical treatment facility appointment clerks to refer 

beneficiaries to the Nurse Advice Line when the appointment clerk 

cannot provide an acute care appointment within access standards. 

Modifications of cost-sharing requirements for the 

TRICARE pharmacy benefits program (sec. 702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require modifications of prescription drug co-pays for the TRICARE pharmacy 

benefits program for years 2016 through 2025. After 2025, the Department of Defense would establish co-pay amounts equal to the 

co-pay amounts for the previous year adjusted by an amount, if 

any, to reflect increases in costs of pharmaceutical agents and prescription dispensing fees. With this provision, beneficiaries would 

continue to receive prescription drugs at no cost in military medical 

treatment facilities, and there would be no changes to co-pays for 

survivors of members who died on Active Duty or for a disabled 

member retired under chapter 61 of title 10, United States Code, 

and their family members. 

Section 702 of the the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
152 

Law 113–291) authorized modest co-pay increases for certain pharmaceuticals obtained through the TRICARE retail pharmacy network or the mail order pharmacy in fiscal year 2015, but it did not 

include the Administration’s proposal to increase co-pays in subsequent years through 2024. In deliberations with the House of Representatives last year, there was agreement to reconsider any proposed co-pay changes submitted in the fiscal year 2016 budget request if inadequate defense budget levels continue to threaten military readiness and overall national security. In the committee’s 

view, the defense budget situation is no better this year, and it 

may be no better in future years. Therefore, the committee feels 

compelled to recommend pharmacy co-pay increases again this 

year. 

Expansion of continued health benefits coverage to include 

discharged and released members of the Selected Reserve (sec. 703) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1078a of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a member 

of the Selected Reserve, who is discharged or released under other 

than adverse conditions from service in the Selected Reserve, to be 

eligible to enroll, for a period of 18 months, in the Department of 

Defense program of continued health benefits coverage. 

Expansion of reimbursement for smoking cessation services 

for certain TRICARE beneficiaries (sec. 704) 

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

beneficiaries. 

Pilot program on treatment of members of the Armed 

Forces for post-traumatic stress disorder related to military sexual trauma (sec. 705) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program to award grants to 

community partners to provide intensive outpatient programs to 

treat members of the Armed Forces suffering from post-traumatic 

stress disorder resulting from military sexual trauma, including 

treatment for substance abuse, depression, and other issues related 

to those conditions. 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration 

Access to health care under the TRICARE program (sec. 

711) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to ensure that covered TRICARE beneficiaries 

obtain health care appointments within access standards and waittime goals established by the Department of Defense for primary 

care and specialty care or, if the beneficiary is unable to obtain an 

appointment within the wait-time goals, to offer the beneficiary an 

appointment with a contracted health care provider. The provision 

would also require the Secretary to publish health care access 

standards in the Federal Register and on a publicly accessible 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
153 

Internet web site of the Department of Defense and to publish appointment wait-times for primary and specialty care on the publicly 

accessible Internet web site of each military medical treatment facility. 

Portability of health plans under the TRICARE program 

(sec. 712) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to ensure that beneficiaries who are covered 

under a TRICARE health plan can seamlessly access health care 

under that health plan in each TRICARE program region. 

Improvement of mental health care provided by health care 

providers of the Department of Defense (sec. 713) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to ensure that all primary care and mental 

health care providers of the Department of Defense receive, or have 

already received, initial evidence-based training on the recognition, 

assessment, and management of individuals at risk for suicide and 

any additional training that may be required based on evidencebased changes in mental health practice. 

Within 1 year of the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

would be required to provide a report to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives that assesses the mental health workforce of the Department and the 

long-term mental health care needs of servicemembers and their 

dependents. The provision would also require the Secretary to develop procedures to measure mental health data relating to outcomes, variations in outcomes among military medical treatment 

facilities, and barriers to implementation of clinical practice guidelines and other evidence-based treatments by mental health providers of the Department of Defense. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense to provide, through clinical practice guidelines, current and evidence-based standards of care regarding contraception methods and counseling to all health care providers employed by the Department and to ensure service women have access to comprehensive contraception counseling prior to deployment 

and throughout their military careers. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to establish a uniform, standard curriculum to be used in family planning education programs for all 

members of the Armed Forces. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to waive recoupment of payment from a covered 

TRICARE beneficiary who has benefitted from an erroneous 

TRICARE payment in which all of the following apply: (1) the payment was made due to an administrative error by an employee of 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
154 

the Department of Defense or a TRICARE program contractor; (2) 

the covered beneficiary, or in the case of a minor, the parent or 

guardian of the covered beneficiary, reasonably believed the covered beneficiary was entitled to the benefit of such payment; (3) the 

covered beneficiary relied on the expectation of benefit entitlement; 

and (4) the Secretary determines that a waiver of recoupment of 

such payment is necessary to prevent an injustice. In the case of 

administrative error on the part of a TRICARE contractor, the provision would require the Secretary to impose financial responsibility on the contractor for the erroneous payment. 

Designation of certain non-Department mental health care 

providers with knowledge relating to treatment of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 716) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, not later than 1 year after enactment of this 

Act, to develop a system by which any non-Department mental 

health care provider that meets eligibility criteria relating to 

knowledge and understanding of military culture and knowledge of 

evidence-based mental health treatments approved by the Secretary, would receive a mental health provider readiness designation from the Department. The provision would also require the 

Secretary to establish and update a provider list and maintain a 

publicly available registry of mental health providers receiving 

such designation. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 49 of title 10, United States Code, to provide that a medical or 

dental position within the Department of Defense may not be converted to a civilian medical or dental position unless the Secretary 

of Defense determines that: (1) the position is not a military essential position; (2) conversion of the position would not result in the 

degradation of medical or dental care or the medical or dental readiness of the Armed Forces; and (3) conversion of the position to a 

civilian medical or dental position is more cost effective than retaining the position as a military medical or dental position, consistent with Department of Defense Instruction 7041.04. The committee believes this provision would give the Services more flexibility to achieve the most efficient medical and dental force mix 

aligned with their operational missions and to correct skill and specialty imbalances within the medical and dental forces. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1704(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) to extend the authority for the joint 

Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical 

Facility Demonstration Fund from September 30, 2016, to September 30, 2017. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
155 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 8111 of title 38, United States Code, to extend the authority 

for the DOD–VA Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund through September 30, 2020. 

Pilot program on incentive programs to improve health care 

provided under the TRICARE program (sec. 720) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program to assess valuebased incentive programs to encourage institutional and individual 

health care providers under the TRICARE program to improve 

quality of care, experience of care, and health of beneficiaries. 

Under this provision, the Department of Defense would be required 

to submit a report, not later than March 15, 2019, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives that provides an assessment of each incentive program implemented under this provision along with any recommendations for 

legislative action to expand provider incentive programs throughout the TRICARE program. 

The committee remains concerned that the TRICARE program 

continues to use a fee-for-service health care delivery model even 

as more modern health plans now use a variety of value-based delivery models. These value-based models more effectively promote 

preventive care and improve health outcomes as they foster integrated, coordinated health care delivery while controlling health 

care costs. 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters 

Publication of certain information on health care provided 

by the Department of Defense through the Hospital 

Compare web site of the Department of Health and 

Human Services (sec. 731) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to enter into a memorandum of understanding 

with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report, and 

make publicly available through the Hospital Compare Internet 

web site of the Department of Health and Human Services, information on quality of care and health outcomes regarding patients 

treated at military medical treatment facilities. 

Publication of data on patient safety, quality of care, satisfaction, and health outcome measures under the 

TRICARE program (sec. 732) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to publish public data on measures used to assess patient safety, quality of care, patient satisfaction, and health 

outcomes on the primary Internet web site of the Department of 

Defense. The provision would also require data for health care provided by a military medical treatment facility to be accessible on 

the primary Internet web site of that facility. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
156 

Annual report on patient safety, quality of care, and access 

to care at military medical treatment facilities (sec. 733) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 

March 1, 2016, and each year thereafter, a comprehensive report 

on patient safety, quality of care, and access to care at military 

medical treatment facilities. 

In May 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed a 90-day internal 

review of the military health system to evaluate patient safety, 

quality of care, and access to care. The review team completed its 

work in August 2014, and six civilian subject matter experts in 

health data, health care quality, and patient safety validated the 

methodology of the review. The Department of Defense’s review 

team concluded that the military health system provides timely, 

safe, and quality care. However, reviewers found that the military 

health system demonstrates performance variability when compared to civilian counterparts and national benchmarks. 

As a result of the findings in the report, the Secretary of Defense 

ordered numerous actions to provide more accountability in the 

military health system and to improve quality of care and patient 

safety. The committee commends the Department of Defense for 

conducting this review of the military health system. The committee intends to conduct rigorous oversight to ensure actions 

taken by the Department of Defense significantly improve patient 

safety, quality of care, and access to care in both the direct and 

purchased care components of the military health system. 

Report on plans to improve experience with and eliminate 

performance variability of health care provided by the 

Department of Defense (sec. 734) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 

180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a comprehensive 

report describing the current and future plans, with estimated completion dates, of the Department of Defense to improve the experience of care of beneficiaries and to eliminate performance variability for health care provided in military medical treatment facilities and in the TRICARE purchased care network. This provision 

would also require the Comptroller General of the United States to 

submit, not later than 180 days after the Secretary submits the 

comprehensive report, a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives that assesses 

the report of the Secretary of Defense. 

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

735) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 

180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a report setting 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
157 

forth the plan of the Department to improve pediatric care and related services for children of members of the Armed Forces. 

Section 735 of the the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) required the Secretary of 

Defense to conduct a comprehensive review and analysis of health 

care provided to dependent children of members of the Armed 

Forces. The Department of Defense submitted the report in July 

2014. Although the report concluded that the military health system meets the health care needs of children, including children 

with special health care needs, it acknowledged significant gaps 

and deficiencies in data collection, data utilization, and analysis. 

The report deeply concerns the committee because data gaps and 

deficiencies in this area fail to substantiate the conclusion that the 

military health system meets the health care needs of children, especially those children with special needs. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report, not later than 180 days 

after enactment of this Act, to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives on mental health 

screenings of individuals before enlistment or accession into the 

Armed Forces. 

Comptroller General report on use of quality of care metrics 

at military treatment facilities (sec. 737) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report, not 

later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives on the Department of Defense’s use of quality of 

care metrics in military treatment facilities. 

Items of Special Interest 

Annual report on autism care demonstration program 

The joint explanatory statement accompanying section 732 of the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009 (Public Law 110–417) required a semi-annual report, without 

end date, on the status of implementation of the TRICARE autism 

demonstration project then in progress. That project ended in 2014, 

and the expanded TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration, which incorporates Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) 

policies into a single program for all TRICARE beneficiaries with 

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), succeeded it. This demonstration 

program concludes on December 31, 2018. 

The committee remains keenly interested in the Department of 

Defense’s response to the needs of children with ASD and directs 

the Secretary of Defense to report no later than April 1, 2016, and 

annually thereafter for the duration of the program, on the results 

of the program. No additional semi-annual reports on the initial 

TRICARE autism demonstration project are required. The newly 

required annual report should include a discussion of the evidence 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
158 

regarding clinical improvement of children with ASD receiving 

ABA therapy and a description of lessons learned to improve administration of the demonstration program. In the report, the Department should also identify any new legislative authorities required to improve the provision of autism services to beneficiaries 

with ASD. 

Antimicrobial coatings 

The committee notes with concern that hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are a major, yet preventable, threat to patient safety 

in both civilian and military healthcare settings. HAIs are responsible for billions of dollars each year in potentially preventable 

health care expenditures. Research shows that when healthcare facilities and providers are aware of the risks of transmission of infections and take steps to prevent them, rates of some targeted 

HAIs decrease by more than 70 percent. A key element of HAI prevention is the development and use of antimicrobial materials and 

coatings. The committee is aware that antimicrobial coatings for 

medical devices and other touchable surfaces in the hospital and 

health environment are effective but often costly. Accordingly, the 

committee encourages the Department of Defense to investigate advanced antimicrobial coating technologies that may enhance durability and lower costs. 

Continued support for diagnosis and treatment for traumatic brain injury 

Over the past two decades, our service men and women have 

been injured in combat areas by Improvised Explosive Devices 

(IEDs), other military explosive devices and by head impacts leading to mild and moderate concussions which have led to both physical and mental brain injuries. These injuries are disabling, as they 

may induce short-term memory loss, severe headaches, depression, 

loss of cognitive function, loss of impulse control, anger and, in extreme cases, suicide. The committee remains committed to continuing support and funding for diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injury to include potential alternative, evidence-based 

methods of treatments. 

Intensive behavioral counseling 

The committee is aware that cardiovascular disease is a leading 

cause of death in the United States, and obesity is associated with 

increased mortality from cardiovascular disease. In August 2014, 

the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) reported evidence that intensive behavioral counseling for overweight or obese 

adults with increased risk of cardiovascular disease can lead to decreases in blood pressure, blood glucose levels, and body mass 

index. As a result, the USPSTF recommended that overweight or 

obese adults with additional cardiovascular disease risk be offered 

intensive behavioral counseling interventions to promote healthy 

diets and physical activity to help prevent cardiovascular disease. 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to incorporate intensive behavioral counseling in treatment protocols for 

overweight or obese adults with increased risk for cardiovascular 

disease. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
159 

Mild traumatic brain injury research 

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), including mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), is a signature wound of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a subject of growing public health concerns for civilians, 

particularly in the field of sports medicine. Through funding for 

TBI and psychological health research in the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs, Congress has annually supported Department of Defense (DOD) research aimed to prevent, 

mitigate, and treat the effects of combat-related TBI on function, 

wellness, and overall quality of life, including interventions across 

the deployment life cycle for warriors, veterans, family members, 

caregivers, and communities. 

The committee recognizes the Department’s efforts in recent 

years to leverage partnerships with academia and the private sector to address health issues of serious concern for military personnel. The committee encourages DOD to maintain its engagement in large-scale studies of mTBI in order to build a deeper understanding of concussion injuries; how they impact the brain; how 

and to what extent the brain recovers; and how treatment and prevention can be improved. The committee also encourages DOD to 

leverage private sector and academic partnerships to the greatest 

extent practicable and to ensure data sets generated through such 

partnerships contain no personally identifiable information, are 

protected from disclosure or misuse in accordance with the laws on 

privacy applicable to such information, and are available as appropriate for further research and to inform concussion care and policy. 

Molecular diagnostics 

The committee understands that early disease detection and 

intervention can lead to better health outcomes and lower health 

care costs for patients. The committee is aware of emerging, new 

technologies that use small sample molecular diagnostic techniques 

to diagnose and monitor disease, detect disease risk, and allow for 

development of therapies specifically designed for individual patients. The committee believes that early detection and subsequent 

management of chronic diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease could present an enormous opportunity for the Department of Defense to reduce its health care costs significantly 

and to improve the health of military service men and women. The 

committee encourages the Department of Defense to study how 

these emerging molecular diagnostic technologies may improve the 

health and quality of life of military beneficiaries and lower health 

care costs for the Department. 

Newborn infant screening evaluation and treatment 

The direct and purchased care components of the military health 

system averaged over 127,000 childbirths annually during the last 

3 fiscal years. The committee is aware that current screening tests 

in the military newborn infant population would yield a minimum 

of 70 children with treatable rare genetic conditions and a minimum of 200–300 false positive tests that would require further 

evaluation. Historically, newborn infant screening test requirements for treatable rare genetic conditions have conformed to local 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
160 

state guidelines. Frequent relocations of military families within 

the continental United States and overseas have often led to a fragmented system of care for military children with rare genetic diseases. 

The committee understands that inadequate specialized treatment and management of infants with positive newborn infant 

screening tests can lead to poor or devastating outcomes for military families. The committee, therefore, directs the Department of 

Defense to review its newborn infant screening program to ensure 

military families have access to specialized follow-up treatment and 

management of newborn infants with rare genetic conditions. 

Preseparation counseling on opioid therapy for chronic 

pain management 

The committee recognizes the persistently high rate of long-term 

opioid therapy for servicemembers and veterans with chronic pain. 

While pain is the most frequent presenting complaint of returning 

Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom soldiers, 

comorbidities and other factors often mean that long-term opioid 

therapy is an inappropriate treatment option for many individuals 

with chronic pain while separating from military service. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is experiencing a high number 

of veterans who were prescribed opioids while serving on Active 

Duty, making it more difficult to transition those veterans to alternative therapies, including those therapies offered as part of the 

VA’s Opioid Safety Initiative designed to reduce the use of opioids 

by veterans. 

The committee recommends, not later than 180 days from the 

date of this report, that the Department of Defense (DOD) establish a policy to require face-to-face counseling prior to discharge for 

all servicemembers with prescribed opioids. This counseling should 

include: 1) disclosure of the risks of long-term opioid use; 2) recognition of relevant co-occurring diagnoses of the individual; and 3) 

discussion of alternatives to opioid therapy. During counseling, the 

servicemember should receive a referral for pain management after 

discharge if required. This policy should include a requirement that 

DOD include in the data that is provided to the VA a description 

of the alternative therapies that were discussed with the servicemember during preseparation counseling. 

Prosthetic socket manufacturing cells 

The committee notes that the extensive use of improvised explosive devices against U.S. forces has dramatically increased the 

number of military amputees in the health care systems of the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. Prosthetic socket fabrication methods vary greatly in technique, quality, and cost, and 

they are highly reliant upon the skill of the individual prosthetist. 

Emerging technologies and manufacturing processes have demonstrated potential improvements in socket customization, performance, weight, and standardization at reduced costs. 

The committee understands it is now possible to establish a manufacturing framework to digitize and record patient dimensions, 

preserve and update this information within a patient’s electronic 

health record, and fabricate new or replacement sockets immeVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
161 

diately, regardless of patient location. The committee encourages 

the Department of Defense to modernize its prosthetic socket manufacturing framework to improve the quality of care for military 

amputees. 

Reform of the TRICARE program 

Congress established the Military Compensation and Retirement 

Modernization Commission in section 671 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to 

conduct a review of the military compensation and retirement systems and to make recommendations to modernize those systems. 

The Commission released its report in January 2015. The Commission’s health care recommendations included a reform plan to improve access to care and expand beneficiaries’ choices of health 

plans by allowing beneficiaries, other than Active-Duty 

servicemembers, to obtain health care coverage from a selection of 

military-unique commercial health insurance plans offered through 

a new DOD health benefit program administered by the Office of 

Personnel Management. 

Following release of the Commission’s report, the Personnel Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate held 

a hearing to explore the health care recommendations in detail 

after which staff members met with various stakeholders to ensure 

full consideration of their views on the recommendations. Throughout those meetings, stakeholders encouraged the committee to take 

more time to study the healthcare recommendations before enacting comprehensive legislation to reform TRICARE. 

Although the committee believes that the Commission’s 

healthcare recommendations may address lingering problems within the military health system, the committee feels it is prudent to 

take a very deliberate approach to enacting TRICARE reform legislation. The committee must better understand the implications and 

unintended consequences of any plan to transform a large, complex 

health program like TRICARE. The committee has recommended 

provisions in this Act, however, that would ensure the Department 

of Defense improves access to care, delivers better health outcomes, 

enhances the experience of care for beneficiaries, and controls 

health care costs. These provisions help lay the foundation for comprehensive TRICARE modernization and reform legislation in the 

near future. 

Training for physician assistants specializing in psychiatric 

care 

The committee is concerned about the effect of nationwide mental health provider shortages impacting access to quality care for 

members of the Armed Forces and their families. Demand for mental health services among servicemembers and military families 

has increased significantly in the past decade. In response to the 

Senate report accompanying S. 1197 (S. Rept. 113–44), the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs submitted a 

joint report in April 2015 indicating near 100 percent staffing for 

Department of Defense mental health providers, but the number of 

billets authorized may lag actual requirements. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
162 

The committee notes that the most recent report by the National 

Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants found the 

number of physician assistants working in psychiatric care increased by more than 17 percent from 2013 to 2014. The physician 

assistant profession is growing rapidly with a 36 percent increase 

in the number of certified physician assistants over the past 5 

years and an expected 40 percent increase in the number of physician assistant education programs between 2013 and 2018. 

The committee is aware that the physician assistant profession 

has a strong historical relationship with the military and that the 

Services rely broadly on physician assistants as primary care providers for both the operational forces and their families. With physician assistant manning levels exceeding 100 percent across the 

Services, the Department of Defense has established fellowship 

programs to provide physician assistants with specialty training in 

emergency medicine, orthopedic surgery and general surgery. 

The committee applauds the Department of Defense for its support of cost-effective solutions to mental health provider shortages, 

including established pathways to credential psychologists and 

nurse practitioners as prescribing providers. The committee further 

encourages the Department of Defense to consider cost-effective 

methods of training physician assistants to specialize in psychiatric 

care. 

TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration 

The committee is pleased with the initial favorable reports on the 

success of the TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration. This demonstration, which began on July 25, 2014, combines 

into one program all TRICARE-covered Applied Behavior Analysis 

services from the TRICARE Basic Program, the Enhanced Access 

to Autism Services Demonstration, and the Applied Behavior Analysis Pilot for TRICARE beneficiaries diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Beneficiaries report that this new program is 

easier to navigate, that beneficiaries diagnosed with ASD receive 

the care they need, and that the Department of Defense is addressing challenges as they arise in an effective manner. Although this 

demonstration is relatively new and is scheduled to run until December 31, 2018, initial reports are sufficiently encouraging that 

the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to make it a 

permanent program to ensure that qualified beneficiaries do not 

face barriers to the care that they need. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(163) 

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

Acquisition policy reform overview 

With this Act, the committee is embarking on a multi-year effort 

to improve the underlying structure and process that delivers 

warfighting capability to the nation. The acquisition system’s ‘‘rules 

of the game’’ provide the incentive structure for how the underlying 

industrial base is organized, who decides to bid on defense contracts, and who does not. The rules and the resulting structure of 

the industrial base that supports the Department of Defense are 

currently not aligned to the emerging national security needs of the 

coming decades. 

The acquisition system is not a stand-alone system. It is comprised of budget, requirements, contracting, engineering, test, 

audit, oversight, financial, information management, science and 

technology, and personnel components. Each of these component 

parts must be aligned and properly incentivized to meet national 

security goals. One goal of this committee’s effort will be to work 

to align these components and achieve a necessary balance. 

On one level the committee’s reform efforts are driven by economic efficiency concerns. Current budget constraints argue for significant changes to a woefully inefficient system. Overarching business reform and overhead reductions as outlined in this bill are a 

necessary first step to free up resources to modernize military capability, and the acquisition process needs to be more efficient to 

get the best return on those resources. 

Still, the committee’s primary concern with the acquisition system is that reform is now needed for national security reasons to 

maintain technological and military dominance. An inadequate acquisition system is leading to the erosion of America’s defense technological advantage, which the United States will lose altogether if 

the Department continues with business as usual. The Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics stated recently: ‘‘We’ve been complacent. Our technological superiority is 

very much at risk, there are people designing systems [specifically] 

to defeat us in a very thoughtful and strategic way, and we’ve got 

to wake up, frankly.’’ A failing defense acquisition system will not 

only have budgetary implications, but could set the stage for a future national security crisis. 

The reasons for this concern are founded in science and technology research trends. The Department is facing an emerging innovation gap. Commercial research and development (R&D) in the 

United States overtook government R&D in 1980 and this threshold was one of the key triggers that led to the commercial acquisition reforms of the 1990s. Today, as the Department makes it even 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
164 

more difficult to access commercial companies and innovation, commercial R&D now represents 75 percent of the national total. A recent financial analysis found that the top four U.S. defense contractors combined spend only 27 percent of what a leading commercial 

information technology firm spends annually on R&D. 

The problem grows worse beyond our borders. Global R&D is 

now more than twice that of the United States. Chinese R&D levels 

are projected to surpass the United States in 2022. Even when the 

Department is innovating, it is moving too slowly. Innovation is 

measured in 18-month cycles in the commercial market while the 

Department acquisition cycles are measured in decades. At a recent 

speech at Stanford University, Secretary Carter stated: ‘‘The same 

Internet that enables Wikipedia also allows terrorists to learn how 

to build a bomb. And the same technologies we use to target cruise 

missiles and jam enemy air defenses can be used against our own 

forces—and they’re now available to the highest bidder. Whether 

it’s the cloud, infrared cameras, or the GPS signals that provide 

navigation for ride-sharing apps, but also for aircraft carriers and 

our smart bombs—our reliance on technology has led to real 

vulnerabilities that our adversaries are eager to exploit.’’ 

Accessing sources of innovation beyond the Department is critical 

for national security in the future, especially in areas such as cyber 

security, robotics, data analytics, miniaturization, and autonomy. 

However, the defense acquisition system is leading many commercial firms to choose not to do business with the Defense Department, or to limit their engagement in ways that prevent the Department from accessing the critical technologies that these companies have to offer. Export controls, security mandates, and Buy 

America barriers also limit cooperation with our allies and global 

commercial firms. In short, the defense acquisition system itself increasingly poses a threat to our future military technological dominance. 

For this reason, the United States must create better incentives 

for innovation by removing unnecessary legislative, regulatory, and 

cultural barriers to new commercial competition. The Department 

must also establish alternative acquisition paths to get innovative 

capabilities to our warfighters in a matter of months, not decades. 

Ultimately, the defense acquisition system must enable the Department to take advantage of the best minds, firms, and technologies 

that America, and the world, have to offer. 

The provisions of this Act would begin to embark on alternative 

acquisition pathways to create more efficient and effective results 

and expand the industrial base that supports the nation’s national 

security needs. They have been developed based on the committee’s 

review of acquisition reform, including the implementation of the 

Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (WSARA) (Public 

Law 111–23), and using inputs from the Administration, industry, 

the Government Accountability Office, and others. The acquisition 

provisions of this Act reflect four themes to support the establishment and use of these alternative pathways. 

The first theme is to establish effective accountability for results. 

The Act would enhance the role of the service chiefs in acquisition, 

decentralizing to the maximum extent practicable decision-making 

authority to the services. The Office of the Secretary of Defense 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
165 

(OSD) should be providing more insight and identification of best 

practices to the services rather than duplicative oversight and 

micromanagement. The method for maintaining accountability 

within the services is to establish performance contracts (to meet 

cost, schedule and performance goals) with service chiefs, service 

secretaries, service acquisition executives and program managers 

signing up to binding management, requirements, and resource 

commitments. If programs fail, as measured by a Nunn-McCurdy 

threshold breach, these programs should then become centrally 

managed by OSD. The Act also establishes a financial penalty for 

cost overruns that OSD can use to fund developmental prototypes. 

Ultimately, the way for the services to meet their cost, schedule 

and performance goals and continue to manage their programs is 

to reform the requirements and budget process for acquisition programs. A time-based requirements process looking at capabilities to 

be deployed rapidly (within 2 years), in the medium term (within 

5 years), or longer than 5 years should be developed that relies on 

extensive market research and be based in technological reality. 

The Department should also begin to look at the experience of our 

allies in how they budget for capital assets and begin a dialogue 

with the Congress on best practices in capital budgeting that can 

serve as a basis of future reforms. 

The second theme of this effort is to increase access to commercial innovation and competition. The barriers and costs of defense 

contracting are so great that advanced technology companies and 

others on the leading edge of innovation choose not to partner with 

the Department of Defense. Commercial item reforms in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–355) 

and the Clinger Cohen Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–106) were designed to remove many of these barriers such as requirements for 

government unique accounting systems, cost data, and restrictions 

on technical data but many of these mandates have returned in 

law, regulation, and practice. Other transactions authority was another method to entice non-traditional firms into the defense market, but use of this authority has atrophied over the years to an 

exception basis. Competitive rapid prototyping, open systems and 

incremental development methods used in the commercial sector 

have not taken hold at the Department, which continues to rely on 

an antiquated multi-decade process with ‘‘winner take all’’ competitions that result in single-source contractors. 

To address these concerns, the Act’s provisions would incentivize 

commercial innovation by removing barriers to new entrants into 

the defense market by reforming commercial item, other transactions authority, and technical data (protection of intellectual 

property rights) authorities. Rapid acquisition authorities would be 

expanded to better support contingency operations and to address 

cyber security concerns. A new approach and funding mechanism 

would be established for a ‘‘Middle Tier of Acquisition’’ to conduct 

rapid prototyping and rapid fielding that can be deployed within 5 

years. Finally, the Act would ensure that the Secretary of Defense 

has the authority to waive unnecessary acquisition laws to acquire 

vital national security capabilities and require the development of 

a series of alternative acquisition pathways using flexible acquisition authorities to maintain U.S. technological superiority. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
166 

The third acquisition theme in this Act is to deregulate and 

streamline to reduce costs and gain efficiencies. This Act includes 

a number of provisions that would streamline the process for buying weapon systems, services, and information technology by reducing unnecessary requirements and certifications. The committees 

notes that the implementation of WSARA has so far resulted in reductions in the number of programs reporting unit cost growth. 

The committee believes that WSARA’s knowledge-based acquisition 

approach, including improved cost estimation, systems engineering, 

and developmental testing, have helped improve the outcomes of 

programs. The committee bill retains the positive aspects of these 

reforms, but attempts to streamline processes to support more 

rapid and efficient development and delivery of new capabilities. 

The Act would also establish a review panel similar to the ‘‘section 

800 expert review panel’’ of the early 1990’s, to identify unneeded 

acquisition regulations. The Act would also require a study of the 

regulatory cost premium of the defense-unique acquisition oversight process versus the commercial item acquisition oversight 

process. 

Finally, the Act takes up the challenge to reinvigorate the acquisition workforce. The Act would reauthorize the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund; authorize the continuation of 

the civilian acquisition workforce personnel demonstration project; 

establish several direct hire authorities for engineering and 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) employees to join the acquisition workforce; and enhance military personnel authorities as they apply to the military acquisition workforce giving the service chiefs the ability to manage this workforce 

more effectively. 

The committee believes this is only the beginning of necessary 

changes to transition what is, in essence, a Cold War management 

system into one that is more agile and nimble to meet the challenges of a globalized information age. This process will be maintained in future legislation as the committee continues to explore 

how to change the acquisition system to be more open to next generation technologies that can enable the United States to outpace 

its adversaries. 

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management 

Role of service chiefs in the acquisition process (sec. 801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2547 of title 10, United States Code, to enhance the role of the 

service chiefs in the defense acquisition process. This provision 

would reinforce the roles of the services chiefs in decisions regarding the balancing of resources and priorities, and associated tradeoffs among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance on 

major defense acquisition programs. The provision further defines 

the role of the principal military deputies to the service acquisition 

executive to inform the service chief concerned of acquisition issues 

related to cost, schedule, technical feasibility and performance of 

acquisition programs. The committee believes that the customer of 

the defense acquisition system is the military service that will have 

primary responsibility for fielding the system or systems acquired. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
167 

This provision reinforces this concept and also outlines the responsibilities of the customer to ensure that acquisition systems are acquired and managed efficiently and effectively. 

Expansion of rapid acquisition authority (sec. 802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 806(c) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2003 (10 U.S.C. 2302 note), as amended by section 

811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375). This provision would 

enhance the rapid acquisition authority currently provided to the 

Secretary of Defense by allowing the Secretary to use this authority for two new categories of supplies and associated support services that the Secretary determines: (1) are urgently needed and impact an ongoing or anticipated contingency operation that, if left 

unfulfilled, could potentially result in loss of life or critical mission 

failure; or (2) are urgently needed to eliminate a deficiency that as 

the result of a cyber attack has resulted in critical mission failure, 

the loss of life, property destruction, or economic effects, or is likely 

to result in critical mission failure, the significant loss of life, property destruction, or economic effects. 

This provision would also increase the amount of rapid acquisition authority for contingency operations available to the Department from $200.0 million to $400.0 million and authorize $200.0 

million for cyber security rapid acquisition authority. 

Middle tier of acquisition for rapid prototyping and rapid 

fielding (sec. 803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to issue guidance for an expedited and streamlined ‘‘middle 

tier’’ of acquisition programs that are intended to be completed 

within 5 years. These programs would be distinctive from ‘‘rapid 

acquisitions’’ that are generally completed within 6 months to 2 

years and ‘‘traditional’’ acquisitions that last much longer than 5 

years. 

The provision would establish two acquisition pathways. The 

first would be a rapid prototyping pathway that can demonstrate 

new capabilities to meet emerging military needs which could result in a residual operational capability. The second would be a 

rapid fielding pathway for proven technologies to field production 

quantities of new or upgraded systems with minimal development 

required. The provision authorizes the use of expedited and streamlined procedures for both of these pathways. The provision would 

also authorize the establishment of a Rapid Prototyping Fund to 

provide funds in addition to other funds that may be available for 

each rapid prototyping pathway program. This fund would consist 

of funds appropriated to the account and amounts credited to the 

account from any penalties levied under section 849 of this Act. 

Amendments to other transaction authority (sec. 804) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

new section in title 10, United States Code, to codify section 845 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
168 

(Public Law 103–160), which authorizes the use of ‘‘other transactions’’ to carry out prototype projects that should lead to more effective and broader usage of this authority. The amendments 

would: (1) make section 845 authority permanent; (2) clarify the 

authority to use section 845 authority to acquire prototypes or follow-on production items to be provided to contractors as government-furnished equipment; (3) clarify that a contractor who has not 

been required to provide certified cost or pricing data under the 

Truth in Negotiations Act (Public Law 87–653; 10 U.S.C. section 

2306a) in the previous year may qualify as a ‘‘non-traditional contractor’’ under the statute; (4) ensure that innovative small business firms are authorized to participate in other transactions under 

section 845 without the requirement for a cost-share (except where 

the small business is partnered with a large business in a transaction); and (5) clarify the use of follow-on production contracts or 

other transactions authority. 

The committee believes that other transactions continue to serve 

as an important mechanism to provide the Department of Defense 

with access to innovative, cutting-edge technologies developed by 

companies that might otherwise be unwilling to do business with 

the government. The committee supports the use of other transaction authority by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for this purpose, and urges the military departments 

to make similar use of the authority. 

The committee supports the rapid regulatory implementation of 

the definitional change in section 812(a) of the Carl Levin and 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291). The committee is also 

aware of many interpretive and cultural barriers that have been 

put in place to impede the use of other transactions. 

The committee believes that the authorities of section 3871 of 

title 10, United States Code, and the related and dependent authorities of Section 845 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103–160), as modified by this provision, should be used to their maximum extent by the Department 

of Defense and other federal agencies in order to streamline acquisition of innovative research and technology from the private sector. 

Use of alternative acquisition paths to acquire critical national security capabilities (sec. 805) 

The committee recommends a provision to require the Secretary 

of Defense to establish procedures and guidelines for alternative acquisition pathways to acquire capital assets and services that meet 

critical national security needs. These procedures shall: (1) be separate from existing acquisition procedures; (2) be supported by 

streamlined contracting, budgeting, and requirements processes; (3) 

establish alternative acquisition paths based on the capabilities 

being bought and the time needed to deploy these capabilities; and 

(4) maximize the use of flexible authorities and programs in existing law and regulation. Time-based acquisition pathways should be 

linked to any time-based approach for requirements required to be 

developed under this Title. As the Department of Defense (DOD) 

considers how to maintain its technological advantage in the future 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
169 

through strategies such as a ‘‘third offset’’ it should ensure where 

appropriate that the pathways developed under this provision can 

deliver needed capabilities in a manner similar to developments 

during World War II and the two previous offset strategy periods 

in the 1950s and 1970s. 

The committee is concerned that DOD is in danger of losing its 

technological advantage in many technology areas critical to the 

national defense and is no longer accessing the most innovative 

parts of the industrial base. While Congress in the past has granted DOD a number of flexible acquisition authorities and created a 

number of programs to capture this innovation, many of these authorities or programs have seen little or reduced usage. The provisions included in this Act would strengthen or create a number of 

new authorities that the Department could use to acquire critical 

national security capabilities faster. 

When reviewing existing authorities the Secretary should consider the following authorities and programs at a minimum: (1) 

Secretary of Defense waiver of acquisition laws to acquire vital national security capabilities as added by this Act; (2) middle tier acquisition for rapid prototyping and rapid fielding for capabilities to 

be deployed in 2 to 5 years as added by this Act; (3) rapid acquisition authorities as modified by this Act for capabilities to be deployed in less than 2 years; (4) other transaction authorities as 

modified by the Act; (5) procurement for experimental purposes authority (section 2373 of title 10, United States Code) as modified 

by this Act; (6) commercial item acquisition authorities (FAR Part 

12) as modified by this Act; (7) exceptional circumstances Truth in 

Negotiations Act (TINA) (section 2306a of title 10, United States 

Code and chapter 35 of title 41, United States Code) waivers; (8) 

procedures under section 2304(c) of the Competition in Contracting 

Act of 1984 (section 2304 of title 10, United States Code); (9) grants 

and cooperative research and development agreements; and (10) 

such programs as the Foreign Comparative Test Program, DOD 

Challenge Program, and the Small Business Innovation Research 

program. 

This provision would require the Secretary to identify any new 

authorities required to meet the objectives of this provision and report to Congress on a summary of the guidelines and any recommendations for new legislation necessary to meet the objectives 

in the guidelines. 

Secretary of Defense waiver of acquisition laws to acquire 

vital national security capabilities (sec. 806) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive acquisition law or regulation for the purpose of acquiring a capability that is in the vital interest of the 

United States and is not otherwise available to the Armed Forces 

of the United States. The Secretary shall notify the congressional 

defense committees at least 30 days before excercising the waiver 

authority and designate a senior official who shall be personally responsible and accountable for the rapid and effective acquisition 

and deployment of the needed capability. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
170 

Acquisition authority of the Commander of United States 

Cyber Command (sec. 807) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

limited acquisition authority for the Commander of United States 

Cyber Command (CYBERCOM). The provision is modeled on the 

authority provided to the Commander of U.S. Special Operations 

Command, but is limited to the acquisition of non-major systems. 

The provision would authorize the development and acquisition 

of cyber operations-peculiar equipment and capabilities and the acquisition of cyber capability-peculiar equipment, capabilities, and 

services. The provision would direct that the staff of the Commander include a command acquisition executive who would be responsible for the overall supervision of CYBERCOM acquisition 

matters. The command acquisition executive would also be responsible for negotiating memoranda of agreement with the military departments, supervising the acquisition of equipment, capabilities, 

and services, regardless of whether such acquisitions are carried 

out by the Command or a military department. The command acquisition executive would also be responsible for representing the 

Command in discussions with the military departments regarding 

acquisition programs for which the Command is a customer, and 

working with the military departments to ensure the Command is 

appropriately represented in discussions with the military departments and joint working groups or integrated product teams. 

To support CYBERCOM in fulfilling its acquisition responsibilities, the provision would direct the Secretary of Defense to provide 

CYBERCOM with the personnel or funding equivalent to ten fulltime equivalent personnel to CYBERCOM with experience in program acquisition, the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System process, program management, system engineering, 

and costing. The personnel or funding equivalent provided would 

come from existing department resources. The provision would require the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General conduct internal audits and inspections of purchasing and contract actions. The provision would also establish a $75.0 million cyber operations procurement fund for each fiscal year from fiscal year 

2016 through 2021 out of the funds made available in each fiscal 

year for defense-wide procurement. The provision would sunset on 

September 30, 2021. 

The committee is concerned there is an urgent need for cyber capabilities that is not being fulfilled by the military services. Major 

investments to date have been heavily weighted towards network 

defense and network consolidation. For a variety of reasons, the 

services have failed to adequately prioritize funding in their budget 

requests for the development of cyber warfighting capabilities. According to the Commander of CYBERCOM in testimony before the 

committee on March 17, 2015, the Department of Defense is ‘‘at a 

tipping point where we not only need to continue to build on the 

defensive capability, but we have got to broaden our capabilities to 

provide policy makers and operational commanders with a broader 

range of options.’’ 

The committee is also concerned that traditional service-led acquisitions and existing acquisition statutes and regulations lack 

the flexibility, agility, and speed necessary to deliver cyber capabiliVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
171 

ties responsively enough to stay ahead of the rapidly evolving 

threat. According to the Commanding General of Marine Forces 

Cyberspace Command in testimony before the committee on April 

14, 2015, ‘‘current acquisition processes do not adequately support 

the delivery tempo required for emerging cyber solutions. The 

tempo at which emerging technologies must be acquired to meet 

cyberspace operational mandates is occurring at a much greater 

pace, which creates tension within the acquisition process.’’ This 

provision would address these shortfalls by providing the Commander of CYBERCOM the limited ability to rapidly procure capabilities to meet the requirements the military services have been 

unable to meet thus far and are incapable of meeting in operationally relevant ways in the future. 

The committee recognizes that CYBERCOM is a new organization that is still maturing and has little experience or expertise in 

systems acquisition. However, the committee also recognizes that 

few acquisition models across the DOD have demonstrated successes in acquiring cyber capabilities. The committee believes that 

if structured appropriately CYBERCOM has the unique opportunity to demonstrate and validate new acquisition approaches. 

The burden is on CYBERCOM and the Department as a whole to 

demonstrate that CYBERCOM can effectively exercise these acquisition authorities over the next five years. 

There are a number of additional authorities in this title that 

would also improve the ability of the department to more rapidly 

acquire cyber capabilities. These include enhancements to commercial item, other transactions, and rapid acquisition authorities. 

Elsewhere in title XVI of this Act, the committee also recommends 

a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to designate 

within 90 days of the date of enactment an entity of the Department of Defense to be responsible for the acquisition of critical 

cyber capabilities to include: (1) The unified platform; (2) a persistent cyber training environment; and (3) a cyber situational 

awareness and battle management system. The committee believes 

that today department entities with existing acquisition experience 

are best suited for the development of larger foundational programs 

such as the unified platform. However, in the future the committee 

envisions the possibility of a shared acquisition approach where the 

traditional acquisition entities, in partnership with CYBERCOM, 

fund and develop foundational systems and service specific capabilities. CYBERCOM’s acquisition role would be focused primarily 

on meeting joint cyber operations-peculiar and cyber capability-peculiar requirements the services are unable to meet. 

Advisory panel on streamlining and codifying acquisition 

regulations (sec. 808) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to establish an advisory panel on streamlining acquisition regulations. This panel would be under the sponsorship of the Defense 

Acquisition University and the National Defense University. 

25 years ago, the committee proposed the establishment of an advisory panel to streamline acquisition laws. This panel, referred to 

as the Section 800 Panel, was mandated in the National Defense 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
172 

Authorization Act of 1991 (Public Law 101–510) and resulted in 

many of the reform recommendations that were enacted in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–355) 

and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–106). The 

Committee believes that in the intervening quarter of a century the 

acquisition system is again burdened by unnecessary laws and regulations that are creating incentives to slow down acquisition and 

not obtain the best value when purchasing goods and services for 

the warfighter and the taxpayer. The committee plans to continue 

to review and propose streamlining measures to eliminate unnecessary laws that hamper the Department of Defense and its contractors. The committee believes that a parallel effort should be conducted by the Department of Defense with regards to the current 

regulatory environment. 

The provision would create a panel that would be composed of at 

least nine individuals who are recognized experts in acquisition 

laws, regulations, and policy. The committee intends that persons 

appointed to the Advisory Panel be able to devote a substantial 

amount of time to this drafting effort. The Advisory Panel should 

not operate as a board that directs the work of a staff. Rather, the 

primary work should be done by the members of the Panel, with 

staff serving to provide administrative support and routine research assistance. 

The purpose of this Advisory Panel would be to prepare a pragmatic, workable set of recommended changes to current acquisition 

regulations. The committee recommends that the first set of regulations to review be those that are independent of any statutory mandate. For those regulations based in law, the committee expects 

that the Advisory Panel would review whether those regulations 

have evolved over time and may differ from the original intent. The 

Advisory Panel’s mandate should be to trace this evolution and recommend changes where regulatory trends have resulted in actions 

that have limited necessary discretion or flexibility that exists in 

current law. The Advisory Panel should seek to limit regulatory 

provisions to those necessary to structure buyer-seller relations in 

the context of government procurement, ensure the financial and 

ethical integrity of government programs, and protect other fundamental governmental policies. 

There are several significant industrial base evolutions that did 

not exist at the time of the section 800 panel report that the Advisory Panel should be cognizant of when it conducts its evaluation. 

The first is the increasing consolidation of the defense unique industrial base both at the prime and sub-tier levels. The second is 

the growing dominance of commercial technologies in many areas 

that are important to the Department of Defense. The third trend 

is the globalization of the defense and commercial industrial bases 

and proliferation of advanced commercial and defense technologies. 

While the final report of the Advisory Panel would be delivered 

to the congressional defense committees not later than 2 years 

after the Panel’s establishment, interim reports would be required 

6 months and 18 months after the enactment of this Act. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
173 

Review of time-based requirements process and budgeting 

and acquisition systems (sec. 809) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

to review the requirements process to provide for a time-based or 

phased distinction between capabilities needed to be deployed urgently, within 2 years, within 5 years, and longer than 5 years. 

While the use of rapid acquisition techniques has led to the establishment of a rapid requirements process, there is no such process 

that could lead to capabilities being pursued in less than 5 years. 

This 5-year time is significant in that this was the average time 

to achieve Initial Operational Capability for many defense programs until the 1970s and is the time it takes for equivalent commercial programs to be deployed today. A recent Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency study found that the current requirements process may be a significant hurdle to the Department being 

able to conduct short, iterative development and fielding cycles and 

innovate like the more agile sectors of the commercial market. The 

committee intends this provision to be linked to others in the Act 

concerning the use of alternative paths to acquire critical national 

security capabilities and the middle tier of acquisition for rapid 

prototyping and rapid fielding. The committee’s intent is that these 

reviews and authorities will offer an opportunity to change the paradigm of defense acquisition from a focus on decade’s long development cycles to agile improvement with multiple iterations of capabilities within that same timeframe. 

Improvement of program and project management by the 

Department of Defense (sec. 810) 

The committee recommends a provision to outline Department of 

Defense (DOD) responsibilities under chapter 87 of title 10, United 

States Code for improving program and project management. This 

provision would require that not later than 1 year after the enactment of this Act that the Secretary of Defense develop Departmentwide standards, policies and guidelines for program and project 

management. 

The committee continues to be concerned over the Department’s 

ability to manage service contracts. The committee directs the Department to provide a briefing describing training activities that 

improve the quality of program management for service contracts. 

The briefing should include a description of how private sector best 

practices are evaluated and adopted as part of DOD training and 

education programs, as well as comparison of current DOD practices with commercial best practices in training and education related to contract services management. The committee expects 

DOD to provide this briefing no later than 6 months after the date 

of enactment of this Act. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
174 

Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting 

Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations 

Preference for fixed-price contracts in determining contract 

type for development programs (sec. 821) 

The committee recommends a provision to require the Defense 

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to be revised to establish a preference for fixed-price contracts, including fixed-price incentive contracts, in the determination of contract type for development programs. 

Applicability of cost and pricing data and certification requirements (sec. 822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the applicability of the Truth in Negotiations Act (Public Law 87–653; 10 

U.S.C. section 2306a) to offset agreements. The committee is also 

concerned that the use of contract types other than firm-fixed price 

are unnecessarily extending the period of performance of these contracts to address the completion of offset agreements. 

The committee is aware that Department of Defense (DOD) contracting officials are being put in an untenable situation of overseeing offset agreements by a broad application of the Truth in Negotiations Act. The committee believes this appears to be a violation of the intent of the 1990 Presidential policy on offsets codified 

in the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1992 (Public Law 

102–558, Title 1, Part C, section 123) by putting DOD in the position of negotiating, implementing, and being responsible for U.S. 

firms’ offset agreements by applying fair and reasonable price criteria to these agreements. The committee reiterates that it is the 

policy of the U.S. government as codified in the Defense Production 

Act (Public Law 8109774) that offsets for military exports are economically inefficient and distort markets. The committee believes 

it should not be the policy of the U.S. government to enforce these 

agreements through contracts. These agreements are strictly between the foreign government and private sector and the law states 

that ‘‘the responsibility for negotiating and implementing offset arrangements, reside with the company involved.’’ Thus, it is up to 

the foreign government to determine whether it is getting value 

from the offset agreement and the reasonableness of price paid by 

a foreign government for a U.S. company to execute an offset 

agreement should not be of concern to the DOD unless there are 

believed to be potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices 

Act (section 78dd-1 of title 15, United States Code) or other criminal violations. 

Risk-based contracting for smaller contract actions under 

the Truth In Negotiations Act (sec. 823) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

Truth in Negotiations Act (Public Law 87–653; 10 U.S.C. section 

2306a) to raise the threshold for the requirement to provide certified cost or pricing data in non-price competitive procurements on 

non-commercial items from the current $750,000 ($500,000 adjusted for inflation since 1994) to $5.0 million. For non-price competitive procurements valued at less than the new threshold of $5.0 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
175 

million but more than the current threshold of $750,000, the Department of Defense (DOD) would be required to establish a riskbased contracting approach, under which certified cost or pricing 

data would be required for a risk-based sample of contracts, to ensure that DOD is getting fair and reasonable prices for such contracts. 

The committee believes that a 100 percent review of certified cost 

or pricing data on thousands of small contracts is not the best use 

of DOD’s limited acquisition and auditing resources, particularly 

for those contracts that have been awarded based on a technical 

competition. By enabling DOD to adopt a risk-based contracting approach, this provision should free up significant resources to be applied in areas where they are likely to achieve a better return. In 

addition, the provision will enable non-traditional contractors to 

participate in innovative DOD research projects valued at less than 

$5.0 million without triggering government-unique contracting procedures, enhancing DOD’s access to cutting-edge technologies developed by companies that might otherwise be unwilling to do business with the government. 

Limitation of the use of reverse auctions and lowest priced 

technically acceptable contracting methods (sec. 824) 

The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) Prohibit 

the use of reverse auctions and lowest priced technically acceptable 

(LPTA) contracting methods for the procurement of personal protective equipment where the level of quality needed or the failure 

of the item could result in combat casualties; and (2) establish a 

preference for best value contracting methods when procuring such 

equipment. The committee is concerned that an overarching bias 

towards reducing prices paid by the Department of Defense (DOD) 

to the exclusion of other factors could result in DOD buying low 

cost products that have the potential to negatively impact the safety of U.S. troops. This could be a particular problem with the quality of personal protective equipment such as helmets, body armor, 

eye protection, and other similar individual equipment issued to 

U.S. military personnel. While LPTA and reverse auction contracting techniques are appropriate for some type of purchases, the 

committee believes that lowest price is not always the best strategy 

when quality and innovation are needed. In these cases, the committee believes a best value acquisition approach is more appropriate. 

Rights in technical data (sec. 825) 

The committee recommends a provision that: (1) Would clarify 

procedures for the validation of rights in technical data for subsystems and components of major weapon systems; and (2) establish a government-industry advisory panel on rights in technical 

data. 

The provision would amend section 2321 of title 10, United 

States Code, that establishes procedures for the validation of rights 

in technical data. Subsection (f) of this section, added by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–355), 

endeavored to protect intellectual property rights in commercial 

items by adding a presumption that commercial items are develVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00203 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
176 

oped exclusively at private expense. Because almost all major 

weapon systems are developed at government expense, section 802 

of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) added an exception to the presumption in subsection (f) in the case of items other than commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items that are included in 

major weapon systems. 

The exception for major weapon systems in subsection 2321(f) 

has created two potential problem areas. First, although almost all 

major weapon systems are developed at government expense, a few 

major weapon systems and subsystems of major weapon systems 

are purchased as commercial items—for example, modified civilian 

aircraft that are purchased for military uses. Section 2321(f) requires the contractor to demonstrate that components of weapon 

systems were developed at private expense even in the case of commercial-derivative aircraft, commercial-derivative engines, and 

other weapon systems and subsystems that are purchased as commercial items. 

Second, although subsection 2321(f) includes an exception for 

COTS items that are included in major weapon systems, this exception does not apply if the COTS item is modified in any way for 

government use. Consequently, it the government insists on a 

minor modification of a COTS item for the purpose of including it 

in a weapon system, the burden will fall on the contractor to demonstrate that the item was developed exclusively at private expense. 

The provision recommended by the committee would address 

these problems by clarifying that the presumption that a commercial item was developed exclusively at private expense applies in 

the case of: (1) A component of a weapon system or subsystem that 

was acquired as a commercial item; and (2) any other component 

that is a COTS item or a COTS item with modifications of a type 

customarily available in the commercial market place or minor 

modifications made to meet government requirements. 

Procurement of supplies for experimental purposes (sec. 

826) 

The committee recommends a provision that would update the 

experimental acquisition authority in section 2373 of title 10, 

United States Code, to apply to transportation, energy, medical, 

and space flight and to clarify when provisions of Chapter 137 of 

title 10 apply to such procurements. The committee believes that 

the authorities of section 2373 (in addition to other transaction authority in section 2371 and section 845 other transaction prototype 

authority) offer an alternative acquisition path for the Department 

of Defense to pursue technologies and solutions from non-traditional contractors to maintain technological superiority in the future. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
177 

Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced in countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec. 827) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1 

year the authority in section 801(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). 

Reporting related to failure of contractors to meet goals 

under negotiated comprehensive small business subcontracting plans (sec. 828) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 834(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101–189) to require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on any negotiated comprehensive subcontracting plan that the Secretary determines did 

not meet the subcontracting goals negotiated in the plan for the 

prior fiscal year. 

Competition for religious services contracts (sec. 829) 

The committee recommends a provision to ensure that non-profit 

organizations can compete for contracts for religious related services on a United States military installation. It has come to the 

committee’s attention that the Department of Defense has at times 

restricted competition for religious services contracts on U.S. military installations to for-profit firms. The committee believes certain 

non-profit entities such as religious organizations can provide valuable competition and are well-qualified to participate in this particular category of services and should not be precluded from competing for these types of contracts. 

Treatment of interagency and state and local purchases 

when the Department of Defense acts as contract intermediary for the General Services Administration (sec. 

830) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that 

the requirements under chapter 148 of title 10, United States Code 

would not apply to a contract executed by the Department of Defense where the Department is acting as an intermediary for the 

General Services Administration (GSA) for purchase of products by 

other federal agencies or state and local governments. This could 

be as a result of a transfer of contract responsibility from GSA or 

where the Department serves as an item manager for these products on behalf of GSA. 

Pilot program for streamlining awards for innovative technology projects (sec. 831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

pilot program to provide an exception from the requirements under 

sections 2306a(1) and 2313 of title 10, United States Code, for contracts or subcontracts valued at less than $7.5 million that are 

awarded based on a technical merit based selection procedure. Currently, only contract awards based on price competition are exempted from government unique auditing and certified cost and 

pricing data requirements. Research and development contract 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
178 

awards such those conducted under a broad agency announcement 

or the Small Business Innovation Research Program that are based 

on technical merit based selection procedures are often delayed or 

competition is limited due to the application of these requirements. 

This provision would test whether treating a technical based merit 

competition in the same way as a price competition will lead to better innovative solutions and expanded competition at lower contract award levels. The authority would terminate on October 1, 

2020. 

Subtitle C—Provisions Relating to Major Defense 

Acquisition Programs 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 144 of title 10, United States Code to add a new section that 

would require the development of an acquisition strategy for each 

Department of Defense major defense acquisition program. The 

program’s acquisition strategy is already a core document developed and updated in advance of key program reviews within the 

Department. This provision would consolidate various related statutory provisions and outline conforming changes to existing statute 

and establish the importance of the acquisition strategy as the key 

management document for a major weapon systems acquisition. 

Currently, a number of sections of law require content to be placed 

in an acquisition strategy undefined in statute. By codifying the existence of the acquisition strategy and consolidating the various 

content requirements, this proposal eliminates uncertainty regarding the open-ended range of requirements that can be imposed on 

an acquisition program’s published strategy. 

Risk reduction in major defense acquisition programs (sec. 

842) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to ensure that the acquisition strategy developed pursuant to section 2431a of title 10, United States Code as 

amended by this Act shall include a comprehensive approach to 

continuously identifying and addressing risk and appropriately 

minimize concurrency. 

The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure 

that the acquisition strategy for a major defense acquisition program identifies and documents the major sources of risk for the 

program (including technical, cost, and schedule risk) and includes 

a comprehensive approach to retiring that risk. The proposal would 

require that the comprehensive approach to retiring risk use some 

combination of 12 different elements, including prototyping and 

competitive prototyping, design reviews, program phasing, allocating schedule and funding margins to specific risks, multiple design approaches, and others measures. This provision would establish a preference for competitive prototyping and repeal the requirement for mandatory competitive prototyping in section 203 of 

the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 

111–23). 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
179 

Designation of milestone decision authority (sec. 843) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2430 of title 10, United States Code, to designate the service 

acquisition executives as the milestone decision authority for major 

acquisition programs managed by the military services. The Secretary of Defense may designate an alternative milestone decision 

authority for joint programs, programs managed by defense agencies and other specific cases. The committee is concerned about the 

amount of time it takes to conduct multiple, duplicative reviews 

within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the services. 

This provision would decentralize decision making authority for 

milestone decisions to the services for service-unique programs and 

would limit the documentation and approvals that would be required for these programs outside of the services to a minimum. 

The provision would authorize that if a program managed by the 

services breaches thresholds in the Nunn-McCurdy Act, section 

2433 of title 10, United States Code, or has failed to develop an acquisition program baseline within 2 years of program initiation, the 

Secretary of Defense revoke service milestone decision authority for 

the program. The Secretary should then consider either terminating the program or managing the program centrally from the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

The provision would clarify that for service programs where the 

service acquisition executive is the milestone decision authority the 

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology would only exercise advisory authority. The provision would 

also require that the service secretaries and service chiefs certify 

in each Selected Acquisition Report that program requirements are 

stable and funding is adequate to meet cost, schedule and performance objectives for each major defense acquisition program. It is 

the committee’s expectation that the service chiefs and the service 

secretaries will take all necessary action to ensure that service programs are managed in a way that limits cost, schedule and performance issues and are fully budgeted and have stable requirements. 

The transfer of milestone decision authority to the services for 

applicable defense programs would become effective on October 1, 

2016. Prior to the effective date, the Deputy Chief Management Officer shall issue guidance to ensure that acquisition policy, guidance and practices would support a streamlined decision making 

and approval process that minimizes information requests as required by this provision. Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a plan to implement the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics advisory 

authority for service acquisition programs. 

Revision of Milestone A decision authority responsibilities 

for major defense acquisition programs (sec. 844) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2366a of title 10, United States Code to require the Department official serving as the milestone decision authority in the defense acquisition process to ensure that specific actions are met before granting a Milestone A approval. This requirement would reVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00207 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
180 

place current certification requirements that have added unnecessary time and duplicative documentation. This provision would establish the milestone decision authority’s responsibility to ensure 

that an acquisition program has demonstrated sufficient knowledge 

to enter into a risk reduction phase following Milestone A and has 

sound plans to progress to the development phase before granting 

milestone approval. 

Revision of Milestone B decision authority responsibilities 

for major defense acquisition programs (sec. 845) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, to streamline and simplify legislative requirements for Milestone B approval of major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs). This provision would retain 

the requirements to make key findings related to program risk, but 

would require the milestone decision authority to make a determination that appropriate steps had been taken to address such 

risks, rather than the string of specific certifications required by 

current law. Under the provision, the only certification that would 

be required would be a certification of the maturity of key technologies, which has been identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) as the key to successful acquisition programs. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) proposed legislation that would have gone further and eliminated key 

findings in their entirety, substituting a general requirement for 

the milestone decision authority to ensure that risks have been reduced and appropriate plans are in place. The committee rejects 

this approach. Milestone B findings were instituted to instill discipline into a process under which too many MDAPs failed because 

of unrealistic cost estimates, immature technologies, excessive concurrency, and a failure to perform appropriate system engineering 

and developmental testing before entering production. The GAO 

has reported that improved discipline in the acquisition system 

since the enactment of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act 

of 2009 has resulted in improved performance of MDAPs initiated 

since that time. The committee concludes that we should not now 

remove this much-needed discipline from the system. 

At the same time, the committee acknowledges that the milestone approval process has become too bureaucratic and takes too 

long. The changes made in the provision recommended by the committee should provide some relief, but more must be done by DOD 

and the services in implementation and execution of this provision. 

In February 2015, the GAO reported that it takes over 2 years, on 

average, to complete the entire set of documents needed for a Milestone B decision. According to GAO: ‘‘A primary reason it takes 

over 2 years to complete the information required for a milestone 

decision is the large number of stakeholders that review the documents at the many organizational levels above the program 

office[. . .] The information and documentation required at milestones can be reviewed by as many as eight different organizational 

levels before a decision is reached on whether a program is ready 

for the next acquisition phase. In general, the information is reviewed at each level to gain approval before the program provides 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
181 

the information to the next level. This is done serially, which takes 

more time.’’ 

The GAO reviewed decision-making practices of commercial companies and found that these companies avoided this kind of layered, sequential decision-making process by using frequent, direct 

interaction between program officials and senior functional managers to ensure that program documents are sound from the outset. 

These documents are then subject to one or two levels of review 

and approval, rather than the multiple levels required by DOD. 

The committee concludes that DOD could improve the efficiency 

of the milestone approval process by first delayering and decentralizing milestone decision authorities as outlined in sections of 

this Title. In addition, the milestone decision authority should ensure that functional offices in the military services and where appropriate in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) are regularly consulted as key documents are developed. With the functional offices having informed the development of these documents, 

they could then be removed as independent approval authorities, 

except where specifically required by statute. This would enable 

DOD to institute a streamlined, two- or three-level approval process, including only the Program Executive Officer, the Service Acquisition Executive, and for those programs designated by the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics. The committee notes that this is the 

chain of command envisioned by the Packard Commission 40 years 

ago. 

The committee directs the Deputy Chief Management Officer, in 

consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Logistics, and Technology and the service acquisition executives, to 

develop a streamlined process flow for milestone decisions, under 

which functional offices in the military services and at OSD are 

regularly consulted on the development of acquisition documents, 

but no longer serve as independent approval authorities, except 

where specifically required by statute. The committee expects senior acquisition officials to begin implementation of the new process 

flow within 1 year of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that requires the Secretary of Defense to revise Department of Defense guidance for defense acquisition programs to address the tenure and accountability of program managers for the program development period of 

defense acquisition programs. The committee believes that program 

managers in this phase should be assigned to a program long 

enough to prepare for a decision on milestone B approval. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would address the 

tenure and accountability of program managers for the program 

execution period of defense acquisition programs. The provision 

would require each such program manager to enter into a performance agreement with the milestone decision authority (MDA) that 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
182 

establishes the expected parameters of performance, including the 

commitment of the MDA that adequate funding and resources are 

available and will be provided, and assurance of the program manager that the parameters are achievable. The provision would also 

require that program managers be given authority comparable to 

the authority given to private sector program managers and that 

they be assigned to a program until the delivery of the first production units, with a narrow waiver authority. Past concerns that military program managers’ careers would be limited by longer program manager tenures is addressed by provisions that would modify military personnel authorities in this Act. 

Repeal of requirement for stand-alone manpower estimates 

for major defense acquisition programs (sec. 848) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2343 of title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the requirement for a stand-alone manpower estimate for a program prior to 

the approval of the system development and demonstration or the 

production of a major defense acquisition program. A stand-alone 

requirement is unnecessary and duplicative and this provision 

would embed an estimate for total required manpower for a program in the requirements for an independent estimate of a program’s full life cycle costs. 

Penalty for cost overruns (sec. 849) 

The committee recommends a provision under which each military department would pay an annual penalty in the amount of 3 

percent of the cumulative cost overrun on all of its major defense 

acquisition programs (MDAPs). To avoid ‘‘breaking’’ any individual 

acquisition program, the annual penalty would be assessed as an 

across-the-board reduction to the research, development, test, and 

evaluation account of the military department. 

Despite the enactment of the Nunn-McCurdy Act (10 U.S.C. section 2433), which requires a reexamination and revalidation of 

MDAPs which experience critical cost overruns, the military departments continue to incur huge cost overruns on virtually every 

program. The cumulative total of these cost overruns is hundreds 

of billions of dollars. 

This Act would give greater responsibility to the services to manage acquisition programs. With this responsibility there is a need 

for greater accountability. The committee concludes that one way 

to incentivize the military departments to establish realistic baseline cost estimates for their MDAPs and to stick to these estimates 

is to assess a significant penalty for cost overruns. To avoid penalizing the military departments for past mistakes, the penalty recommended by the committee would apply only to overruns on 

MDAPs that received an initial baseline estimate after the enactment of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–23). The funds decremented under this authority 

would be transferred to the Rapid Prototyping Fund established 

under section 803 of this Act. The Committee is willing to consider 

greater budgetary flexibility when MDAPs underrun their estimated costs and requests that the Department develop any necVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00210 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
183 

essary legislative proposal for congressional consideration that 

would be applicable in those cases. 

Streamlining of reporting requirements applicable to Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering 

regarding major defense acquisition programs (sec. 850) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 138(b) of title 10, United States Code, to change the scope of 

periodic reports the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research 

and Engineering is required to deliver to the congressional defense 

committees, the Secretary of Defense, and the Undersecretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. 

Configuration steering boards for cost control under major 

defense acquisition programs (sec. 851) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 814 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) to require each Configuration Steering Board to track any changes in program requirements for a major defense acquisition program and that all such 

changes must receive approval by the service chief in consultation 

with the service secretary. 

Subtitle D—Provisions Related to Commercial Items 

Inapplicability of certain laws and regulations to the acquisition of commercial items and commercially available 

off-the-shelf items (sec. 861) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2375 of title 10, United States Code, to require the establishment of a list in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement of inapplicable defense-unique statues to contracts for 

commercial items and commercial available off-the-shelf items. 

These would be in addition to those inapplicable government-wide 

statutes currently listed in the Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) pursuant to section 1906(b) of title 41, United States Code. 

The committee is concerned by the growing number of government-unique contract clauses that are now required for FAR Part 

12 commercial contracts. By industry estimates these clauses have 

grown since the mid-1990s from 13 to 63, and in some cases over 

80, government-unique contract clauses today. With these requirements come additional costs and regulatory burden ultimately paid 

by the taxpayer while each added new clause limits the pool of potential commercial companies willing to act as defense suppliers. 

The committee intends that this provision be used by the Department of Defense to reduce unnecessary requirements on contractors 

providing commercial items. 

Market research and preference for commercial items (sec. 

862) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to issue guidance to ensure that defense acquisition officials 

fully comply with the requirements of section 2377 of title 10, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
184 

United States Code. The committee is concerned that the market 

research being conducted under 2377 is perfunctory and that the 

preference for the use of commercial items is being ignored 

throughout the Department. Guidance issued pursuant to this provision would ensure that commercial information technology products and services are first determined to be unsuitable to the government’s needs before purchasing a non-commercial item and that 

conducted market research be used to inform price reasonableness 

determinations. 

The provision would also require that the Chairman and the Vice 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in consultation with the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics 

ensure that the requirements process is in compliance with section 

2377(c) of title 10, United States Code, and section 10.001 of the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation. 

The committee is aware of an effort known as Technology Domain Awareness being considered by the Department of Defense 

(DOD). Technology proliferation driven by the commercial marketplace and foreign investments threatens the United States’ historical military-technology edge. To mitigate this threat, the committee believes DOD must pursue multiple defense innovation efforts that focus on increasing investments in game-changing military capabilities. Given the scale of commercial research and development, it is unlikely that the DOD will regain a leadership position in every technology area relevant to defense. As part of its 

commercial market research, the committee recommends that DOD 

consider options to accelerate efforts to deliver Technology Domain 

Awareness to DOD decision makers. These efforts should consist of 

information, infrastructure, services, and education designed to increase the DOD’s ability to rapidly identify and capitalize on commercial technology innovations and practices relevant to military 

applications. The committee expects the Department to keep it informed as to the progress of the Technology Domain Awareness initiative. 

Continuing validity of commercial item determinations (sec. 

863) 

The committee recommends a provision to require the modification of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to 

address the continuing validity of commercial item determinations 

for multiple procurements. This provision would streamline the 

commercial item determination process and provide certainty to the 

government and contractors by presuming that a previous 

commerciality determination made by an authorized agency official 

is valid, unless such determination is found to be made in error or 

based on inadequate information. 

Treatment of commercial items purchased as major weapon 

systems (sec. 864) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2379 of title 10, United States Code, regarding the purchase 

of commercial items as major weapon systems. This provision 

would clarify section 2379 by: (1) separating commercial item determinations from price reasonableness determinations; and (2) 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
185 

spelling out with more specificity the types of information that are 

required to make price reasonableness determinations. 

Section 2379 was enacted in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) to ensure that the 

Department of Defense purchases major weapon systems as commercial items only when it is in the Department’s interest to do so. 

It was amended two years later in an effort to ensure that when 

the Department purchases subsystems or components of major 

weapon systems as commercial items, it obtains sufficient information to determine the reasonableness of price. Under the 2008 

amendment, a subsystem or component of a major weapon system 

may be purchased as a commercial item only if the offeror provides 

sufficient information to evaluate price reasonableness. 

The 2008 amendment created two problems. First, it blurred the 

lines between price reasonableness determinations and commercial 

item determinations. Second, the provision provided minimal detail 

on the types of information that should be required to determine 

price reasonableness, leading the Office of the Inspector General 

and others to conclude that in the absence of definitive price information for a particular item, the disclosure of detailed cost data is 

required. This is a cumbersome process that is inconsistent with 

standard commercial practices, and adds limited value to improving acquisition outcomes. 

The provision recommended by the committee would address the 

first problem by clarifying that commercial item status is not contingent on the offeror’s disclosure of price information. Contracting 

officers would still require offerors to disclose information necessary to determine price reasonableness, but commercial item determinations would no longer hinge on that disclosure. 

The provision would address the second problem by reaffirming 

the statutory preference for commercial item price reasonableness 

determinations based on price information and price analysis, rather than cost information and cost analysis, and spelling out the 

types of price information that a contracting officer must seek from 

an offeror before requiring the production of cost information. 

The amended provision would not authorize contracting officers 

to require the submission of cost information with regard to the 

components of a commercial system or subsystem, with regard to 

commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items, or with regard 

to any other items that are developed exclusively at private expense. The committee concludes that the amended provision would 

enable contracting officers to require the submission of information 

needed to make price reasonableness determinations, while protecting offerors from unnecessary and unreasonable demands for 

cost information. 

Limitation on conversion of procurements from commercial 

acquisition procedures (sec. 865) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the conversion of the procurement of a commercial item or commercial 

service to a non-commercial acquisition procedure unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense committees 

that the Department of Defense will realize a significant cost savings as compared to the cost of procuring a similar quantity of such 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
186 

item or level of service using commercial acquisition procedures. 

The committee is concerned that a number of parts, components, 

services and systems have been converted from Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) Part 12 procurements to FAR Part 15 with no assessment of the costs of these conversions. The Air Force is currently in negotiations to change the contract for the Joint Direct 

Attack Munition (JDAM) from one governed by FAR Part 12 to one 

governed by FAR Part 15. The JDAM was one of the most successful acquisition reform pilots authorized under the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–355). Under this authority, the price of JDAMs has consistently dropped over the years 

while contractors have been incentivized to use their own research 

and development dollars to continue to increase quality and performance of the munition. The committee is concerned that the cost 

of this program may increase and that the Department will be 

forced to fund directly any new quality or performance enhancement. 

This provision would ensure that under any such future conversion the Secretary shall, in addition to price changes, factor in forgone commercial research and development costs, transaction costs 

and increased regulatory costs in converting existing FAR Part 12 

contracts. This provision would also require the Department to conduct an inventory (which the Comptroller General will review for 

accuracy) of all contracts and subcontracts that have been converted from FAR Part 12 to FAR Part 15 over the last 5 years and 

determine the prices paid before and after the conversion. 

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

The committee recommends a new provision in chapter 140 of 

title 10, United States Code that authorizes the Department of Defense (DOD) to treat goods and services provided by a non-traditional contractor as defined in section 2302(9) of title 10, United 

States Code, as a commercial item. The committee believes that it 

is critical for the Department of Defense to access non-traditional 

commercial contractors to address future technology challenges 

where commercial technology is rapidly advancing beyond military 

technology. There are significant barriers to the participation of 

these contractors in the DOD marketplace. To overcome those barriers Congress has put in place a patchwork of authorities to allow 

these firms to participate on a transaction by transaction basis either through the use of other transactions authority or through defining the product or service to be acquired as a commercial item 

under the commercial item definition in chapter 1 of title 41, 

United States Code. 

This committee recognizes that the defense market is not large 

enough for some commercial firms to go to the trouble and expense 

of changing their business processes to comply with a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 type contract traditionally used 

for most defense purchases. This provision would allow the Department to access a greater share of the innovative potential of these 

commercial, non-traditional firms under FAR Part 12 terms and 

conditions by treating the entire business unit and what is produced and provided by these units as commercial. Government buyVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00214 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
187 

ers if they wish to access non-traditional commercial entities will 

need to conduct extensive market research to first understand the 

Department of Defense’s standing in the relevant commercial sector and market. The Department will also likely need to develop 

and use price and value based techniques to be used over the 

course of the relationship with these contractors that will be significantly different than the transactions based approach used to 

ensure price reasonableness on a contract by contract basis. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Streamlining of requirements relating to defense business 

systems (sec. 871) 

The committee recommends a provision to streamline requirements relative to the acquisition of defense business systems. The 

provision would clarify the lines of responsibility and oversight 

roles for these types of programs. Further, it would reduce the 

oversight burden on the Department of Defense (DOD) with respect 

to lower cost systems. It would also mandate that DOD establish 

guidance for these types of programs, which would help to improve 

their cost and schedule outcomes through the emphasis of robust 

business process re-engineering and requirements refinement, prior 

to any expensive customization of commercial software. 

Acquisition workforce (sec. 872) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1705 of title 10, United States Code, to extend the defense acquisition workforce development fund for 5 additional years and 

modify the requirements of the biennial strategic workforce plan to 

assess any new or expanded critical skills or competencies needed 

by the acquisition workforce. The committee expects that the fund 

be used to improve the capabilities of the current acquisition workforce in the use of Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12 commercial contracting and other transactions authority. 

Unified information technology services (sec. 873) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO), the Chief Information 

Officer (CIO), and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics to jointly conduct a business case analysis, with assistance from the Director of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation, as appropriate, to determine the most effective 

and efficient way to acquire common services across Department of 

Defense (DOD) networks. 

The provision also would require the Secretary of Defense, within 

180 days of the enactment of this Act, in consultation with the 

DCMO and CIO, to establish a governance mechanism and process 

to ensure essential interoperability across DOD networks. 

The provision would require that the business case analysis include an assessment of whether DOD should (1) acquire a single 

set of commercially provided enterprise services for DOD, or allow 

the military departments and other components to acquire their 

own; (2) acquire such services as an integrated set from a single 

provider, or require that each service can be separately acquired; 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
188 

and (3) acquire multiple versions of each type of service, for services where there is no commercial standard that ensures interoperability across vendor products, to enable interoperability while supporting choice and competition. 

The committee is aware that the CIO, the Defense Information 

Systems Agency, and the military services are monitoring the rapidly advancing commercial technology and offerings for enterprise 

services, and, in many instances are already capitalizing on these 

commercial offerings. The committee is also aware that the CIO is 

now focusing on developing a path forward. The committee is concerned that the scope of the ongoing review is too narrow and that 

the CIO lacks the tools and authority to implement solutions that 

are necessary to achieve efficiencies and interoperability. 

Cloud strategy for Department of Defense (sec. 874) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Chief Information Officer (CIO), in consultation with the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the Vice Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the Chief Information Officers 

of the military departments, to develop a cloud strategy for the secret level of classified data and the Secret Internet Protocol network (SIPRnet). The strategy would be required to address security 

requirements, the ability to shift current applications to a cloud 

computing environment, competitive acquisition, and interoperability with Intelligence Community cloud systems operating at 

higher classification levels. 

The provision would also require the CIO, in coordination with 

the Director of National Intelligence and in consultation with the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to develop a consistent 

pricing and cost recovery process for the use by Department of Defense components of the Intelligence Community’s cloud services. 

Finally, the provision would require the CIO to assess the feasibility and advisability of imposing a minimum set of open standards for cloud infrastructure, middle-ware, metadata, and application programming interfaces to promote interoperability, information sharing, access to data, and competition. 

Development period for Department of Defense information 

technology systems (sec. 875) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2445b of title 10, United States Code, to modify requirements 

applicable to a major automated information system program that 

fails to achieve a full deployment decision within 5 years after the 

initiation of the program. These systems are intended to primarily 

use commercially available software and computer systems and the 

Department of Defense (DOD) has policies in place to change business practices so that commercial solutions can meet the needs for 

DOD business systems. As such, the committee believes that in 

most cases, these programs should have very limited developmental risk and as such can be managed as ‘‘time-certain’’ development efforts. The provision would require that any failure to 

achieve a full deployment decision within five years would trigger 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
189 

a written determination from the Department of Defense that a 

longer period of time is needed for the effort. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 866 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) to expand the applicability 

of the pilot program on the acquisition of military purpose non-developmental items to additional classes of contractors and apply 

the standards of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (10 

U.S.C. 2304) to these contracts. In January 2015, the Government 

Accountability Office reported on the progress of the pilot and 

found that it was difficult for the Department of Defense (DOD) to 

test this authority given the legislative constraints of the program. 

These changes would allow for DOD to effectively test the usefulness of the authority. 

Extension of the Department of Defense Mentor-Prote ́ge ́

pilot program (sec. 877) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1 

year the authority in section 831(j) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101–510). 

Improved auditing of contracts (sec. 878) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) to provide outside audit 

support to non-Defense Agencies upon certification that the backlog 

for incurred cost audits is less than 12 months of incurred cost inventory. The committee understands that DCAA has made progress 

in reducing its incurred cost audit backlog but this has come at the 

expense of a reduction in the number of audits and increased backlogs in other areas of its responsibilities. The committee believes 

that DCAA management should not be distracted by directing and 

managing the audit responsibilities of other agencies until its own 

house is completely in order. The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to use up to 5 percent of the auditing staff of the 

Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense and 

the service audit agencies and, if necessary, augmented by private 

audit firms to help address DCAA’s audit backlog. The provision 

would also require the Secretary to review the oversight and audit 

structure of the Department of Defense with the goal of improving 

productivity, avoiding duplicative program and contract audits, and 

streamlining oversight reviews. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to survey the top ten contractors with the 

highest level of reimbursements for cost-type contracts and identify 

the cost to industry of regulatory compliance with government 

unique acquisition regulations and requirements that are not imposed on commercial item contracts. The last such survey, known 

as the Coopers and Lybrand study, was completed for Secretary of 

Defense William Perry in December 1994. This study, using an acVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
190 

tivity based costing methodology, found that average acquisition 

process regulatory compliance costs for defense firms were around 

18 percent. The Coopers and Lybrand study was not a comprehensive estimate of all acquisition regulatory costs that industry must 

comply with, nor did it estimate the costs imposed upon the government to oversee this compliance. Other studies at the time estimated regulatory compliance costs as high as 40 percent of the 

price paid for a defense contract. 

No significant study on the costs of regulatory compliance has 

been conducted since 1994, while in the last two decades new acquisition regulatory requirements, such as the business system 

rule, have been imposed on industry to the process of acquiring defense unique products. While many of these requirements are designed to protect the taxpayer, the layering of these requirements 

upon one another may actually be wasting taxpayer dollars rather 

than achieving their original objectives. In one example where a 

contractor for a defense program (the Wideband Global satellite) 

was allowed to adopt more commercial-like practices to lessen the 

regulatory compliance burden, the government was able to achieve 

a significant cost reduction of over $150.0 million while achieving 

the same mission capability. The committee believes that it will be 

more difficult to make decisions about achieving the right balance 

in oversight requirements on large defense programs without adequate data on the costs of oversight compliance. 

Government Accountability Office report on bid protests 

(sec. 880) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the Comptroller General of the United States submit a report to 

the congressional defense committees no later than 270 days after 

the date of enactment of this Act on the prevalence and impact of 

bid protests over the previous 10 years. While the general level of 

bid protests appears to have remained relatively constant in recent 

years the committee is concerned about the level of protests for 

large contracts and for follow on contracts that would potentially 

replace an incumbent contractor. The Comptroller General should 

also assess the ramifications of the protest process on the actions 

of the defense acquisition workforce and the feasibility of instituting a system whereby a losing protester would be liable for legal 

fees and protest costs. 

Steps to identify and address potential unfair competitive 

advantage of technical advisors to acquisition officials 

(sec. 881) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to issue guidance on identifying and addressing potential unfair competitive advantage of technical advisors to acquisition officials. Organizational conflict of interest and personal conflict of interest issues have been addressed for contractors in previous legislation. While it would be expected that the Undersecretary would 

review the implementation of these efforts, there has been a neglected aspect of potential conflicts raised when the Department of 

Defense uses federally funded research and development centers, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
191 

other non-profit entities, or federal laboratories that provide technical advice on defense programs and subsequent work has been directed to these entities or their clients. The committee believes that 

the Department needs to ensure that the engineering and technical 

advice it is given is free from unmitigated potential conflicts of interest. 

HUBZone qualified disaster areas (sec. 882) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

Small Business Act, title 15, United States Code to authorize the 

inclusion of qualified disaster areas to the Historically Underutilized Business Zone program administered by the Small Business 

Administration. 

Base closure HUBZones (sec. 883) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

Small Business Act, title 15, United States Code to authorize the 

inclusion of base closure areas to the Historically Underutilized 

Business Zone program administered by the Small Business Administration. 

Items of Special Interest 

AbilityOne Program 

The committee notes that AbilityOne Program is the largest 

source of employment, on Federal contracts, for individuals who are 

blind or have significant disabilities in the United States. The program has supported the employment of tens of thousands of people 

across the United States who are blind or have significant disabilities, including veterans and wounded warriors. The Department of 

Defense (DOD), through the use of the AbilityOne program, has 

been able to secure key mission-support services to maintain and 

improve military readiness, at competitive market prices. 

The Committee encourages DOD to continue to cultivate and increase business opportunities through the use of AbilityOne programs. The committee notes that the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics issued a memorandum in 

2013 challenging acquisition officials to further increase support by 

procuring more goods and services provided by the AbilityOne Program. The committee also commends AbilityOne’s employment of 

disabled veterans, and encourages AbilityOne to continue its emphasis on hiring disabled veterans in providing essential products 

and services to support the warfighter and defense missions. 

Acquisition of Commercial Test, Research, and Measurement Capability 

It is the committee’s understanding that current Department of 

Defense (DOD) acquisition practices rely heavily on buying commercially-available off the shelf (COTS) research, test, and measurement equipment for Research Development Test and Evaluation 

(RDT&E) programs and activities. When this equipment is needed, 

the committee believes that both DOD and its contractors should 

assess the best way to acquire such research, test, and measurement capability, particularly when this equipment, once purchased, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
192 

is often used for only limited periods of times with a low utilization 

in an environment where research, testing, and measurement technologies can become obsolete relatively quickly. 

The committee believes that as a demonstration of DOD progress 

toward the use of commercial best practices in support of DOD’s 

Better Buying Power initiative, DOD should assess the value of 

leasing/rental services for COTS research, test, and measurement 

equipment capabilities for DOD requirements in support of RD&TE 

programs and activities rather than purchasing equipment to acquire the capabilities. 

The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and 

Logistics should conduct such a review of the acquisition practices 

for acquiring COTS research, test, and measurement equipment 

and capabilities and report to the congressional defense committees 

not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Barriers to innovation from non-traditional and commercial 

contractors 

The Department of Defense (DOD) has relied on its research and 

development enterprise to produce new and advanced technologies 

that improve military capabilities and ensure technological superiority over adversaries. Traditionally, the Department has succeeded in maintaining a technology advantage on the battlefield by 

being a primary driver of technology innovation and making substantial investments in basic and applied research and technology 

development in the defense industrial base. In the past few decades, however, the focus and pace of scientific and technological innovation has changed dramatically, and the innovation environment in many leading technology areas, such as robotics, cyber, 

and communications, has shifted away from the government to the 

commercial sector. Innovation fueled by commercial market forces 

has largely taken over the government’s role in pushing technology 

advancements. DOD’s ability to leverage and exploit technology innovations developed and funded by the commercial sector is critical 

to its ability to preserve superior warfighting capabilities. 

Although DOD has taken some steps in recent years to identify 

and pursue innovative technologies and products from commercial 

companies outside the defense industrial base, the committee is 

concerned that DOD continues to fall behind in leveraging innovation from the commercial sector. Even when the DOD has incorporated commercial components, it is often not nimble enough to 

refresh this technology and is left relying on obsolete commercial 

solutions for its major systems. The committee is concerned that a 

key reason for this situation is that policies, regulations, and processes within DOD may make it difficult for many high-tech companies to collaborate and do business with the Department. The committee has heard from several companies, for example, that government acquisition and contracting regulations, cost accounting 

standards and audits, and intellectual property policies can be a 

major deterrent to working with DOD. 

This Act proposes many changes to remove the barriers to the 

participation of commercial contractors in the DOD acquisition 

process. To gain a better understanding of what impediments 

would still exist after the passage of this Act and how to address 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
193 

them, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to conduct a review examining DOD’s efforts to leverage innovative technologies from non-traditional companies. The review 

should at a minimum, include meetings with selected companies 

and discussion of potential impediments they perceive or face in 

conducting business with the Department. Not later than 1 year 

after enactment of this Act, the results of this review shall be provided to the committee. 

Competition in the procurement of collaboration services 

The committee notes that the Defense Information Systems 

Agency (DISA) internally developed and is fielding an interim collaboration services tool called Defense Collaboration Services. 

While DISA has stated that their collaboration services tool will reduce costs and use an open system architecture, the manner in 

which DISA developed this tool internally raises concerns that cost 

savings estimates may be overly optimistic and that significant reconfiguration will be required to use this tool within the Department of Defense. The degree of user satisfaction with existing and 

interim collaboration services tools is also unclear. 

Further, the committee believes that adequate consideration was 

not given to competition for this interim service which potentially 

could improve performance and lower costs. The committee believes 

that competition from a wide range of alternatives could have a 

beneficial impact in the area of collaboration services in the Department. The committee urges the DISA to use competition to improve performance and drive down costs for collaboration services. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) to evaluate the Department’s use of competition in acquiring collaboration services tools 

to include the development of its interim collaboration services 

tools, the comparative costs and capabilities of these tools, and user 

feedback on both the existing and interim collaboration services, 

and report to the committee no later than November 30, 2015 with 

findings and recommendations. 

Inspector General report on pricing of engine sustainment 

contract 

On December 22, 2014, the Inspector General of the Department 

of Defense issued a report concluding that the Air Force may be 

paying too much for the sustainment of F117 aircraft engine, the 

defense version of a commercial aircraft engine that powers hundreds of commercial aircraft currently in service. The report raises 

concerns about a lack of understanding of the applicable requirements by the Inspector General, the Air Force, and the contractor. 

The Inspector General report concluded that the Air Force improperly determined that the sustainment services for the F117 engine were commercial ‘‘without assessing whether a commercial 

market existed.’’ The Inspector General report indicates that this 

determination should be made on the basis of an assessment of a 

‘‘current market for any comparable F117 engine fleet management 

program’’ by the contractor in the private sector. 

The Inspector General’s narrowly-constrained view of commercial 

services is mistaken. Services provided in support of commercial 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
194 

items are considered commercial services if the source of the item 

provides ‘‘similar services’’—not necessarily the same services to 

the general public (section 103(5) of title 41, United States Code). 

The committee concludes that this test would be met if, as the Air 

Force concluded, the contractor provides similar sustainment services for commercial aircraft engines (even if not the same engines) 

under dozens of fleet management programs valued in the billions 

of dollars. 

On the other hand, the Air Force appears to deserve the Inspector General’s criticism for its failure to perform market research to 

fully understand the potential marketplace for F117 engine 

sustainment. Close to a thousand of similar engines remain in 

service on commercial aircraft. The committee concludes that market research should, at a minimum, identify other potential competitors who might enable the Air Force to avoid a sole source contract for this work. 

The contractor, too, has failed to comply with its obligations 

under the law if, as the Inspector General reports, it has ‘‘repeatedly refused’’ to provide commercial sales data to support the price 

for F117 sustainment services. Contractors providing commercial 

items and services are required by law to submit ‘‘at a minimum, 

appropriate information on the prices at which the same item or 

similar items have previously been sold that is adequate for evaluating the reasonableness of the price for the procurement’’ (10 

United States Code Section 2306a(d)(1)). The committee believes 

that a company seeking a government contract worth billions of 

dollars should not have to be subpoenaed to meet this legal requirement. 

However, both the Inspector General and the Air Force are mistaken in insisting that the contractor provide detailed information 

on labor hours and costs, material costs, overhead expenses, subcontractor costs, and profits at this time. Under section 2379(d)(2) 

of title 10, United States Code, contracting officers may require the 

submission of cost information, such as information on labor costs, 

material costs, and overhead rates, only upon a determination that 

commercial price information alone is not sufficient to determine 

the reasonableness of price. It is difficult to understand how either 

the Inspector General or the Air Force could conclude that commercial price information alone is insufficient, when this information 

has not yet been received from the contractor. 

The committee concludes that the interests of the Department of 

Defense and the taxpayers would be better served if the Inspector 

General, the Air Force, and the contractor were to better understand and carry out their duties under the statute. 

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

The Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 

program was established to ensure veterans with service-connected 

disabilities have access to opportunities to contract with the federal 

government. The Department of Defense’s Office of Small Business 

Programs reported in 2013, the Department awarded over $6.0 billion in SDVOSB contracts. However, the Department’s reliance on 

self-certification of veteran status to determine eligibility for 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
195 

SDVOSB contracts has allowed significant fraud and abuse to persist within the program. The Department of Defense Inspector 

General (DODIG) estimated in 2012 that in DOD’s SDVOSB program alone, more than $340.0 million was awarded to firms that 

potentially misstated their SDVOSB status. Each contract awarded 

to an ineligible firm under SDVOSB program takes an opportunity 

away from a deserving service-disabled veteran. 

To address these concerns, the Committee directs the Secretary 

of Defense to develop a mitigation strategy to prevent fraud and 

abuse, and to update the committee not later than 180 days after 

enactment of this Act. The committee notes that the strategy 

should incorporate the best practices used by the Department of 

Veterans Affairs’ Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 

Program to prevent fraud and abuse. 

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

The committee understands the importance of obtaining technical data for operations, maintenance, installation, and training 

purposes as outlined in section 2320(C)(iii) of title 10, United 

States Code. The use of computer-based simulator technology for 

training purposes has significantly evolved in the last decade. The 

committee is aware that in some cases it has been difficult to obtain the necessary underlying technical data on a defense system 

to support competition in the development of training simulators. 

A similar issue has been identified for the maintenance support of 

commercial derivative aircraft and engines. The committee believes 

that the government industry panel that would be created elsewhere in this Act would, at a minimum, review the impact of sections 2320 and 2331 of title 10, United States Code, on the competitiveness of the marketplace for training simulators and the 

sustainment of commercial derivative aircraft and engines. 

Review of should-cost process 

Since 2010, the Department of Defense has correctly promoted 

so-called ‘‘should-cost’’ management, which relies on government 

and contractor teams to identify errors that can be avoided and 

process efficiencies that can be gained as well to make technical 

trade-offs for saving money without compromising requirements. 

By eliminating inefficient processes and embracing cost savings opportunities, the Department can achieve more affordable programs. 

Should-cost savings should not be arbitrary, but rather tied to a 

specific engineering or business change that can be quantified and 

tracked. To ensure should-cost management achieves its effectiveness potential as an acquisition tool, the process must be transparent and well understood by all parties. The contractor and industry team must participate in the process together. 

The committee requests that the Secretary of Defense review the 

policies, procedures, and regulations governing the proper use of 

should-cost management to ensure the process is transparent, objective and efficient and, after requisite public comment, to make 

any necessary changes to these policies, rules and procedures. As 

a part of this review the Secretary of Defense should also ensure 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
196 

that acquisition professionals are adequately educated and trained 

on the proper use of should-cost management. 

The committee believes that the elements of a transparent 

should-cost management process should at a minimum: (1) distinguish between should cost review and analysis of program direct 

and indirect costs; (2) establish a process for communicating with 

the contractor the elements of a proposed should-cost evaluation; 

(3) ensure that every identified should-cost savings opportunity is 

accurate, complete, and current and is tied to a specific engineering 

or business change that can be quantified and tracked; (4) identify 

skills and capabilities for those participating in should-cost management teams to ensure that such teams include sufficient members with broad cross functional experience; (5) ensure appropriate 

collaboration with the contractor throughout the process; (6) require a process that provides for sufficient analysis that minimizes 

impact on program schedule; and (7) require a separate audit to be 

provided to the contractor. 

The committee requests that the Secretary of Defense report to 

the committee on the Department’s review within 180 days of enactment of this Act. 

Security and facility clearances 

The cost to investigate, certify, and maintain security clearances 

and facility clearances is a tremendous burden on the Department 

of Defense in labor and resources. It also creates barriers that prevent the sharing of solutions, technology and information, within 

the government. The clearance processes are a legacy of Cold War 

requirements and will need to be re-engineered to address the multitude of new threats that now face the nation, but also address industrial base concerns regarding the globalization of technology 

and ubiquity of commercial information technology. 

The committee notes that progress has been made in implementing section 906 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) on personnel security and 

section 1628 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) on personnel security and insider 

threat, but is disappointed by the pace of the reform effort. The 

committee believes that the Department of Defense must continue 

the process of personnel security clearance reform and as part of 

this effort review: (1) the value and cost benefits of the current investigative process used in security clearance investigations versus 

other alternatives; and (2) the productivity and additional value 

provided by using entities outside of the Department of Defense to 

perform these investigations. 

The committee also believes that the Department should begin 

the process of reengineering the facility clearance system process. 

As with the acquisition process as a whole, the security and facility 

clearance processes need to become more agile, efficient, and timely. This should be done in a way that enhances security but removes unnecessary costs and barriers to the participation of commercial global firms whose business and technical solutions are urgently needed by the Department. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(197) 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Management 

Update of statutory specification of functions of Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff relating to advice on requirements, programs, and budget (sec. 901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 153 of title 10, United States Code, relating to functions of the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to update that section to reflect additional joint force integration functions performed by the 

Chairman. An update is necessary as a result of the disestablishment of United States Joint Forces Command on August 31, 2011, 

and the subsequent deletion of that command from the Unified 

Command Plan. 

Reorganization and redesignation of Office of Family Policy 

and Office of Community Support for Military Families 

with Special Needs (sec. 902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1781, 1781(a), 1781(c), and 131 of title 10, United States 

Code, to reorganize and redesignate the Office of Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs and the Office of 

Family Policy/Children and Youth into the Office of Military Family Readiness Policy. The provision would also require the director 

of the Office of Military Family Readiness Policy to be a member 

of the Senior Executive Service or a general or flag officer. 

Repeal of requirement for annual Department of Defense 

funding for Ocean Research Advisory Panel (sec. 903) 

The committee recommends a provision that would strike subsection (c) of section 7903 of title 10, United States Code. In support of the Secretary of Defense’s Efficiency Initiatives, the committee’s recommendation would eliminate the requirement that the 

Department of the Navy provide funding to support the functioning 

of the Ocean Research Advisory Panel. The committee believes that 

this change is consistent with the function of the panel and that 

the support responsibilities are more appropriately aligned outside 

of the Department of Defense. 

The committee notes that, as the result of several reorganizations by the administration, the panel now reports to the Executive 

Office of the President, yet the Department of the Navy maintains 

responsibility for providing funding and selecting nominees to serve 

on the panel. The committee is also concerned that the process of 

selecting nominees has become so slow that the panel currently 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
198 

does not have a quorum of members and thus has not met in over 

a year. 

The committee believes that the panel can still provide valuable 

advice to the administration, but may be of limited value to the Department of Defense. Consequently, the Department of the Navy is 

not well placed to support the panel. The committee recommends 

that the Executive Office of the President determine by which entity the management and oversight of the panel would be most appropriate. 

Items of Special Interest 

Special Operations Policy and Oversight Council 

The committee notes that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC) provides ‘‘service secretary-like’’ civilian oversight of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) within the Department of Defense. 

These responsibilities include serving as the principal civilian advisor to the Secretary of Defense on all operational, policy, 

resourcing, and acquisition matters impacting special operations 

forces (SOF). Given SOCOM’s responsibilities for the readiness of 

SOF and its unique role as the only combatant command with acquisition authorities, the committee believes the civilian oversight 

function of the ASD SOLIC is critical to ensuring optimal use of 

SOF and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, the committee believes that the ASD SOLIC has not been able to devote 

sufficient attention and resources to adequately fulfill these ‘‘service secretary-like’’ responsibilities along with other responsibilities 

related to current military operations, building partner capacity, 

counternarcotics, stability operations, humanitarian assistance and 

disaster relief, and other issues. 

As such, the committee strongly supports the creation of the Special Operations Policy and Oversight Council (SOPOC) by the ASD 

SOLIC to help fulfill assigned oversight responsibilities and leverage expertise elsewhere within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, including through the participation of the Under Secretaries 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Personnel and 

Readiness, Intelligence, and Comptroller. The committee understands that the SOPOC has already considered and resolved a 

number of issues impacting the operational control of SOF and the 

delineation of funding responsibilities between SOCOM and the 

military services. The committee strongly encourages further institutionalization of the SOPOC through continued regular meetings 

and requests that ASD SOLIC keep the committee currently informed of any significant policy or programmatic decisions impacting SOF. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(199) 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

transfer up to $4.5 billion of fiscal year 2016 funds authorized in 

division A of this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. Transfers of funds 

between military personnel authorizations would not be counted toward the dollar limitation in this provision. 

Annual audit of financial statements of Department of Defense components by independent external auditors 

(sec. 1002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense Inspector General to fulfill its statutory 

audit responsibilities to perform financial statement audits for the 

military departments and other designated components of the Department by contracting with independent external auditors. The 

committee notes that some organizations in DOD are already making use of independent audit services. The committee expects that 

this provision will allow DOD to complete its audit requirements 

in a more cost effective manner, by leveraging private sector expertise, and in a manner consistent with auditing in other government 

agencies. The committee expects that for each audit, the Inspector 

General will evaluate the qualifications of the independent external 

auditor’s staff and their independence, review the scope of the 

audit work, monitor audit progress, and review, if appropriate, 

audit documentation. Upon completion of the audit, the Inspector 

General shall issue a report to Congress that includes the independent external auditor’s opinion on the entity’s financial statements, as well as any accompanying management letters and any 

observations on the audit or on the financial statements. 

Treatment as part of the base budget of certain amounts authorized for overseas contingency operations upon enactment of an act revising the Budget Control Act discretionary spending limits for fiscal year 2016 (sec. 1003) 

If an act is enacted at a later date that would revise the defense 

and non-defense discretionary spending limits in proportionally 

equal amounts, than amounts authorized in title XV above $50.9 

billion and equal to the amount of the increase to the defense discretionary cap for fiscal year 2016, will be deemed to be authorized 

in title III. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
200 

Sense of Senate on sequestration (sec. 1004) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate on the negative impact that the statutory budget caps are having on the Department of Defense and United 

States national security, as well as the need for legislation to adjust those caps. 

The committee acknowledges that the Budget Control Act of 2011 

(BCA) represented a step forward in tackling the fiscal imbalances 

of our country. It took steps to bring down deficits and stabilize 

debt growth. It included statutory budget caps to ensure Congress 

appropriated within its means. This was an important improvement to address the national debt, which the former Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, once called the biggest threat to our national security. 

However, the BCA also included an enforcement mechanism 

known as sequestration—shortsighted, non-strategic, and acrossthe-board cuts to discretionary spending to achieve the BCA’s budget caps. Under sequestration, the size of those spending reductions 

was designed to be so unacceptable that sequestration would never 

occur. In its place, Congress was to enact targeted measures to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Ultimately, 

Congress was unable to fulfill this requirement and the revised 

budget caps went into effect in March 2013 with enforcement of sequestration. 

The committee understands the harmful impacts that these nonstrategic cuts to defense spending have had on our national security. The readiness of our military forces have been degraded, 

equipment maintenance has been postponed, and employees have 

been furloughed. Furthermore, these sequestration-level budget 

caps are forcing the Department of Defense to manage the challenges today based on a spend plan set 4 years ago—before the rise 

of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the Ebola crisis, 

and Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. 

Additionally, the committee recognizes that there are important 

non-defense agencies tasked with protecting our security. From the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, to the Department of Homeland 

Security, and even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

and the National Institutes of Health, our nation’s security and 

well-being are at risk of harm. The impacts of the BCA caps and 

sequestration have been felt across the country. 

There was success in 2013 to enact targeted cuts and adjust 

some of statutory budget caps. The Murray-Ryan Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 showed there is bipartisan agreement on addressing 

the budget caps in a balanced, equal way between defense and nondefense accounts. The committee acknowledges the negative impact 

of the budget caps and the need to adjust them. 

Subtitle B—Counter–Drug Activities 

Extension of authority to support unified counter-drug and 

counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 2 

fiscal years the authority of the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to support the unified counterdrug and counterterrorism 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
201 

campaign of the Government of Colombia (Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 

108–375), as most recently amended by section 1011 of the Carl 

Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291). 

The committee notes that the Government of Colombia has made 

and continues to make progress against transnational criminal organizations and designated foreign terrorist organizations. Further, 

the committee notes that the Government of Colombia is playing 

an increasing role in regional security efforts and encourages a continuation of the security partnership between the United States 

and Colombia. 

Extension and expansion of authority to provide additional 

support for counter-drug activities of certain foreign 

governments (sec. 1012) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1998 (Public Law 105–85), as most recently amended by section 

1013 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113– 

291). Specifically, the provision would extend the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) authority to provide additional support for 

counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments through fiscal year 2017, as well as adds Kenya, Tanzania, and Somalia as 

countries eligible to receive assistance under this authority. 

The committee notes the growing presence of transnational 

criminal organizations operating across many parts of Africa—a region the committee continues to believe is of increasing importance 

to the security interests of the United States. As such, the committee encourages the DOD to initiate additional programs in the 

U.S. Africa Command area of responsibility. 

Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards 

Studies of fleet platform architectures for the Navy (sec. 

1021) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to commission three studies to be submitted 

to the congressional defense committees in unclassified, and to the 

extent necessary, in classified versions to recommend potential future fleet architectures no later than May 1, 2016. These studies 

would provide competing visions and alternatives for future fleet 

architectures. One study would be performed by the Department of 

the Navy, with input from the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division. The second study would be performed by a federally 

funded research and development center. The third study would be 

conducted by a qualified independent, non-governmental institute, 

as selected by the Secretary of Defense. 

The Navy will continue to be built around ships of various kinds 

and sizes, along with its supporting aircraft. The Navy force structure requirement set forth in the ‘‘Annual Long-Range Plan for 

Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year 2016’’ included 11 

large-deck aircraft carriers, 88 large surface combatants, 52 small 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
202 

surface combatants, 34 amphibious ships, 48 attack submarines, 

and 4 guided missile submarines. Together with associated combat 

logistics and support ships, the Navy’s force structure objective totals 308 ships. Additionally, this force structure includes 10 carrier 

air wings, additional surface combatant-based helicopters, and 

land-based maritime patrol aircraft. 

This basic combination of ships and aircraft represent the Navy’s 

platform architecture. Since the end of the Cold War, this architecture has remained relatively static, while decreasing in total size. 

Given the long lead times needed to design and build ships and aircraft, their decades-long operational life, and the relatively low annual rates at which new ships and aircraft are procured, the Navy’s 

overall platform architecture evolves gradually over time. 

Due to the confluence of three trends, the committee believes 

now is the time to identify the naval force structure the Nation will 

need to plan to meet the operational requirements of the 2030s. 

First, 11 U.S. Navy combatant ship classes begin to retire in 

large numbers between 2020 and 2035, including: Ticonderoga- class guided missile cruisers (2020), improved Los Angeles-class 

submarines (2021), Nimitz-class aircraft carriers (2025), Flight I 

Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers (2026), Ohio-class 

guided missile submarines (2026), Whidbey Island-class amphibious ships (2027), Seawolf-class submarines (2030), Wasp-class amphibious ship (2029), Flight II Arleigh Burke-class guided missile 

destroyers (2033), Littoral Combat Ships (2033), and Harpers 

Ferry-class amphibious ships (2035). The Navy should urgently develop capability based assessments and analyses of alternatives to 

identify the best solutions to fill the capability gaps left by these 

retirements. 

Second, as competitor states raise their own modern navies, the 

maritime domain appears to be shifting in ways that will again 

challenge the Navy’s ability to conduct sea control and project 

power. It will therefore be vital that the Navy not just invest in 

more robust naval force, but a fleet adaptable to the challenges of 

tomorrow’s warfighting regimes. 

Third, as the Ohio-class replacement program proceeds, it is projected to consume the equivalent of one-third to one-half of the historical shipbuilding budget, which is already stretched to maintain 

the Navy’s objective force levels. 

Given these fiscal challenges, it is vital for the Navy to review 

thoroughly its planned architecture and position itself to invest 

carefully in the future fleet. As a result, the specified studies are 

directed and $1.0 million is added to the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense for the performance of these studies. 

Amendment to National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (sec. 

1022) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1022(b)(1) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public 

Law 113–291), which established the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund, to clarify what appropriations may be utilized as a 

source of transfer funds. The committee’s intent is for amounts not 

to exceed $3.5 billion from unobligated funds authorized to be apVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00230 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
203 

propriated for fiscal years 2014, 2015, or 2016 in any Department 

of Defense appropriation to be available for transfer to the National 

Sea-Based Deterrence Fund. As stated in the existing provision, 

the transfer authority provided under this provision is in addition 

to any other transfer authority provided to the Secretary of Defense 

by law. 

Extension of authority for reimbursement of expenses for 

certain Navy mess operations afloat (sec. 1023) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority for reimbursement of expenses for certain Navy mess operations afloat authorized in section 1014 of the Duncan Hunter 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 

Law 110–417; 122 Stat. 4585), as amended by section 1021 of the 

Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 (Public Law 111–383, 124 Stat. 4348), from September 30, 

2015 to September 30, 2020, and certain technical and clarifying 

amendments. 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism 

Prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify facilities 

in the United States to house detainees transferred from 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

(sec. 1031) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the United States 

to house detainees transferred from Guantanamo. The prohibition 

would only be lifted if the Secretary of Defense submits a plan for 

the disposition of all detainees, as provided in a subsequent section, 

and the plan is approved by Congress. 

Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals detained 

at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo (sec. 1032) 

The stated policy of the United States remains to close the detention facilities at Guantanamo as soon as possible. The committee 

has long requested a detailed plan for the disposition of all individuals held there. Thus far, the Secretary of Defense has failed to 

provide such a plan. Prior to authorizing the transfer of detainees 

into the United States the committee seeks a comprehensive plan 

that will describe the disposition of all detainees, including where 

each detainee will be held or transferred, the costs associated with 

continued detention, the legal risks of any transfer, and what additional authorities are needed. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would 

prohibit the transfer to the United States of detainees in Guantanamo except for detention, trial, or incarceration. Such domestic 

transfers could only occur, however, after the Secretary of Defense 

determines that the transfer is in the national security interests of 

the United States, determines that appropriate actions have been 

taken or will be taken to address any risk to public safety; and notifies appropriate committees of Congress. 

The limited authority to transfer detainees to the United States 

under this provision would only become effective after the SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00231 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
204 

retary of Defense submits a report detailing a plan for all individuals held at Guantanamo and Congress approves the plan. The 

provision would provide expedited procedures for congressional consideration of the submitted plan. 

Reenactment and modification of certain prior requirements for certifications relating to transfer of detainees 

at Untied States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 

to foreign countries and other foreign entities (sec. 1033) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise 

made available to the Department of Defense to be used to transfer 

or release any individual detained at United States Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the individual’s country of origin, any 

other foreign country, or any other foreign entity. This prohibition 

would apply unless the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 

the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, 

provides a written certification to Congress addressing several requirements at least 30 days prior to the transfer of any such individual. This section would also prohibit the Secretary of Defense 

from using any funds for the transfer of any such individual to the 

custody or effective control of the individual’s country of origin, any 

other foreign country, or any other foreign entity if there is a confirmed case of any individual transferred from United States Naval 

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the same country or entity who 

engaged in terrorist activity subsequent to their transfer. This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive certain certification requirements if the Secretary determines that alternative 

actions will be taken, that actions taken will substantially mitigate 

risks posed by the individual to be transferred, and that the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States. Whenever the Secretary uses the waiver, the Secretary must provide a 

report that includes a copy of the waiver and determination, a 

statement of the basis for the determination, and a summary of the 

alternative actions to be taken. The section would also require the 

certification to include a description for the cooperation for which 

favorable consideration was so given and a description of operational outcomes, if any, affected by such cooperation. Finally, this 

section would repeal current law, as contained in section 1035 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66). 

This provision would expire once a plan for the disposition of all 

detainees is submitted to Congress and that plan is approved by 

Congress, as provided for in a subsequent section. The notification 

requirements of section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) would, at that point, 

govern foreign transfers. 

Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to 

the United States for emergency or critical medical 

treatment (sec. 1034) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow for the 

temporary transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
205 

a Department of Defense medical facility in the United States for 

the sole purpose of providing the individual medical treatment if 

the Secretary determines that: the medical treatment is necessary 

to prevent death or imminent significant injury or harm to the 

health of the individual; the medical treatment is not available to 

be provided at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 

Cuba, without incurring excessive and unreasonable costs; the estimated costs of the treatment would be cheaper in the United 

States; and the Department of Defense has provided for appropriate security measures for the custody and control of the individual during any period in which the individual is temporarily in 

the United States. The provision also requires notice to Congress 

and limitations on the exercise of the authority to provide that the 

individual will be returned to United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

Prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release to Yemen 

of individuals detained at United States Naval Facility, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1035) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense to transfer, release, or assist in 

the transfer or release of any individual detained in the custody or 

under the control of the Department of Defense at United States 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the custody or control 

of the Republic of Yemen or any entity within Yemen. 

Report on current detainees at United States Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, determined or assessed to be 

high risk or medium risk (sec. 1036). 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to provide a report to Congress, in unclassified form, listing the names of all individuals detained at United 

States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who have been assessed by the Joint Task Force Guantanamo to be a high or medium risk to the United States, its interests, or allies. 

Report to Congress on memoranda of understanding with 

foreign countries regarding transfer of detainees at 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

(sec. 1037). 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a report of the Secretary of Defense setting forth the written memorandum of understanding between the United States Government 

and the government of the foreign country concerned regarding 

each individual detained at Guantanamo transferred to a foreign 

country during the 18-month period ending on the date of the enactment of this Act or, if there was no written memorandum of understanding, the report shall contain an unclassified statement of 

that fact. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
206 

Semiannual Reports on use of United States Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and any other Department of 

Defense or Bureau of Prisons prison or other detention 

or disciplinary facility in recruitment and other propaganda of terrorist organizations (sec. 1038). 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to report to Congress every 6 months on the 

use of Department of Defense and Bureau of Prisons detention facilities for recruitment and as propaganda by terrorist organizations. 

Extension and modification of authority to make rewards 

for combating terrorism (sec. 1039) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify and 

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

or activity against international terrorism or beneficial to force protection. 

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations 

Assistance to secure the southern land border of the United 

States (sec. 1041) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, with concurrence of the Secretary of Homeland Security, to provide assistance to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection for the purpose of increasing the ongoing efforts to secure the southern land border of the United States. 

The committee is concerned about the security of the U.S. southern land border and notes that in testimony on March 12, 2015, 

Admiral William Gortney, Commander of U.S. Northern Command 

(NORTHCOM) stated that ‘‘the southern border can be more secure.’’ At the same hearing General John Kelly, Commander of U.S. 

Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) testified that ‘‘with the amount 

of drugs and people that move across our southwest border, it 

doesn’t seem all that secure to me.’’ 

The committee supports ongoing efforts by the Department of 

Defense (DOD) to provide additional assistance to secure the southern land border of the United States and urges DOD to continue 

these efforts and coordinate with the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify opportunities to provide additional support. 

Protection of Department of Defense installations (sec. 1042) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to protect the buildings, grounds, and property that are under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of the Department of Defense (DOD) and persons on that property. The provision provides that the Secretary may designate personnel to: (1) 

Enforce federal laws and regulations for the protection of persons 

and property; (2) Carry firearms; (3) Make arrests; and (4) Conduct 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
207 

investigations of offenses against the property of the DOD. This 

new authority would not apply in those locations currently under 

the protection of the Federal Protective Service, for example, office 

buildings provided by the General Services Administration in 

which DOD organizations are tenants. 

Strategy to protect United States national security interests 

in the Arctic region (sec. 1043) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to submit not later than 1 year after the date 

of enactment of this Act a report that sets forth an updated military strategy for the protection of United States national security 

interests in the Arctic region. 

Extension of limitations on the transfer to the regular Army 

of AH–64 Apache helicopters assigned to the Army National Guard (sec. 1044) 

The committee recommends a provision that would strike ‘‘March 

31, 2016’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2016’’ 

in Section 1712 of the Carl Levin National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2015. The provision would also strike ‘‘fiscal 

year 2015’’ and insert ‘‘fiscal years 2015 and 2016.’’ 

Treatment of certain previously transferred Army National 

Guard helicopters as counting against number 

transferrable under exception to limitation on transfer 

of Army National Guard helicopters (sec. 1045) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees the number of AH–64 Apaches that have been transferred from the Army National Guard (ARNG) to the original 

equipment manufacturer for remanufacture. The Secretary of the 

Army shall treat the number of helicopters specified in the report 

as counting against the total number of AH–64s that may be transferred from the ARNG to the regular Army pursuant to the Carl 

Levin National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. 

Management of military technicians (sec. 1046) 

The committee recommends a provision that would convert not 

less than 20 percent of the general administration, clerical, and office service occupation positions identified in the report of the Secretary of Defense under section 519 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 112–81; 

125 Stat. 1397) from military technician (dual status) positions to 

positions filled by individuals who are employed under section 3103 

of title 5, United States Code, by no later than January 1, 2017. 

The committee also recommends the phased-in termination of military technicians (non-dual status) to begin on January 1, 2017. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit by February 1, 2016, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives, and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States, a report setting forth the Department of Defense’s plan for converting military technician (dual status) posiVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00235 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
208 

tions to positions filled by individuals who are employed under section 3103 of title 5, United States Code, to include: (1) An analysis 

of placing such individuals under the control and authority of the 

State Adjutants General; (2) an analysis of the employment rights 

that will now be granted to such individuals; (3) an analysis of any 

statutory change the Secretary believes is necessary to execute this 

provision; and (4) such other mechanisms for implementation that 

the Secretary shall recommend, as appropriate. 

Sense of Congress on consideration of the full range of Department of Defense manpower worldwide in decisions 

on the proper mix of military, civilian, and contractor 

personnel to accomplish the national defense strategy 

(sec. 1047) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express a 

sense of the Congress that as the Department of Defense makes decisions on military end strength requests, proper sizing of the civilian workforce, and the proper mix of these sources of manpower 

with contractor personnel to accomplish the National Defense 

Strategy, the Secretary of Defense should consider the full range 

of manpower available to the Secretary in all locations worldwide 

without arbitrarily or exempting any particular group of location of 

manpower. 

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

1048) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the United States Marine Corps, within 

the Department of the Navy, should remain the Nation’s expeditionary crisis response force and that the Marine Corps should be 

organized, trained, and equipped in the manner and for such purposes specified in section 5063 of title 10, United States Code. 

Subtitle F—Studies and Reports 

Repeal of reporting requirements (sec. 1061) 

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate certain required reports. Specifically, the provision would repeal the 

following report requirements: 

(1) Annual reports on gifts made for the benefit of military 

musical units required by Section 974(d) of title 10, United 

States Code; 

(2) Biennial report on space, science, and technology strategy 

required by Section 2272(a) of title 10, United States Code; 

(3) Annual reports on prizes for advanced technology 

achievements required by Section 2374(a) of title 10, United 

States Code; 

(4) Reports on use of temporary authorities for certain positions at DoD research and engineering facilities required by 

Section 1107 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66); 

(5) Annual reports on advancing small business growth required by Section 1611 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law Public Law 113–66); 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
209 

(6) Annual reports on quality assurance programs for medical evaluation boards and related personnel required by Section 524 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239); 

(7) Annual impact statement on number of members in integrated disability evaluation system on readiness requirements 

required by Section 528 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239); 

(8) Sense of Congress on notice of unfunded priorities required by Section 1003 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239); 

(9) Annual updates on implementation plan for whole-of-government vision prescribed in the national security strategy required by Section 1072 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81); 

(10) Reports on Defense Research and Development Rapid 

Innovation Program required by Section 1073 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 

(Public Law 111–383); 

(11) Reports on Task Force for Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan required by Section 1535(a) of the Ike 

Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 (Public Law 111–383); 

(12) Annual report on the electronic warfare strategy of the 

Department of Defense required by Section 1053 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–84); 

(13) Reports on Mitigation of power outage risks for Department of Defense facilities and activities required by Section 

335 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417); 

(14) Updates of increases in number of units of Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) required by Section 548 

of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417); 

(15) Annual reports on Center of Excellence on traumatic extremity injuries and amputations required by Section 723 of 

the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417); 

(16) Semi-annual reports on status of Navy Next Generation 

Enterprise Networks Program required by Section 1034 of the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417); 

(17) Biennial requirement to update Strategic Management 

Plan required by Section 904(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181); 

(18) Reports on access of recovering servicemembers to adequate outpatient residential facilities required by Section 1662 

of the Wounded Warrior Act (title XVI of Public Law 110–181); 

(19) Reports on hypersonics development required by Section 

218 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364); 

(20) Updates of assistance to local educational agencies experiencing growth in enrollment due to force structure change 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
210 

and other circumstance required by Section 574 of the John 

Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 (Public Law 109–364); 

(21) Annual reports on overhaul, repair, and maintenance of 

vessels under acquisition policy on obtaining carriage by vessel 

required by Section 1017 of the John Warner National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364); 

(22) Reports on annual review of roles and missions of the 

reserve components required by Section 513(h) of the Ronald 

W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2005 (Public Law 108–375); 

(23) Annual requirement to submit information regarding information technology capital assets required by Section 351 of 

the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314); 

(24) Reports on Experimental Personnel Management Program for scientific and technical personnel required by Section 

1101 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261). 

Termination of requirement for submittal to Congress of reports required of the Department of Defense by statute 

(sec. 1062) 

The committee recommends a provision that would, 2 years after 

the date of enactment of the Act, repeal requirements for recurring 

reports due to Congress. This would include only report requirements in effect on April 1, 2015. 

The committee notes the repeated statements by Department of 

Defense (DOD) officials on the high number and low utility of some 

of the recurring reports due to Congress and how the information 

contained in the reports are often included in other DOD publications. 

Annual submittal to Congress of munitions assessments 

(sec. 1063) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives, not later than 

March 1, 2016, and each year thereafter, the most current Department of Defense Munitions and Munitions Sufficiency Assessments, 

as defined in Department of Defense Instruction 3000.04. The provision would also require the Department of Defense to provide the 

committees the most recently approved Joint Requirements Oversight Council memo resulting from the annual Munitions Requirements Process. 

The committee is concerned by the current lack of insight into 

the requirements driving munitions budgetary decisions and intends to conduct rigorous oversight to ensure actions taken by the 

Department of Defense adequately address the munitions needs of 

the Armed Forces. Additionally, the committee intends to focus on 

the status and planning for munitions stateside infrastructure, 

transport capability, in-theater storage capacity, and their influence on requirements and combat capability. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
211 

Potential role for United States ground forces in the Pacific 

theater (sec. 1064) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

to conduct a comprehensive operational assessment of a potential 

future role for U.S. ground forces in the island chains of the western Pacific in creating anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities 

in cooperation with host nations to deter and defeat aggression in 

the region. 

The provision would require the assessment of the effectiveness 

of ground-force deployment of a series of systems and capabilities, 

including anti-ship mines and missiles, mobile air defense systems, 

electronic warfare capabilities, communications networks, and maneuver forces to deny access to adversaries, enhance host-nation 

defenses, and protect U.S. air and naval forces. 

The provision would also require an assessment of the geopolitical impact of a long-term U.S. engagement with the island nations of the region to implement a ground forces-based A2/AD 

strategy. The provision stipulates that the assessment utilize (1) 

rigorous operations research techniques, war games, and historical 

analyses of World War II operations; and (2) the resources of Joint 

Requirements and Analysis Division and the Warfighting Analysis 

Division of the Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment Directorate of the Joint Staff, the war colleges of the military services, 

the Office of Net Assessment, United States Pacific Command, and 

appropriate Federally Funded Research and Development Centers. 

Finally, the provision would require the Secretary and the Chairman to complete the assessment within 1 year of the date of enactment, and to brief the results to the appropriate committees of 

Congress. 

The committee is aware that the Office of Net Assessment, the 

RAND Arroyo center, and the Center for Naval Analyses have already sponsored and conducted multiple studies of potential roles 

for ground forces in the Pacific theater. These studies suggest the 

possibility that ground forces could become a pivotal factor in 

building a viable security posture in the region. The committee also 

notes that former Secretary of Defense Hagel discussed elements of 

this concept in a speech to the Association of the United States 

Army in late 2014. The committee believes that these initial studies justify a significantly more serious examination of the merits of 

this proposal. 

Subtitle G—Other Matters 

Technical and clerical amendments (sec. 1081) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make technical and clerical corrections to title 10, United States Code, and 

various National Defense Authorization Acts. 

Authority to provide training and support to personnel of 

foreign ministries of defense (sec. 1082) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to provide training to personnel of foreign 

ministries of defense (or ministries with security force oversight), 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
212 

or regional organizations with security missions for the purpose of: 

(1) enhancing civilian oversight of foreign security forces; (2) establishing responsible defense governance and internal controls in 

order to help build effective, transparent, and accountable defense 

institutions; (3) assessing organizational weaknesses and establishing a roadmap for addressing shortfalls; and (4) enhancing ministerial, general or joint staff, service level core competencies such 

as personnel and readiness, acquisition and logistics, strategy and 

policy, and financial management. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subsection (c)(2) of section 5 of the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for 

American Veterans Act (Public Law 114–2) to expand outreach for 

veterans transitioning from Active Duty to inform those individuals 

of community oriented veteran peer support networks and other 

support programs available to them. 

Modification of certain requirements applicable to major 

medical facility lease for a Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma (sec. 1084) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make modifications to the requirements associated with the amount of usable 

space, and the length of the lease, for a major veteran’s medical facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma before entering into such a lease. 

Items of Special Interest 

Air and Missile Defense Radar backfit 

The Navy designed the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) 

to be fully scalable and modular to support a variety of shipboard 

radar applications on a variety of platforms. The first AMDR will 

be on the second DDG–51 destroyer in the fiscal year 2016 shipbuilding program. As can be seen with the Aegis Ashore program, 

ship-based radars such as AMDR also provide the foundation for 

land-based applications. 

The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 

Research, Development, and Acquisition (ASN (RDA)) to provide a 

report to congressional defense committees on the Navy’s plan to 

employ AMDR technology in existing and future platforms across 

the fleet. Additionally, the committee directs the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to report to 

the congressional defense committees on whether and to what extent the Department of Defense could exploit the AMDR scalability 

across radar acquisitions by the Army, Air Force, and Missile Defense Agency to realize greater affordability through economies of 

scale. These reports shall be provided with the fiscal year 2017 

budget submission. 

Analysis of domestic Department of Defense installations’ 

gas and oil reserves 

The committee notes that several domestic military installations 

are located on proven reserves of natural gas and oil. In some 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
213 

cases, such installations may benefit from energy developmental 

projects that provide energy resiliency while also reducing energy 

costs. Recognizing that tapping into an installation’s gas and oil reserves for military purposes has only recently become economically 

feasible, the Committee needs to understand the possible costs and 

benefits, as well as the statutory and regulatory issues associated 

with such a development effort. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment, not later than 

March 1, 2016, to provide an analysis of major Department of Defense installations with likely gas and oil reserves, the expected 

quality of the gas and oil reserves, the estimated costs and savings 

of producing gas and oil at such installations, the statutory and 

regulatory challenges to implementing such energy development 

projects, potential mission and environmental impacts from such 

energy development projects, and recommendations for which installations, if any, may benefit from such development. 

Comptroller General of the United States study on options 

for the Department of Defense close air support mission 

The committee is concerned that the Air Force does not appear 

to be devoting appropriate attention to the close air support (CAS) 

mission and capabilities for which it is largely responsible. As such, 

the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States 

to conduct a review of the close air support mission with emphasis 

on: 

(1) Review of historical proposals for distributing close air 

support responsibilities and force structure among the services; 

(2) The extent to which the Department of Defense has defined CAS requirements and allocated responsibilities and 

force structure among the services to meet those requirements; 

and 

(3) The extent to which the Department has evaluated options for distributing CAS responsibilities and capabilities 

across the services and whether those need to be redistributed, 

including whether the Air Force’s A–10 aircraft fleet and supporting infrastructure could feasibly be transferred to the 

Army and/or the Marine Corps. 

The committee is aware the Comptroller General is conducting a 

study directed by section 133 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. 

‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2015 (Public Law 11309291) to specifically assess platforms used to 

conduct the close air support mission in light of the recommendation by the Air Force to retire the A–10 fleet. While related, the 

committee recommends the study in this provision take a broader 

perspective across the Department with regard to the close air support mission. 

The Comptroller General shall brief the committee on his preliminary results by September 30, 2015, with a formal report to be 

provided, as appropriate, at a later date as agreed to with the committee. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
214 

Congressional Defense Review to Prepare for Future Strategic Challenges 

For the past 14 years, the United States has been engaged in a 

long war against terrorist and violent extremist groups. The committee believes that this conflict will persist, at one level or another, across multiple theaters of operation, for some time to come, 

and that winning this war must be a top priority of the U.S. military and the Department of Defense (DOD). 

At the same time, the committee is deeply concerned by the 

growth of more traditional security threats posed by powerful 

states, such as China and Russia, and rogue regimes such as Iran 

and North Korea. States such as these are modernizing their military capabilities, developing advanced technologies that could undermine U.S. military advantages—from precision-guided munitions and advanced sensors, to undersea-warfare and unmanned 

systems, to offensive cyber and space capabilities—and pursuing 

strategies that seek to deter the United States from achieving its 

national security interests and meeting its commitments to allies 

and partners. 

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter captured this new military 

challenge well when he said ‘‘for decades, U.S. global power projection has relied on the ships, planes, bases, aircraft carriers, satellite networks, and other advanced capabilities that comprise our 

military’s unrivaled technological edge. But today that superiority 

is being challenged in unprecedented ways.’’ In short, for the first 

time in three decades, the United States faces a potential turning 

point where our nation’s long-standing military advantages threaten to be eroded by new shifts in the balance of military power. 

Accordingly, over the coming 18 months, the committee plans to 

conduct a comprehensive review of the roles, capabilities/size of the 

U.S. Armed Forces and DOD in meeting, and succeeding against, 

these new security challenges, especially those posed by the growing anti-access/area denial capabilities of U.S. adversaries. This review will utilize open hearings, classified briefings, the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service, 

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, and consultation with former senior defense and military leaders and other 

national security experts. Building on the series of strategy-focused 

hearings that the committee has already conducted, the committee 

will deepen its oversight of military strategy while also delving 

deeper into intelligence and threat assessments, contingency planning, force structure and posture, joint concept development, domestic and overseas basing and infrastructure, theater and strategic lift requirements, munition quality and quantity, and institutional and personnel reforms. The committee will also review civilian personnel policy, DOD infrastructure, and acquisition policies 

and practices to bring them more into line with the needs of the 

future. 

Ultimately, the committee intends to review each of the major 

defense acquisition programs and its related industrial base to determine whether they are sufficient and appropriate to meet developing national security challenges. This review will take nothing 

for granted and will evaluate each program, both qualitatively and 

quantitatively, in the broader context of the roles, missions, reVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00242 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
215 

quirements, and other capabilities of the armed services, as well as 

emerging technologies that could significantly alter previous assumptions underpinning the current programs of record. The committee’s future budgetary decisions will be based on the outcome of 

this strategic review. 

The committee acknowledges that for this review to be successful 

it will require a sustained commitment of many years and potentially multiple chairmen. The much-heralded ‘‘offset strategy’’ of 

the 1970s required a tremendous amount of intellectual capital and 

research and development dollars invested over the course of a decade before capabilities like stealth, precision-guided-munitions, and 

advanced sensors could be effectively deployed. Nevertheless, it is 

possible to embark upon a new period of sustained military innovation today if DOD, the military services, and industry can be 

aligned towards this goal. The committee intends to use all of the 

resources at its disposal to this end. 

Cruiser and dock landing ship phased modernization 

The committee is concerned by the partial funding of the Navy 

cruiser and dock landing ship phased modernization plan. Section 

1026 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113– 

291) and section 8110 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2015 (Public Law 113–235) expressed the intent of the congressional defense committees. While the Navy is inducting two guided missile cruisers per year into phased modernization status in fiscal years 2015 and 2016 consistent with that 

plan, the committee understands the manpower and operations 

funding for the remaining seven cruisers in the Navy’s fiscal year 

2015 phased modernization plan are not funded in the future years 

defense program (FYDP) beyond fiscal year 2016. The committee 

also understands the Navy is employing a similar partial funding 

scheme with the three dock landing ships identified for phased 

modernization. 

The committee is concerned by the Navy’s failure to program the 

funds required to continue the phased modernization program approved in section 1026. The committee recommends that the Navy 

continue to use resources from the Ship Modernization, Operations 

and Sustainment Fund until they are exhausted. However, beginning with the budget request for fiscal year 2017, the committee directs the Navy to request full funding in fiscal year 2017 and 

throughout the FYDP for the phased modernization program for 

cruisers and dock landing ships in the regular appropriations accounts. The committee expects the Navy to fully program across 

the FYDP for all manpower, readiness, and modernization associated with its phased modernization plan. 

Human industrial operations augmentation technology 

The committee is aware of the Department of the Navy’s interest 

in human industrial operations augmentation technology that improves the health and safety of the workforce and reduces the high 

total ownership cost (TOC) of assets, including U.S. Navy aircraft 

carriers, surface ships, and submarines. Technological advances are 

needed to help reduce the labor component of TOC by increasing 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
216 

productivity, improving quality, and reducing costs associated with 

workplace injuries, including injuries related to repetitive motions. 

Exoskeleton-based human augmentation has the potential to remove much of the physical strain from workers who use hand-held 

tools during the construction, maintenance, repair, and disposal of 

Navy assets. The application of exoskeleton-based human augmentation technology has the potential to increase productivity and 

quality while decreasing injury rates, thus significantly improving 

workforce welfare and reducing TOC. 

The committee encourages the Navy to continue to identify commercially-available human industrial operations augmentation 

technologies that could improve the health and safety of the workforce and reduce the TOC of assets. 

National Guard Counterdrug Program 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) requests funding annually to support the National Guard 

Counterdrug Program (CDP). The committees believes that the 

CDP plays an important role in providing military-specific capabilities and expertise resident within the National Guard to support 

the counterdrug activities of federal, state, and local authorities. 

The committee notes that budgetary pressures have led DOD to decrease the annual budget request for the CDP in recent years, 

which the committee understands may have caused some disruption or curtailment of CDP operations and activities. The committee encourages DOD to continue its support, to the extent practicable, for the CDP and to provide sufficient funding to ensure the 

effectiveness and sustainability of the program. The committee understands that the National Guard Bureau has expressed concerns 

about its ability to execute funding for the CDP in a timely manner. The committee encourages DOD to work with the National 

Guard Bureau to improve fiscal management and execution rates 

for the CDP and expects to receive periodic updates on the CDP, 

to include ongoing and planned CDP programs, budget execution 

rates, and lessons learned. 

Shipbuilding industrial base and workload allocation 

The committee understands the Navy is reviewing a 2002 agreement, commonly referred to as the DDG/LPD SWAP 1 agreement, 

and the subsequent SWAP 2 agreement. Prior to award of the 

LPD–28 detail design and construction contract and any final decision relating to the SWAP agreements, the Secretary of the Navy 

is directed to provide the congressional defense committees with a 

report of the options considered and the rationale used to arrive at 

the determination. 

Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike 

(UCLASS) Program 

The committee believes that survivable, air-refuelable, unmanned combat aircraft are critical for countering emerging antiaccess/area-denial (A2/AD) challenges to U.S. power projection. In 

this context, the committee views sea-based unmanned combat aircraft as particularly important for giving aircraft carrier air wings 

an enduring role in the joint family of airborne, long-range, surveilVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00244 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
217 

lance-strike systems—and thus, maintaining the operational effectiveness and strategic utility of the U.S. carrier fleet. Based on the 

progress to date in the ongoing Unmanned Combat Air System 

Demonstration program, the committee is confident that, while additional risk-reduction and experimentation appears necessary, 

low- to medium-risk acquisition of advanced carrier-based, unmanned combat aircraft could be feasible in the 2020–2025 timeframe. 

The committee remains concerned, however, that the Navy’s current requirements for the UCLASS program place disproportionate 

emphasis on unrefueled endurance to support organic ISR support 

to the carrier strike group. 

The committee sees great promise in the integration of unmanned combat aircraft into future carrier air wings. The committee notes with concern that absent a restructuring of the 

planned carrier air wing that incorporates unmanned combat aircraft in operationally significant numbers, the relevance of the aircraft carrier—the centerpiece of American global power projection 

capability—may increasingly be called into question by friends and 

prospective adversaries alike. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(219) 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS 

Legislative Provisions 

Required probationary period for new employees of the Department of Defense (sec. 1101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would set the required probationary period for new employees of the Department of 

Defense at 2 years. The provision would also give discretionary authority to the service secretary concerned to extend a probationary 

period of a new employee of the Department of Defense. 

Delay of periodic step increase for civilian employees of the 

Department of Defense based upon unacceptable performance (sec. 1102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Secretary of Defense with the authority to encourage employee performance by requiring satisfactory performance for purposes of 

completion of service required for periodic step increases. 

The committee notes that this provision is based on a recommendation of the New Beginnings Design Team, which was composed of management-labor personnel who came from across the 

country and represented all ranks and a wide range of professional 

backgrounds to examine the Department of Defense performance 

management system and to review the statutes and regulations 

that govern federal hiring. 

Procedures for reduction in force of Department of Defense 

civilian personnel (sec. 1103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Secretary of Defense with the authority to establish procedures to 

provide that, in implementing any reduction in force for civilian positions in the Department of Defense in the competitive service or 

the excepted service, the determination of which employees shall be 

separated from employment in the Department of Defense shall be 

made primarily on the basis of performance. 

United States Cyber Command workforce (sec. 1104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide enhanced hiring and retention authorities to the Secretary of Defense 

for civilians on the staff of the United States Cyber Command 

(CYBERCOM) and the elements of the CYBERCOM components of 

the armed services. These enhanced authorities are modeled after 

the personnel authorities in title 10 provided for the staff of the intelligence components of the Department of Defense. These authorities are also similar to those that Congress provided in 2014 for the 

cyber workforce at the Department of Homeland Security. The comVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
220 

mittee believes that these authorities are a very important factor 

in attracting and retaining the high caliber of personnel that are 

critical to the execution of the cyber warfare mission of the Department. 

The provision also would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a plan to Congress on implementation of these authorities, 

and an annual report from the Director of the Office of Personnel 

Management on how the authorities are being used. 

One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation 

on premium pay and aggregate limitation on pay for 

federal civilian employees working overseas (sec. 1105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1101 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), as most recently 

amended by section 1101 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ 

McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 

(Public Law 113–291), to extend through 2016 the authority of 

heads of executive agencies to waive limitation on the aggregate of 

basic and premium pay of employees who perform work in an overseas location that is in the area of responsibility of the commander, 

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), or a location that was formerly in CENTCOM but has been moved to an area of responsibility for the Commander, U.S. Africa Command, in support of a 

military operation or an operation in response to a declared emergency. 

Five-year extension of expedited hiring authority for designated defense acquisition workforce positions (sec. 

1106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

expedited hiring authority for designated defense acquisition workforce positions for 5 years. 

One-year extension of discretionary authority to grant allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel 

on official duty in a combat zone (sec. 1107) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1603(a) of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for 

Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 

(Public Law 109–234; 122 Stat. 443), to extend for 1 year the discretionary authority of the head of a federal agency to provide allowances, benefits and gratuities comparable to those provided by 

the Secretary of State to members of the Foreign Service under section 413 and chapter 9 of title I of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 

(Public Law 96–465), if such individual is on official duty in Pakistan or a combat zone as defined by section 112(c) of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
221 

Extension of rate of overtime pay for Department of the 

Navy employees performing work aboard or dockside in 

support of the nuclear aircraft carrier forward deployed 

in Japan (sec. 1108) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 5542(a)(6)(B) of title 5, United States Code, to extend for 1 

year the authority for a civilian employee of the Department of the 

Navy who is assigned to temporary duty to perform work aboard, 

or dockside in direct support of, the nuclear aircraft carrier that is 

forward deployed in Japan to receive overtime pay. 

Expansion of temporary authority to make direct appointments of candidates possessing bachelor’s degrees to scientific and engineering positions at science and technology reinvention laboratories (sec. 1109) 

The committee notes that the rapid hiring authorities, originally 

authorized by section 1107(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66), have enabled 

Defense laboratories to better compete with the private sector for 

the best technical talent emerging from our Nation’s science and 

engineering universities. However, the committee also notes these 

authorities are still limiting the number of talented individuals 

that can be brought on board. 

Consequently, the committee recommends enhancing the ability 

of Defense laboratories to rapidly hire world-class technical talent 

by increasing the limit on the number of bachelor’s degree holders 

hired under these streamlined procedures from 3 percent to 5 percent of total scientific personnel. This provision would bring the 

limit on bachelor’s degree candidates in line with current limits on 

master’s and doctoral level candidates. 

Extension of authority for the civilian acquisition workforce 

personnel demonstration project (sec. 1110) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1762, title 10, United States Code, to extend the Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project under that 

section through December 31, 2020. 

Pilot program on dynamic shaping of the workforce to improve the technical skills and expertise at certain Department of Defense laboratories (sec. 1111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Department of Defense (DOD) laboratories to more dynamically shape 

their technical workforces to maintain consistency with the accelerating pace of technological change and to meet DOD science and 

technology mission needs as effectively and efficiently as possible. 

The committee notes that the workforces of the defense laboratories provide technical support to deployed operational forces, support acquisition programs with technical and engineering expertise 

to control costs and improve performance, manage complex research and development programs on behalf of taxpayers, and perform world-class, cutting edge research. As technology evolves and 

accelerates, the laboratories need to build and shape continuously 

the technical skills in their workforces and effectively move into 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
222 

new technical mission areas, including laser weapons, cyber security, cognitive science, biotechnology, and other cutting-edge fields 

of research. 

The committee notes that current personnel policies and practices present barriers to the ability of the laboratories to reshape 

their workforces and to meet technical needs. As a result, the provision would authorize a pilot program that would enable laboratory directors to hire technical experts into flexible length and renewable term appointments. A recent Institute for Defense Analyses study, ‘‘Federal Term Appointment Hiring Authorities for 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Personnel,’’ indicated that the use of these term appointments for 

science and technology missions had a number of benefits, including increased agency control in shaping its STEM workforce to 

meet current and anticipated needs, improved management of research portfolios through use of expertise from industry and academia, and enhanced ability to recruit high-quality term applicants 

to work and manage high priority research efforts. The committee 

believes that these types of appointments are also more consistent 

with the career ambitions of younger scientists and engineers, who 

are in general less attracted by the ‘‘employment-for-life’’ model 

historically favored by federal research institutions. 

The provision would also authorize flexibility in applying existing 

authorities for accessing the expertise of recently retired technical 

personnel and in offering voluntary early retirement and voluntary 

separation incentives. The provision would make these workforce 

shaping tools more readily available to laboratory directors, enabling them to better shape the technical skill mix of the laboratories. 

Pilot program on temporary exchange of financial management and acquisition personnel (sec. 1112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of the temporary assignment of financial management and acquisition personnel to nontraditional defense contractors as defined by section 

2303(9) of title 10, United States Code, and of covered employees 

of such contractors to the Department of Defense. Nontraditional 

defense contractors are commercial companies who either do not do 

business with the Department of Defense or do so exclusively 

through commercial terms and conditions. The committee believes 

that any exchange of government personnel with industry designed 

to improve skills and knowledge of finance and acquisition should 

be with those types of firms that do not traditionally do business 

with the Department of Defense and as such may offer different 

business management approaches to address similar problems. 

These firms also do not pose the same potential conflict of interest 

concerns that any exchange with a traditional defense contractor 

would pose. This authority would expire on September 30, 2019. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
223 

Pilot program on enhanced pay authorities for certain acquisition and technology positions in the Department of 

Defense (sec. 1113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of using a 

higher level pay authority to attract and retain high quality acquisition and technology experts in positions responsible for management and developing complex, high cost, technological acquisition 

efforts of the Department of Defense. The committee is concerned 

that in some cases the Department of Defense cannot competitively 

compensate the senior level government program managers and engineers required for the government to oversee major defense acquisition programs. This provision would allow in select cases for 

the Department of Defense to pay a higher rate of compensation to 

recruit and retain senior acquisition officials who are exceptionally 

well qualified. These officials would be limited to a 5 year term 

that should correspond to a major weapons systems program development or execution period as defined elsewhere in this Act. This 

authority would expire on October 1, 2020. 

Pilot program on direct hire authority for veteran technical 

experts into the defense acquisition workforce (sec. 

1114) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

5-year pilot program for the service acquisition executives of each 

military department to directly appoint qualified veteran candidates for scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematics positions in the defense acquisition activities. This direct hire authority 

would be limited to no more than 1 percent of the total number of 

positions in the acquisition workforce in each military department 

that are filled as of the close of the previous fiscal year. 

Direct hire authority for technical experts into the defense 

acquisition workforce (sec. 1115) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

service secretaries of each military department to directly appoint 

qualified candidates possessing a scientific or engineering degree to 

positions in the defense acquisition activities. This direct hire authority would be limited to no more than 5 percent of the total 

number of scientific and engineering positions in the acquisition 

workforce in each military department that are filled as of the close 

of the previous fiscal year. This authority would expire December 

31, 2020. 

Items of Special Interest 

Report on comparison of cost performance of functions by 

Department of Defense civilian personnel with cost of 

performance of functions by Department contractors 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives, and to the Comptroller General of the United 

States, a report setting forth the results of a study, conducted by 

the Secretary for the purposes of the report, of a comparison of the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
224 

fully-burdened cost of performance of functions by Department of 

Defense (DOD) civilian personnel with the fully-burdened cost of 

the performance of functions by DOD contractors by no later than 

February 1, 2016. The study shall include: 

(1) an assessment of performance of such functions at six 

DOD installations selected by the Secretary for purposes of the 

study from among DOD installations at which functions are 

performed by an appropriate mix of civilian personnel and contractors, with four such installations to be located in the continental United States and two such installations to be located 

outside the continental United States; 

(2) an accounting of the fully-burdened cost of DOD civilian 

personnel and contractors performing functions for DOD (including costs associated with training, benefits, reimbursable 

costs under chapter 43 of title 41, United States Code, and facility overhead) in order to permit a direct comparison between 

the cost of performance of functions by DOD civilian personnel 

and the cost of the performance of functions by contractors; 

(3) a comparison of the cost of performance of the full range 

of functions, required expertise, and managerial qualities required to adequately perform the function to be compared, including: 

(a) secretarial, clerical, or administrative duties, including data entry; 

(b) mid-level managers and other personnel possessing 

special expertise or professional qualifications; 

(c) managers and other leadership; and 

(d) personnel responsible for producing congressionallydirected reports. 

The committee recommends that, in conducting the study, the 

Secretary should take into account the policy that inherently governmental functions vital to the national security of the United 

States may not be performed by contractor personnel. The report 

required shall include an assessment of the flexible employment 

authorities available to the Secretary for the employment and retention of civilian employees of the DOD, including an identification of such additional flexible employment authorities as the Secretary considers appropriate to shape the civilian personnel workforce of the DOD. Not later than 120 days after receipt of such report, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report 

that includes an assessment of the adequacy and sufficiency of the 

report submitted by the Secretary, including any recommendations 

for policy or statutory change as the Comptroller deems appropriate. 

Report on Department of Defense application of the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting forth the results of a study, conducted by the Comptroller General for the purposes of the report, due no later than February 1, 2015, to examine 

the military services’ application of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) to determine: (1) whether the FECA program 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
225 

creates disincentives to return to work; (2) whether the Services 

have appropriate access to the FECA database in order to validate 

and examine employee injury records to manage return-to-work 

outcomes; (3)whether FECA benefits may be converted to retirement benefits at retirement age; and (4) how many non-working 

employees remain on the Services’ payrolls despite being over social security retirement age. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(227) 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN 

NATIONS 

Subtitle A—Training and Assistance 

One-year extension of funding limitations for authority to 

build the capacity of foreign security forces (sec. 1201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the funding limitations for the Department of Defense to build 

the capacity of foreign security forces under section 2282, title 10, 

United States Code. 

Extension, expansion, and modification of authority for reimbursement to the Government of Jordan for border 

security operations (sec. 1202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize assistance to the Governments of Jordan and Lebanon in any fiscal 

year through fiscal year 2020 for the purposes of supporting and 

enhancing efforts of those governments to support and sustain security along their borders with Syria and/or Iraq. Regarding assistance to the Government of Lebanon, the provision would prohibit 

reimbursement of Hezbollah or any forces other than the armed 

forces of Lebanon. 

The actions of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and other 

terrorist groups present a serious threat to Jordan and Lebanon. 

As such, it is in the United States’ national security interest to respond to this increased threat to Jordan and Lebanon by providing 

the necessary assistance. 

Extension of authority to conduct activities to enhance the 

capability of foreign countries to respond to incidents 

involving weapons of mass destruction (sec. 1203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority for the Secretary of Defense to provide Weapons of Mass 

Destruction incident response training and basic equipment to foreign first responders until September 30, 2018. 

Redesignation, modification, and permanent extension of 

National Guard State Partnership Program (sec. 1204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1205 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 

2014 (Public Law 114–66) to provide for the extension of the Department of Defense State Partnership Program and direct the 

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Under Secretary of 

Defense (Policy) to conduct a advisability and feasibility study as 

to whether a central fund should be created to support the activities associated with the State Partnership Program. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
228 

Authority to provide support to national military forces of 

allied countries for counterterrorism operations in Africa (sec. 1205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

through September 30, 2018 the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide, on a non-reimbursable 

basis, logistic support, supplies, and services to the national military forces of an allied country conducting counterterrorism operations in Africa if the Secretary of Defense determines that the provision of such support is (1) in the national security interests of the 

United States; and (2) critical to the timely and effective participation of such national military forces in such operations. 

The committee’s intent is for this authority to address situations 

similar to ongoing U.S. support to Operation Barkhane, a Frenchled counterterrorism operation in the Sahel region of Africa that, 

to date, has been funded under an emergency declaration by the 

president under section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 

1961 (Public Law 87–195), as amended, 22 U.S.C. 2318(a)(1). 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of State, to provide intelligence 

training to foreign military intelligence units to increase partner 

capacity. 

Prohibition on assistance to entities in Yemen controlled by 

the Houthi movement (sec. 1207) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit assistance to an entity in Yemen controlled by members of the 

Houthi movement unless the Secretary of Defense determines the 

provision of such assistance is important to the national security 

interests of the United States. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the military support the 

Secretary considers necessary to provide to recipients of assistance 

under section 1209 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ 

McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 

(Public Law 113–291) upon their return to Syria. 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and 

Iraq 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that: 

(1) the drawdown of United States forces in Afghanistan 

should be based on security conditions in Afghanistan and U.S. 

security interests in the region; and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
229 

(2) as the Afghan National Defense Security Forces continue 

to develop security capability and capacity, an appropriate U.S. 

and international presence should continue, upon invitation by 

the Government of Afghanistan, to provide adequate capability 

and capacity to retain gains made to date and continue 

counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan against terrorist 

organizations that can threaten United States interests or the 

U.S. homeland. 

The provision would also require a certification by the President 

to the congressional defense committees that the reduction of U.S. 

forces in Afghanistan will result in an acceptable level of risk to 

U.S. national security objectives taking into consideration the security conditions on the ground. The provision would provide for a 

waiver of such certification with an associated notification. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would make up to $10.0 million available during fiscal year 2016 for the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (CERP) in Afghanistan 

under section 1201 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) as amended. The provision 

would also authorize certain payments to redress injury and loss 

in Iraq in accordance with the authorities and limitations in section 8121 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015 

(division C of Public Law 113–235), other than subsection (h) of 

such section. 

Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense services to the military and security forces 

of Afghanistan (sec. 1223) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 31, 2016, the authority under section 1222 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to transfer defense articles being drawn down in 

Afghanistan, and to provide defense services in connection with 

such transfers, to the military and security forces of Afghanistan. 

The provision would also extend through fiscal year 2016 the exemption for excess defense articles (EDA) transferred from Department of Defense stocks in Afghanistan from counting toward the 

annual limitation on the aggregate value of EDA transferred under 

section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Public Law 87– 

195). 

Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement 

of certain coalition nations for support provided to 

United States military operations (sec. 1224) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for fiscal year 2016 the authority to make Coalition Support Funds (CSF) 

payments under section 1233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as amended. 

Under this section the Secretary of Defense may use CSF to reimburse certain or designated nations for support provided to or in 

connection with U.S. military operations in Afghanistan or to use 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
230 

such funds to provide specialized training or loan specialized equipment to key nations participating in coalition operations in Afghanistan. The provision would limit the total amount of CSF that could 

be provided in fiscal year 2016 to $1.2 billion. Of this amount, the 

amount of CSF that could be provided to Pakistan would be limited 

to $900.0 million. The provision would also extend for 1 year certain notifications and certification requirements relating to CSF 

payments to Pakistan. The provision would extend for 1 year the 

restriction on the Secretary of Defense from waiving the certification requirements relating to $300.0 million of the $900.0 million 

and add the requirement for the Secretary to certify that the Government of Pakistan has taken actions to promote stability in Afghanistan. 

The provision also includes a pilot program that authorizes the 

use of up to $100.0 million of the $900.0 million authorized for 

Pakistan for stability activities in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, including for such activities undertaken by the Pakistan 

military and the Pakistan Frontier Corps Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. 

The provision would require a report on the use of CSF funds for 

such activities. 

Prohibition on transfer to violent extremist organizations of 

equipment or supplies provided by the United States to 

the Government of Iraq (sec. 1225) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit provision of assistance authorized by section 1236 of the Carl Levin 

and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) to an organization determined to be a violent extremist organization. The provision prohibits providing assistance under this authority unless appropriate 

steps have been taken by the Government of Iraq to safeguard 

against transferring or otherwise providing such assistance to violent extremist organizations. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than 

30 days after a determination by the Secretary that equipment provided pursuant to such authorization has been subsequently transferred to or acquired by a violent extremist organization. The committee is concerned that such equipment, intended to be provided 

for the purpose of assisting the Government of Iraq, may end up 

in the possession of violent extremist organizations. 

The provision would also require a description of the criteria 

used to determine which organizations are violent extremist organizations and therefore unsuitable to receive or possess equipment 

or supplies provided by the United States to the Government of 

Iraq as well as the end-use monitoring or other policies and procedures put in place to promote accountability. The intent of such 

policies and procedures is to help prevent transfer to or acquisition 

by violent extremist organizations that could include certain Shia 

militias, Sunni extremists, or other groups assessed to have hostile 

intent towards the United States or United States Armed Forces. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
231 

Report on lines of communication of Islamic State of Iraq 

and the Levant and other foreign terrorist organizations 

(sec. 1226) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the lines of communication that enable the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Jabhat 

al-Nusra, and other foreign terrorist organizations that facilitate 

assistance through countries bordering on Syria. 

Modification of protection for Afghan allies (sec. 1227) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program. 

Extension of authority to support operations and activities 

of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1228) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through fiscal year 2016 the authority under section 1215 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 

Law 112–81) as amended, for the Secretary of Defense to support 

the operations and activities of the Office of Security Cooperation 

in Iraq (OSC–I). The provision would authorize the use of up to 

$80.0 million in fiscal year 2016 to support OSC–I operations and 

activities. 

The provision would also update reporting requirements to reflect the need for OSC–I to coordinate efforts with assistance provided pursuant to section 1236 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. 

‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2015 (Public Law 113–291) and the committee’s concern for maintaining accountability of equipment provided to the Government of 

Iraq. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate urging the United States, in coordination with 

coalition partners, to provide, in an expeditious and responsive 

manner and without undue delay, security assistance to the security forces of the Kurdistan Regional Government. The committee 

emphasizes that the defeat of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is critical to maintaining a unified and integrated Iraq. 

Subtitle C—Matters Relating to Iran 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

annual report on the military power of Iran as required by section 

1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 (Public Law 111–84) through 2021, as well as make other 

modifications. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
232 

Subtitle D—Matters Relating to the Russian Federation 

Ukraine security assistance initiative (sec. 1251) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, 

to provide security assistance and intelligence support to military 

and other security forces of the Government of Ukraine for the purposes of: (1) enhancing the defensive combat capabilities of the 

military and other security forces of the Government of Ukraine to 

defend Ukraine against further aggression; (2) assisting Ukraine in 

developing combat capability to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine; and (3) supporting Ukraine in defending 

itself against actions by Russia and Russian-backed separatists in 

violation of the ceasefire agreements of September 5, 2014, and 

February 11, 2015. 

The committee notes that the authority granted in this provision 

would not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on 

the ground in Ukraine for the purpose of conducting combat operations. 

The committee is deeply concerned about the continuing aggression by Russia and Russian-backed separatists in violation of the 

ceasefire and continues to emphasize the importance of providing 

security assistance and intelligence support, including lethal military assistance, to the Government of Ukraine to build its capacity 

to defend its territory and sovereignty and to support the integrity 

of the ceasefire agreement. 

The committee notes the commencement of training of Ukrainian 

security forces using the authority under section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 

112–81), as amended, for the Global Security Contingency Fund 

and supports the expansion of this program to additional units of 

the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Defense. 

Eastern European Training Initiative (sec. 1252) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, to conduct the Eastern European Training Initiative (EETI) 

to provide multilateral or regional training, and pay the incremental expenses of participating in such training, for countries in 

Eastern Europe that are a signatory to the Partnership for Peace 

Framework Documents but not a member of the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) or that became a NATO member after 

January 1, 1999. The committee notes the purpose of such training 

is to promote interoperability, improve the ability of participating 

countries to respond to external threats including from hybrid warfare, and increase the ability of NATO to take collective action 

when required. 

The committee believes that training under the EETI should be 

provided only to the newer NATO members and appropriate nonNATO countries participating in the NATO Partnership for Peace 

program, in particular those countries that are at risk or may become at risk of intimidation from external threats to their sovereignty or territorial integrity from neighboring countries. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
233 

Increased presence of United States ground forces in Eastern Europe to deter aggression on the border of the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (sec. 1253) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than 120 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act, by the Secretary 

of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, assessing 

options for expanding the presence of U.S. ground forces of the size 

of a brigade combat team in Eastern Europe to respond, along with 

European allies and partners, to the security challenges posed by 

Russia and to increase the combat capability of allied forces to respond to unconventional or hybrid warfare tactics like those used 

by Russia in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. The committee believes 

that any increases in the presence of U.S. ground forces in Eastern 

Europe should be matched by similar increases in the commitment 

of ground forces by European allies and partners for these purposes. 

Sense of Congress on European Defense and North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization spending (sec. 1254) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress urging the United States to encourage North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies to meet defense budget commitments made at the Wales Summit in September 2014 and to continue to coordinate defense investments to improve deterrence 

against Russian aggression and terrorist organizations and more 

appropriately balance defense spending across the alliance. 

Additional matters in annual report on military and security developments involving the Russian Federation 

(sec. 1255) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a reporting requirement to section 1245 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. 

‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2015 (Public Law 113–291) requiring an assessment of the force 

structure and capabilities of Russian military forces stationed in 

the Arctic region, Kaliningrad, and Crimea, as well as an assessment of the Russian military strategy in the Arctic region. 

The committee is concerned about increased Russian military activity in the Arctic region and notes that Russian activities and apparent ambitions could present challenges to international law, 

norms, and agreements relating to the Arctic region. 

Report on alternative capabilities to procure and sustain 

nonstandard rotary wing aircraft historically procured 

through Rosoboronexport (sec. 1256) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require an 

independent assessment directed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics in consultation 

with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to report on the feasibility and advisability of using alternative industrial base capabilities to procure and sustain nonstandard rotary wing aircraft 

historically acquired through the Russian state corporation 

Rosoboronexport. The assessment would include an analysis of the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
234 

economic impact as well as alterations that would be required for 

waivers of foreign military sales requirements and procedures for 

approval of airworthiness certificates. 

The committee notes that the use of alternative industrial base 

capability to divest reliance on Rosoboronexport could benefit 

United States national security interests, deny financial support to 

the Russian Federation, and could potentially benefit U.S. and 

Ukrainian commercial interests. 

Subtitle E—Matters Relating to the Asia–Pacific Region 

South China Sea Initiative (Sec. 1261) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, to provide equipment, supplies, and training to national military or other security forces of foreign countries to respond to 

threats to maritime security. The provision would authorize $50.0 

million with increase in future years, in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Global Train and Equip Program to provide assistance to the recipient countries, which include 

Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. The 

provision would require that the Secretary of Defense provide prior 

notification to the congressional defense committees not later than 

15 days before exercising this authority. 

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

1262) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the United States continue to implement 

the rebalance of U.S. forces to the Asia-Pacific region. The committee believes that the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Pacific 

theater of operations would undermine the rebalance and that 

forces should be increased consistent with commitments already 

make by the Department of Defense and aligned with the requirement to maintain a balance of military power that favors the 

United States and its allies in the region. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the United States continue to make available to Taiwan such defense articles and services as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense, including support for Taiwan’s innovative and asymmetric measures 

to balance the growing capabilities of the People’s Republic of 

China. The committee also believes that military forces of Taiwan 

should be encouraged to participate in bilateral training activities 

hosted by the United States that support the credible deterrent capabilities of Taiwan, including the Red Flag exercise conducted at 

Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska, and Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
235 

Subtitle F—Reports and Related Matters 

Item in quarterly reports on assistance to counter the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant on forces ineligible 

to receive assistance due to a gross violation of human 

rights (sec. 1271) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add an additional element to the quarterly progress report required under section 1236 (the ‘‘Iraq Train and Equip authority’’) of the Carl Levin 

and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291). The additional element 

to be included in the report would be a list of units restricted from 

receiving assistance under the Iraq Train and Equip authority as 

a result of vetting required by the authority or by section 2249e, 

title 10, United States Code, including, as applicable, a description 

of information relating to gross violations of human rights and association with or assistance from the Government of Iran, unless 

such vetting has been waived under subsection (j) of the Iraq Train 

and Equip authority. 

Report on bilateral agreement with Israel on joint activities 

to establish an anti-tunneling defense system (sec. 1272) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, to conduct a feasibility and advisability study of the entry 

of the United States and Israel into a bilateral agreement through 

which the two governments could conduct cooperative anti-tunneling research, development, and testing, and submit their findings to the appropriate congressional committees. 

The committee notes that both Israel and the United States confront threats on their borders from tunnels used by foreign terrorist organizations and transnational criminal organizations. 

Given these common threats and our ongoing cooperation with 

Israel on issues of mutual concern, the committee notes there may 

be opportunities for additional collaboration on this issue and 

awaits the Secretary’s report. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the United States should promptly consider the sale of fighter aircraft to the Government of Qatar. The 

provision would also require a report describing the risks and benefits as they relate to the sale of fighter aircraft to the Government 

of Qatar. 

Subtitle G—Other Matters 

NATO Special Operations Headquarters (sec. 1281) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, for 3 

years, the authority under section 1244(a) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010 (Public Law 111–84; 123 

Stat. 2541), as most recently amended by section 1272(a) of the NaVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00263 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
236 

tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 

112–239; 126 Stat. 2023). 

Two-year extension and modification of authorization for 

non-conventional assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 

1282) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority of the Department of Defense (DOD) to establish, develop, and maintain non-conventional assisted recovery (NAR) capabilities for 2 additional years. The provision would also designate 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and LowIntensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC) as the primary civilian within 

DOD with programmatic and policy oversight responsibilities for 

such activities. Given the sensitive nature of NAR activities, including the authorized use of irregular forces, groups, and individuals, the committee believes that ASD SOLIC is the most appropriate civilian office within the Department to exercise oversight of 

such activities and associated policies. Furthermore, the committee 

directs the Department to provide ASD SOLIC resourcing commensurate with these responsibilities, with assistance and support from 

the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency as appropriate. 

Items of Special Interest 

Additional Analysis of People’s Liberation Army Cyber Capabilities 

The committee is concerned about the growing offensive cyber capabilities of the People’s Republic of China. The Annual Report to 

Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the 

People’s Republic of China 2015 concluded that ‘‘Chinese offensive 

cyberspace operations could support A2/AD by targeting critical 

nodes to disrupt adversary networks throughout the region.’’ The 

report also noted that, ‘‘In 2014, numerous computer systems 

around the world, including those owned by the U.S. Government, 

continued to be targeted for intrusions, some of which can be attributed directly to the Chinese Government and military.’’ 

The committee believes that China’s growing cyber capabilities 

warrant additional review and analysis in both classified and unclassified form. Therefore, the committee recommends the Department of Defense provide a more holistic assessment of offensive 

and defense cyber capabilities within the People’s Liberation Army, 

the Chinese Ministry of State Security, and non-state actors seeking to further Chinese political and strategic goals as a part of the 

2016 Annual Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China. In particular, the 

committee is interested in an assessment of Chinese capabilities for 

integrating cyber activity into conventional and unconventional operations, China’s ability to avoid attribution while executing or facilitating offensive cyber operations, and China’s assistance to 

other countries to assist in building cyber capabilities. 

Annual report on the military power of Iran 

The committee remains concerned about the threat posed by 

Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile development programs. The 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
237 

committee notes that last year, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified that, ‘‘We judge that Iran would 

choose a ballistic missile as its preferred method of delivering nuclear weapons. . .’’ In February, Iran successfully launched the 

Safir long-range missile system. In 2013, the National Air and 

Space Intelligence Center (NASIC) made the following statement 

about this system: 

Iran could develop and test an ICBM capable of reaching the 

United States by 2015. Since 2008, Iran has conducted multiple 

successful launches of the two-stage Safir space launch vehicle 

(SLV) and has also revealed the larger two stage Simorgh SLV, 

which could serve as a test bed for developing ICBM technologies. 

The committee remains interested in an update from the Secretary of Defense on Iran’s ballistic missile development programs. 

The committee notes that section 1245 0f the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, as amended (Public Law 111– 

84) requires the Secretary of Defense to submit, on an annual 

basis, a report on the military power of Iran. The committee notes 

that previous versions of this report have provided useful information on Iran’s military power, including its ballistic missile capabilities and developments. The report is due January 30 of each 

year. However, the committee notes that, as of May 2015, the report has not been provided to Congress. Given the longstanding nature of this reporting requirement, the committee expects the 

prompt delivery of this report each year. Given this delay, upon the 

delivery of the report covering 2014, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to Congress a briefing on the report 

which—in addition to covering information from 2014— should also 

provide an update from the report’ s information cut-off date to the 

present on any developments within Iran’s ballistic missile program that would, at a minimum, contain the information required 

in section 1245(b)(4). 

Briefing on United States Unmanned Aerial System Export 

Requests 

The committee notes that in the context of the threat presented 

by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in the Middle 

East and elsewhere, coalition countries have requested specific U.S. 

military assets and assistance to support their efforts. The committee values the contributions of these countries and urges continued consideration of their requests. 

The committee recognizes that some of these coalition countries, 

including the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the United Arab 

Emirates, have requested Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) capability. 

The committee notes that appropriate transfers of UAS technology can help build the capacity of partner nation military forces, 

foster interoperability with the United States, support critical 

counterterrorism objectives, and sustain the defense industrial 

base. The Committee also supports expeditious interagency review 

of all letters of request or license applications for the export of such 

systems to these partners and allies in the Middle East whose military requirements demand assets that provide persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
238 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the Secretary of State, to provide a briefing, not later than 

September 15, 2015, to congressional defense and foreign relations 

committees on any UAS requests from Jordan and other Middle 

Eastern countries that are contributing to Operation Inherent Resolve. The briefing should include the dates that requests were received, specific issues under consideration, waiver recommendations, and expectations for completing the review for each request. 

Countering Russian propaganda 

The committee has watched with increasing concern the proliferation and expansion of Russian propaganda not only in Eastern 

Europe, but also throughout Central and Western Europe to levels 

not seen since the end of the Cold War. Russian-speaking populations in Eastern Europe in former Soviet Union nations, including North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, are especially vulnerable to propaganda that could be used to create more 

favorable conditions for future Russian aggression. Moreover, the 

sophistication and pervasiveness of outlets such as the Russia 

Today (RT) television network that broadcast in multiple languages 

in Western European democracies is cause for concern. 

The committee notes that Russian propaganda has promoted a 

false narrative on the nature, scope, and cause of the conflict in 

Crimea and eastern Ukraine and has unfortunately achieved some 

success with targeted audiences in obscuring attribution for Russian-driven aggression and disregard for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and international law. 

The committee recognizes that propaganda is a critical element 

of Russia’s ‘‘hybrid warfare’’ concept. The speed and reach of Russian propaganda and the ambiguity it creates pose a challenge to 

NATO collective defense and the political consensus upon which it 

relies. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to 

consult with the Secretary of State with the objective of developing 

a strategy, including supporting resources, to counter Russian 

propaganda in Europe. 

Designation of lead Inspector General for Overseas Contingency Operations in Afghanistan 

The committee supports the designation by the Chair of the 

Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency of a lead 

inspector general for overseas contingency operations for Operation 

Freedom’s Sentinel in Afghanistan on April 1, 2015, in compliance 

with section 8L of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 

App.), as amended by section 848 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239; 126 Stat. 

1851). 

The committee recognizes the importance of a lead inspector to 

coordinate and optimize the collection and reporting of information 

across agencies and inspectors general and the need to establish 

clear oversight by the appointment of such a lead inspector general 

as intended and required by section 848. The committee expects 

the lead inspector general to assist in the refinement of the size, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
239 

functions and purpose of the inspector general mission taking into 

consideration the reduction of United States forces in Afghanistan. 

Organizational management of Department of Defense security assistance programs 

At present, the Department of Defense’s (DOD) security assistance and security cooperation programs are overseen and implemented by a multiple offices, including the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (USD–P), the geographic combatant commands, the 

military services, the Joint Staff, and Undersecretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD–AT&L). The divergent lines of responsibility and reporting exacerbate DOD’s challenges in aligning security cooperation programs coherently in support of strategic defense objectives. No office or management official within OSD, underneath the level of the Secretary of Defense, 

has the authority to look across the security assistance and cooperation enterprise and make binding strategic decisions to align 

DOD’s policies and resources in a manner that is consistent with 

its strategic priorities and to curtail redundancy. 

The committee believes that efforts to date by the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense (OSD) to rationalize oversight and management of DOD security assistance and security cooperation programs across the Department have not gone far enough. DOD 

should reevaluate the organizational structure and responsibilities 

within OSD to streamline oversight and implementation responsibilities for DOD security assistance and cooperation activities. 

As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct an organizational review of security assistance and security 

cooperation program oversight and management responsibilities 

across DOD and, in particular, an examination of the distribution 

of resources and policy oversight responsibilities within OSD–P, 

and to submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the House 

of Representatives and the Senate a detailed summary of its findings no later than March 31, 2016. 

This review, at a minimum, should: (1) identify all security assistance and security cooperation programs available to the Department and the offices in DOD that are responsible for policy oversight, program management, and implementation of such programs; (2) review the roles and responsibilities for policy oversight, 

program management, and execution of security cooperation programs of relevant offices and components; (3) make recommendations to improve policy oversight and program management for 

DOD security assistance and security cooperation activities, which 

may include consolidation of oversight and management responsibilities into one functional office; (4) describe the processes for articulating security cooperation priorities, and aligning resources 

and activities with those priorities, across DOD and identify opportunities for improvement, where appropriate; (5) describe evaluation and monitoring mechanisms to assess security assistance and 

cooperation programs and ensure lessons learned and best practices are incorporated into program formulation and implementation; and (6) any other matters the Secretary determines to be appropriate to inform the committee of its findings and recommendations. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
240 

Report on capability of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to respond to unconventional or hybrid warfare 

tactics such as used by the Russian Federation in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine 

The committee is concerned about the capability of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to respond to unconventional or 

hybrid warfare tactics such as those used by the Russian Federation in Crimea and eastern Ukraine due to the ambiguous nature 

of those tactics and the resultant challenges of attribution. As such, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 

not later than September 1, 2016 to the congressional defense committees on recommendations for improving the alliance’s response 

options, decision-making processes and implementation timelines 

for addressing the use of unconventional or hybrid warfare tactics 

such as those used by the Russian Federation. The report should 

include: 

(1) An identification of the unconventional or hybrid tactics 

the Russian Federation may employ against NATO nations; 

(2) A consolidation of tactics identified pursuant to paragraph (1) into a set of possible scenarios to be used to analyze 

potential response options by NATO; 

(3) An assessment of the response options NATO could potentially pursue for each of the scenarios identified pursuant to 

paragraph (2); 

(4) Recommendations to improve response options, decisionmaking processes, and implementation timelines for the scenarios identified pursuant to paragraph (2); 

(5) An assessment of implementation by NATO of commitments made at the Wales Summit regarding the Readiness Action Plan; 

(6) Recommendations, if any, for exercises or mechanisms to 

improve the ability of NATO to consult and reach consensus in 

scenarios relating to the employment of unconventional or hybrid tactics; and 

(7) Such other matters as the Secretary considers appropriate. 

Support of foreign forces participating in operations against 

the Lord’s Resistance Army 

The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has perpetrated atrocities 

throughout central Africa for more than two decades, which have 

included murder, rape, and the abduction of children to serve as 

child soldiers. The committee notes the important progress the African Union Regional Task Force (AU–RTF) and other regional 

partners have made in combatting the threat posed by the LRA. 

These operations have resulted in the removal of several key LRA 

leaders and contributed to an increase in defections. The committee 

notes that support provided by the Department of Defense (DOD) 

under Operation Observant Compass (OOC) has played a key role 

in enabling counter-LRA operations. The committee further notes 

that section 1208 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) authorizes the Secretary of 

Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide 

logistic support, supplies, and services, and intelligence support to 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
241 

foreign forces participating in operations to mitigate and eliminate 

the threat posed by the LRA. The committee believes that continued DOD support, specifically additional enablers and actionable 

intelligence, is required to increase the effectiveness of partner operations to eliminate the threat posed by Joseph Kony and the LRA 

and encourages DOD to continue such assistance. 

United States-Indonesia military cooperation 

The committee notes Indonesia’s remarkable achievements as it 

has developed its economy, consolidated its democratic institutions, 

and improved its self-defense capabilities since the fall of the 

Suharto government in 1998. Furthermore, the committee acknowledges the progress the Indonesian government has made on human 

rights issues, including progress on civilian control over the military. The committee looks for Indonesia to continue improving its 

human rights record and building a more inclusive democratic 

process. As the largest country in Southeast Asia and the most 

populous Muslim-majority nation in the world, the committee believes Indonesia represents a critical partner for the United States 

in the Asia-Pacific region. 

The committee strongly supports President Jokowi’s declared vision of building Indonesia into a ‘‘global maritime axis.’’ The committee welcomes an Indonesia with the infrastructure, industrial 

base, training, and capabilities that will allow it to benefit from 

and contribute to regional maritime commerce and security. 

In the security domain, the committee notes that Indonesia has 

committed to a military modernization effort known as the Minimum Essential Force (MEF) through 2024. The MEF is focused on 

enhancing the naval and air force capabilities of the archipelagic 

state’s military (known as the Tentara Nasional Indonesia, or TNI) 

to address both traditional and nontraditional security concerns. 

Nevertheless, the committee understands Indonesia’s military modernization has suffered from a lack of resources, ill-equipped infrastructure, and aging defense research facilities. 

The committee recognizes that the United States-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership, signed in 2010, provides the relationship 

with a mechanism to help enhance Indonesia’s defense capabilities. 

The committee believes the Department of Defense (DOD) should 

consider all available opportunities to continue to expand the depth 

and breadth of the defense relationship. Specifically, the committee 

believes the United States should look to the following priorities: 

(1) Continue to deepen the military-military relationship in 

ways that effectively grow the organizations that enable the 

development, sustainment, and use of military power. Building 

such ties will require engagement both by senior leaders and 

at the working level. More specifically, the United States 

should focus on providing training to civilian and military officials to improve the management of full life-cycle costs of defense programs. In this regard, the committee is encouraged by 

the recent memorandum of understanding between the Indonesian Defense Minister and the Defense Institution Reform 

Initiative (DIRI); 

(2) Continue to utilize bilateral and multilateral exercises 

that enhance the TNI’s command, control, communications, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
242 

computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance 

(C4ISR) capabilities. In this regard, the committee sees value 

in expanding Indonesia’s participation in Cooperation Afloat 

Readiness and Training, Rim of the Pacific, and Red Flag exercises. Over the longer-term, exercises should work towards encouraging more joint operations between the various TNI services; 

(3) Emphasize Foreign Military Sales that will contribute to 

Indonesia’s naval, air, and C4ISR capabilities; and 

(4) Move to normalize relations between the United States 

military and the Indonesian Special Forces Command, 

Komando Pasukan Khusus (Kopassus), as it continues to improve its record on human rights. 

Therefore, the Secretary of Defense is directed to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate no later 

than December 30, 2015 on the DOD’s current and planned defense 

cooperation with Indonesia. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(243) 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT 

REDUCTION 

Subtitle A—Funding Allocations 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 

1301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would define the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds as 

authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill, and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 fiscal years. 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$358.5 million, the amount of the budget request, for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(245) 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Programs 

Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for the Defense Working Capital Funds at the levels 

identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for the National Defense Sealift Fund at levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 

1403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, 

Defense, at levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this 

Act. 

Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense-wide 

(sec. 1404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, 

Defense-wide, at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D 

of this Act. 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1405) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1406) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the Defense Health Program activities at the levels 

identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Other Matters 

Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility 

Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health 

Care Center, Illinois (sec. 1411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to transfer $120.4 million from the Defense 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
246 

Health Program to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of 

Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund created by 

section 1704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) for the operations of the Captain 

James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center. 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1412) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$64.3 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2016 for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home. 

Inspections of the Armed Forces Retirement Home by the 

Inspector General of the Department of Defense (sec. 

1413) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1518 of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 (24 

U.S.C. 418) to require the Inspector General of the Department of 

Defense to conduct an inspection of the Armed Forces Retirement 

Home not less than once every 3 years and to authorize the Inspector General to determine the scope of the inspection through a riskbased analysis of the operations of the home. The provision would 

also remove the requirement for the Inspector General to provide 

the report not later than 90 days after the inspection. 

Budget Items 

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase 

The budget request included $739.0 million in drug interdiction 

and counterdrug activities, of which $23.1 million is for U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) Central American and Caribbean CN 

Operation Support [Project Code (PC) 9493], and $13.7 million is 

for SOUTHCOM Section 1033 Support [PC9494]. SOUTHCOM has 

identified specific resource mission shortfalls that impact its detection and monitoring support to maritime interdiction operations in 

Central America. In written testimony submitted to the committee 

on March 12, 2015, General John Kelly, Commander of 

SOUTHCOM, stated that ‘‘homeland defense does not begin at the 

‘one yard line’ of our Southwest border, but instead extends forward, throughout the hemisphere, to keep threats far from our nation’s shores.’’ Further, the committee believes that increased support to detection, monitoring, and interdiction efforts in the region 

is required to combat the growth in trafficking of illicit drugs, such 

as heroin and methamphetamine, that is having a devastating impact on many U.S. communities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.7 million PC 9493 and $25.3 million for PC 9494 in drug interdiction 

and counterdrug activities for SOUTHCOM detection and monitoring and maritime interdiction support operations in Central 

America. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
247 

Drug Demand Reduction Program 

The budget request included $739.0 million for the Department 

of Defense’s (DOD) Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, 

Defense-wide, and $111.6 million for the DOD’s Drug Demand Reduction Program. The committee recommends a decrease of $8.0 

million in Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities, Defensewide, and increase of $8.0 million in Drug Demand Reduction Program. 

The committee supports the ongoing efforts of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to expand the existing Drug Demand Reduction Program testing program to include 

prescription and synthetic drugs. Further, the committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense to program funding for these activities in 

future years. 

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

The budget request included $5.1 billion in Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide of which $4.7 million was for the SAG 4GTV Office of the Inspector General (OIG). 

After discussions with the OIG, the committee understands that 

portions of this funding are no longer needed due to delays in program development. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $2.6 million in RDT&E for the SAG 4GTV DIG. Additionally, the committee strongly encourages the DODIG to take steps to improve the 

planning, programming, budgeting and execution associated with 

development of information technology systems and capabilities to 

support its mission, ensuring that these activities conform to best 

practices and can serve as a model for the Department of Defense. 

Department of Defense Inspector General procurement reduction 

The budget request included $5.1 billion in Procurement, Defense-wide of which $1.0 million was for SAG 4GTV Office of the 

Inspector General (OIG). 

After discussions with the OIG, the committee understands that 

the OIG has withdrawn its request for procurement funding for fiscal year 2016 based on the lack of identified need. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.0 million for the SAG 4GTV OIG. 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1406) 

The amount authorized to be funded for the Defense Health Program includes the following changes from the budget request. 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Reduction for combating antibiotic resistant bacteria .................... ¥16.5 

Total ............................................................................................. ¥16.5 

The committee recommends a reduction in the Defense Health 

Program of $16.5 million for combating antibiotic resistant bacteria 

to support the President’s global health security agenda initiative, 

which the committee did not adopt. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
248 

Foreign currency fluctuation deduction 

The budget request included $32.2 billion for Defense Health 

Program. 

The committee believes that when foreign currency fluctuation 

(FCF) rates are determined by the Department of Defense, the balance of the FCF funds should be considered, particularly if the balance is close to the cap of $970.0 million. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has informed the committee that as of March 

2015, the Department has not transferred in any prior year unobligated balances to replenish the account for fiscal year 2015 from 

a beginning balance of $970.0 million. GAO analysis projects that 

the Department will experience a net gain of $739.8 million in fiscal year 2015 due to favorable foreign exchange rates, of which 

$456.1 million is attributed to Operation and Maintenance (O&M). 

Additionally, GAO analysis projects the Department will experience 

a net gain of $891.4 million in fiscal year 2016 in FCF, of which 

$587.4 million is attributed to O&M. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $36.4 million from Defense Health Program for FCF. 

Items of Special Interest 

Clarification of funding available for additional support for 

counter-drug activities and activities to counter 

transnational organized crime 

The committee is concerned by the threat posed by transnational 

organized crime (TOC) to United States national security. Testimony before the committee by the Commander of U.S. Southern 

Command (SOUTHCOM) and the Commander of U.S. Northern 

Command (NORTHCOM) emphasized the increasingly complex and 

global nature of these illicit networks and highlighted that a wholeof-government approach is required to effectively counter the threat 

posed by TOC. The committee notes that the Strategy to Combat 

Transnational Organized Crime, released by the President on July 

19, 2011, sought to establish a framework for the United States to 

‘‘combat TOC networks that pose a strategic threat to Americans 

and to U.S. interests in key regions.’’ 

In recognition of this emerging security reality, section 1012 of 

the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense 

Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) 

amended the Department’s longstanding authority to provide support for counter-drug activities to other governmental agencies, 

commonly referred to as ‘‘section 1004,’’ to also include the authority to provide support to counter-TOC activities. It was the committee’s intent that funds under the drug interdiction and counter 

drug activities account, which have historically been available to 

support counterdrug activities under this authority, shall also be 

available to support counter-TOC activities authorized under the 

aforementioned section 1012 of Public Law 113–291. 

Comptroller General review of electronic waste recycling 

The committee notes that modern electronics used by the Department of Defense (DOD) may contain valuable, recyclable materials, 

including strategic and critical materials of rare earth elements. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
249 

The committee also notes that through the proper disposal of endof-life electronics, recyclable materials may be able to be reclaimed 

for use in DOD advanced technology programs and the National 

Defense Stockpile. The committee is interested in understanding 

more about how DOD plans for and executes the disposal and recycling of electronics. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to conduct an assessment of: (1) information on 

the disposition of used DOD electronics, including the volume of 

electronics that are recycled, reused, refurbished, and de-manufactured; (2) information on the value of all strategic and critical materials, including rare earth elements, recovered from recycled electronics used by DOD since fiscal year 2010; (3) information on the 

models used by DOD for the collection and capture of strategic and 

critical materials from used electronics, including any benefits and 

challenges associated with the models; and (4) an identification and 

assessment of potential opportunities for improving the efficiency 

and effectiveness of DOD efforts to recover strategic and critical 

materials from used DOD electronics. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a report to the committee no later than March 1, 2016. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(251) 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional Appropriations 

Purpose (sec. 1501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish this 

title and make authorization of appropriations available upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in addition to 

amounts otherwise authorized in this Act. 

Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations. 

Procurement (sec. 1503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriation for procurement activities at the levels 

identified in section 4102 of division D of this Act. 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1504) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriation for research, development, test, and evaluation activities at the levels identified in section 4202 of division 

D of this Act. 

Operation and Maintenance (sec. 1505) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for operation and maintenance activities 

at the levels identified in section 4302 of division D of this Act. 

Military personnel (sec. 1506) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for military personnel activities at the 

levels identified in section 4402 of division D of this Act. 

Working capital funds (sec. 1507) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the Defense Working Capital Funds 

at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. 

Drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-wide 

(sec. 1508) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the Drug Interdiction and CounterVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
252 

Drug Activities, Defense-Wide at the levels identified in section 

4502 of division D of this Act. 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of 

the Department of Defense identified in section 4502 of division D 

of this Act. 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1510) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the Defense Health Program activities 

identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. 

Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (sec. 1511) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the Counterterrorism Partnerships 

Funds at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this 

Act. Amounts authorized in this fund will be available for obligation for 2 fiscal years. 

Subtitle B—Financial Matters 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would state that the 

amounts authorized to be appropriated in this title are in addition 

to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by this Act. 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1522) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Sec- retary of Defense to transfer up to $4.0 billion of overseas contingency operation funding authorized for fiscal year 2016 in this title. 

This transfer authority would be in addition to the authority provided to the Secretary elsewhere in this Act. 

Subtitle C—Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

amounts authorized for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund 

(ASFF) for fiscal year 2016 continue to be subject to the conditions 

specified in subsections (b) through (g) of section 1513 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181), as amended. The provision would also extend the authority under subsection 1532(b) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. 

‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2015 (Public Law 113–291) to accept certain equipment procured 

using ASFF funds and to treat such equipment as Department of 

Defense stocks. 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund and would thereby 

provide the Secretary of Defense with the authority to investigate, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
253 

develop and provide equipment, supplies, services, training, facilities, personnel, and funds to assist in the defeat of improvised explosive devices for operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other 

operations or military missions designated by the Secretary. 

The committee notes that JIEDDO has continued to reduce its 

size from a peak of more than 4,200 personnel and a $4.5 billion 

annual budget to 1,100 personnel and $450.0 million, with plans to 

reduce further. The committee awaits the plan to consolidate and 

align all of the rapid acquisition or quick reaction capability organizations, including JIEDDO, and certain other organizations as directed in section 1533 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ 

McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 

(Public Law 113–291), and where appropriate to eliminate such organizations. 

The committee expects that the decision on JIEDDO’s disposition 

(consolidation with another defense agency, military service entity, 

or stand-alone organization) will be made as part of the Secretary’s 

review to streamline the Department of Defense management and 

operational headquarters. The streamlining of Department of Defense management and operational headquarters is described in 

another provision in title III of this Act. 

Availability of Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 

Fund funds for training of foreign security forces to defeat improvised explosive devices (sec. 1533) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to use up to $30.0 million of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2016 for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund to fund training activities for 

foreign security forces to increase the effectiveness of such forces 

in defeating improvised explosive devices. The provision would require such training be provided only pursuant to other provisions 

of law and also requires the Secretary of Defense to coordinate the 

provision of training to the extent practicable with requests received from the geographic combatant commander. 

The committee emphasizes the importance of ensuring that a 

flexible and responsive approval process is established to support 

the provision of this training. 

Budget Items 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund 

The budget request includes $493.3 million for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Fund, of which the request included $188.3 million Joint IED Defeat Organization’s (JIEDDO) 

staff and infrastructure account and $219.6 million for its network 

attack account. The committee recommends sustaining JIEDDO’s 

funding at fiscal year 2015 levels and therefore recommends a reduction of $43.8 million to JIEDDO’s staff and infrastructure account and $4.5 million to the network attack account. 

Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq 

The budget request included $9.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for overseas contingency operations, of 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
254 

which $204.7 million was for SAG 042G Other Servicewide Activities. 

The committee understands that this request included $143.0 

million to support operations and activities of the Office of Security 

Cooperation in Iraq. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $63.0 million for SAG 042G Other Service Activities due to a lack of justification in the budget request. 

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

The budget request included $1.7 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency for Overseas Contingency Operations, of which $1.3 

billion was for the reimbursement of key nations for support provided to or in connection with U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. The committee recommends a decrease of $100.0 million in 

OMDW as the number of U.S. forces and the scope of associated 

military operations in Afghanistan draws down. A provision related 

to the authorization for the use of such funds is included in title 

XII of this Act. 

Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund 

The budget request included $2.1 billion in overseas contingency 

operations funding for the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund 

(CTPF). The committee is concerned that the budget justification 

materials did not provide sufficient levels of detail to support the 

budget request. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction 

of $1.1 billion for CTPF. 

The committee continues to support the CTPF and the Department’s proposed regional approach for counterterrorism operations 

and building partnership capacity (BPC) activities described in the 

budget justification materials. The committee is concerned that the 

increase in requested funding for BPC efforts could outpace the 

ability of foreign partners to absorb and sustain the assistance beyond the logistic support provided under such BPC programs. As 

such, the committee encourages the Department to incorporate 

training of partner nation maintenance and logistic personnel to 

enhance the sustainability of capabilities provided through this 

program. Additionally, the committee directs that any proposal to 

undertake BPC activities using CTPF funding shall include a detailed sustainment plan for the capabilities to be provided, which 

should be broadly-vetted across the interagency. The plan should 

also include a description of the planned transition of sustainment 

responsibilities from CTPF-funded programs. 

Further, the committee notes with concern the growing malign 

influence of Iranian supported proxy militant groups throughout 

the Middle East and Africa, commonly referred to as the Iran 

Threat Network (ITN). These activities contribute to regional instability, undermine U.S. national security interests, and directly 

threaten U.S. partners in the affected regions. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to present a plan to counter 

the ITN to the committee by December 31, 2015. Further, the committee directs that up to $50.0 million of the funds authorized to 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
255 

be appropriated for the CTPF be made available to support 

counter-ITN efforts. 

In preparation for the fiscal year 2017 budget request, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and 

Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) to conduct a review of the feasibility and advisability of consolidating additional building partnership capacity funding, including non-counterterrorism related 

funding, into a building partner capacity fund and to provide a 

briefing to the congressional defense committees on their findings 

no later than November 30, 2015. 

Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative 

The budget request included no funding for a Ukraine Security 

Assistance Initiative. The committee recommends an increase of 

$300.0 million for this initiative. A provision related to the authorization for the use of such funds is included in title XII of this act. 

Items of Special Interest 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Analysis Tool 

The committee notes that the Army has decided not to field Joint 

Improvised Explosive Device Analysis Tool (JIST) software after 

spending more than $10.0 million developing it in conjunction with 

the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization 

(JIEDDO). While the committee understands that the Army intends to use an existing software program resident in the Distributed Common Ground Station-Army (DCGS–A) program to meet 

the requirement for counter-improvised explosive devices (IED) forensic analysis, the critical nature of the IED threat may demand 

a dedicated software analysis tool to meet certain intelligence analysis requirements. Therefore, the committee urges the Army to consider including IED forensic analysis tools as part of any planned 

DCGS–A Increment 2 competition. The committee requests that 

the Army keep the committee informed of its plan in this regard. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(257) 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, 

AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Space Activities 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President to establish an interagency process to develop a policy to 

deter adversaries in space. This integrated deterrence policy would 

be developed with the objectives of (1) reducing risks to the United 

States and its allies in space; and (2) protecting and preserving the 

rights, access, capabilities, use, and freedom of action of the United 

States in space and the right of the United States to respond to an 

attack in space and, if necessary, deny adversaries the use of space 

capabilities hostile to the national interests of the United States. 

The provision would require the President to provide a report setting forth the deterrence policy and the answers to Enclosure 1, regarding offensive space control policy, of the classified annex to this 

Act, to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives 

within 180 days of the date of enactment. If the report required 

and the answers to Enclosure 1 are not provided within 180 days 

of the date of enactment, the provision would prohibit, until provided, the obligation or expenditure of $10.0 million of the amounts 

authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the 

Department of Defense for fiscal year 2016 to provide support services to the Executive Office of the President. 

The committee is concerned that China and Russia have 

weaponized space and seek to gain an asymmetric advantage 

against the United States by holding United States space capabilities at risk. To counter growing Chinese and Russian aggression in 

space, the committee believes a multifaceted strategy will be necessary and that the deterrence policy that would be required by 

this provision is a critical element of that strategy. Elsewhere in 

the classified annex of this act, the committee discusses additional 

elements of that strategy. 

Elsewhere in this act, the committee recommends a provision prohibiting the obligation or expenditure of $10.0 million of the unobligated balance of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made 

available to the Department of Defense to provide support services 

to the Executive Office of the President, until the President submits to the congressional defense committees the integrated cyber 

deterrence policy required by section 941 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–61). The 

committee hopes including the funding limitation in this provision 

will incentivize the President to meet the deadline this provision 

would establish. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
258 

Principal advisor on space control (sec. 1602) 

The committee recommends a provision requiring the Secretary 

of Defense to designate an individual who is already a full time 

equivalent of the Department of Defense to serve as the Principal 

Space Control Advisor, who shall act as the principal advisor to the 

Secretary on space control activities. 

The committee believes that the space control mission will see 

significant growth in the coming years. The committee believes 

that because of the growing importance of space control capabilities, the establishment of a Principal Space Control Advisor would 

be necessary to coordinate and lead department-wide efforts, 

streamline decision making, and enhance the level of focus across 

the department and interagency. 

Exception to the prohibition on contracting with Russian 

suppliers of rocket engines for the Evolved Expendable 

Launch Vehicle program (sec. 1603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1608 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 

113–291; 128 Stat. 3626; 10 U.S.C. 2271 note) by adding a special 

rule for Phase 1A competitive opportunities. For not more than 

nine competitive Phase 1A launches, the special rule would allow 

the Secretary of Defense to award a contract requiring the use of 

a rocket engine designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation that is eligible for the existing waiver or exception requirements as specified in the existing statute. If a circumstance arises 

during the Phase 1A period where a launch provider is awarded a 

competitive contract and requires a rocket engine unable to meet 

the waiver or exception requirements, the provision would allow for 

the Secretary to waive the waiver or exception. In order to qualify 

for the new special rule, all engines that meet the waiver or exception of the existing statute must first be used. 

The committee notes that for the Phase 1A competitive period, 

this could result in as few as zero Russian rocket engines or up to 

nine, depending upon the outcome of the competitions. The committee believes that the continued use of Russian rocket engines 

represents a threat to our national security and that their use 

should be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. 

National Security Presidential Directive 40 states that Assured 

Access to Space is ‘‘a requirement for critical national security, 

homeland security, and civil missions and is defined as a sufficiently robust, responsive, and resilient capability to allow continued space operations, consistent with risk management and affordability. The Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as appropriate, are 

responsible for assuring access to space.’’ The committee notes that 

under section 1608, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is not prohibited from procuring launches that utilize rocket engines manufactured or designed in the Russian Federation. The committee also notes that NASA has contracts for numerous launches that rely on Russian rocket engines for the foreseeable future. While the committee does not condone the use of 

Russian rocket engines for NASA purposes, the committee recogVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00286 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
259 

nizes that assured access to space can still be met if a national 

emergency required the use of a NASA procured launch for Department of Defense purposes. 

Elimination of launch capabilities contracts under Evolved 

Expendable Launch Vehicle program (sec. 1604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of Defense from awarding a contract, renewing a contract, or maintaining a separate contract line item for the procurement of property or services for space launch capabilities under the 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. The provision would define space launch capabilities as work associated with 

supporting launch infrastructure maintenance and sustainment, 

program management, systems engineering launch site operations, 

launch site depreciation, and maintenance commodities. The provision would allow for the Secretary to waive the requirement and 

award a separate contract or maintain a separate contract line 

item for launch capabilities only if the Secretary determines and 

reports to the congressional defense committees 30 days prior to 

executing a waiver that: (1) awarding or renewing, or maintaining 

a separate contract line item for launch capabilities is necessary for 

the national security interests of the United States and the contract or contract line item does not support space launch activities 

using rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation; and (2) failing to award or renew such a contract or maintain such a contract line item would have significant consequences 

to national security and result in the significant loss of life or property or economic harm. The provision would not apply to the placement of orders or the exercise of options under the contract numbered FA8811–13–C–003 and awarded on December 18, 2013. That 

exception would expire on September 30, 2019. 

The EELV Launch Capability (ELC) was created in 2005 by the 

Air Force to augment a fragile domestic industrial base and maintain a national capability to launch national security payloads as 

set forth in National Security Presidential Directive-40 (NSPD–40). 

Since 2005, the Air Force has spent billions of dollars 

supplementing the infrastructure and capacity of the incumbent 

launch provider. Also since 2005, new launch providers have entered the market and created competition. The committee believes 

that with the introduction of space launch competition, launch capability subsidies inappropriately inhibit fair competition and are 

no longer necessary. The Commander of Air Force Space Command 

testified to this point before Congress on March 25, 2015 when he 

stated ‘‘I don’t think you can have fair competition with that contract in place.’’ To ensure a fair competitive environment in the future, the committee believes that all future competitive launch opportunities should require a bid price that provides a fully burdened launch service cost. 

The committee recognizes that a limited need for launch capability funding could arise in order to meet certain heavy launch requirements that are at significant near-term risk, since the incumbent launch provider announced its intention to no longer produce 

the Delta IV line of launch vehicles. The Delta IV rocket, which 

uses a rocket engine designed and manufactured in the United 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
260 

States, is being discontinued prior to its replacement with a new 

domestically sourced capability. This will leave the incumbent 

launch provider with only the Atlas V rocket, which uses a rocket 

engine designed and manufactured in the Russian Federation. The 

committee is troubled by the incumbent launch provider’s decision, 

given the billions of dollars the taxpayer has provided to the incumbent provider to maintain the capability. The committee also 

believes that this decision, which may be a result of the prospect 

of increasing space launch competition, should not create an impression of a lack of competition. 

Because of the unique role of the Delta IV in meeting our national security space requirements, the provision includes a limited 

national security waiver as long as the contract does not support 

space launch activities using rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation. 

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

The committee recommends a provision realigning the cost share 

of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Launch Capabilities (ELC) between the Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). The provision would require, for fiscal years 

2017, 2018, or 2019, that the Air Force request for ELC funding 

bear the same ratio to the total number of Air Force cores to be 

procured under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Launch 

Services (ELS). 

The committee is concerned that the existing Memorandum of 

Understanding between the Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), dated October 7, 2011 provides a disproportionate cost share agreement for the ELC of 75 percent costs to the 

Air Force and 25 percent of costs to the NRO. The committee believes that this cost share unfairly burdens the Air Force. For example, in fiscal year 2016 the Air Force request of five cores represents just 55.5 percent of the total number of cores requested. In 

fiscal year 2017, while the NRO projects a request of seven cores, 

the Air Force projects a request of just five cores, or only 42 percent of the total buy. The committee recognizes that actual launch 

capability costs in a given year may not be based on the ratio of 

ELS versus ELC, but believes basing the cost share on the actual 

number of cores procured in a given year is the most equitable way 

to share ELC requirements under the current block buy. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a provision 

that would prohibit the award of a new contract, the renewal of an 

existing contract, or maintaining a separate contract line item for 

ELC. The committee expects that after the current block buy, future EELV contracts will reflect the total cost of a launch under 

fully burdened launch services contracts. 

Inclusion of plan for development and fielding of a full-up 

engine in rocket propulsion system development program (sec. 1606) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1604 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
261 

113–291) to include a plan for the development and fielding of a 

full-up engine. The committee emphasizes the importance of expediting the developing of a rocket propulsion system by 2019, consistent with the requirements of section 1604. 

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

The committee recommends a provision prohibiting the use of 

funds authorized to be appropriated in fiscal year 2016 and any unobligated funds made available for appropriation in fiscal year 2015 

for the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) or the 

launch of Defense Meteorological Satellite Program satellite #20 

(DMSP–20) until the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff jointly certify to the congressional defense 

committees that: (1) relying on civil and international contributions 

to meet space-based environmental monitoring requirements is insufficient or is a risk to national security and launching DMSP–20 

will meet those requirements; (2) launching DMSP–20 is the most 

affordable solution to meeting requirements validated by the Joint 

Requirements Oversight Council; and (3) nonmaterial solutions 

within the Department of Defense, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), or National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA) are incapable of providing a solution 

for cloud characterization and theater weather requirements as 

validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. 

The committee understands that the Space Based Environmental 

Monitoring Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) assumed continued 

international support from a Geostationary European Weather Satellite over the Indian Ocean. With that assumption, the AOA concluded that DMSP–20 was not needed. The committee now understands that since the completion of that AOA, a decision was made 

by an international partner to no longer provide coverage over the 

Indian Ocean, leading to possibility of a weather gap as early as 

2017. While the committee believes a solution should be identified 

to address that gap, the committee is not convinced that launching 

DMSP–20 is the most cost effective solution. According to the Air 

Force, a satellite in geostationary orbit is ideal for meeting cloud 

characterization and theater weather requirements by providing 

updates to users every 30 minutes. Attempting to conduct the same 

cloud characterization and theater weather observations using 

DMSP–20 in Low-Earth Orbit requires multiple satellites and delivers updates to users once every 4 hours, an almost 90 percent 

reduction in capability. 

The committee believes that better alternatives to meeting the 

potential space weather gap exist and should be explored prior to 

spending between $400.0 million and $500.0 million to launch 

DMSP–20 later this decade. For example, the committee understands that the potential gap could be mitigated by simply relocating an existing on-orbit NOAA asset with excess capacity or by 

hosting appropriate electro-optical infrared sensors on future Department of Defense or commercial satellites. 

To evaluate these lower cost, higher value options, the committee 

directs the Comptroller General of the United States (GAO) to assess whether alternatives for addressing the potential Indian 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
262 

Ocean weather gap exist, and if so, whether those options would 

be less costly than launching DMSP–20. The committee directs 

GAO to report their findings in a briefing to the committee by no 

later than October 1, 2015. In their analysis, GAO should review 

any current or planned space systems of the Department of Defense (to include the National Reconnaissance Office), NASA, and 

NOAA. The committee directs the GAO to assess specifically 

whether the relocation of NOAA Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES), or the hosting of an appropriate 

electro-optical infrared sensor on an alternative Department of Defense or commercial satellite, could address any future gaps at a 

lower cost. 

Quarterly reports on Global Positioning System III space 

segment, Global Positioning System operational control 

segment, and Military Global Positioning System User 

Equipment acquisitions programs (sec. 1608) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to provide quarterly reports to the 

Comptroller General of the United States on the Global Positioning 

System III (GPS III) space segment, the Global Positioning System 

Operational Control Segment (GPS OCX), and the Military Global 

Positioning System User Equipment (MGUE) acquisition programs. 

The provision would require that each report include: (1) the status 

on cost, schedule, and performance; (2) a detailed description of any 

technical risk impacting cost, schedule, and performance; (3) any 

changes to program requirements; (4) an assessment of how risks 

are to be addressed and their associated costs; and (5) an assessment of the extent the segments are synchronized. The provision 

would require the Comptroller General to provide a briefing to the 

congressional defense committees within 30 days of receiving the 

first report and as necessary after subsequent reports. The reporting requirement would sunset on the date at which GPS III, GPS 

OCX, and MGUE reach their full operational capabilities. 

The committee is concerned the GPS III and GPS OCX programs 

are facing a number of development issues that have resulted in 

significant cost increases and schedule delays. According to Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates, GPS III is currently 

$471.0 million (11 percent) over its initial total program cost estimate and the first GPS III satellite is not scheduled to launch until 

January 2016, a 21 month delay. Similarly, GPS OCX is failing to 

meet many of its cost and schedule requirements. According to 

GAO, the GPS OCX Block 0 delivery has been delayed until April 

2016, and the program is not expected to meet its initial operational capability until January 2020, a 53 month delay. According 

to a recent GAO assessment, MGUE is accelerating risk reduction 

efforts in software and security certification. However, there is concern given a November 2014, Office of Test and Evaluation assessment that found that MGUE’s development maturity was overstated and that the program has asserted technical maturity not 

yet demonstrated. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
263 

Plan for consolidation of acquisition of commercial satellite 

communications services (sec. 1609) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space to submit by 

January 31, 2016 a plan to the congressional defense committees 

for consolidating the acquisition of commercial satellite communications (COMSATCOM) services from across the Department of Defense into a program office in the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center. The plan would require consolidation to take place 

within a 3-year period. It would also require an assessment of the 

current management and overhead costs, a projection of the consolidated management and overhead costs, and an estimate of the 

cost of consolidation. The provision would require the Director of 

Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to review and validate 

each of the estimates. 

In the Senate report to accompany S. 1197 (S. Rpt. 113–44) of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66), the committee required the Secretary of Defense 

to provide a report detailing a 5-, 10-, and 25-year strategy for 

using an appropriate mix of Department of Defense and 

COMSATCOM bandwidth. That plan was provided to the committee in August 2014. In the plan’s discussion on demand predictions, it described the choices the Department must weigh in determining the appropriate mix between military satellite communications (MILSATCOM) satellites and the purchase of affordable 

COMSATCOM services. For years, the purchase of COMSATCOM 

services has been highly inefficient, and the committee believes 

that there are a number of approaches being considered to enhance 

efficiency, such as the establishment of a COMSATCOM working 

capital fund. The committee believes that if efficiencies can also be 

gained by consolidating the acquisition of all COMSATCOM services into a program office co-located with the MILSATCOM program office at the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, 

then such moves should be considered. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

council to review and be responsible for the Department of Defense 

positioning, navigation, and timing enterprise, including positioning, navigation, and timing services provided to civil, commercial, scientific and international users. This council would terminate 10 years after the date of enactment. 

Analysis of Alternative for Wide-band Communications (sec. 

1611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require an 

analysis of alternatives for the replacement of the Wideband Global 

Satellite System with a report due to the congressional defense 

committees by March 31, 2017. The analysis shall take into account future bandwidth of space, air, and ground communications 

systems. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
264 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1605 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 

113–291) to include improvements in communications capability as 

a goal of pilot programs for commercial satellite communications. 

The committee notes the effort the Department has made towards pathfinder pilot projects for satellite communications capability. However, the committee is concerned that the Department 

is focused solely on savings for legacy satellite communication capability and not also seeking to achieve potential order-of-magnitude improvements in satellite capability at current or lower 

costs. For example, the Department should consider pilot projects 

that address the growing demand for full-motion video in support 

of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) platforms 

used by combatant commanders. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to prepare 

a briefing or a report to the committee no later than June 30, 2016 

on the status and plans for this pilot program. 

Streamline commercial space launch activities (sec. 1613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of 

Defense, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, the commercial space sector, and the heads of 

other executive agencies as appropriate to report annually on actions taken to remove duplication and minimize inconsistencies 

across the federal government for commercial space launch requirements and approval. The report shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees, the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science and Transportation and the House Committee on Science, 

Space and Technology. 

Subtitle B—Cyber Warfare, Cyber Security, and Related 

Matters 

Authorization of Military Cyber Operations (sec. 1621) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to develop, prepare, coordinate, and (when authorized by the President to do so) to conduct a military cyber operation in response to malicious cyber activity carried out against the 

United States or a United States person by a foreign power (as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 

1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801)). 

The committee is concerned by the growing number and severity 

of malicious cyber activities being carried out against the United 

States and its interests. The committee is also concerned that failing to impose meaningful consequences on those seeking to harm 

the United States through the cyber domain will embolden our adversaries and lead to more severe attacks in the future. The committee believes that the fielding of a well-trained and highly-capable cyber force is fundamental to the national security of the 

United States and the deterrence of future cyber conflict. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
265 

Designation of Department of Defense entity responsible for 

acquisition of critical cyber capabilities (sec. 1622) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to designate within 90 days of the date of enactment an entity of the Department of Defense (DOD) to be responsible for the acquisition of critical cyber capabilities to include: 

(1) the unified platform, (2) a persistent cyber training environment, and (3) a cyber situational awareness and battle management system. 

The committee believes these cyber acquisitions are foundational 

capabilities that are essential to the equipping of the Cyber Mission Force. The committee is disappointed that the DOD has not 

made sufficient progress in recognizing the need for these capabilities, developing requirements for them, designating responsibilities 

for acquiring them, and requesting funding for them in the fiscal 

year 2016 budget request. The committee urges the Secretary to 

quickly designate an entity of the DOD to execute these acquisitions as programs of record, and to ensure that they are properly 

resourced and prepared to proceed as expeditiously as possible. The 

committee also expects that if United States Cyber Command 

(CYBERCOM) is not designated as the responsible entity, 

CYBERCOM will be an active participant in all significant programmatic decisions with the designated DOD entity regarding acquisition programs for which the Command is a customer. 

The committee is concerned there are urgent needs for cyber capabilities that are not being fulfilled by DOD’s acquisition process 

or by the military services. The committee has long been concerned 

that traditional acquisition practices and existing acquisition statutes and regulations lack the flexibility, agility, and speed necessary to deliver cyber capabilities responsively enough to stay 

ahead of the rapidly evolving threat. The committee has enacted 

legislation that invited the Department to construct a tailored 

cyber acquisition process to match this threat, with meager results 

thus far. The committee encourages the Secretary to consider 

whether traditional service-led acquisition strategies are appropriate for the development of these foundational capabilities. 

Elsewhere, in Title VIII of this act, the committee recommends 

a provision that would grant the Commander of CYBERCOM the 

authority to conduct acquisition activities. The committee believes 

that there is a class of cyber tools, applications, and other tailored 

capabilities, beyond the large scale efforts identified in this provision, that traditional service-led acquisition processes cannot support in operationally responsive timeframes. For such cyber operations-peculiar equipment and capabilities, the committee believes 

the Commander of CYBERCOM is uniquely positioned to identify, 

acquire, and field those tools and applications that require significant tailoring and customization. 

The committee notes that the ability of CYBERCOM, or the services and defense agencies, to quickly acquire and integrate new 

tools, applications, and weapons depends on the quality of the design and engineering of the foundational capabilities addressed in 

this provision. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
266 

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

1623) 

Section 941 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014 (127 Stat. 837; Public Law 113–66), required the President to establish an interagency process to provide for the development of an integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace. 

The provision required the President, not later than 270 days after 

the date of enactment, which occurred on December 26, 2013, to 

submit to the congressional defense committees a report setting 

forth that integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace. 

The report required has not been provided. 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of $10.0 million of the unobligated balance of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to 

the Department of Defense to provide support services to the Executive Office of the President, until the President submits to the 

congressional defense committees the report required by section 

941 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

Authorization for procurement of relocatable Sensitive 

Compartmented Information Facility (sec. 1624) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $10.6 million of the unobligated amounts made available in fiscal 

years 2014 and 2015 for the Army for the procurement of a 

relocatable Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) 

for the Cyber Center of Excellence at Fort Gordon, Georgia. The Department of Defense requested $10.6 million, on behalf of 

the Army, on February 6, 2015, for a new start approval to transfer 

funding to procure six SCIF-level classrooms. According to the 

reprogramining documentation (DoD Serial Number FY 15–06PA) 

provided to the committee, the Army has a new requirement for 

the Cyber Center of Excellence at Fort Gordon, Georgia to establish 

a cyber-school in fiscal year 2015 for which six SCIF-level classrooms will be necessary to support the anticipated training 

throughput. 

The committee strongly supports the rapid development and deployment of a well-trained and highly capable Cyber Mission Force. 

However, the committee believes requests for new-start authorizations through the reprograming process should be limited only to 

the most urgent circumstances and should be directly linked to an 

urgent warfighting need as identified by a combatant commander 

or the Joint Chiefs of Staff through an urgent operational needs or 

similar request. While the reprogramming request did not reach 

that threshold, the committee does believe the request has merit 

and meets validated requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends it be authorized in this Act. 

Evaluation of cyber vulnerabilities of major weapon systems 

of the Department of Defense (sec. 1625) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to evaluate the cyber vulnerabilities of every 

major Department of Defense weapons system by not later than 

December 31, 2019. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
267 

The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to develop 

a plan, within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, identifying 

the weapons systems that will be evaluated and an estimate of the 

funding required for conducting the assessments. The provision 

would require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 

prioritize the order of system evaluations based on the criticality 

of each major weapon system, the employment of forces, and 

threats. The provision would require that the assessments build 

upon and not be duplicative of ongoing efforts such as the Navy’s 

‘‘Task Force Cyber Awakening’’ and the Air Force’s ‘‘Task Force 

Cyber Secure.’’ The provision would require the Secretary to keep 

the congressional defense committees regularly apprised of the activities underway, to include the number of completed evaluations 

and the number of evaluations remaining. The provision would require the Secretary to develop strategies for mitigating the risks of 

cyber vulnerabilities to major weapons systems. The provision 

would also authorize $200.0 million to begin the cyber 

vulnerabilities assessments in fiscal year 2016. 

The committee believes that this evaluation should cover all 

major weapons systems and that exceptions should be limited. Any 

decision to exempt a particular weapons system from being evaluated requires a certification to the congressional defense committees that an assessment is not necessary because a cyber vulnerability would have minimal operational impact. 

Assessment of capabilities of United States Cyber Command 

to defend the United States from cyber attack (sec. 1626) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Principal Cyber Advisor (PCA) to sponsor an independent panel to 

assess the ability of the National Mission Forces of the U.S. Cyber 

Command (CYBERCOM) to reliably prevent or block large-scale attacks on the United States by foreign powers with capabilities comparable to those of countries like China, Iran, North Korea and 

Russia in the 2020 and 2025 timeframes. 

In addition, the provision would require the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, in consultation with the PCA, to conduct a series of war games through the Warfighting Analysis Division of the 

Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment Directorate of the 

Joint Staff to assess the strategy, assumptions, and capabilities of 

CYBERCOM to prevent large-scale cyber attacks by foreign powers 

with the capabilities described above. 

The provision requires that the results of these assessments be 

conveyed to Congress not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) published a new Cyber Strategy document in April, 2015. The document states that ‘‘If directed 

by the President or the Secretary of Defense, the U.S. military may 

conduct cyber operations to counter an imminent or on-going attack 

against the U.S. homeland or U.S. interests in cyberspace. The purpose of such a defensive measure is to blunt an attack and prevent 

the destruction of property or the loss of life.’’ The document acknowledges that ‘‘the Defense Department’s capabilities cannot 

necessarily guarantee that every cyberattack will be denied successfully,’’ and emphasizes the necessity for DOD to improve its inVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00295 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
268 

telligence capabilities to anticipate threats, and gain knowledge of 

‘‘key adversary human and technical networks.’’ The document also 

states that DOD will conduct an ‘‘annual comprehensive review of 

DOD’s defend the nation capabilities.’’ 

The committee concurs that it is critical for the leadership of the 

executive branch and Congress to gain an understanding of the 

prospects for blunting and preventing destructive cyber attacks. 

Independent assessments need to be part of this process. 

Biennial exercises on responding to cyber attacks against 

critical infrastructure (sec. 1627) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct national-level cyber exercises not 

less frequently than once every 2 years for a period of 6 years. In 

preparing and executing these exercises, the Secretary would be required to coordinate with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the 

Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI, and the 

heads of the critical infrastructure sector-specific agencies designated under Presidential Policy Directive 21. The Secretary also 

would be required to consult with governors of the States and the 

owners and operators of critical infrastructure. The exercises would 

be based on scenarios in which critical infrastructure is attacked 

through cyberspace and the President directs the Secretary to defend the Nation and to provide support to civil authorities in responding and recovering from the attacks. 

The provision specifies that the purposes of the exercises are to 

(1) improve cooperation and coordination across the government 

and industry; (2) develop and practice command and control, communications and information sharing processes and capabilities; (3) 

identify gaps and problems requiring new or enhanced training, capabilities, procedures, or authorities; and (4) identify interdependencies, strengths, and weaknesses. 

The provision also would require the Secretary to vary, from exercise-to-exercise, the assumptions and conditions for the exercise, 

including (1) the size, scope, duration, and sophistication of the 

simulated cyber attacks; (2) the degree of warning and knowledge 

about the attack and the means used, as well as the degree of delegation of authority from the President to react, including with preplanned responses; (3) the effectiveness of United States Cyber 

Command’s National Mission Forces in preempting, blunting, and 

defeating attacks, including through the use of offensive capabilities; (4) the effectiveness of attacks on critical infrastructure; and 

(5) the effectiveness of resilience and recovery mechanisms. 

Finally, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 

coordinate with interagency partners to develop equitable costsharing agreements for the exercises. 

The committee believes that the complexity of cross-jurisdictional 

coordination required to react to serious cyber attacks on the Nation demands the types of exercises mandated by this provision. It 

is imperative that federal agencies, States, and the private sector 

not only understand their own roles and missions, but become more 

capable through the practice of effective joint operations. It is imperative, too, for all elements of this integrated team to understand 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
269 

the challenges and limitations facing the Nation in preventing attacks from reaching critical infrastructure. 

Subtitle C—Nuclear Forces 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to designate a senior acquisition official 

responsible for ensuring the procurement and integration of Air 

Force Nuclear, Command and Control (NC3) Systems. The Air 

Force is responsible for over 70 percent of the Department’s NC3 

systems, which communicate with high reliability across space, air 

and ground environments. However, as the NC3 system begins 

modernization there have been examples where integration has 

failed. The Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite System 

was developed independently of its terminal—the Family of Beyond 

Line of Sight Terminal (FAB–T), which is to be placed on ground 

and aircraft command posts as well as long range bombers. The result is that the satellite system is now deploying with its terminal 

system for command posts well behind in acquisition and even further behind for the bomber aircraft. The individual appointed by 

the Secretary of the Air Force shall be responsible long range system planning and procurement of this highly redundant and interconnected communications system to avoid future FAB–T failures. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to review the Department of Defense’s approach for addressing the recommendations included in reports stated below, as well as subsequent recommendations of the Office of Cost Analysis and Performance Evaluation 

(CAPE), which is charged with monitoring these and subsequent 

recommendations resulting from the meetings of the Nuclear Deterrence Enterprise Group (NDERG). 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide an initial assessment in the form of a briefing, to be followed by a written report, to the congressional defense committees no later than 

February 12, 2016 that addresses the following: 

(1) To what extent has the Department of Defense (DOD) established a process to implement the recommendations in the 

reports and subsequent recommendations of the NDERG; 

(2) To what extent has DOD established a process to track 

the Department’s progress in implementing these recommendations as well as provide an annual updated list of such recommendations; 

(3) To what extent has the CAPE Office determined whether 

each recommendation has been effective; and 

(4) Any related matters the Comptroller General deems appropriate in consultation with the congressional defense committees. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
270 

The committee notes that the Independent Review of the Department of Defense Nuclear Enterprise Report (June 2014) and the Internal Assessment of the Department of Defense Nuclear Enterprise examined the nuclear deterrent mission in the Department of 

Defense and identified leadership, organization, investment, morale, policy, procedural, and other shortcomings that are adversely 

impacting the mission. The report included recommendations to address the Department’s management of nuclear personnel, security 

requirements for nuclear weapons, and the availability of key 

equipment and support parts, among other issues. The Department 

has stated that the budget request includes additional investments 

to address these recommendations, identifying over $1.0 billion for 

fiscal year 2016 and nearly $8.5 billion from fiscal years 2016– 

2020. DOD has also established the NDERG to monitor implementation of the recommendations included in the nuclear enterprise 

review report. 

Assessment of global nuclear environment (sec. 1633) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Department of Defense Director of Net Assessment, in coordination 

with the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, to conduct an assessment of the global security environment with respect to nuclear 

weapons and the role of United States nuclear forces, policy, and 

strategy in that environment. Not later than November 15, 2016, 

the Director of Net Assessment shall submit to the congressional 

defense committees a report on its findings. The assessment should 

include experts outside the Department of Defense with particular 

emphasis on those individuals and independent institutions with 

demonstrated expertise in strategy and net assessment methodology. 

The committee notes that the nuclear competition has become 

both different and in some ways more complex than was the case 

during the Cold War, which was essentially a bipolar nuclear competition between the United States and Soviet Union. 

There is significant risks to the security and safety of the U.S. 

homeland and U.S. military assets should nuclear deterrence fail 

in this changing nuclear competition environment. Over the past 

quarter century new nuclear powers have emerged. North Korea is 

now a nuclear-armed state, and Iran has consistently sought to acquire a nuclear capability. A regional nuclear competition has 

emerged in South Asia between India and Pakistan. Another may 

soon emerge in the Middle East, potentially a multilateral competition. There are concerns that a nuclear-armed Iran may trigger a 

nuclear proliferation cascade across the Middle East, involving 

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and perhaps other states as well. As the 

United States and Russia have reduced their arsenals to levels far 

below those of the Cold War, the barrier to entry to great power 

nuclear status has been lowered to levels that could tempt other 

nuclear powers to increase their arsenals to these lesser ‘‘superpower’’ levels. Such a multipolar nuclear competition would likely 

be characterized by an intense ‘‘n-player’’ or multipolar competition 

to gain advantage, increasing uncertainty over the nuclear military 

balance, and crisis instability. The proliferation of nuclear weapons 

to states whose strategic decision making and crisis response sysVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00298 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
271 

tems are quite different from our own raises concerns regarding 

how leaders in these states would calculate cost, benefit, and risk 

when it comes to decisions about use of nuclear weapons. 

The character of the nuclear competition is undergoing a fundamental and potentially dangerous shift with respect to the security 

of the United States, its allies, and partners. Therefore, there is a 

need for a thorough net assessment of the new nuclear environment, which objective should be to minimize the risk to key U.S. 

security interests. Such an assessment should involve the following: 

(1) A statement of U.S. vital security interests, both near 

term and long term, that could be significantly affected by the 

competition among current and potential future nuclear powers; 

(2) An examination of how the other current and prospective 

nuclear powers view nuclear weapons, to include their rationale for maintaining a nuclear arsenal, the role nuclear weapons 

play in advancing their geopolitical objectives, their nuclear 

doctrine, the circumstances under which they would employ 

nuclear weapons, and how; 

(3) An evaluation of key trends in nuclear force developments, to include weapons and delivery systems, among existing and prospective nuclear powers; 

(4) An identification and analysis of other key military capabilities that exert significant influence on the nuclear competition, to include early warning and command and control systems; conventional precision strike (with emphasis on prompt 

global strike); advanced air and missile defenses; cyber weapons and cyber defenses; and emerging capabilities that could 

significantly influence the competition, such as directed-energy 

systems; 

(5) An examination of the geographic factors affecting the 

competition, particularly those that affect early/attack warning 

and those that could find nuclear strikes transiting the sovereign territory of third-party states, to include space over 

flight; and 

(6) An analysis of the dynamics of multipolar or ‘‘n-player’’ 

nuclear competitions involving three or more nuclear powers. 

(7) The risk and probability of nuclear deterrence failing 

measured in percent per year of annualized risk through different failure modes (a nuclear terrorist event, a tactical nuclear attack, a strategic nuclear attack), an event tree analysis 

of deterrence failure modes, and the uncertainty in those probabilities and ways to reduce that uncertainty. 

In the course of addressing these factors, such an assessment 

should develop and analyze a range of contingencies/scenarios 

ranging from crises that examine short-term factors, to the characteristics of a long-term competition. These contingencies and/or scenarios should include crises emerging from the ongoing competition 

in the near-to-mid term future, out to 10 years, involving: 

(1) The United States and individual nuclear powers; 

(2) The United States and multiple nuclear powers; 

(3) Two other nuclear powers; 

(4) Three or more other nuclear powers; and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
272 

(5) Regional and cross-regional geography, to include contingencies/scenarios in Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, and 

East Asia, and contingencies/scenarios that transcend regions 

(e.g., South and East Asia). While conducting the assessment, 

the committee expects the Director of Net Assessment to assume that the size and characteristics of U.S. nuclear forces remains largely unchanged from its current form. However, the 

Director may consider alternative configurations of U.S. nuclear forces, insofar as doing so is relevant and beneficial to the 

required analysis. 

Deadline for Milestone A decision on Long-Range Standoff 

Weapon (sec. 1634) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to make a Milestone A decision on the LongRange Standoff Weapon no later than May 31, 2016. 

Availability of Air Force procurement funds for certain commercial off-the-shelf parts for intercontinental ballistic 

missiles fuzes (sec. 1635) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$13.7 million in Missile Procurement, Air Force, for the procurement of covered parts pursuant to contracts entered into under section 1645 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 

113–291; 128 Stat.) 

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

The committee recommends a provision which states the sense of 

the Congress that retaining all three legs of the nuclear triad is the 

highest priority mission of the Department of Defense and will best 

maintain strategic stability at a reasonable cost, while hedging 

against potential technical problems and vulnerabilities. The provision would state that it is the policy of the United States to sustain 

and modernize or replace the triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems, including heavy bombers equipped with nuclear gravity 

bombs and air-launched nuclear cruise missiles; land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles; and ballistic missile submarines 

equipped with submarine launched ballistic missiles. The provision 

would also state that it is the policy of the United States to operate, sustain, and modernize or replace a capability to forward-deploy nuclear weapons and dual capable fighter-bomber aircraft. The 

committee believes these capabilities serve to deter potential adversaries and assure allies and partners of the United States through 

a strong and long-term commitment to the nuclear deterrent of the 

United States to achieve a modern and responsive nuclear infrastructure to support the full spectrum of deterrence requirements. 

Subtitle D—Missile Defense Programs 

Plan for expediting deployment time of continental United 

States interceptor site (sec. 1641) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for expediting the deployVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00300 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
273 

ment time for a potential future continental United States interceptor site by at least 2 years, and submit to the congressional defense committees a report on such plan not later than 30 days after 

the transmittal of the environmental impact assessment required 

by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. 

The committee notes that the environmental impact study for the 

four sites being examined for a potential continental United States 

interceptor site is scheduled to be completed in 2016. According to 

the Missile Defense Agency, should the decision be made to move 

forward with an additional interceptor site, the overall timeline to 

achieve Initial Operational Capability is approximately 5 years. 

The committee is concerned that this timeline may be too lengthy 

if necessary to react to the deployment of intercontinental-range 

ballistic missiles in Iran. In such a circumstance, it would be advantageous to understand if, and how, an additional interceptor 

site in the United States could be made operational in 3 years or 

less. Such an assessment may include a description of legislative 

and administrative actions that may be necessary to shorten the 

deployment time and any acquisition risks associated with a shorter deployment time. 

The provision would also require the Comptroller General to assess the Department’s report on the deployment plan and submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees with findings and 

recommendations. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of the Missile Defense Agency, in cooperation with the relevant combatant command, to deploy by not later than December 

31, 2020, a long-range discrimination radar or other appropriate 

tracking and discrimination sensor capabilities in a location optimized to support the defense of the homeland of the United States 

against emerging long-range ballistic missile threats from Iran. 

The committee notes that the currently deployed ground-based 

midcourse missile defense system protects the entire United States 

homeland, including the East Coast, against the threat of limited 

ballistic missile attack from North Korea and Iran. In testimony to 

the committee on March 25, 2015, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency stated, ‘‘the discrimination capability of the system’’ 

is one of the ‘‘two fundamental means for improving homeland missile defense capability and capacity.’’ Furthermore, according to the 

Director of the Missile Defense Agency, long-range discrimination 

radar will provide larger hit assessment coverage, thereby enabling 

improved warfighting capabilities to manage ground-based interceptor inventory and improve the capacity of the ballistic missile 

defense system. The Department of Defense will deploy by 2020 a 

new midcourse tracking radar to provide persistent coverage and 

improve discrimination capabilities against threats to the United 

States homeland from the Pacific, an action this committee endorses. 

According to testimony before the committee by the Principal 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Iran has the ‘‘means 

and motivation to develop longer-range missiles, including an 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
274 

ICBM. Iran publically stated that it intends to launch a spacelaunch vehicle as early as this year capable of intercontinental 

ranges, if configured as such.’’ Accordingly, this committee believes 

that additional missile defense sensor discrimination capabilities 

are needed to enhance the protection of the United States homeland against long-range ballistic missiles from Iran. 

Air defense capability at North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

missile defense sites (sec. 1643) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the relevant combatant command, should ensure that arrangements are in place, including support from North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, to provide anti-air defense capability at all NATO missile defense sites in support of phases 2 

and 3 of the European Phased Adaptive Approach. Not later than 

30 days after a site achieves full operating capability, the Secretary 

of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a 

report describing the plan of the Secretary to provide anti-air defense capability at the site. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $41.4 million for the Department of Defense to provide to the Government of Israel to procure the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system, including for co-production of Iron Dome parts and 

components in the United States by United States industry. The 

provision would also provide that these funds shall be available 

subject to the terms and conditions in the ‘‘Agreement Between the 

Department of Defense and the Ministry of Defense of the State of 

Israel Concerning Iron Dome Defense System Procurement,’’ signed 

on March 5, 2014, subject to an amended agreement to be negotiated for co-production of Iron Dome radar components. 

The provision would also require that not later than 30 days 

prior to the initial obligation of funds, the Director of the Missile 

Defense Agency and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall jointly submit to the congressional defense committees a certification that the agreement specified above is being implemented and an assessment detailing any 

risks relating to the implementation of the agreement. 

Israeli cooperative missile defense program codevelopment 

and potential coproduction (sec. 1645) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$150.0 million for the Missile Defense Agency to provide to the 

Government of Israel to procure the David’s Sling Weapon System 

and $15.0 million for the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor program, 

including for co-production of parts and components in the United 

States by United States industry. 

The funds may be disbursed after certain conditions, which include a certification by the Director of the Missile Defense Agency 

and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics, that the United States has entered into a bilateral 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
275 

agreement with the Government of Israel that accomplishes the following: (1) Establishes the terms of co-production of parts and components; (2) establishes complete transparency on the Israeli requirement for the number of interceptors and batteries; (3) allows 

the Director of the Missile Defense Agency and Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to establish technical milestones for co-production and procurement and establish 

joint approval processes for third party sales; and (4) in the case 

of co-production for the David’s Sling Weapon System, not less than 

half of such co-production is carried out by the United States. 

Development and deployment of multiple-object kill vehicle 

for missile defense of the United States homeland (sec. 

1646) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of the Missile Defense Agency to conduct rigorous flight 

testing of the multi-object kill vehicle by not later than 2020 and 

field such vehicle as soon as technically practicable. The provision 

would also direct that the management of the multi-object kill vehicle program shall report directly to the Deputy Director of the Missile Defense Agency. 

The Director of the Missile Defense Agency testified before this 

committee that ‘‘these multi-object kill vehicles will revolutionize 

our missile defense architecture, substantially reducing the interceptor inventory required to defeat an evolving and more capable 

threat to the homeland.’’ The committee also observes that the 

Commander, U.S. Northern Command, testified before the committee that the multiple-object kill vehicle concept is one of his top 

missile defense priorities. 

The Missile Defense Agency will begin concept definition of a 

multiple-object kill vehicle leading to a Milestone A technology 

maturation and risk reduction decision in fiscal year 2017. According to briefings provided to committee staff on February 20, 2015, 

by the Missile Defense Agency, a prototype could be available in 

the fiscal year 2020 to 2022 timeframe, with fielding sometime in 

the post-2025 period. The committee believes that the multiple-object kill vehicle could contribute critical capabilities to the future 

of the ballistic missile defense of the United States homeland, particularly against the evolving threats from North Korea and Iran. 

Requirement to replace capability enhancement I 

exoatmospheric kill vehicles (sec. 1647) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of the Missile Defense Agency to ensure, to the maximum 

extent practicable, that all remaining ground-based interceptors 

(GBIs) of the ground-based midcourse defense system that are 

armed with the capability enhancement I exoatmposheric kill vehicle are replaced with the redesigned exoatmospheric kill vehicle 

(RKV) before September 30, 2022. 

The committee supports the Missile Defense Agency’s plan to develop an RKV that increases reliability, performance, producibility, 

and affordability. As required by section 1663 of the Carl Levin and 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291), the committee agrees on 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
276 

the need for a rigorous acquisition process, including prototype 

testing, to ensure that the RKV works in an operationally effective 

and cost-effective manner. 

The committee notes that according to written testimony by the 

Director of the Missile Defense Agency, ‘‘upgrading the kill vehicle 

on the GBI and enhancing the homeland defense sensor network 

are higher priorities and prerequisites for improving protection 

against limited ICBM attack,’’ and that initial deployment of the 

RKV is anticipated in 2020. Given the planned availability of the 

RKV in 2020, the committee believes it could be feasible to replace 

the remaining 17 capability enhancement I exoatmospheric kill vehicles within 2 years, or by 2022. The committee notes that emplacement of the capability enhancement II exoatmospheric kill vehicles will take place at the rate of 8 to 10 per year in 2015, 2016 

and 2017, demonstrating that it could be possible to increase the 

rate of production for the RKV to stay ahead of the North Korean 

and potential Iranian ICBM threat. 

Airborne boost phase defense system (sec. 1648) 

The committee notes that in his speech of March 17, 2015, Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work highlighted the challenge of 

developing a low-cost way to defeat inbound missile raids. According to Deputy Secretary of Defense Work, ‘‘this doesn’t have to entail a kinetic solution—in fact, shooting down incoming missiles 

with our own missiles can put us on the wrong side of the cost imposition equation. We need to come up with other ideas to defeat 

this threat.’’ Likewise, the Commander, U.S. Northern Command, 

said on April 7, 2015, ‘‘if I had one more dollar to do ballistic missile defense . . . I would put it against those technologies that 

allow us to get to the correct side of the cost curve,’’ and ‘‘we need 

to be able to start knocking them down in the boost phase . . . and 

not rely on the midcourse phase where we are today.’’ 

To address the growing threat posed by increasingly accurate 

and longer-range ballistic and cruise missiles, the Missile Defense 

Agency (MDA), in collaboration with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the military departments, is pursuing 

a suite of laser technologies that could serve as a cost-effective solution for destroying cruise missiles and ballistic missiles in the 

boost phase. A successful airborne laser system could transform 

U.S. missile defense capabilities against a broad range of missile 

threats, and place defense on the winning side of the offense-defense cost curve. 

The committee supports MDA’s efforts to develop and demonstrate compact, efficient laser technology for missile defense applications and, in parallel, to explore the potential for developing 

and integrating a laser into a high-altitude, long-endurance aerovehicle. Under current plans, the goal of MDA is to demonstrate a 

100 kilowatt high energy laser by fiscal year 2020, which could 

serve as the basis for a boost phase missile defense weapon system. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that would 

prioritize technology investments in the Department of Defense to 

support efforts by MDA to develop and deploy a boost phase airborne laser weapon system by fiscal year 2025. The provision encourages collaboration and cooperation between MDA and other 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
277 

Department of Defense components, and directs the Secretary of 

Defense to provide the congressional defense committees with a report, within 120 days of enactment of this Act, of Department of 

Defense efforts to develop and deploy a boost phase airborne laser 

weapon system for missile defense. 

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

1649) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Section 1246(c)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66; 127 Stat. 923) to extend the limitation on providing certain sensitive missile defense information to 

the Russian Federation for fiscal years 2014 through 2017. 

Extension of requirement for Comptroller General of the 

United States review and assessment of missile defense 

acquisition programs (sec. 1650) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2012 (Public Law 1120981) to continue to require the Comptroller 

General to review, for fiscal years 2016 through 2020, the annual 

reports of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) on acquisition baselines and variances and assess the extent to which MDA has 

achieved its acquisition goals and objectives. The provision would 

also extend the reports required on activities of the Missile Defense 

Executive Board. 

The committee notes that the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) has played an instrumental role over many years in the 

oversight of missile defense acquisition programs, and in helping 

improve the oversight and accountability of such programs. The existing legislative mandate for GAO’s review of missile defense acquisition programs would otherwise expire, and the committee believes it is important for GAO to continue its review. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Measures in response to violations of the IntermediateRange Nuclear Forces Treaty by the Russian Federation 

(sec. 1661) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President to notify the appropriate congressional committees with 

respect to whether the Russian Federation has flight-tested, deployed, or possesses a military system that has achieved an initial 

operating capability that is in violation of the Intermediate-Range 

Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty or has begun taking measures to return to full compliance with the INF Treaty. The provision would 

also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees on the status of updates provided to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other 

allies of the United States on the Russian Federation’s flight testing, operational capability, and deployment of ground-launched ballistic missiles in violation of the INF Treaty. The provision would 

state that it is the sense of the Congress that the deployment of 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
278 

a nuclear ground-launched cruise missile by the Russian Federation would pose a dangerous threat to the United States and its allies; the Russian Federation has established an increasing role for 

nuclear weapons in its military strategy; efforts to compel the Russian Federation to return to compliance are in the best interests of 

the United States, but cannot be open-ended; and efforts by the 

United States to develop military and non-military options for responding to violations of the INF Treaty could encourage the Russian Federation to return to compliance with the INF Treaty. 

If, on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Russian Federation has not begun taking measures to return to full compliance 

with the INF Treaty, the provision would require the Secretary of 

Defense to, within 120 days, submit to Congress a plan with respect to developing the following military capabilities: (a) 

Counterforce capabilities to prevent INF Treaty-range groundlaunched ballistic missile and cruise missile attacks; (b) countervailing strike capabilities to enhance the forces of the United 

States or allies of the United States; and (c) active defenses to defend against intermediate-range ground launched cruise missile attacks. The provision directs the President to include in the plan 

such other options as the President considers useful to encourage 

the Russian Federation to return to full compliance with the INF 

Treaty. 

The committee believes the development and deployment of a nuclear ground-launched cruise missile by the Russian Federation in 

violation of the INF Treaty would pose a dangerous threat to the 

United States and its allies, and that efforts taken by the President 

to compel the Russian Federation to return to compliance with the 

INF Treaty must be persistent and are in the best interests of the 

United States, but cannot be open-ended. 

Modification of notification and assessment of proposal to 

modify or introduce new aircraft or sensors for flight by 

the Russian Federation under the Open Skies Treaty 

(sec. 1662) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify Section 1242(b) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 

113–291) by adding a requirement to include an assessment by the 

commander of each combatant command potentially affected by a 

proposal of the Russian Federation to modify or introduce a new 

aircraft or sensor for flight under the Open Skies Treaty, including 

an assessment of the potential effects of the proposal on operations 

and any potential vulnerabilities. The provision would also require 

that not later than 30 days after the date of any meeting of the 

Open Skies Consultative Commission, the Secretary of Defense 

submit to the defense committees of Congress a report on such 

meeting, including a description of any agreements entered into 

during such meeting, and whether any such agreement will result 

in a modification to the aircraft or sensors that will be subject to 

the Open Skies Treaty. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
279 

Milestone A decision for the conventional prompt global 

strike weapons system (sec. 1663) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to make a Milestone A decision for the conventional prompt global strike program no later than September 

30, 2020, or 8 months after the successful completion of the Intermediate Range Flight 2 test. 

Budget Items 

Conventional prompt global strike 

The budget request included $79.0 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense Wide, PE 64165D8Z, for conventional prompt global strike development. 

The committee is aware that the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review 

(NPR) identified development of conventional prompt global strike 

capabilities as a key initiative for the defeat of time-urgent regional 

threats. The Department of Defense is examining sea-based and 

ground-based concepts and technology in advance of a future program of record. The Flight Experiment–I flight test scheduled for 

March 2017 will, if successful, mature and demonstrate key technologies needed by both land- and sea-based prompt global strike 

systems. In support of these efforts, the committee recommends an 

increase of $10.0 million in PE 64165D8Z for conventional prompt 

global strike development. 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends a provision 

that would direct the Secretary of Defense to make a Milestone A 

decision for the conventional prompt global strike weapons system 

not later than September 30, 2020, or 8 months after the successful 

completion of Intermediate Range Flight 2, whichever is earlier. 

Divert attitude control system in support of multi-object kill 

vehicle 

The budget request included $43.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63178C, for Weapons Technology in support of the Missile Defense Agency, including 

$13.0 million for interceptor technology. 

The committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency is pursuing 

research and development on the next generation divert attitude 

control system (DACS), which is critical for a successful multi-object kill vehicle program. According to the Director of the Missile 

Defense Agency, a multi-object kill capability would ‘‘revolutionize’’ 

the missile defense architecture, permitting the destruction of several threat objects with a single ground-based interceptor missile. 

The committee believes the multi-object kill vehicle program should 

be a high priority of the Missile Defense Agency. Accordingly, the 

committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63178C 

to reduce development risk for the next generation divert attitude 

control system. 

Fiber combining laser prototype 

The budget request included $43.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63178C, for WeapVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00307 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
280 

ons Technology in support of the Missile Defense Agency, including 

$30.3 million for directed energy research. 

The committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency, in collaboration with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, is 

pursuing a suite of laser technologies that, when combined with 

high-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicles, could 

serve as a cost-effective solution for destroying cruise missiles and 

ballistic missiles. The committee notes that the Director of the Missile Defense Agency and the Commander of U.S. Northern Command believe this technology holds great promise. Therefore, the 

committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 63178C 

for the Missile Defense Agency to develop a prototype fiber combining laser suitable for flight testing on an unmanned aerial vehicle as soon as possible. 

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

The budget request included $102.8 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63913C, for U.S.- 

Israeli cooperative missile defense programs, including $11.0 million to improve the existing Arrow Weapon System; $55.1 million 

for continued development of the Arrow–3 upper tier interceptor 

missiles; and $36.7 million for the David’s Sling short range ballistic missile defense system. These systems are part of Israel’s layered missile defenses against missiles and rockets of varying 

ranges. The United States is jointly developing and co-managing 

these systems to ensure they are compatible and interoperable with 

U.S. missile defense systems. The Government of Israel has requested an additional $166.0 million for the Arrow program and 

the David’s Sling program to address the growing short-range and 

long-range ballistic missile threat. The committee recommends an increase of $166.0 million in PE 

63913C for continued development of the Arrow–3 upper tier interceptor missile and the David’s Sling short range ballistic missile 

defense system. 

Multiple Object Kill Vehicle 

The budget request included $46.7 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63294C, for Common 

Kill Vehicle Technology, which includes development of the Multiple Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV). According to the Director of the 

Missile Defense Agency, a multi-object kill capability would ‘‘revolutionize’’ the missile defense architecture, permitting the destruction of several threat objects with a single ground-based interceptor 

missile. The committee believes the MOKV program should be a 

high priority of the Missile Defense Agency. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 63294C for 

the MOKV development program. 

Operationally Responsive Space program 

The budget request included $6.5 million for the Operationally 

Responsive Space (ORS) program, Air Force exhibit R–1, line 44, 

Program Element 64857F. The committee recommends an increase 

of $13.5 million to continue the development of a Space Based SurVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00308 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
281 

veillance System prototype satellite as well as a follow-on simplified weather satellite. In addition the committee encourages the 

program and the department to continue its efforts in the low-cost 

launch of small payloads. The committee recognizes that as space 

threats increase, the importance of rapid reconstitution grows dramatically. The committee commends the Department’s decision to 

use the program’s streamlined acquisition authorities within the 

Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center to prototype systems 

that if successful will transition into traditional space acquisition 

programs. 

Redesigned Kill Vehicle 

The budget request included $266.7 million for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 64874C, for improved homeland defense interceptors. This program will develop a 

new kill vehicle, known as the Redesigned Kill Vehicle (RKV), for 

the ground-based interceptor that supports defense of the United 

States homeland against long-range ballistic missile attack. The 

RKV will improve the reliability, producibility, affordability, and 

performance of the current capability enhancement I and II 

exoatmospheric kill vehicles for the ground based interceptor. 

The committee notes that improving the reliability of the groundbased interceptor is a top priority for the Director of the Missile 

Defense Agency and the Commander of U.S. Northern Command. 

The committee strongly concurs with this priority. According to the 

Missile Defense Agency, the first flight test of the RKV is scheduled for fiscal year 2018, followed by an intercept flight test in the 

third quarter of fiscal year 2019. Limited initial production of the 

RKV could begin in fiscal year 2020, with four production article 

RKVs available by the end of fiscal year 2021. The committee is 

concerned that this schedule may not stay ahead of the evolving 

threat from North Korea and Iran. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 64874C for risk reduction activities associated with the development of the RKV. 

Sharkseer zero day defense for enterprise email 

The National Security Agency (NSA), at the direction of the 

Chief Information Officer, established a program called Sharkseer 

to provide non-signature-based defenses against previously unknown and morphing malware at the Department of Defense 

(DOD) enterprise perimeter. Sharkseer seeks to identify and integrate best-of-breed advanced commercial products. Congress added 

$28.0 million in fiscal year 2015 funding to start the program and 

to deploy capabilities to all of the DOD Internet Access Points 

(IAPs). 

The budget request for fiscal year 2016 included $42.0 million in 

NSA funding to fully field and sustain Sharkseer to all IAPs. However, this funding only addressed capabilities to inspect and block 

web traffic. Separately, the Defense Information Systems Agency 

(DISA) sought funding for DOD Enterprise Email services, which 

included a request for protecting that email traffic with Sharkseer. 

That overall initiative was not approved prior to the transmittal of 

the fiscal year 2016 budget. As a result, the funding request does 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
282 

not provide the funding necessary to address the protection of 

email traffic. 

Email that enters the DOD is a primary avenue that malign actors use to compromise DOD networks and computer systems. Accordingly, the committee recommends increased funding for DISA 

to field Sharkseer capabilities to protect against compromises 

through email traffic. The committee recommends an increase of 

$10.0 million to Program Element 33140G, line 7, defense-wide 

procurement, and an increase of $10.0 million for defense-wide operations and maintenance for this purpose. 

The committee directs that the Sharkseer systems for web and 

email traffic be integrated, and that DOD ensure that malware 

identified by Sharkseer be rapidly and automatically used to tip 

other defensive systems across the Department, including the 

Cyber Protection Teams. 

Standard Missile-3 block IB 

The budget request included $147.8 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, line 25, for the Missile Defense Agency for advanced 

procurement of the Standard Missile-3 IB (SM–3 IB) missile. The 

committee is concerned that this funding, in support of multi-year 

procurement, is early to need. The committee recommends a decrease of $147.8 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, line 25, for 

the Standard Missile-3 IB missile program. The committee recommends an increase of $147.8 million in Procurement, Defensewide, line 24, for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense program distributed as follows: $117.9 million to increase SM–3 IB quantities 

from 40 to 49 missiles; $2.6 million to increase SM–3 IB canisters 

from 41 to 50; and $27.3 million for missile test participation costs. 

U.S. Cyber Command Technology Development 

The budget request included $19.1 million for the U.S. Cyber 

Command Technology Development program’s Combatant Command Support project, Air Force exhibit R–2A, Program Element 

36250F, project number 646008. The Combatant Command Support project supports the development and testing of various tools 

critical to achieving combatant command military objectives. The 

committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million because the 

committee is concerned that the capacity to meet the cyber effects 

requirements of the combatant commands is too limited and that 

additional funding is necessary to meet both current and future 

cyber requirements. 

Items of Special Interest 

Assessment of the information security threats of wirelessenabled capabilities at Department of Defense facilities 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to the 

congressional defense and intelligence committees an assessment of 

the information security threats to and vulnerabilities posed by WiFi, Distributed Antenna Systems, and wireless-enabled endpoints 

installed in Department of Defense (DOD) facilities, including DOD 

combat support agencies. The report shall identify any entities currently allowing wireless connections to classified and unclassified 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
283 

networks and a detailed description comparing information assurance protections in place on wireless versus wired networks to prevent unauthorized access and cyber intrusions to networks. This report shall identify if any single lines of defense exist that could result in the compromise of DOD or Intelligence Community networks. The report shall be due no later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act. 

Comptroller General review of space system acquisition and 

acquisition oversight 

The committee has grown increasingly concerned by the disjointed nature of Department of Defense space system acquisition 

and acquisition oversight. Over the past two decades, various commissions and reviews have found governance over Department of 

Defense space system acquisitions and operations to be fragmented 

and overlapping, leading to significant cost increases, delays in delivering capabilities, program cancellations, and inefficient operations. Over the past 10 years, the Department of Defense has 

made a number of changes to its space leadership including: creation of the Defense Space Council; alignment of Air Force space 

system acquisition leadership under a single headquarters organization; creation of the Space and Intelligence Office within the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 

and Logistics; and disestablishing the National Security Space Office and Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks 

and Information Integration; among other changes. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to brief the congressional defense committees by March 1, 

2016 on the effectiveness of the Department of Defense’s space acquisition and acquisition oversight model. The committee is interested in better understanding how the existing framework has influenced decision making and accountability and whether efforts 

intended to reduce fragmentation and overlap have been effective. 

The committee also directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to evaluate what additional changes, if any, could be considered to improve governance of space system acquisitions and operations. 

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

The committee directs the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) to update recent prior assessments of nuclear command, 

control, and communications (NC3) acquisition programs with an 

interim briefing the congressional defense committees no later than 

September 30, 2015, and a briefing no later than January 31, 2016. 

The committee values the ongoing work of the GAO in reviewing 

the NC3 acquisition programs. Similar to space acquisition programs, NC3 acquisition is a systems of systems process, which 

takes years to oversee on a continuous basis to determine if the 

programs are achieving the desired cost, scope, and schedule. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
284 

Missile Defense Agency assessment of capabilities to defend 

against current and projected missile threats 

The committee recognizes that the current Ballistic Missile Defense System protects the entire United States homeland, including 

Hawaii, against the threat of limited ballistic missile attack from 

North Korea. However, the committee acknowledges that North 

Korea is developing advanced missile technologies, and claims to 

have tested several of them, including a submarine-launched ballistic missile. By expanding persistent sensor discrimination capabilities, the Ballistic Missile Defense System would be better enabled to respond to emerging ballistic missile threats involving 

countermeasures and decoys. The committee is aware that, in response to a request from the Commander of U.S. Northern Command, the Missile Defense Agency is exploring potential solutions 

for additional sensor coverage of Hawaii. Additionally, the Department of Defense is currently conducting an analysis of alternatives 

related to homeland ballistic missile defense sensor and discrimination capabilities, as directed by the Carl Levin and Howard P. 

‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2015 (Public Law 113–291). The committee supports these efforts 

and encourages the Department to prepare recommendations from 

these analyses in advance of the fiscal year 2017 budget submission. 

To ensure that Hawaii continues to be protected under the Ballistic Missile Defense System in the face of evolving ballistic missile threats and capabilities, the committee requires the Missile Defense Agency to conduct an assessment and provide a report no 

later than 90 days after the enactment of this act to the congressional defense committees. 

The report shall include an assessment of the current Ballistic 

Missile Defense System’s ability to protect Hawaii against current 

missile threats and the projected threats we could face in 2 and 5 

years, and options for modifying or augmenting systems to ensure 

that Hawaii remains protected from possible rogue nation missile 

attacks. The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but 

may include a classified annex. 

Organization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense for 

Nuclear Deterrence Mission 

The Nuclear Enterprise Review (NER) conducted by the Department of Defense in 2014 made a variety of recommendations regarding changes to the organization of the Department of Defense 

to enable focused coordination of the nation’s nuclear deterrence 

mission. The independent review led by two former senior military 

officers recommended that the Secretary of Defense, ‘‘direct that 

the loosely federated nuclear activities within [the Office of the Secretary of Defense] and the Air Force be brought together into a coherent and synchronized structure that focuses on direction and 

support for the nuclear forces.’’ The internal review conducted by 

the Department echoed these findings and made similar recommendations. 

The committee is concerned that recent structural changes within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) may lead to the opposite result in the long term. The elimination last year of the posiVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00312 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
285 

tion of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs may bring decreased policy focus on nuclear deterrence issues. 

Furthermore, division of responsibilities for various components of 

the nuclear mission (e.g., nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and 

command and control) within the Office of the Under Secretary for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics could lead to similar end results. While the committee supports management specialization 

and seeking efficiencies within OSD, such efforts must not come at 

the expense of the recently renewed focus on nuclear deterrence. 

Report on Advanced Extremely High Frequency Terminals 

for bomber aircraft 

The Secretary of the Air Force shall report to the congressional 

defense committees no later than February 28, 2016, on alternatives to the current program of record for the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) terminals to be used in long range 

strike bomber aircraft, specifically the B–52, B–2, and Long Range 

Strike Bomber. 

Report on Follow-On Commander’s Evaluation Tests and 

Demonstration and Shake Out tests 

The Secretary of the Navy shall report to the congressional defense committees on Follow-on Commander’s Evaluation Tests 

(FCET) and Demonstration and Shake Out (DASO) tests for fiscal 

year 2016. In addition, the Secretary of the Navy shall report to 

the congressional defense committees on a plan for future reporting 

of FCET and DASO tests to the congressional defense committees 

no later than February 28, 2016. 

Report on space-based missile defense interceptor 

The committee supports the Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) efforts to consider additional capabilities to prevent ballistic missile 

attack on the United States, including solutions that would reduce 

cost-per-kill. Additionally, the committee is aware of technology development that focuses on interception in the boost phase of a ballistic missile. The committee believes that such capabilities that 

are both cost-effective and operationally reliable should be explored. 

The Senate-passed version of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 required the Department of Defense to conduct an independent assessment of the feasibility and advisability of developing a space-based interceptor (SBI) 

element to the ballistic missile defense system. This study was 

completed in April 2011 and submitted to Congress. Among its 

findings, the study determined that ‘‘the creation, deployment, and 

operation of an SBI system would provide a number of strategic 

benefits but would also face certain challenges.’’ 

In order to understand the current status of technologies under 

development and those that are potentially capable of providing a 

space-based element to the ballistic missile defense system, the 

committee directs MDA to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than 90 days after the date of enactment 

of this act that includes the following elements: (1) an assessment 

of the need for a space-based interceptor element to the ballistic 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
286 

missile defense system, including an assessment of the extent to 

which there is a ballistic missile threat that such an interceptor 

would address; (2) whether other elements of the ballistic missile 

defense system could be modified to meet that threat; (3) an assessment of the components and capabilities and the maturity of critical technologies necessary to make such a space-based interceptor 

element operational; (4) an estimate of the total cost for the life 

cycle of such a space-based interceptor element, including the costs 

of research, development, demonstration, procurement, deployment, 

and launching of the element; (5) an assessment of the effectiveness of such a space-based interceptor element in intercepting ballistic missiles and the survivability of the element in case of attack; 

(6) an assessment of possible debris generated from the use or testing of such a space-based interceptor element; and (7) an assessment of any command, control, or battle management considerations of using such a space-based interceptor element, including 

estimated timelines for the detection of ballistic missiles, decisionmaking with respect to the use of the element, and interception of 

the missile by the element. The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex. 

Reserve component Cyber Protection Teams 

The committee has a strong interest in Department of Defense 

(DOD) plans for establishing Cyber Protection Teams (CPTs) in the 

reserve components to meet the needs of United States Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), and the states, in defending DOD networks 

and assisting the states in the event of serious cyber attacks. 

The committee notes that the Army and the Army reserve components intend to field 21 CPTs in fiscal years 2016–2018, one in 

active status, and 10 each in the Guard and Reserve. These CPTs 

are not currently planned to be included in the forces assigned to 

CYBERCOM. The Air Force intends to establish 12 CPTs in the 

Air National Guard, which will be manned to achieve the equivalent of 2 active CPTs dedicated to the Cyber Mission Forces (CMF) 

on behalf of the Air Force. 

The committee commends the Department and the reserve components for planning for a robust number of CPTs, but has concerns about implementation. Specifically, training costs have not 

been budgeted yet, and the Department does not yet have a plan 

for sustaining the current training infrastructure after fiscal year 

2016, when funding provided by the Office of the Secretary of Defense for the standup of the CMF ends. 

The Army Reserve included $10.6 million in the budget request 

for training the 3 CPTs it plans to establish in fiscal year 2016. 

However, the $9.0 million required to train the 3 Army National 

Guard CPTs to be fielded in 2016 has not yet been allocated. Outyear funding to train the remaining 14 CPTs is not budgeted. 

The committee directs the following actions. First, the committee 

directs the Army and Army National Guard to notify the congressional defense committees when a decision is made to allocate 

funding in fiscal year 2016 for training the CPTs. 

Second, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army, the 

Secretary of the Air Force, the Principal Cyber Advisor (PCA), the 

Commander of CYBERCOM, and the Chief of the National Guard 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
287 

Bureau to report to the congressional defense committees on how 

the basing and intended use of the reserve component CPTs reflects an appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the core 

mission of the reserve component’s CPTs to provide surge capacity 

for CYBERCOM, and, on the other hand, the needs of the states, 

and the defense of the reserve components’ networks. 

Third, the committee directs the PCA, the Service Secretaries, 

and the Commander of CYBERCOM to develop a plan for the Services to sustain the individual training capabilities that have been 

centrally funded and maintained since the CMF were first created. 

The committee urges the Department to create a federated and 

joint training model and discourages having each service build separate training capabilities for its cyber contingent. The committee 

directs that the plan provide for a training capacity in fiscal years 

2017 and 2018 that is adequate to complete all required training 

for the reserve component CPTs and the sustainment of the active 

CMF units. The plan should be available for briefing to the congressional defense committees when the President submits the 

budget request for fiscal year 2017. 

Solid Rocket Motor industrial base 

The committee recognizes that the Air Force is currently exploring options to acquire the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent 

(GBSD), a replacement for the Minuteman III (MMIII) system. The 

Committee understands that the Air Force’s acquisition decisions 

will have lasting impacts on the health and viability of the Solid 

Rocket Motor (SRM) industrial base, a vital element of the defense 

industrial base that supports U.S strategic forces. 

The committee believes that sustaining two healthy SRM sources 

is critical to the long term viability of the Nation’s strategic triad, 

both as a hedge against a single point of failure and as a means 

of promoting competition in GBSD, which will involve the development, acquisition, and sustainment of rocket motors to replace the 

MMIII’s three booster stages. As with all major acquisition programs, and consistent with current Department of Defense policy, 

the committee strongly believes the use of full and open competition will provide the best opportunity for Air Force to benefit from 

the innovation, improved contractor performance, and cost reduction during development, acquisition, and sustainment of the booster stages. 

Space control modeling and simulation range 

The Secretary of Defense shall report to the congressional defense committees on a plan for a modeling and simulation range for 

offensive and defensive space control activities no later than February 28, 2016. 

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

The committee appreciates the unique importance of U.S. FAA licensed spacesports and recognizes and when appropriate, encourages the use of U.S. FAA commercially-licensed spaceports and 

launch and range complexes that provide mid- to low-inclination orbits or polar high-inclination orbits in support of national security 

space capabilities. The committee recognizes that these federally-liVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00315 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
288 

censed, non-federally owned launch facilities, are available to meet 

the requirements for the national security space program from the 

Department of Defense (DOD), Air Force Space Command. 

The Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska (PSCA) has supported numerous launches for Air Force Space Command including specific 

national security launches. It remains the only commercial polar 

launch range available in the United States and PSCA, a state-ofthe-industry spaceport on Kodiak Island, Alaska, provides access to 

space for vital government and commercial interests. The Mid Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) at Wallops Island, Virginia provides medium-class and small-class launch capabilities for the 

DOD. It has launched numerous missions for DOD with its agency 

partners, Air Force Space Command, ORS, and MDA. MARS provides assured/responsive access to mid-to-low inclination orbits for 

payloads up to 14,000 lbs. 

The committee believes that these two facilities can be used, 

when appropriate, to support the national security space program. 

Upgrades to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System 

The committee notes that the architecture of the Ground-based 

Midcourse Defense System is in need of hardware and software upgrades to improve reliability and maintainability and eliminate obsolescence. The committee recognizes that significant improvements are being made to the interceptors to correct the problems 

with the existing kill vehicles discovered in flight tests, to increase 

survivability of the boosters, and to ensure reliability throughout 

the service life of the fleet. The committee supports the Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) efforts to accomplish these improvements, 

along with the refurbishment of Missile Field 1 and deployment of 

an additional 14 ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska. 

The budget request for MDA prioritizes investments in these areas 

and this committee will continue to monitor progress toward these 

goals. 

Additionally, the committee notes that section 1665 of the Carl 

Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) requires the Director of the MDA, in coordination with the Commander of the 

United States Northern Command, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees setting forth the status of current 

and planned efforts to improve the homeland ballistic missile defense capability of the United States. Elements of this report include the status of such efforts as fielding the additional 14 

ground-based interceptors and refurbishing Missile Field 1 at Fort 

Greely; improving the capabilities of the ground-based interceptors 

deployed with upgraded capability enhancement-I and capability 

enhancement-II exo-atmospheric kill vehicles; developing, testing, 

and fielding the next generation exo-atmospheric kill vehicle; and 

improving sensor and discrimination capabilities, including the deployment of a long-range discrimination radar. The committee 

strongly encourages MDA to submit this report promptly. 

The committee further directs MDA to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees within 90 days of completion of 

the above-mentioned report that addresses the status of efforts to 

enhance the ground-based interceptor stockpile reliability program; 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
289 

to implement upgrades to the ground-based midcourse defense 

ground system (to include fire control nodes, fire control software, 

command launch equipment, and data terminals) to improve reliability and eliminate obsolescence; and to upgrade the Early Warning Radars in Clear, Alaska, Shemya, Alaska and Cape Cod, Massachusetts. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(291) 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Summary and explanation of funding tables 

Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It includes funding authorizations for the construction and operation of military 

family housing as well as military construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure accounts that fund military construction, 

environmental cleanup, and other activities required to implement 

the decisions in base closure rounds. 

The tables contained in this Act provide the project-level authorizations for the military construction funding authorized in Division B of this Act and summarize that funding by account. The fiscal year 2016 budget requested $8.3 billion for military construction and housing programs. Of this amount, $6.6 billion 

was requested for military construction, $1.4 billion for the construction and operation of family housing, and $251.3 million for 

base closure activities. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations for 

military construction, housing programs, and base closure activities 

totaling $8.3 billion. The total amount authorized for appropriations reflects the committee’s continuing commitment to invest in 

the recapitalization of DOD facilities and infrastructure. 

Short title (sec. 2001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would designate division B of this Act as the ‘‘Military Construction Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2016.’’ 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be 

specified by law (sec. 2002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military construction projects, land acquisition, family housing projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program as of October 1, 2018, or the date of enactment 

of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2019, whichever is later. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(293) 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$743.3 million for military construction and $493.2 million for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2016. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$721.7 million for military construction and $493.2 million for family housing for fiscal year 2016. 

The budget request included $37.0 million for an instruction facility for the U.S. Army Band at Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, 

Virginia. The committee recommends no funding for this project 

and applies the savings to higher priority unfunded military construction projects in fiscal year 2016. The committee believes that 

many of the challenges associated with the current facility may be 

addressed through a combination of facilities additions, minor military construction, and/or renovation. 

The budget request included $43.0 million for a Homeland Defense Operations Center at Joint Base San Antonio, Texas. The 

committee defers consideration of the authorization for this facility 

until after the completion of the plan for reducing administrative 

and headquarters activities required elsewhere in this bill. 

Additionally, the committee recommends a reduction of $52.0 

million from prior-year authorization of appropriations to reflect 

project cancellations and bid savings and applies such savings to 

high priority unfunded military construction projects in fiscal year 

2016. 

The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times military 

construction funding is often deferred in favor of other priorities 

and notes the Army has identified significant unfunded military 

construction priorities, including two access control points at Fort 

Meade, Maryland and an unaccompanied personnel barracks at 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The committee notes that these projects 

were identified as the top priorities of the Chief of Staff of the 

Army and Commander of U.S. Southern Command, respectively. 

Funding for these projects has been added as outlined in the tables 

in sections 2101 and 4601. 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Active Duty component of the 

Army for fiscal year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an 

installation-by-installation basis. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
294 

Family housing (sec. 2102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Army for fiscal year 2016. This provision would also authorize 

funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing 

management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to improve existing family housing units of 

the Department of the Army in an amount not to exceed $3.5 million. 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Army authorized for construction for 

fiscal year 2016. This provision would also provide an overall limit 

on the amount authorized for military construction and family 

housing projects for the Active-Duty component of the Army. The 

state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2013 project (sec. 2105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public 

Law 112–239) for construction of a cadet barracks building at the 

United States Military Academy, New York, to include mechanical 

equipment and associated distribution lines. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2012 

projects (sec. 2106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public 

Law 112–81) for three projects until October 1, 2016, or the date 

of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 

projects (sec. 2107) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public 

Law 112–239) for seven projects until October 1, 2016, or the date 

of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. 

Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2016 

project (sec. 2108) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to carry out a $12.4 million project to conVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00322 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
295 

struct a vehicle bridge and traffic circle to facilitate traffic flow to 

and from the medical center at Rhine Ordnance Barracks, Germany, using host-nation payment-in-kind funding. 

Limitation on construction of new facilities at Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba (sec. 2109) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit funding 

authorized by the bill for new facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 

until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense 

committees that any new construction of facilities at Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba, have enduring military value independent of a highvalue detention mission. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(297) 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$1.6 billion for military construction and $369.6 million for family 

housing for the Navy for fiscal year 2016. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$1.7 billion for military construction and $369.6 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2016. 

The budget request included $44.5 million for a raw water pipeline from Camp Pendleton to the City of Fallbrook in order to allow 

the city to access water from the Santa Margarita watershed. The 

project would also provide upgrades to the existing Camp Pendleton water system. The committee notes that the requested 

project is intended to represent a physical solution to ongoing litigation over water rights between the Fallbrook Public Utilities District (FPUD) and the Navy. However, given that negotiations between the Navy and the FPUD to resolve this litigation are ongoing, the committee believes that this project is early to need. Therefore, the committee recommends no funds for this project and directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a rescoped project that 

would provide the funds needed for the upgrade of the Camp Pendleton water system. The Secretary may, to the extent funds are 

provided from the State of California, the City of Fallbrook, or another source outside the Department of Defense, enter into an 

agreement to construct both the military and civilian elements of 

the projects as outlined by the Omnibus Public Land Management 

Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–11). Prior to entering into such an 

agreement, the Secretary is directed to notify the congressional defense committees of the proposed terms including the cost allocation between the Department of Defense and civilian authorities. The budget request also included $48.3 million for the Townsend Range Expansion, including $5.0 million for two civilian fire stations in Long and McIntosh Counties, Georgia. The committee authorizes $43.3 million for the Townsend Range expansion without 

the two civilian fire stations. The committee does not believe the 

Navy has the authority to construct fire stations for which it will 

not have operational control. 

The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times military 

construction funding is often deferred in favor of other priorities 

and notes the Navy has identified significant unfunded priorities 

for military construction in support of the Marine Corps, including 

air field security improvements at Cherry Point, North Carolina; a 

KC–130J enlisted air crew trainer at Miramar, California; an LHD 

pad conversion and new MV–22 landing pads at Marine Corps 

base, Hawaii; range safety improvements at Camp Lejeune, North 

Carolina; installation operations facilities at Camp Pendleton, CaliVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00325 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
298 

fornia; and a replacement fire station for the Basic School at 

Quantico, Virginia. The committee notes that these projects were 

identified as the top priorities of the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps. Funding for these projects has been added as outlined in the 

tables in sections 2201 and 4601. 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 

year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Navy for fiscal year 2016. This provision would also authorize 

funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing 

management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to improve existing family housing units of 

the Department of the Navy in an amount not to exceed $11.5 million. 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the Active Duty component military construction 

and family housing projects of the Department of the Navy authorized for construction for fiscal year 2016. This provision would also 

provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction and family housing projects for the Active-Duty components of the Navy and the Marine Corps. The state list contained 

in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized 

at each location. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 

projects (sec. 2205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public 

Law 112–81; 125 Stat. 1666), for three projects until October 1, 

2016, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for 

military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 

projects (sec. 2206) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public 

Law 112–239), for seven projects until October 1, 2016, or the date 

of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(299) 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$1.4 billion for military construction and $491.7 million for family 

housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2016. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$1.4 billion for military construction and $491.7 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2016. 

Additionally, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million from prior-year authorization of appropriations to reflect 

project cancellations and bid savings and applies such savings to 

high priority unfunded military construction projects in fiscal year 

2016. 

The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times military 

construction funding is often deferred in favor of other priorities 

and notes the Air Force has identified significant unfunded military construction priorities including: a new communications facility at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona; a fixed ground control station 

facility at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico; an air traffic control tower at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas; an expansion of 

the Air Support Operations Center at Fort Drum, New York; and 

a consolidated communications facility at Barksdale Air Force 

Base, Louisiana. The committee notes that these projects were 

identified as the top priorities of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. 

Funding for these projects has been added as outlined in the tables 

in sections 2301 and 4601. 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Air 

Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Air Force for fiscal year 2016. This provision would also authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Air Force to improve existing family housing units 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
300 

of the Department of the Air Force in an amount not to exceed 

$150.7 million. 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for construction 

for fiscal year 2016. This provision would also provide an overall 

limit on the amount authorized for military construction and family 

housing projects for the active-duty component of the Air Force. 

The state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2010 project (sec. 2305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2301(a) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) for a 

ground control tower at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii, to include 

the installation of communications cabling. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2014 project (sec. 2306) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2301 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) for the 

construction of an operations facility at Royal Air Force Station 

Lakenheath, United Kingdom, to allow for construction at an unspecified worldwide location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2015 project (sec. 2307) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2301 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) for the construction of a KC– 

46A Alter Composite maintenance shop at McConnell Air Force 

Base, Kansas, to allow for a 7,500 square foot facility consistent 

with Air Force guidelines for such facilities. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2012 

project (sec. 2308) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2301 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public 

Law 112–81) for one project until October 1, 2016, or the date of 

the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction 

for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 

project (sec. 2309) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2301 of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public Law 112–239) 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
301 

for one project until October 1, 2016, or the date of the enactment 

of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2017, whichever is later. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(303) 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$2.3 billion for military construction for the defense agencies and 

$58.7 million for family housing for the defense agencies for fiscal 

year 2016. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$2.1 billion for military construction and $58.7 million for family 

housing for the defense agencies for fiscal year 2016. 

The budget request included $49.7 million for the Defense Logistics Agency Headquarters Facility Replacement at Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania. The committee defers consideration of the authorization for this facility until after the completion of the plan for reducing administrative and headquarters activities required elsewhere 

in this bill. 

Additionally, the committee recommends a decrease of $120.0 

million from prior-year authorization of appropriations to reflect 

project cancellations and bid savings and applies such savings to 

high priority unfunded military construction projects in fiscal year 

2016. 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the defense agencies for fiscal 

year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation projects. The 

authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation 

basis. 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 

2403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the military construction and family housing 

projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction for fiscal year 2016. This provision would also provide an overall limit on 

the amount authorized for military construction and family housing 

projects for the defense agencies. The state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 

location. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
304 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2012 project (sec. 2404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authority contained in section 2401 of the Military Construction 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public Law 

112–81) for the High Performance Computing Center at Fort 

Meade, Maryland, to include a generator plant capable of providing 

60 megawatts of backup electrical power. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 

projects (sec. 2405) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public 

Law 112–81) for three projects until October 1, 2016, or the date 

of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 

projects (sec. 2406) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public 

Law 112–239) for eight projects until October 1, 2016, of the date 

of enactment of an act authorizing funds for the military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. 

Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain 

fiscal year 2014 project (sec. 2407) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public 

Law 113–66) for an ambulatory health center at Fort Knox, Kentucky, which was subsequently cancelled by the Department of Defense, by substituting authorization for a 102,000 square foot medical clinic at the same location and extending the authority until 

October 1, 2018, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing 

funds for military construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is 

later. With the drawdown in military personnel at Fort Knox, the 

required level of medical support has been similarly reduced. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(305) 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $120.0 million for military construction in fiscal year 2016 

for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program. The committee recommends the requested 

amount. 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an amount 

equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized in section 

2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due to the United 

States for construction previously financed by the United States. 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations of $120.0 million for the U.S. contribution to the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2016. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(307) 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES 

FACILITIES 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropria- tions of $517.3 million for military construction in fiscal year 2016 

for facilities for the National Guard and reserve components. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $636.8 million for military construction in fiscal year 2016 for facilities for the National Guard and reserve components. The detailed funding recommendations are contained in the state list 

table included in this report. 

The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times military 

construction funding is often deferred in favor of other priorities 

and notes the National Guard and Reserve forces have identified 

significant unfunded military construction priorities, including a 

tactical aerial unmanned systems hangar at Fort Stewart, Georgia; 

an equipment concentration point at Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia; an access control point at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico; an aviation classification and repair depot at Gulfport, Mississippi; a fire station/ 

security complex at Dobbins, Georgia; a space control facility at 

Cape Canaveral, Florida; an F–22 composite repair facility at Joint 

Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii; a building modification for the 

KC–46 fuselage trainer at Pease, New Hampshire; operations and 

deployment facilities at Bradley Air National Guard Base, Connecticut; and a vehicle maintenance shop at Camp Foley, Alabama. 

The committee notes that these projects were identified as the top 

unfunded priorities of their respective service chiefs or the Chief of 

the National Guard Bureau. Funding for these projects has been 

added as outlined in the tables in this title and section 4601. 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorizations of 

Appropriations 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army National Guard for fiscal year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal year 

2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
308 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine 

Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2016. The authorized amounts are 

listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air National Guard for fiscal 

year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for fiscal 

year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the reserve component military construction 

projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2016 in this Act. 

This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount 

authorized for military construction projects for each of the reserve 

components of the military departments. The state list contained in 

this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at 

each location. 

Subtitle B—Other Matters 

Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain 

fiscal year 2013 project (sec. 2611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2602 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public 

Law 112–81) for construction of an Army Reserve Center at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, to allow its construction in the vicinity at Aberdeen Proving Ground. The provision would also extend the authorization for this project until October 1, 2016, or the 

date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2015 projects (sec. 2612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorizations contained in section 2604 and 2605 of the Military 

Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B of 

Public Law 113–291), for construction of a Guardian Angel Operations facility at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, and construction of a consolidated Secure Compartmented Information FaVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00336 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
309 

cility at Fort Smith Municipal Airport, Arkansas to provide for increased costs associated with these projects. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 

projects (sec. 2613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2602 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B of Public 

Law 112–81) for two projects until October 1, 2016, or the date of 

the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction 

for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 

projects (sec. 2614) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in sections 2601, 2602, and 2603 of the 

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public Law 112–239) for five projects until October 1, 

2016, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for 

military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(311) 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND 

CLOSURE ACTIVITIES 

Summary and explanation of tables 

The budget request included $251.3 million for the ongoing cost 

of environmental remediation and other activities necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005 Base 

Realignment and Closure rounds. The committee recommends this 

amount. The detailed funding recommendations are contained in 

the state list table included in this report. 

Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and 

closure activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account (sec. 2701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for ongoing activities that are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, 

and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. 

Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and 

closure (BRAC) round (sec. 2702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make clear 

that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize a future 

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. Elsewhere in the 

bill, the committee recommends a reduction of $10.5 million for 

BRAC planning activities. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(313) 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military 

Family Housing Changes 

Authority for acceptance and use of contributions for certain mutually beneficial projects (sec. 2801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Subchapter II of Chapter 138 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 

State, to accept cash contributions from partner countries for the 

purpose of the payment of costs in connection with mutually beneficial construction, maintenance, and repair projects. Such projects 

would be required to support bilateral defense cooperation agreement, or otherwise benefit the United States, as determined by the 

Secretary of Defense. 

Change in authorities relating to scope of work variations 

for military construction projects (sec. 2802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a military 

service to increase the scope of a military construction project by 

up to 10 percent once the service secretary involved approves the 

increase and notifies the congressional defense committees of the 

increase and the reasons for it. 

The committee recognizes that there are valid reasons why the 

square footage of a facility might be appropriately increased as new 

electronic systems are incorporated, new security requirements are 

identified, or other needs emerge after authorization. Rather than 

requiring a delay in the project as new authority is sought, or suboptimizing the project in order to avoid delays, the committee believes that the ability of a service to increase the scope by up to 

10 percent, subject to congressional notification and a waiting period of 14 days, is warranted. 

Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation 

and maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas outside the United States (sec. 2803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize 

contingency construction authority in certain areas outside the 

United States for an additional year. 

Modification of reporting requirement on in-kind construction and renovation payments (sec. 2804) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to provide an annual report to the congresVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00341 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
314 

sional defense committees on the in-kind construction and renovation payments received by the Department of Defense during the 

preceding fiscal year. 

The provision would also repeal the existing requirement for the 

Comptroller General to provide such a report. 

Lab modernization pilot program (sec. 2805) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to use funds appropriated to the Department 

of Defense for research, development, test, and evaluation 

(RDT&E) for the construction of laboratory facilities at Department 

of Defense RDT&E installations. Such projects would be required 

to comply with section 2802 of title 10, United States Code, be included in the President’s budget submission, and be specifically appropriated for such purposes. Authorized facilities would also be required to support the science and technology requirements of more 

than one military department or agency, or a technology development program consistent with the technology offset program authorized elsewhere in this Act. 

Conveyance to Indian tribes of certain housing units (sec. 

2806) 

The committee recommends a provision that would permit service secretaries to convey excess relocatable military housing units 

to certain Indian tribes, at no cost, and without consideration. The 

provision also provides a mechanism that would allow tribes to 

make requests to the military services. The recommended provision 

would expand the existing Air Force program for conveyance of 

relocatable military housing units enacted by section 2308 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–84) and allows for conveyance of excess relocatable military housing units by other military services. 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration 

Utility systems conveyance authority (sec. 2811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify section 

2688(j) of title 10, United States Code, to allow for conveyance of 

additional utility systems to an entity already operating other utility systems on a joint base if doing so would be in the best interest 

of the government and is supported by an independent cost estimate. 

The committee notes that there has been confusion about whether the definition of a utility system for the treatment of wastewater 

includes the treatment of stormwater. The committee believes, consistent with the Department of Defense’s interpretation, that 

wastewater includes stormwater. 

Leasing of non-excess property of military departments and 

defense agencies; treatment of value provided by local 

education agencies and elementary and secondary 

schools (sec. 2812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, by authorizing the SecVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00342 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
315 

retary concerned to lease non-excess property for consideration in 

an amount below fair market value if the lease is to a local education agency or an elementary or secondary school. This provision 

is intended to help local education agencies and schools that are 

providing support for military families. 

Modification of facility repair notification requirement (sec. 

2813) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 2811 of title 10, United States Code, by adding new congressional notifications for facility repair projects that are expected to 

cost more than 75 percent of the estimated cost of a military construction project to replace the facility or the facility is located at 

an overseas location that has not been designated a main operating 

base or forward operating site. These new reporting requirements 

would only apply to facility repair projects that are expected to cost 

more than $1.0 million. 

Increase of threshold of notice and wait requirement for 

certain facilities for reserve components and parity with 

authority for unspecified minor military construction 

and repair projects (sec. 2814) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 18233a of title 10, United States Code, relating to unspecified 

minor military construction and repair of facilities for the reserve 

components to conform to sections 2805 and 2811 of title 10, 

United States Code. 

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances 

Release of reversionary interest retained as part of the conveyance to the economic development alliance of Jefferson County, Arkansas (sec. 2821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

terms of conveyance contained in section 2827 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 104–201) 

to allow the conveyance for other than the conditions contained in 

the section 2827, if the Economic Development Alliance pays fair 

market value for the property and the costs associated with conveyance are born by the Economic Development Alliance. 

Items of Special Interest 

Kwajalein Atoll infrastructure 

The committee recognizes the unique and important nature of 

test facilities on the Kwajalein Atoll and appreciates the U.S. Army 

Installation Management Command’s (IMCOM) Long-Term Management Plan for the Kwajalein Atoll, submitted to the committee 

on February 9, 2015. However, given the remote location and the 

difficult environmental conditions present on the atoll, the committee believes that continued vigilance and additional facilities investments will be necessary in future years to maintain required 

capabilities. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the 

Army to provide the congressional defense committees an updated 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
316 

report on the IMCOM’s infrastructure goals and an updated 5-year 

profile of planned facilities recapitalization for the Kwajalein Atoll 

with the fiscal year 2017 budget request and subsequent budget requests through fiscal year 2021. Furthermore, the committee notes 

that elsewhere in this Act, an additional $34.0 million has been 

provided to correct facilities sustainment, recapitalization, and 

maintenance deficiencies identified as an unfunded requirement by 

the Chief of Staff of the Army. 

Military construction delay report 

The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) and the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–117) included $10.7 million for the construction of a control tower at 

Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Multiple contract problems have 

caused an unacceptable delay in the construction of the tower and 

although it was projected to be completed by fiscal year 2012, it is 

still not finished. 

The committee is concerned about mission and cost impacts 

caused by the delays associated with this project. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report 

to the congressional defense committees, not later than August 1, 

2015, detailing the timeline from passage of the Fiscal Year 2010 

Authorization and Appropriations Acts to the completion of the 

tower and an explanation of delays and cost increases associated 

with this project. The report should also include any remedial, 

legal, or disciplinary actions taken against contractors or others involved in the delays and cost issues and any lessons learned that 

could be applied to future projects. 

Military construction supporting major range and test facility bases 

The committee is concerned about the lack of investment and 

sustainment of Major Range and Test Facility Bases (MRTFB). The 

committee notes that in the last 5 years only seven Military Construction (MILCON) projects have been requested in direct support 

of test and evaluation missions at MRTFBs nationwide. In fact, 

some MRTFBs have not received a MILCON project in support of 

test and evaluation missions in over a decade. The committee is 

also aware that the Strategic Plan for Department of Defense Test 

& Evaluation (T&E) Resources from March 2013, noted, ‘‘Due to 

age and outmoded technology, many test facilities are increasingly 

difficult to sustain and/or maintain. Obsolescence and deterioration 

contribute significantly to increased levels of maintenance, reductions in reliability, and an overall increase in operating costs. Services are under pressure to keep existing ground test facilities viable 

and relevant to meet immediate and forecasted needs. Across all 

services, there has been a downward trend in T&E MILCON appropriations to address ongoing maintenance, sustainment, and 

modernization needs of our T&E facilities. Further analysis is required (e.g., recapitalization rate) to provide a comprehensive assessment of MRTFB-only MILCON needs and investments.’’ 

The committee recognizes the difficult overall budget environment for MILCON, but notes that the Department of Defense’s fisVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00344 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
317 

cal year 2016 budget request still only funds two additional 

MILCON projects in direct support of test and evaluation missions. 

The committee awaits the comprehensive assessment of MRTFBonly MILCON needs and investments, and urges the Department 

of Defense to ensure appropriate funding is requested to support 

current and projected future operations. 

Military training ranges for Special Operations Forces 

The committee notes that in the report submitted to Congress in 

response to section 344 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) on Training Range Infrastructure for Special Operations Forces, the Commander of United 

States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) noted that while 

SOCOM and the Services have worked together to greatly improve 

the access to and capabilities at training ranges used by Special 

Operations Forces (SOF), defense budget reductions have forced the 

military services to ‘‘reduce or eliminate training range modernization and recapitalization programs and to reduce sustainment and 

operating funds.’’ These budget reductions have a direct impact on 

training and overall readiness of SOF at a time of continued high 

operational tempo and evolving threats are stretching the ability of 

training ranges to support the unique training requirements of 

SOF. 

The committee receives annual updates from the Department of 

Defense (DOD) on the status of all test and training ranges 

through Sustainable Ranges Reports (SRR) to Congress, which 

summarizes the DOD’s actions to ensure the long-term sustainability of its training ranges. The SRR responds to Section 366 of 

the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2003 (Public Law 107–314), which requires DOD to develop and 

submit to Congress a comprehensive plan to address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of available military 

lands, marine areas, and airspace in the United States and overseas. While each service identifies in the report critical issues affecting the training of general purpose forces, the unique training 

requirements of SOF are rarely specifically addressed. 

The committee notes that in the December 2013 submission of 

the 2025 Air Test and Training Range Enhancement Plan, in response to section 343 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), the Air Force described efforts with SOCOM to transform the Melrose Military Range in 

New Mexico into a premier range supporting SOF and its intent to 

partner with SOCOM on future investments. However, the report 

does not satisfy the requirement of section 343 to submit a list of 

prioritized improvements and modernization of the facilities, equipment, and technology supporting the infrastructure in order to provide a test and training environment that accurately simulates and 

or portrays the full spectrum of threats and targets of likely United 

States adversaries in 2025 nor does it propose a list of prioritized 

projects, easements, acquisitions, or other actions, including estimated costs required to upgrade the test and training range infrastructure, taking into consideration the criteria set forth in the legislation. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
318 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report, not later than March 1, 2016, on a comprehensive 

range plan to include proposed investments over the next five years 

by the Air Force and SOCOM to address the training range requirements of Melrose Range. The report should describe requirements and proposed funding to maximize the available range training space and safety margins for air to ground integration training 

with other DOD and SOCOM components. The report should also 

describe any planned transition from basic bombing and gunnery 

to integrated air and ground training and any associated requirements for expansion of land or infrastructure at the range. The report should note the extent to which such requirements are addressed in the budget request for fiscal year 2017 and future years 

defense plan. 

The committee also strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense 

to include in future SRR reports to Congress a review of the general capabilities, critical issues, and future capabilities necessary 

for ranges supporting unique SOF training requirements. 

Redevelopment of the former Indiana Army Ammunition 

Plant 

The committee is aware of ongoing efforts between the Army and 

the local reuse authority to finalize property conveyance at the inactivated Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (INAAP). This conveyance was authorized by the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–736) for the 

purpose of developing the site ‘‘as an industrial park to replace all 

or part of the economic activity lost at the inactivated plant.’’ In 

executing land transfers, the Army is obligated to fully comply with 

requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (Public Law 96–510) and the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Public Law 94– 

580). In return, the local reuse authority is obligated by statute to 

pay fair market value for conveyed property as determined by the 

Secretary in accordance with Federal appraisal standards and procedures. The committee expects both the Army and the local reuse 

authority to abide by the mutually-agreed terms of the Memorandum of Agreement governing the conveyance and to work in 

good faith to resolve environmental and liability concerns related 

to hazardous waste on the property. The committee further encourages the Army and the local reuse authority to expedite actions 

necessary to execute remaining conveyances in a timely fashion. 

Repair by replacement 

The committee is aware that some within the Department of Defense interpret section 2811 of title 10, United States Code, as providing authority to conduct ‘‘repair by replacement’’ or, in other 

words, replacement of an entire facility using operation and maintenance funds. However, the committee notes that section 2811 

specifically prohibits the ‘‘construction of new facilities or additions 

to existing facilities.’’ Under this authority, replacement of a component of a complete and useable facility or system is allowable so 

long as it does not increase the capacity of the component or facility (unless to correct a life, safety, or code deficiency), but replaceVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00346 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
319 

ment of an entire facility is prohibited and should be accomplished 

via military construction. 

Given confusion within the Department regarding allowable activities under section 2811, the committee urges the Assistant Secretary of Defense Energy, Installations and Environment to review 

relevant written guidance memoranda and issue clarifications as 

necessary. 

Safe and suitable housing for junior enlisted 

servicemembers 

The committee believes that the services have a responsibility to 

provide safe and suitable housing for servicemembers—including 

junior enlisted personnel living in unaccompanied housing. 

The committee notes the unacceptable conditions of Building 191 

at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Building 191 violates current state 

and federal building and fire codes, does not have an operational 

fire suppression system, and features heating, ventilation, air conditioning, power distribution, and lighting systems that are at the 

end of their life cycle. The same barracks building does not have 

code compliant fresh air ventilation and there have been sewage 

failures, rodent problems, mold problems, and regular hot water 

failure. 

The committee believes junior enlisted sailors should not have to 

live in such conditions. The committee is concerned that the project 

to tear down Building 191—and replace it with a new Junior Enlisted Unaccompanied House (P–285)—was originally planned for 

fiscal year 2015 and has been postponed to fiscal year 2016 and 

then to fiscal year 2018. The committee believes it is difficult for 

the Navy to justify continued deferral of P–285, especially in light 

of some of the lower priority military construction projects in its FY 

2016 request and given the unacceptable conditions found in Building 191 at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. 

In the fiscal year 2017 budget request, the committee expects the 

Navy to request funding for P–285 or to justify why such a request 

is not a priority for the Navy. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(321) 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

Overview 

Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy defense 

activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2016, including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 

equipment; research and development; nuclear weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses necessary to carry 

out the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act 

(Public Law 95–91). This title authorizes appropriations in three 

categories: (1) National Nuclear Security Administration; (2) defense environmental cleanup; and (3) other defense activities. 

The committee recommends a provision allocating funding consistent with the funding allocations in section 4701. The committee 

notes that recent actions taken at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

(WIPP), and its projected initial operating date of March 2016, necessitate quarterly reporting to the congressional defense committees on actions taken towards bringing WIPP towards full operational status, including key milestones, status of any capital 

projects under Department of Energy Order 413.3, as well as obligations and expenditures of fiscal year 2015 funding. Such reporting shall be due within 30 days of the quarter for which it is reporting. The committee further requests the General Accountability 

Office review these quarterly updates and report to the congressional defense committees on significant findings and trends in the 

above tasks. 

The committee further directs the Government Accountability Office to continue its ongoing evaluation of the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant in the areas of cost-schedule performance, technology 

readiness levels, contractor assurance system, and other agreements to be mutually agreed upon with a briefing to the committee 

due no later than February 28, 2016. 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

total of $12.8 billion for the Department of Energy in fiscal year 

2015 for the National Nuclear Security Administration to carry out 

programs necessary to national security. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
322 

Defense environmental clean-up (sec. 3102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $5.1 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities at the Department of Energy. The defense environmental cleanup activities 

support the cleanup of contaminated facilities, soil, ground, and 

surface water, and the treatment and disposal of radioactive and 

other waste generated through the production of nuclear weapons 

and weapons materials. 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $774.4 million for other defense activities for fiscal year 2016, including funds for health, safety, and security, the Office of Legacy 

Management, and Nuclear Energy. 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Responsive capabilities program (sec. 3111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) to establish and carry out a program to exercise the technical capabilities of the NNSA with respect to design and production of nuclear weapons to ensure that NNSA is ready to respond 

to future uncertainties not addressed by existing life extension programs. 

The program shall be integrated across the science, engineering, 

design, and manufacturing cycle of the NNSA, and integrate physics, engineering, and production capabilities into joint test assemblies and designs. The program shall result in: (1) Physics models 

of components and systems, capable of being certified as safe and 

reliable in the absence of testing, and contribute to the predictive 

design framework; (2) shortened engineering design cycles that 

minimize the amount of time leading to an engineering prototype; 

and (3) rapid manufacturing capabilities to reduce the time and 

cost of production. 

In January 2015, the United States Strategic Command issued 

a report titled ‘‘Report on Balance in Nuclear Weapons Program.’’ 

The report found that ‘‘the nation requires an agile and capable infrastructure with requisite capacities able to respond to technical 

and geopolitical developments. Investments in processing and production infrastructure are needed to enhance the nation’s ability to 

respond to uncertainty. Additionally, a full design and production 

capability is a critical component of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.’’ 

The committee notes it is the view of the Director of the Sandia 

National Laboratory that we must ‘‘engage in a long-term transformation of the approach to the design, development, qualification, 

and production of nuclear weapons. Lowering the cost, reducing the 

time to deploy, and being responsive to changing external threats 

will help assure we continue to meet the nation’s needs into the future. The nature of the emerging threat itself provides another 

strategic reason for ensuring we are not surprised.’’ Likewise, the 

Director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has told 

this committee that ‘‘mission success depends on the laboratories’ 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
323 

science and technology excellence and their ability to deliver innovative, cost-efficient solutions.’’ 

The committee authorizes $20.0 million in fiscal year 2016, identified elsewhere in the committee report, to commence a responsive 

capabilities program. 

Long-term plan for meeting national security requirements 

for unencumbered uranium (sec. 3112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Energy to submit a plan, on even-numbered years, 

with the President’s budget submission, for meeting the national 

security requirements for unencumbered uranium through 2065. 

Unencumbered uranium is uranium for which the United States 

has no obligations to foreign governments to use uranium only for 

peaceful purposes. The committee remains concerned about accurately accounting for the inventory of existing unencumbered uranium that is allocated for national security purposes as well as future costs for any future production options being considered and 

policy options that could help offset such costs. 

Defense nuclear nonproliferation management plan (sec. 

3113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require in 

each odd numbered year that the Administrator, National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA), submit a management plan of defense nuclear nonproliferation programs of the NNSA. Updates to 

this plan are required in each even numbered year. 

Plan for deactivation and decommissioning of nonoperational defense nuclear facilities (sec. 3114) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Energy to develop a plan to perform a cost-benefit 

analysis of defense nuclear facilities requiring deactivation and decommissioning as to whether they should be kept in cold shutdown 

awaiting demolition, or accelerated to save long-term storage costs. 

The plan will be required beginning every even calendar year no 

later than March 31, 2016, and end after the fifth report submission on March 31, 2026. The committee is concerned about the 

large inventory of nonoperational buildings at active defense nuclear facilities, such as at the Y–12 plant, some dating to the Manhattan Project, that continue to sit idle and must be continuously 

maintained in a safe condition by the National Nuclear Security 

Administration instead of being transferred to the Office of Environmental Management for demolition. The accelerated cleanup of 

the Rocky Flats plant saved the taxpayer billions of dollars. The 

committee expects the Department of Energy will take a similar 

approach with these facilities. 

Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant contract oversight (sec. 3115) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Energy to arrange to have an owner’s agent assist the 

Secretary in carrying out oversight responsibilities associated with 

Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant contract DE– 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
324 

AC27–01RV14136. Since the current contractor for the Waste 

Treatment Plant is its own design agent, the owner’s design agent 

will act as an independent expert on the project. 

Assessment of emergency preparedness of defense nuclear 

facilities (sec. 3116) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Energy to include in each award-fee evaluation conducted of a management and operating contract for a Department 

of Energy defense nuclear facility in 2016, or any even-numbered 

year thereafter, an assessment of the adequacy of the emergency 

preparedness of that facility, including an assessment of the seniority level of employees and contractors of the Department of Energy 

that participate in emergency preparedness exercises at that facility. 

The committee is concerned that on September 3, 2014, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) issued a recommendation to the Department of Energy that it make specific 

improvements in its emergency management directive and 

strengthen the implementation of its emergency management requirements to ensure the continued protection of workers and the 

public. The DNFSB attributed observed problems to the absence of 

sound emergency preparedness and response programs at defense 

nuclear facilities. The committee notes that the Secretary of Energy 

accepted the recommendation on November 7, 2014, and is in the 

process of developing an implementation plan to accomplish the improvements. 

Laboratory- and facility-directed research and development 

programs (sec. 3117) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 4811(c) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2791(c)) 

to strike the 6 percent upper bound for National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) weapons laboratory-directed research and 

development programs with a floor not to go below 5 percent and 

with an upper bound not to exceed 8 percent. The committee recommends a similar provision recommended for NNSA weapons production facilities and the Nevada Site Office with an upper bound 

of 4 percent. These funds have served as the source of new innovations throughout the NNSA complex, keeping scientists and engineers at the cutting edge of technology, which translates into costsaving innovations for the nation’s stockpile program, with an ability to meet any future uncertainties that might arise. The funds 

are also used to attract young scientists and engineers to mentor 

under senior personnel to ensure there is a fresh talent pool coming into the NNSA complex on an enduring basis. 

Limitation on bonuses for employees of the National Nuclear Security Administration who engage in improper 

program management (sec. 3118) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide authority to the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration to withhold bonus payments to employees who engage 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
325 

in improper program management on the date such a determination is made. 

Modification of authorized personnel levels of the Office of 

the Administrator for Nuclear Security (sec. 3119) 

The committee recommends a provision that permits the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to 

hire above the statutory limit of 1,690 full-time positions using up 

to 100 exempt employees hired under section 3241 of the National 

Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C section 2441). The 

committee recognizes the need of the NNSA to hire positions that 

are unique to the Administration in areas such as cost evaluation, 

program management, science and engineering, and encourages the 

Administrator to use exempt hiring to bring new expertise into the 

NNSA. 

Modification of submission of assessments of certain budget 

requests relating to the nuclear weapons stockpile (sec. 

3120) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) annual reporting deadline for reviewing the budget of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) weapons program from 90 days to 150 days 

in odd-numbered years when NNSA is required to submit a detailed Stockpile Stewardship Management Plan (SSMP). 

Each fiscal year, section 3113 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383), 

requires GAO to report not later than 90 days after NNSA submits 

its nuclear security budget material to Congress on an assessment 

of whether the budget materials provide sufficient funding for the 

modernization of the nuclear security enterprise. GAO reviews 

budgetary materials that include the SSMP, which NNSA is required to develop in consultation with the Department of Defense. 

GAO would be required to submit a detailed report in odd-numbered years and a summary in even-numbered years. However, for 

the odd-numbered years, NNSA’s detailed SSMP is frequently 

issued 60 days after the agency issues its nuclear security budget 

materials. This delay significantly reduces GAO’s time to review 

detailed SSMP information and still meet the 90-day statutory reporting deadline. 

Repeal of phase three review of certain defense environmental cleanup projects (sec. 3121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal phase 

three of section 3134 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) as the Government Accountability Office has reported on all phases of this project. 

Modifications to cost-benefit analysis for competition of 

management and operating contracts (sec. 3122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3121 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 (Public Law 112–239) to make technical corrections to increase the utility of reports on competition for management and opVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00353 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
326 

erating contracts at facilities of the National Nuclear Security Administration and change the timing of the Government Accountability Office’s review to assess whether estimated cost savings and 

other benefits are actually occurring as planned. 

Review of implementation of recommendations of the Congressional Advisory Panel on the governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise (sec. 3123) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration to 

enter into agreements with the National Academy of Sciences and 

the National Academy of Pubic Administration to assess implementation of recommendations of the Congressional Advisory Panel on 

the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise that can be carried out without additional legislation. In addition to monitoring 

implementation, the agreement should specify that the two entities 

should determine whether the implementation was effective in addressing the problem it was intended to solve. The agreement shall 

utilize the procedures of the National Academies in reviewing and 

publishing the joint report. 

Budget Items 

Defense Environmental Cleanup, Los Alamos National Laboratory 

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to the 

Department of Energy Defense Environmental Clean-up account to 

accelerate the cleanup of transuranic waste at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and in particular to enhance the ability to sort, 

track and re-package transuranic waste drums. These actions are 

needed to avoid future preventable incidents associated with the 

Los Alamos drum that underwent an exothermic reaction at the 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

Deferred Maintenance 

The budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) contained $257.7 million for Recapitalization and 

$227.0 million for Maintenance. Respectively, these programs fund 

day-to-day preventative or corrective maintenance activities and efforts to reduce the large backlog of deferred maintenance across the 

nuclear security enterprise. Fiscal Year 2016 budget justification 

materials submitted by NNSA note that NNSA’s deferred maintenance backlog is over $3.6 billion and growing. 

The committee is encouraged that the Administrator and the 

Secretary have taken steps to stop the growth in the backlog of deferred maintenance, but believes more must be done to actually decrease the total amount of the backlog. Therefore, the committee 

recommends $407.7 million for Recapitalization, an increase of 

$150.0 million to the budget request. 

Enhanced surveillance 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to the 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Weapons Account, Engineering, Enhanced Surveillance. This program provides 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
327 

important models and tools used to predict the aging of nuclear 

weapons systems, which is of importance to combatant commanders and the Nuclear Weapons Council in determining whether 

a life-extension program will be required. 

Plutonium disposition program 

The Department of Energy (DOE) continues to struggle with its 

plutonium disposition program, the intent of which is for the 

United States and Russia to each dispose of 34 metric tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium—an agreement between the two 

countries was signed in 2000 and updated in 2011. The existing 

strategy is based on constructing a facility to fabricate mixed oxide 

(MOX) nuclear fuel and irradiating this fuel in specially-modified 

commercial nuclear reactors. Once used and removed from a reactor, the plutonium can no longer be readily used to make a nuclear 

weapon. 

In 2013, in light of the cost increases and the current budget environment associated with the MOX facility and the overall Plutonium Disposition program, DOE’s fiscal year 2014 budget request 

stated that the strategy for converting plutonium to MOX fuel may 

be much higher than initially anticipated. The budget request announced that, as a result of these projected cost increases, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) would slow down 

activities associated with the current plutonium disposition strategy and conduct an analysis of alternatives to complete the mission 

more efficiently. 

In April 2014, DOE released its analysis of the existing MOX 

strategy and four other alternatives including downblending the 34 

metric tons and disposing this material at DOE’s Waste Isolation 

Pilot Plant (WIPP), or at a new repository that would need to be 

constructed if WIPP could not be modified to dispose of this 

downblended material. The April 2014 analysis found that the 

downblending option was significantly less expensive than the 

other four alternatives examined. 

An April 2015 independent analysis conducted by the Aerospace 

Corporation of the lifecycle costs associated with the MOX and 

downblended options also concluded that the downblending option 

was significantly less expensive than the MOX option. Although 

cost is a factor in considering disposition strategies, it is important 

to note that the only option that meets the requirements outlined 

in the Plutonium Management and Disposition Act PMDA, signed 

by the United States and Russia, is MOX. All other alternatives 

would not only require that we renegotiate the PMDA with Russia, 

but will likely also require statutory and regulatory changes that 

could cause additional delay. 

The committee is concerned, however, that these analyses inadequately assessed the technical, regulatory, and political feasibility 

of the downblending option. To address these inadequacies, the 

committee directs NNSA to prepare an analysis of the 

downblending option that includes answers to the following questions: 

(1) What is the capital cost, operating and maintenance cost, 

other program costs, and overall lifecycle costs associated with 

the optimal downblending strategy? 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
328 

(2) What is the existing subscribed capacity at WIPP and 

how would DOE accommodate the volume of downblended material from the 34 metric tons from the plutonium disposition 

program? Since WIPP is currently not accepting transuranic 

waste as a result of the February 2014 accident, and thus created a backlog of waste that is being temporarily stored at 

multiple sites, when would the first shipment of plutonium be 

transported to WIPP if this option was selected? What costs 

are associated with this delay? 

(3) Would the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act need to be modified to accommodate this additional volume? If yes, how long 

with this likely take to complete? What, if any, costs are associated with this delay? 

(4) Are there statutory changes or other regulations that 

would need to be modified to support the downblending option? 

If so, how long would it take to change these regulations and 

what are the associated costs? 

(5) Would a new geologic repository be needed to accommodate all or some of this additional volume? If so, what would 

be the potential cost and schedule of siting, constructing, and 

operating such a repository? By way of comparison, what was 

the capital cost of constructing WIPP? 

(6) What is the optimal blending of weapons-grade plutonium with inert material to maximize space in a repository? 

(7) How might the percentage of plutonium in containers of 

downblended material affect the security requirements associated with transporting the material to a repository, the security requirements at the repository, and the ability of international monitors to monitor the downblended material in a repository? 

(8) What are the nonproliferation and arms control concerns 

associated with disposing of weapons-grade plutonium in containers that lack a radioactive barrier in a repository? 

(9) Would the PMDA need to be renegotiated if MOX was no 

longer the preferred option for the United States to dispose of 

34 metric tons of plutonium? What are the concerns associated 

with this action? 

(10) What are the technical impediments to downblending 

weapons-grade plutonium from pit and non-pit sources? 

(11) What are the views of the US Environmental Protection 

Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and State of New 

Mexico in pursuing a downblend strategy? 

The fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $345.0 million in 

Nonproliferation Construction for the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF). The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

for Nonproliferation Construction to support analysis of the 

downblending alternative. The committee requests that all cost 

analyses conducted as part of this analysis follow the best practice 

guidance of the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. 

The committee requests the Department of Energy to conduct a 

two-step analysis of alternative uses for the MOX Fuel Fabrication 

Facility (MFFF) should an alternative plutonium disposition strategy be adopted and this facility were no longer needed for this purVerDate Sep 11 2014 10:18 May 26, 2015 Jkt 094599 PO 00000 Frm 00356 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR049.XXX SR049

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
329 

pose. To preserve the long-term mission for the Savannah River 

Site, (1) identify potential long-term mission needs at the Savannah River Site over the next 30 to 50 years, and (2) using best 

practices identified by the GAO, conduct an analysis of alternatives 

to identify how these mission needs could be met by using the 

MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility. 

The analysis for the downblending option and the alternatives to 

using the MFFF shall be due to the congressional defense committees no later than October 31, 2015. The committee directs the 

Government Accountability Office to review the NNSA analysis as 

outlined in this section with a report to the congressional defense 

committees no later than 30 days after receipt of the NNSA analysis. 

Responsive capabilities program 

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in fiscal 

year 2016 to support the establishment of a new responsive capabilities program within the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Elsewhere in this bill, the committee recommends a 

provision that would require the Administrator of the NNSA to establish and carry out a program to exercise the technical capabilities of the NNSA with respect to design and production of nuclear 

weapons to ensure that NNSA is ready to respond to future uncertainties not addressed by existing life-extension programs. 

The program shall be integrated across the science, engineering, 

design, and manufacturing cycle of the NNSA, and integrate physics, engineering, and production capabilities into joint test assemblies and designs. The program shall result in: (1) physics models 

of components and systems, capable of being certified as safe and 

reliable in the absence of testing, and contribute to the predictive 

design framework; (2) shortened engineering design cycles that 

minimize the amount of time leading to an engineering prototype; 

and (3) rapid manufacturing capabilities to reduce the time and 

cost of production. 

Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund 

The committee notes that a legislative assumption accompanies 

the budget request of $471.8 million for the uranium enrichment 

decontamination and decommissioning fund, to reauthorize section 

1101 of the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (Public Law 102–48, 42 

U.S.C. 2297g) for matching industry contributions. As in fiscal year 

2015, this legislation was not reauthorized and the committee assumes it will not be reauthorized again this year. Accordingly, the 

committee recommends a decrease of $471.8 million. 

Items of Special Interest 

Ability of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to 

communicate with the Secretary of Energy 

Section 312 of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, as amended, (42 

U.S.C. 2268a) says in part ‘‘Mission—The mission of the Board 

shall be to provide independent analysis, advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy to inform the Secretary in the role 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
330 

of operator and regulator of defense nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy, in providing adequate protection of public health 

and safety at such defense nuclear facilities.’’ Due to the recent reorganization of the Department to form an Office of the Undersecretary for Management and Performance, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) no longer reports directly to the Secretary of Energy. It has been lowered within this relatively new organization to the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, 

Health, Safety and Security. This re-organization leaves the committee with the impression that the Department is not adhering to 

the statutory language (as found in section 312), and intent of the 

DNFSB organization act, and that is to report to the Secretary of 

Energy on matters concerning the adequate protection of the public 

health and safety of defense nuclear facilities. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to report to the 

congressional defense committees no later than February 28, 2016 

on actions the Secretary will or has taken to ensure that the 

DNFSB has the ability to interact with, and report to the Secretary 

of Energy (as found in section 312 of the DNFSB organization act) 

on matters involving adequate protection of the public health and 

safety of defense nuclear facilities. 

Interoperable Warhead—1 

The committee recognizes that future life extension programs for 

U.S. nuclear weapons components and stockpile systems, such as 

the Interoperable Warhead—1 (IW–1), will face technical challenges. Maintaining readiness to meet these challenges during the 

5 year delay of the IW–1 program, which will develop the first 

interoperable nuclear packages for both Air Force and Navy ballistic missile systems under the Nuclear Weapons Council’s ‘‘3+2’’ 

strategy, is important for future confidence in the nation’s nuclear 

deterrent. Technical capabilities essential to our nuclear readiness 

reside in the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) 

national laboratories and production and testing organizations; 

they comprise areas of nuclear design and engineering, advanced 

simulation and experimentation, science, surveillance, and production. 

Technical questions concerning IW–1 need to be understood and 

addressed. Integration of the IW–1 nuclear package into different 

Air Force and Navy missiles with different space, weight, and operational requirements, while assuring the accuracy of warhead delivery in both systems, could be problematic. This and other concerns will also pertain to future life-extension programs beyond 

IW–1. For example, the goal to enhance surety of stockpile systems 

increases technical challenges. Optimizing system design to best 

meet requirements involves technical trade studies, presently incomplete for the IW–1, that draw on all nuclear capabilities listed 

above to ensure component and weapon system certification. Other 

difficult technical questions surround pit reuse, which may become 

a key ingredient of life extension programs in the future. In addition to drawing on nuclear design, simulation, experimental validation capabilities, trade studies concerning pit reuse will involve pit 

production capability and capacity issues. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
331 

The committee feels strongly that maintaining the readiness of 

scientists, engineers and production staff by challenging them to 

address these and other crucial technical issues during the 5-year 

delay of the IW–1 program will be essential to this and other stockpile life extension programs. 

Lithium supply and demand 

The Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration shall report to the congressional defense committees no later 

than February 28, 2016 on the supply and demand for lithium to 

be used on weapons production through 2045. 

Microlab Technology Transfer 

The committee is aware that directors of national laboratories, as 

well as a Brookings Institution study, have recognized that most 

national laboratories are located outside of major metropolitan 

areas, and most lab research occurs ‘‘behind the fence’’ of main 

campuses, inaccessible to the public. The study recommends establishing off-campus microlabs that would serve as the ‘‘front-door’’ to 

national laboratories to give academia, local government, businesses owners, and communities direct access to the equipment, facilities, and personnel of national labs. 

The committee therefore directs the Administrator to work with 

the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) lab directors 

to develop a plan for a ‘‘microlab’’ program in order to accelerate 

technology transfer from NNSA national laboratories, weapons production plants and facilities operated by the Nevada Site Office to 

private industry. The committee expects the Administrator to include an estimate of the associated costs, need, and benefit for establishing a microlab at a facility, and require cost-sharing from 

academia, local government, and private industry. The committee 

encourages the Administrator to work with the Department of Energy’s Office of Technology Transitions and consider utilizing funds 

under the statutorily created Energy Technology Commercialization Fund (TCF) to help establish the federal share of establishing 

a microlab. The committee directs NNSA to brief the congressional 

defense committees on the plan no later than September 31, 2015. 

Report on program management at the National Nuclear Security Administration 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to report to the congressional defense committees no later 

than February 28th, 2016, on the program management capabilities of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). 

The NNSA is organized into program offices to manage a wide 

variety of programs and relies on federal program and project managers as well as contracting officers to ensure that resources are 

used effectively and that programs and projects achieve their missions on time and on budget. The committee believes that these officials should also be held accountable when resources are not used 

effectively, programs or projects do not achieve their missions on 

time or on budget, or when programs or projects experience other 

types of management challenges. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
332 

A number of NNSA programs and projects have suffered significant delays and cost overruns or other forms of mismanagement 

that raise questions about how these managers interact, coordinate, and are held accountable. For example, the Government Accountability Office’s 2015 high-risk report indicated that the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement project, the Mixed 

Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, and the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) have all suffered extensive cost growth and schedule 

delays. In addition, the NNSA created a program manager position 

for NNSA’s uranium program after a peer review of the UPF 

project found, among other things, that the program lacked a firm 

requirement in terms of how much uranium is needed by the program over the next 20 years. 

In light of these past incidents, the report shall examine: (1) the 

extent to which NNSA’s programs and projects have program or 

project managers; (2) the technical qualifications and training required to become an NNSA program manager, project manager, or 

contracting officer and the extent to which those currently holding 

these positions meet those requirements; (3) the extent to which 

NNSA has clearly defined roles and responsibilities for its program 

managers, project managers, and contracting officers; and (4) the 

mechanisms in place to hold responsible officials accountable for 

program and project performance, and the extent to which NNSA 

has used these mechanisms. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(333) 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

Authorization for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 

(sec. 3201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board at $29.2 million. 

DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES 

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001 ) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 

the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and activities in 

accordance with the tables in division D of this Act, subject to reprogramming in accordance with established procedures. 

Consistent with the previously expressed views of the committee, 

the provision would also require that decisions by an agency head 

to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a specific entity on the 

basis of such funding tables be based on authorized, transparent, 

statutory criteria, or merit-based selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, 

United States Code, and other applicable provisions of law. 

Clarification of applicability of undistributed reductions of 

certain operation and maintenance funding among all 

operation and maintenance funding (sec. 4002) 

The committee recommends a provision that clarifies that the 

undistributed reductions in funding for operation and maintenance 

due to bulk fuel purchases and foreign currency fluctuations, as 

shown in table 4301, can be applied to all operation and maintenance funding, regardless if funding is available in table 4301 or 

table 4302. 

Funding tables (secs. 4101–4701) 

The committee recommends provisions that provide line-item 

guidance for the funding authorized in this Act. The provisions display the line-item funding requested by the administration in the 

fiscal year 2016 budget request and show where the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. 

The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 

amounts, as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in budget justification documents 

of the Department of Defense, without a reprogramming action in 

accordance with established procedures. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(335) 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2016 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BASE BUDGET 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051) 

DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY ............................................ 5,689,357 26,000 5,715,357 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ............................................... 1,419,957 190,000 1,609,957 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ........................................... 1,887,073 70,611 1,957,684 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY .................................. 1,233,378 –10,952 1,222,426 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................................. 5,899,028 –358,000 5,541,028 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ............................................. 16,126,405 2,346,700 18,473,105 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ............................................. 3,154,154 48,668 3,202,822 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC .................................. 723,741 723,741 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY ................................. 16,597,457 1,656,000 18,253,457 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY .................................................. 6,614,715 –13,400 6,601,315 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ............................................. 1,131,418 107,885 1,239,303 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .................................... 15,657,769 814,944 16,472,713 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ....................................... 2,987,045 2,987,045 

SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................... 2,584,061 –288,569 2,295,492 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ......................... 1,758,843 38,500 1,797,343 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................... 18,272,438 41,146 18,313,584 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .............................................. 5,130,853 210,651 5,341,504 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND ............................. 99,701 99,701 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE I--PROCUREMENT ....................................... 106,967,393 4,880,184 111,847,577 

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ................... 6,924,959 91,668 7,016,627 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY .................... 17,885,916 41,292 17,927,208 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ........................ 26,473,669 –533,490 25,940,179 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ....................... 18,329,861 1,507,207 19,837,068 

OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE .................................... 170,558 170,558 

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

EVALUATION ........................................................................ 69,784,963 1,106,677 70,891,640 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
336 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2016 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ....................................... 35,107,546 –8,233,294 26,874,252 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES ............................... 2,665,792 18,789 2,684,581 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ....................................... 6,717,977 19,119 6,737,096 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ........................................ 42,200,756 –16,810,316 25,390,440 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ........................ 6,228,782 –1,931,024 4,297,758 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES ................................ 1,001,758 –41,086 960,672 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ........................... 277,036 –2,473 274,563 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ............................... 38,191,929 –14,242,964 23,948,965 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ............................ 3,064,257 –103,216 2,961,041 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .......................................... 6,956,210 –120,815 6,835,395 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE .................... 32,440,843 –998,802 31,442,041 

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS .......................................... 1,664,342 1,664,342 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .......... 176,517,228 –42,446,082 134,071,146 

TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Military Personnel Appropriations ........................................... 130,491,227 –1,254,500 129,236,727 

Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions ............ 6,243,449 6,243,449 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL .......................... 136,734,676 –1,254,500 135,480,176 

TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .............................................. 50,432 50,432 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE ...................................... 62,898 62,898 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE ............................... 45,084 45,084 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA .............................................. 1,154,154 1,154,154 

NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND .......................................... 474,164 474,164 

CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION ........................... 720,721 720,721 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ............... 850,598 30,000 880,598 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ..................................... 316,159 –3,600 312,559 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................... 32,243,328 –52,940 32,190,388 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS .................... 35,917,538 –26,540 35,890,998 

TOTAL, DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS .................................................................................. 525,921,798 –37,740,261 488,181,537 

DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

ARMY ....................................................................................... 743,245 –21,500 721,745 

NAVY ........................................................................................ 1,605,929 59,360 1,665,289 

AIR FORCE ............................................................................... 1,354,785 11,400 1,366,185 

DEFENSE-WIDE ......................................................................... 2,300,767 –169,700 2,131,067 

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD .......................................................... 197,237 51,300 248,537 

AIR NATIONAL GUARD .............................................................. 123,538 23,600 147,138 

ARMY RESERVE ....................................................................... 113,595 34,200 147,795 

NAVY RESERVE ........................................................................ 36,078 36,078 

AIR FORCE RESERVE ............................................................... 46,821 10,400 57,221 

NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM ................................. 120,000 120,000 

SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ..................................... 6,641,995 –940 6,641,055 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
337 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2016 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

FAMILY HOUSING 

CONSTRUCTION, ARMY ............................................................ 99,695 99,695 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY ................................... 393,511 393,511 

CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ........................... 16,541 16,541 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS .. 353,036 353,036 

CONSTURCTION, AIR FORCE .................................................... 160,498 160,498 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ........................... 331,232 331,232 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE .................... 58,668 58,668 

SUBTOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING .................................................. 1,413,181 1,413,181 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE 

ARMY ....................................................................................... 29,691 29,691 

NAVY ........................................................................................ 157,088 157,088 

AIR FORCE ............................................................................... 64,555 64,555 

SUBTOTAL, BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ..................... 251,334 251,334 

TOTAL, DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS .................................................................................. 8,306,510 –940 8,305,570 

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUBFUNCTION 051) ................................................................... 534,228,308 –37,741,201 496,487,107 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053) 

DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

NUCLEAR ENERGY ................................................................... 135,161 135,161 

SUBTOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS .............................................. 135,161 135,161 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES ............................................................... 8,846,948 180,000 9,026,948 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ................................. 1,940,302 5,000 1,945,302 

NAVAL REACTORS .................................................................... 1,375,496 1,375,496 

FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES ........................................ 402,654 402,654 

SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 12,565,400 185,000 12,750,400 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP ...................................... 5,527,347 –451,797 5,075,550 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES .................................................... 774,425 774,425 

SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................... 6,301,772 –451,797 5,849,975 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS ....... 19,002,333 –266,797 18,735,536 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
338 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2016 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

TOTAL, DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS ............................................................................. 19,002,333 –266,797 18,735,536 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053) ............................................................................ 19,002,333 –266,797 18,735,536 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNDING, BASE BUDGET REQUEST .................................................................................. 553,230,641 –38,007,998 515,222,643 

NATIONAL DEFENSE OCO BUDGET REQUEST 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051) 

PROCUREMENT 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY ............................................ 164,987 164,987 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ............................................... 37,260 37,260 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ........................................... 26,030 26,030 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY .................................. 192,040 192,040 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................................. 1,205,596 1,205,596 

JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND ............................. 493,271 –48,271 445,000 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ............................................. 217,394 217,394 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ............................................. 3,344 3,344 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC .................................. 136,930 136,930 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY .................................................. 12,186 12,186 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ............................................. 48,934 48,934 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .................................... 128,900 128,900 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ....................................... 289,142 289,142 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ......................... 228,874 228,874 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................... 3,859,964 3,859,964 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .............................................. 212,418 212,418 

SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT ...................................................... 7,257,270 –48,271 7,208,999 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ................... 1,500 1,500 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY .................... 35,747 35,747 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ........................ 17,100 17,100 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ....................... 137,087 137,087 

SUBTOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION .................................................................................... 191,434 191,434 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ....................................... 11,382,750 7,616,786 18,999,536 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES ............................... 24,559 24,559 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ....................................... 60,845 60,845 

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND .................................. 3,762,257 3,762,257 

IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND ................................................. 715,000 715,000 

SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND ............................................... 600,000 600,000 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
339 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2016 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ........................................ 5,131,588 16,106,810 21,238,398 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ........................ 952,534 1,862,836 2,815,370 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES ................................ 31,643 31,643 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ........................... 3,455 3,455 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ............................... 9,090,013 13,312,681 22,402,694 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ............................ 58,106 58,106 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .......................................... 19,900 19,900 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE .................... 5,805,633 –100,000 5,705,633 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................... 37,638,283 38,799,113 76,437,396 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ................................. 3,204,758 3,204,758 

SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL .......................................... 3,204,758 3,204,758 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE ...................................... 2,500 2,500 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE ............................... 86,350 86,350 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ............... 186,000 186,000 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ..................................... 10,262 10,262 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................... 272,704 272,704 

COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND ............................ 2,100,000 –1,100,000 1,000,000 

UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE ............................ 0 300,000 300,000 

SUBTOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................... 2,657,816 –800,000 1,857,816 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050) OCO 

BUDGET REQUEST ............................................................... 50,949,561 37,950,842 88,900,403 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050) ........... 604,180,202 –57,156 604,123,046 

MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XIV—ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME (FUNCTION 

600) ..................................................................................... 64,300 64,300 

MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS) 

TITLE X—GENERAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY ............................. [5,000,000 ] [4,500,000 ] 

TITLE XV—SPECIAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY ............................ [3,500,000 ] [4,000,000 ] 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(341) 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY 

IMPLICATION 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2016 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

SUMMARY DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES 

COMMITTEE 

NATIONAL DEFENSE (050) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY, BASE BUDGET (051) ... 534,228,308 –37,741,201 496,487,107 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) .......................... 19,002,333 –266,797 18,735,536 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ................................... 50,949,561 37,950,842 88,900,403 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050) ........................................... 604,180,202 –57,156 604,123,046 

OTHER DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS PROGRAMS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED 

SERVICES COMMITTEE OR ALREADY AUTHORIZED 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) 

DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES ................................ 47,000 47,000 

INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: DISPOSAL OF DOD REAL PROPERTY .... 6,000 6,000 

INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: LEASE OF DOD REAL PROPERTY ......... 35,000 35,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) ......... 88,000 88,000 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053) 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM ...... 104,000 104,000 

SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) ....... 104,000 104,000 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) 

OTHER DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS ........................................ 7,545,000 7,545,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ................... 7,545,000 7,545,000 

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS 

(050) .................................................................................... 7,737,000 7,737,000 

DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) 

NATIONAL DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS (050) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY (051) ........................... 585,265,869 209,641 585,475,510 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) .......................... 19,106,333 –266,797 18,839,536 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ....................................... 7,545,000 7,545,000 

TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION, 

050 ...................................................................................... 611,917,202 –57,156 611,860,046 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
342 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2016 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS, CURRENT LAW (CB0 BASELINE) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) 

CONCURRENT RECEIPT ACCRUAL PAYMENTS TO THE MILITARY RETIREMENT FUND ..................................................... 6,932,000 6,932,000 

REVOLVING, TRUST AND OTHER DOD MANDATORY ................. 1,135,000 1,135,000 

OFFSETTING RECEIPTS ............................................................. –1,593,000 –1,593,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) ......... 6,474,000 6,474,000 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053) 

ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS AND OTHER .............................................. 1,168,000 1,168,000 

SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) ....... 1,168,000 1,168,000 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) 

RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION TRUST FUND .............. 59,000 59,000 

PAYMENT TO CIA RETIREMENT FUND AND OTHER .................. 514,000 514,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ................... 573,000 573,000 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS (050) ... 8,215,000 8,215,000 

DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) 

DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY (051) ........................... 591,739,869 209,641 591,949,510 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) .......................... 20,274,333 –266,797 20,007,536 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ....................................... 8,118,000 8,118,000 

TOTAL, BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) .................... 620,132,202 –57,156 620,075,046 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(343) 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
344 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT. 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 

2 UTILITY F/W AIRCRAFT .............................................................................................. 0 879 0 879

4 MQ–1 UAV ................................................................................................................. 15 260,436 15 260,436 

ROTARY 

6 HELICOPTER, LIGHT UTILITY (LUH) ............................................................................ 28 187,177 28 187,177 

7 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN .......................................................................... 64 1,168,461 64 1,168,461 8 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN (AP) .................................................................. 0 209,930 0 209,930 

11 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) ....................................................................... 94 1,435,945 94 1,435,945 12 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) (AP) ............................................................... 0 127,079 0 127,079 13 UH–60 BLACK HAWK A AND L MODELS .................................................................... 40 46,641 40 46,641 14 CH–47 HELICOPTER .................................................................................................. 39 1,024,587 39 1,024,587 15 CH–47 HELICOPTER (AP) .......................................................................................... 0 99,344 0 99,344 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

16 MQ–1 PAYLOAD (MIP) ............................................................................................... 0 97,543 0 97,543 

19 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP) ............................................................................ 0 95,725 0 95,725 20 AH–64 MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 116,153 0 116,153 21 CH–47 CARGO HELICOPTER MODS (MYP) ................................................................ 0 86,330 0 86,330 22 GRCS SEMA MODS (MIP) .......................................................................................... 0 4,019 0 4,019 23 ARL SEMA MODS (MIP) ............................................................................................. 0 16,302 0 16,302 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
345 

24 EMARSS SEMA MODS (MIP) ...................................................................................... 0 13,669 0 13,669 25 UTILITY/CARGO AIRPLANE MODS ............................................................................... 0 16,166 0 16,166 26 UTILITY HELICOPTER MODS ....................................................................................... 0 13,793 0 13,793 28 NETWORK AND MISSION PLAN .................................................................................. 0 112,807 0 112,807 29 COMMS, NAV SURVEILLANCE .................................................................................... 0 82,904 0 82,90430 GATM ROLLUP ............................................................................................................ 0 33,890 0 33,890 31 RQ–7 UAV MODS ....................................................................................................... 0 81,444 0 81,444 

GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 

32 AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 0 56,215 0 56,215 33 SURVIVABILITY CM .................................................................................................... 0 8,917 0 8,917 

34 CMWS ........................................................................................................................ 0 78,348 26,000 0 104,348 

Army UPL for AH–64 ASE: urgent survivability requirement ............................... [26,000 ] 

OTHER SUPPORT 

35 AVIONICS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 6,937 0 6,937 36 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 64,867 0 64,867 37 AIRCREW INTEGRATED SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 0 44,085 0 44,085 38 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL .............................................................................................. 0 94,545 0 94,545 

39 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 0 1,207 0 1,207 

40 LAUNCHER, 2.75 ROCKET ......................................................................................... 0 3,012 0 3,012 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY .................................................................. 280 5,689,357 26,000 280 5,715,357 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 

1 LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD) ....................................................... 0 115,075 0 115,075 2 MSE MISSILE ............................................................................................................. 414,946 200,000 80 614,946 

Army UPL for Patriot PAC 3 for improved ballistic missile defense ................... 80 [200,000 ] 

AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 

3 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 113 27,975 113 27,975 

4 JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MSLS (JAGM) ........................................................................ 0 27,738 0 27,738 

ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 

5 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY ..................................................................... 331 77,163 331 77,163 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
346 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

6 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 1,704 87,525 1,704 87,525 8 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ............................................................................... 1,668 251,060 1,668 251,060 9 MLRS REDUCED RANGE PRACTICE ROCKETS (RRPR) .............................................. 3,121 17,428 3,121 17,428 

MODIFICATIONS 

11 PATRIOT MODS .......................................................................................................... 0 241,883 0 241,883 12 ATACMS MODS ........................................................................................................... 30,119 –10,000 0 20,119 

Early to need ........................................................................................................ 0 [–10,000 ] 

13 GMLRS MOD .............................................................................................................. 0 18,221 0 18,221 14 STINGER MODS .......................................................................................................... 0 2,216 0 2,216 15 AVENGER MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 6,171 0 6,171 16 ITAS/TOW MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 19,576 0 19,576 17 MLRS MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 35,970 0 35,970 18 HIMARS MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................ 0 3,148 0 3,148 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

19 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 33,778 0 33,778 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

20 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS ............................................................................................. 0 3,717 0 3,717 

21 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MISSILES) ........................................................................ 0 1,544 0 1,544 22 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................... 0 4,704 0 4,704 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ..................................................................... 7,017 1,419,957 190,000 7,017 1,609,957 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

1 STRYKER VEHICLE ..................................................................................................... 0 181,245 0 181,245 

MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
347 

2 STRYKER (MOD) ........................................................................................................ 0 74,085 0 74,085 3 STRYKER UPGRADE ................................................................................................... 62 305,743 62 305,743 5 BRADLEY PROGRAM (MOD) ....................................................................................... 0 225,042 0 225,042 6 HOWITZER, MED SP FT 155MM M109A6 (MOD) ....................................................... 0 60,079 0 60,079 7 PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) .............................................................. 30 273,850 30 273,850 8 IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88A2 HERCULES) ............................................... 123,629 72,000 31 195,629 

16 M88A2s to supports modernization of ABCTs and industrial base ............... 31 [72,000 ] 

9 ASSAULT BRIDGE (MOD) ........................................................................................... 0 2,461 0 2,461 

10 ASSAULT BREACHER VEHICLE ................................................................................... 0 2,975 0 2,975 11 M88 FOV MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 14,878 0 14,878 12 JOINT ASSAULT BRIDGE ............................................................................................. 4 33,455 4 33,455 13 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) .......................................................................................... 0 367,939 0 367,939 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

15 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (TCV-WTCV) ............................................................... 0 6,479 0 6,479 

WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 

16 MORTAR SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 0 4,991 0 4,991 

17 XM320 GRENADE LAUNCHER MODULE (GLM) ........................................................... 0 26,294 0 26,294 18 PRECISION SNIPER RIFLE .......................................................................................... 1,984 –1,984 0 0 

Early to need ........................................................................................................ 0 [–1,984 ] 

19 COMPACT SEMI-AUTOMATIC SNIPER SYSTEM ........................................................... 1,488 –1,488 0 0 

Early to need ........................................................................................................ 0 [–1,488 ] 

20 CARBINE .................................................................................................................... 0 34,460 0 34,460 21 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION ................................................ 8,367 6,400 0 14,767 

Transferred funds ................................................................................................. 0 [6,400 ] 

22 HANDGUN ................................................................................................................... 5,417 –5,417 0 0 

RFP release delayed, early to need ...................................................................... 0 [–5,417 ] 

MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 

23 MK–19 GRENADE MACHINE GUN MODS ................................................................... 0 2,777 0 2,777 24 M777 MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 10,070 0 10,070 

25 M4 CARBINE MODS ................................................................................................... 0 27,566 0 27,566 26 M2 50 CAL MACHINE GUN MODS ............................................................................. 0 44,004 0 44,004 27 M249 SAW MACHINE GUN MODS .............................................................................. 0 1,190 0 1,190 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
348 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

28 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN MODS ........................................................................ 0 1,424 0 1,424 29 SNIPER RIFLES MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................ 2,431 –1,400 0 1,031 

Early to need ........................................................................................................ 0 [–1,400 ] 

30 M119 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................... 0 20,599 0 20,599 32 MORTAR MODIFICATION ............................................................................................. 0 6,300 0 6,300 

33 MODIFICATIONS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) .................................................... 0 3,737 0 3,737 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

34 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) ................................................................... 0 391 2,500 0 2,891 

Transfer funds ...................................................................................................... [2,500 ] 

35 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (WOCV-WTCV) ............................................................ 0 9,027 0 9,027 36 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ..................................................................................... 0 304 0 304 37 SMALL ARMS EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER ENH PROG) ...................................................... 0 2,392 0 2,392 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ................................................................ 127 1,887,073 70,611 127 1,957,684 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

1 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 43,489 0 43,489 

2 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 40,715 0 40,715 3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 7,753 –952 0 6,801 

Program funding ahead of need .......................................................................... [–952 ] 

4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 24,728 0 24,728 

5 CTG, 25MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 8,305 0 8,305 6 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 34,330 0 34,330 7 CTG, 40MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 79,972 –10,000 0 69,972 

Early to need ........................................................................................................ [–10,000 ]


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
349 

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

8 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 42,898 0 42,898

9 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 43,500 0 43,500

10 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES .................................................................................... 0 64,372 0 64,372

TANK AMMUNITION 

11 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, ALL TYPES ............................................. 0 105,541 0 105,541 

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

12 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 105MM, ALL TYPES ........................................... 0 57,756 0 57,756 13 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................ 0 77,995 0 77,995 14 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982 ..................................................................... 0 45,518 0 45,518 15 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL ............................................. 0 78,024 0 78,024 

ROCKETS 

16 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................ 0 7,500 0 7,500 17 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 0 33,653 0 33,653 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

18 CAD/PAD, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................. 0 5,639 0 5,639 

19 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................ 0 9,751 0 9,751 20 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 0 19,993 0 19,993 21 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES .................................................................................................. 0 9,761 0 9,761 22 SIMULATORS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 0 9,749 0 9,749 

MISCELLANEOUS 

23 AMMO COMPONENTS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 0 3,521 0 3,521 24 NON-LETHAL AMMUNITION, ALL TYPES ..................................................................... 0 1,700 0 1,700 25 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (AMMO) .................................................................... 0 6,181 0 6,181 26 AMMUNITION PECULIAR EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 17,811 0 17,811 27 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION (AMMO) ........................................................ 0 14,695 0 14,695 

PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT 

29 PROVISION OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ..................................................................... 0 221,703 0 221,703 30 CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATION ........................................................ 0 113,250 0 113,250 31 ARMS INITIATIVE ........................................................................................................ 0 3,575 0 3,575 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ....................................................... 0 1,233,378 –10,952 0 1,222,426 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
350 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 

1 TACTICAL TRAILERS/DOLLY SETS .............................................................................. 0 12,855 0 12,855 2 SEMITRAILERS, FLATBED: .......................................................................................... 0 53 0 53 4 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ................................................................................ 450 308,336 450 308,336 

5 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) .............................................................. 166 90,040 166 90,040 6 FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIP ................................................... 0 8,444 0 8,444 7 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ......................................................... 273 27,549 273 27,549 8 PLS ESP ..................................................................................................................... 0 127,102 0 127,102 

10 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS ...................................................... 0 48,292 0 48,292 11 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP .............................................................................. 0 130,993 0 130,993 12 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED (MRAP) MODS ............................................. 0 19,146 0 19,146 

NON-TACTICAL VEHICLES 

14 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 1,248 0 1,248 15 NONTACTICAL VEHICLES, OTHER ............................................................................... 0 9,614 0 9,614 

COMM—JOINT COMMUNICATIONS 

16 WIN-T—GROUND FORCES TACTICAL NETWORK ........................................................ 0 783,116 –200,000 0 583,116 

Delayed obligation of prior year funds ................................................................ [–200,000 ] 

17 SIGNAL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .......................................................................... 0 49,898 0 49,898 18 JOINT INCIDENT SITE COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY ............................................... 0 4,062 0 4,062 19 JCSE EQUIPMENT (USREDCOM) ................................................................................. 0 5,008 0 5,008 

COMM—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

20 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE WIDEBAND SATCOM SYSTEMS .............................................. 0 196,306 0 196,306 21 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... 0 44,998 –15,000 0 29,998 

Early to need in FY16 due to one year delay ...................................................... [–15,000 ] 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
351 

22 SHF TERM .................................................................................................................. 0 7,629 0 7,629 23 NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (SPACE) .................................................... 0 14,027 0 14,027 24 SMART-T (SPACE) ...................................................................................................... 0 13,453 0 13,453 25 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC—GBS ..................................................................................... 0 6,265 0 6,265 26 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (TAC SAT) ............................................................................ 0 1,042 0 1,042 27 ENROUTE MISSION COMMAND (EMC) ....................................................................... 0 7,116 0 7,116 

COMM—C3 SYSTEM 

28 ARMY GLOBAL CMD & CONTROL SYS (AGCCS) ........................................................ 0 10,137 0 10,137 

COMM—COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 

29 JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM ................................................................................ 0 64,640 0 64,64030 MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) ................................................. 0 27,762 0 27,762 31 RADIO TERMINAL SET, MIDS LVT(2) .......................................................................... 0 9,422 0 9,422 32 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS—OPA2 ................................................................................... 0 26,020 0 26,020 33 TRACTOR DESK .......................................................................................................... 0 4,073 0 4,073 34 SPIDER APLA REMOTE CONTROL UNIT ...................................................................... 0 1,403 0 1,403 35 SPIDER FAMILY OF NETWORKED MUNITIONS INCR ................................................... 0 9,199 0 9,199 36 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM COMM/ELECTRONICS ....................................... 0 349 0 349 37 TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND PROTECTIVE SYSTEM .......................................... 0 25,597 0 25,597 38 UNIFIED COMMAND SUITE ......................................................................................... 0 21,854 0 21,854 40 FAMILY OF MED COMM FOR COMBAT CASUALTY CARE ........................................... 0 24,388 0 24,388 

COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 

42 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................... 0 1,349 0 1,349 43 ARMY CA/MISO GPF EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 3,695 0 3,695 

INFORMATION SECURITY 

45 INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY PROGRAM-ISSP .................................................... 0 19,920 0 19,920 46 COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (COMSEC) .................................................................. 0 72,257 0 72,257 

COMM—LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS 

47 BASE SUPPORT COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................... 0 16,082 0 16,082 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

48 INFORMATION SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 0 86,037 0 86,037 50 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .......................................... 0 8,550 0 8,550 51 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM ............................................ 0 73,496 0 73,496 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
352 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

54 JTT/CIBS-M ................................................................................................................ 0 881 0 881 

55 PROPHET GROUND ..................................................................................................... 0 63,650 –15,000 0 48,650 

Unjustified program growth ................................................................................. [–15,000 ] 

57 DCGS-A (MIP) ............................................................................................................ 0 260,268 0 260,268 

58 JOINT TACTICAL GROUND STATION (JTAGS) .............................................................. 0 3,906 0 3,906 59 TROJAN (MIP) ............................................................................................................. 0 13,929 0 13,929 60 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) (MIP) ................................................................ 0 3,978 0 3,978 61 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING AND COLL(CHARCS) ..................................................... 0 7,542 0 7,542 62 CLOSE ACCESS TARGET RECONNAISSANCE (CATR) .................................................. 0 8,010 0 8,010 63 MACHINE FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRANSLATION SYSTEM-M ......................................... 0 8,125 0 8,125 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

64 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR ................................................................. 0 63,472 0 63,472 65 EW PLANNING & MANAGEMENT TOOLS (EWPMT) ...................................................... 0 2,556 0 2,556 66 AIR VIGILANCE (AV) ................................................................................................... 0 8,224 0 8,224 67 CREW ......................................................................................................................... 0 2,960 0 2,960 68 FAMILY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITIE ............................................... 0 1,722 0 1,722 69 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES .......................................... 0 447 0 447 70 CI MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................... 0 228 0 228 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 

71 SENTINEL MODS ........................................................................................................ 0 43,285 0 43,285 

72 NIGHT VISION DEVICES ............................................................................................. 0 124,216 0 124,216 74 SMALL TACTICAL OPTICAL RIFLE MOUNTED MLRF .................................................... 0 23,216 0 23,216 76 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS ................................................... 0 60,679 0 60,679 77 FAMILY OF WEAPON SIGHTS (FWS) ........................................................................... 0 53,453 0 53,453 78 ARTILLERY ACCURACY EQUIP ................................................................................... 0 3,338 0 3,338 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
353 

79 PROFILER ................................................................................................................... 0 4,057 0 4,057 81 JOINT BATTLE COMMAND—PLATFORM (JBC-P) ........................................................ 0 133,339 0 133,339 82 JOINT EFFECTS TARGETING SYSTEM (JETS) .............................................................. 0 47,212 0 47,212 83 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR) .................................................................................. 0 22,314 0 22,314 84 COMPUTER BALLISTICS: LHMBC XM32 ..................................................................... 0 12,131 0 12,131 85 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM .............................................................................. 0 10,075 0 10,075 86 COUNTERFIRE RADARS .............................................................................................. 0 217,379 –75,000 0 142,379 

Under execution of prior year funds .................................................................... [–75,000 ] 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS 

87 FIRE SUPPORT C2 FAMILY ........................................................................................ 0 1,190 0 1,190 

90 AIR & MSL DEFENSE PLANNING & CONTROL SYS .................................................... 0 28,176 0 28,176 91 IAMD BATTLE COMMAND SYSTEM ............................................................................. 0 20,917 0 20,917 92 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE SUPPORT (LCSS) ................................................................. 0 5,850 0 5,850 93 NETWORK MANAGEMENT INITIALIZATION AND SERVICE ............................................ 0 12,738 0 12,738 94 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) ....................................................................... 0 145,405 0 145,405 95 GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM-ARMY (GCSS-A) .............................................. 0 162,654 –16,000 0 146,654 

Program growth .................................................................................................... [–16,000 ] 

96 INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPP .......................................... 0 4,446 0 4,446 98 RECONNAISSANCE AND SURVEYING INSTRUMENT SET ............................................. 0 16,218 0 16,218 99 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (ENFIRE) ...................................................................... 0 1,138 0 1,138 

ELECT EQUIP—AUTOMATION 

100 ARMY TRAINING MODERNIZATION ............................................................................. 0 12,089 0 12,089 101 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP ..................................................................... 0 105,775 –12,000 0 93,775 

Reduce IT procurement ........................................................................................ [–12,000 ] 

102 GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEMS FAM ........................................... 0 18,995 0 18,995 103 HIGH PERF COMPUTING MOD PGM (HPCMP) ............................................................ 0 62,319 0 62,319 104 RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYS (RCAS) .................................................... 0 17,894 0 17,894 

ELECT EQUIP—AUDIO VISUAL SYS (A/V) 

106 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (SURVEYING EQUIPMENT) ................................................... 0 4,242 0 4,242 

ELECT EQUIP—SUPPORT 

107 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (C-E) .......................................................................... 0 425 0 425 108 BCT EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................................ 0 7,438 0 7,438 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
354 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

108 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 6,467 0 6,467 

CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 

109 PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................... 0 248 0 248 

110 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT (FNLE) ............................................................ 0 1,487 0 1,487 112 CBRN DEFENSE ......................................................................................................... 0 26,302 0 26,302 

BRIDGING EQUIPMENT 

113 TACTICAL BRIDGING .................................................................................................. 0 9,822 0 9,822 

114 TACTICAL BRIDGE, FLOAT-RIBBON ............................................................................ 0 21,516 0 21,516 115 BRIDGE SUPPLEMENTAL SET ..................................................................................... 0 4,959 0 4,959

116 COMMON BRIDGE TRANSPORTER (CBT) RECAP ....................................................... 0 52,546 0 52,546 

ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 

117 GRND STANDOFF MINE DETECTN SYSM (GSTAMIDS) ................................................ 0 58,682 0 58,682 118 HUSKY MOUNTED DETECTION SYSTEM (HMDS) ........................................................ 0 13,565 0 13,565 119 ROBOTIC COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM (RCSS) ........................................................... 0 2,136 0 2,136 120 EOD ROBOTICS SYSTEMS RECAPITALIZATION ........................................................... 0 6,960 0 6,960 121 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQPMT (EOD EQPMT) .......................................... 0 17,424 0 17,424 122 REMOTE DEMOLITION SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 0 8,284 0 8,284 123 < $5M, COUNTERMINE EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 5,459 0 5,459 124 FAMILY OF BOATS AND MOTORS ............................................................................... 0 8,429 0 8,429 

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

125 HEATERS AND ECU’S ................................................................................................. 0 18,876 0 18,876 127 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT ........................................................................................... 0 2,287 0 2,287 128 PERSONNEL RECOVERY SUPPORT SYSTEM (PRSS) .................................................. 0 7,733 0 7,733 129 GROUND SOLDIER SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 0 49,798 0 49,798 130 MOBILE SOLDIER POWER .......................................................................................... 0 43,639 0 43,639 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
355 

132 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 0 13,118 0 13,118 133 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM ........................................ 0 28,278 0 28,278 135 FAMILY OF ENGR COMBAT AND CONSTRUCTION SETS ............................................. 0 34,544 0 34,544 136 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (ENG SPT) ........................................................................... 0 595 0 595 

PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT 

137 QUALITY SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 5,368 0 5,368 138 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & WATER ...................................................... 0 35,381 0 35,381 

MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 

139 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL ..................................................................................... 0 73,828 0 73,828 

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 

140 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS .......................................................... 0 25,270 0 25,270 141 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MAINT EQ) ....................................................................... 0 2,760 0 2,760 

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 

142 GRADER, ROAD MTZD, HVY, 6X4 (CCE) .................................................................... 0 5,903 0 5,903 143 SCRAPERS, EARTHMOVING ........................................................................................ 0 26,125 0 26,125 

146 TRACTOR, FULL TRACKED ......................................................................................... 0 27,156 0 27,156 147 ALL TERRAIN CRANES ............................................................................................... 0 16,750 0 16,750 148 PLANT, ASPHALT MIXING ........................................................................................... 0 984 0 984149 HIGH MOBILITY ENGINEER EXCAVATOR (HMEE) ....................................................... 0 2,656 0 2,656 150 ENHANCED RAPID AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION CAPAP ................................................ 0 2,531 0 2,531 151 FAMILY OF DIVER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................. 0 446 0 446 152 CONST EQUIP ESP ..................................................................................................... 0 19,640 0 19,640 153 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (CONST EQUIP) ................................................................. 0 5,087 0 5,087 

RAIL FLOAT CONTAINERIZATION EQUIPMENT 

154 ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP ........................................................................................... 0 39,772 0 39,772 155 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL) .................................................................... 0 5,835 0 5,835 

GENERATORS 

156 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP ..................................................................... 0 166,356 0 166,356 157 TACTICAL ELECTRIC POWER RECAPITALIZATION ....................................................... 0 11,505 0 11,505 

MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

159 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS ............................................................................................... 0 17,496 0 17,496 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
356 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

160 COMBAT TRAINING CENTERS SUPPORT .................................................................... 0 74,916 0 74,916 161 TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM .............................................................................. 0 303,236 –25,000 0 278,236 

Unjustified program growth ................................................................................. [–25,000 ] 

162 CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINER .......................................................................... 0 45,210 0 45,210 163 AVIATION COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER ....................................................... 0 30,068 0 30,068 164 GAMING TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF ARMY TRAINING .......................................... 0 9,793 0 9,793 

TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT (TMD) 

165 CALIBRATION SETS EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 4,650 0 4,650 166 INTEGRATED FAMILY OF TEST EQUIPMENT (IFTE) ..................................................... 0 34,487 0 34,487 167 TEST EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION (TEMOD) ............................................................ 0 11,083 0 11,083 

OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

169 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................... 0 17,937 0 17,937 170 PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (OPA3) ..................................................................... 0 52,040 0 52,040 171 BASE LEVEL COMMON EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 0 1,568 0 1,568 172 MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA–3) ....................................................... 0 64,219 0 64,219 173 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (OTH) ......................................................................... 0 1,525 0 1,525 174 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR USER TESTING ................................................................. 0 3,268 0 3,268 176 TRACTOR YARD .......................................................................................................... 0 7,191 0 7,191 

OPA2 

177 INITIAL SPARES—C&E .............................................................................................. 0 48,511 0 48,511 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ....................................................................... 889 5,899,028 –358,000 889 5,541,028 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 

2 F/A–18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET .................................................................................. 0 0 12 1,150,000 12 1,150,000 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
357 

Additional 12 aircraft, unfunded requirement ..................................................... 12 [1,150,000 ] 

3 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV ........................................................................................ 4 897,542 –24,500 4 873,042 

Efficiencies and excess cost growth .................................................................... [–24,500 ] 

4 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV (AP) ................................................................................ 0 48,630 0 48,630

5 JSF STOVL .................................................................................................................. 9 1,483,414 6 1,024,900 15 2,508,314 

Efficiencies and excess cost growth .................................................................... [–25,100 ] Additional 6 aircraft, unfunded requirement ....................................................... 6 [1,050,000 ] 

6 JSF STOVL (AP) .......................................................................................................... 0 203,060 0 203,060 

7 CH–53K (HEAVY LIFT) ............................................................................................... 0 41,300 0 41,300 8 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) ................................................................................................. 19 1,436,355 19 1,436,355 9 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) (AP) ......................................................................................... 0 43,853 0 43,853 

10 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) .............................................................................. 28 800,057 28 800,057 11 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) (AP) ...................................................................... 0 56,168 0 56,168 12 MH–60S (MYP) .......................................................................................................... 0 28,232 0 28,232 14 MH–60R (MYP) .......................................................................................................... 29 969,991 29 969,991 16 P–8A POSEIDON ........................................................................................................ 16 3,008,928 16 3,008,928 17 P–8A POSEIDON (AP) ................................................................................................ 0 269,568 0 269,568 18 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE ................................................................................................. 5 857,654 5 857,654 19 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE (AP) ......................................................................................... 0 195,336 0 195,336 

TRAINER AIRCRAFT 

20 JPATS ......................................................................................................................... 0 8,914 0 8,914 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

21 KC–130J .................................................................................................................... 2 192,214 2 192,214 22 KC–130J (AP) ............................................................................................................ 0 24,451 0 24,451 23 MQ–4 TRITON ............................................................................................................ 3 494,259 3 494,259 24 MQ–4 TRITON (AP) .................................................................................................... 0 54,577 0 54,577 25 MQ–8 UAV ................................................................................................................. 2 120,020 2 120,020 26 STUASL0 UAV ............................................................................................................. 0 3,450 0 3,450 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

28 EA–6 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 9,799 0 9,799 

29 AEA SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 0 23,151 0 23,151 30 AV–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 41,890 3,300 0 45,190 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
358 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AV–8B Link 16 upgrades, unfunded requirement ............................................... [3,300 ] 

31 ADVERSARY ............................................................................................................... 0 5,816 0 5,816 

32 F–18 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 978,756 170,000 0 1,148,756 

Jamming protection upgrades, unfunded requirement ........................................ [170,000 ] 

34 H–53 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 46,887 0 46,887 

35 SH–60 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 107,728 0 107,728 36 H–1 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 42,315 0 42,315 37 EP–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 41,784 0 41,784 38 P–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 3,067 0 3,067 39 E–2 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 20,741 0 20,741 40 TRAINER A/C SERIES ................................................................................................. 0 27,980 0 27,980 41 C–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 8,157 0 8,157 42 C–130 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 70,335 0 70,335 43 FEWSG ....................................................................................................................... 0 633 0 633 44 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C SERIES ............................................................................... 0 8,916 0 8,916 45 E–6 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 185,253 0 185,253 46 EXECUTIVE HELICOPTERS SERIES ............................................................................. 0 76,138 0 76,138 47 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ..................................................................................... 0 23,702 0 23,702 48 T–45 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 105,439 0 105,439 49 POWER PLANT CHANGES ........................................................................................... 0 9,917 0 9,917 50 JPATS SERIES ............................................................................................................ 0 13,537 0 13,537 51 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 131,732 0 131,732 52 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES ................................................................................... 0 202,745 0 202,745 53 COMMON DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM .................................................................... 0 3,062 0 3,062 54 ID SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 0 48,206 0 48,206 55 P–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 28,492 0 28,492 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
359 

56 MAGTF EW FOR AVIATION .......................................................................................... 0 7,680 0 7,680 57 MQ–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................ 0 22,464 0 22,464 58 RQ–7 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 3,773 0 3,773 59 V–22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY ............................................................................ 0 121,208 23,000 0 144,208 

MV–22 Integrated Aircraft Survivability .............................................................. [15,000 ] MV–22 Ballistic Protection ................................................................................... [8,000 ] 

60 F–35 STOVL SERIES .................................................................................................. 0 256,106 0 256,106 

61 F–35 CV SERIES ........................................................................................................ 0 68,527 0 68,527 62 QRC ........................................................................................................................... 0 6,885 0 6,885 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

63 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 1,563,515 0 1,563,515 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP & FACILITIES 

64 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 450,959 0 450,959 65 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................. 0 24,010 0 24,010

66 WAR CONSUMABLES .................................................................................................. 0 42,012 0 42,012 67 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ................................................................................. 0 2,455 0 2,455 68 SPECIAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 50,859 0 50,859 69 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 1,801 0 1,801 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 117 16,126,405 18 2,346,700 135 18,473,105 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

1 TRIDENT II MODS ...................................................................................................... 0 1,099,064 0 1,099,064 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

2 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................... 0 7,748 0 7,748 

STRATEGIC MISSILES 

3 TOMAHAWK ................................................................................................................ 100 184,814 49 30,000 149 214,814 

Combined with 47 FY15 OCO missiles, returns production to MSR ................... 49 [30,000 ] 

TACTICAL MISSILES 

4 AMRAAM .................................................................................................................... 167 192,873 15,000 167 207,873 

Additional captive air training missiles .............................................................. [15,000 ] 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
360 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

5 SIDEWINDER .............................................................................................................. 227 96,427 227 96,427 6 JSOW .......................................................................................................................... 0 21,419 0 21,419 7 STANDARD MISSILE ................................................................................................... 113 435,352 113 435,352 8 RAM ........................................................................................................................... 90 80,826 90 80,826 

11 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS (SOPGM) .............................................. 27 4,265 27 4,265 12 AERIAL TARGETS ........................................................................................................ 0 40,792 0 40,792 13 OTHER MISSILE SUPPORT ......................................................................................... 0 3,335 0 3,335 

MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

14 ESSM ......................................................................................................................... 30 44,440 30 44,440 15 ESSM (AP) ................................................................................................................. 0 54,462 0 54,462 

16 HARM MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 122,298 0 122,298 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

17 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................. 0 2,397 0 2,397 18 FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON ........................................................................ 0 39,932 0 39,932 

ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

19 ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 57,641 3,668 0 61,309 

Classified Program ............................................................................................... [3,668 ] 

TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

20 SSTD .......................................................................................................................... 0 7,380 0 7,380 21 MK–48 TORPEDO ....................................................................................................... 8 65,611 8 65,611 

22 ASW TARGETS ............................................................................................................ 0 6,912 0 6,912 

MOD OF TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

23 MK–54 TORPEDO MODS ............................................................................................ 0 113,219 0 113,219 

24 MK–48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS ................................................................................ 0 63,317 0 63,317 25 QUICKSTRIKE MINE .................................................................................................... 0 13,254 0 13,254 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
361 

26 TORPEDO SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 67,701 0 67,701 27 ASW RANGE SUPPORT ............................................................................................... 0 3,699 0 3,699 

DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION 

28 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 3,342 0 3,342 

GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

29 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS .................................................................................... 0 11,937 0 11,937 

MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

30 CIWS MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 53,147 0 53,147 

31 COAST GUARD WEAPONS .......................................................................................... 0 19,022 0 19,022 32 GUN MOUNT MODS .................................................................................................... 0 67,980 0 67,980 33 AIRBORNE MINE NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS ............................................................ 0 19,823 0 19,823 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

35 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 149,725 0 149,725 

TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 762 3,154,154 49 48,668 811 3,202,822 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 

1 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 101,238 0 101,238 

2 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 0 67,289 0 67,289 3 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 0 20,340 0 20,340 4 PRACTICE BOMBS ...................................................................................................... 0 40,365 0 40,365 5 CARTRIDGES & CART ACTUATED DEVICES ............................................................... 0 49,377 0 49,377 6 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ..................................................................... 0 59,651 0 59,651 7 JATOS ......................................................................................................................... 0 2,806 0 2,806 8 LRLAP 6′′ LONG RANGE ATTACK PROJECTILE ........................................................... 0 11,596 0 11,596 

9 5 INCH/54 GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................... 0 35,994 0 35,994 

10 INTERMEDIATE CALIBER GUN AMMUNITION .............................................................. 0 36,715 0 36,715 11 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................. 0 45,483 0 45,483 12 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO ................................................................... 0 52,080 0 52,080 13 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ............................................................................... 0 10,809 0 10,809 14 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ....................................................................... 0 4,469 0 4,469 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
362 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

15 SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION ....................................................................................... 0 46,848 0 46,848 

16 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES ................................................................................... 0 350 0 350 17 40 MM, ALL TYPES .................................................................................................... 0 500 0 500 18 60MM, ALL TYPES ..................................................................................................... 0 1,849 0 1,849 19 81MM, ALL TYPES ..................................................................................................... 0 1,000 0 1,000 20 120MM, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................... 0 13,867 0 13,867 22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 0 1,390 0 1,390 23 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................ 0 14,967 0 14,967 24 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 0 45,219 0 45,219 26 FUZE, ALL TYPES ....................................................................................................... 0 29,335 0 29,335 27 NON LETHALS ............................................................................................................ 0 3,868 0 3,868 28 AMMO MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................. 0 15,117 0 15,117 29 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 11,219 0 11,219 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ........................................................ 0 723,741 0 723,741 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY OTHER WARSHIPS 

1 CARRIER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM .......................................................................... 0 1,634,701 0 1,634,701 2 CARRIER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (AP) .................................................................. 0 874,658 0 874,658 3 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE .................................................................................... 2 3,346,370 2 3,346,370 

4 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE (AP) ............................................................................ 0 1,993,740 800,000 0 2,793,740 

Accelerate shipbuilding funding .......................................................................... [800,000 ] 

5 CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS .................................................................................... 1 678,274 1 678,274 

6 CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS (AP) ............................................................................ 0 14,951 0 14,951 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
363 

7 DDG 1000 .................................................................................................................. 0 433,404 0 433,404 8 DDG–51 ..................................................................................................................... 2 3,149,703 400,000 2 3,549,703 

Incremental funding for one DDG–51 .................................................................. [400,000 ] 

10 LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP ............................................................................................ 3 1,356,991 3 1,356,991 

AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS 

12 LPD–17 ...................................................................................................................... 1 550,000 1 550,000 

13 AFLOAT FORWARD STAGING BASE ............................................................................. 0 0 97,000 0 97,000 

Accelerate shipbuilding funding .......................................................................... [97,000 ] 

15 LHA REPLACEMENT .................................................................................................... 0 277,543 199,000 0 476,543 

Accelerate LHA–8 advanced procurement ........................................................... [199,000 ] 

XX LX (R) AP ................................................................................................................... 0 0 51,000 0 51,000 

Accelerate LX (R) .................................................................................................. [51,000 ] 

XXX LCU Replacement ...................................................................................................... 0 0 1 34,000 1 34,000 

Accelerate LCU replacement ................................................................................ [34,000 ] 

AUXILIARIES, CRAFT AND PRIOR YR PROGRAM COST 

17 TAO FLEET OILER ...................................................................................................... 1 674,190 1 674,190 

19 MOORED TRAINING SHIP (AP) ................................................................................... 0 138,200 0 138,200 20 OUTFITTING ................................................................................................................ 0 697,207 0 697,207 21 SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR .................................................................................... 5 255,630 5 255,630 22 SERVICE CRAFT ......................................................................................................... 0 30,014 0 30,014 23 LCAC SLEP ................................................................................................................. 4 80,738 4 80,738 24 YP CRAFT MAINTENANCE/ROH/SLEP ......................................................................... 0 21,838 0 21,838 25 COMPLETION OF PY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS ........................................................ 0 389,305 0 389,305 XX T-ATS(X) Fleet Tug .................................................................................................... 0 0 1 75,000 1 75,000 

Accelerate T-ATS(X) .............................................................................................. [75,000 ] 

TOTAL SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY ....................................................... 19 16,597,457 2 1,656,000 21 18,253,457 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY SHIP PROPULSION EQUIPMENT 

1 LM–2500 GAS TURBINE ............................................................................................ 0 4,881 0 4,881 

2 ALLISON 501K GAS TURBINE .................................................................................... 0 5,814 0 5,814 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
364 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

3 HYBRID ELECTRIC DRIVE (HED) ................................................................................ 0 32,906 0 32,906 

GENERATORS 

4 SURFACE COMBATANT HM&E .................................................................................... 0 36,860 0 36,860 

NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT 

5 OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 87,481 0 87,481 

PERISCOPES 

6 SUB PERISCOPES & IMAGING EQUIP ........................................................................ 0 63,109 0 63,109 

OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT 

7 DDG MOD ................................................................................................................... 0 364,157 60,000 0 424,157 

Restore additional DDG BMD modernization (CNO UPL) ..................................... [60,000 ] 

8 FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................... 0 16,089 0 16,089 

9 COMMAND AND CONTROL SWITCHBOARD ................................................................. 0 2,255 0 2,255 

10 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE ....................................................................................................... 0 28,571 0 28,571 11 LCC 19/20 EXTENDED SERVICE LIFE PROGRAM ....................................................... 0 12,313 0 12,313 12 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 16,609 0 16,609 13 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 0 10,498 0 10,498 14 VIRGINIA CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 0 35,747 0 35,747 15 LCS CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 48,399 0 48,399 16 SUBMARINE BATTERIES ............................................................................................. 0 23,072 0 23,072 17 LPD CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 55,283 0 55,283 18 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP .................................................................... 0 18,563 0 18,563 19 DSSP EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................................... 0 7,376 0 7,376 21 LCAC .......................................................................................................................... 0 20,965 0 20,965 22 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 0 51,652 0 51,652 23 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 102,498 0 102,498 24 CHEMICAL WARFARE DETECTORS ............................................................................. 0 3,027 0 3,027 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
365 

25 SUBMARINE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM ......................................................................... 0 7,399 0 7,399 

REACTOR PLANT EQUIPMENT 

27 REACTOR COMPONENTS ............................................................................................ 0 296,095 0 296,095 

OCEAN ENGINEERING 

28 DIVING AND SALVAGE EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 15,982 0 15,982 

SMALL BOATS 

29 STANDARD BOATS ...................................................................................................... 0 29,982 0 29,982 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

30 OTHER SHIPS TRAINING EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 66,538 0 66,538 

PRODUCTION FACILITIES EQUIPMENT 

31 OPERATING FORCES IPE ............................................................................................ 0 71,138 0 71,138 

OTHER SHIP SUPPORT 

32 NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS ............................................................................................. 0 132,625 0 132,625 

33 LCS COMMON MISSION MODULES EQUIPMENT ......................................................... 0 23,500 0 23,500 34 LCS MCM MISSION MODULES ................................................................................... 0 85,151 –55,800 0 29,351 

Procurement in excess of need ahead of satisfactory testing ............................ [–55,800 ] 

35 LCS SUW MISSION MODULES .................................................................................... 0 35,228 0 35,228

36 REMOTE MINEHUNTING SYSTEM (RMS) .................................................................... 0 87,627 –65,600 0 22,027

Procurement in excess of need ahead of satisfactory testing ............................ [–65,600 ] 

LOGISTIC SUPPORT 

37 LSD MIDLIFE .............................................................................................................. 0 2,774 0 2,774 

SHIP SONARS 

38 SPQ–9B RADAR ......................................................................................................... 0 20,551 0 20,551 

39 AN/SQQ–89 SURF ASW COMBAT SYSTEM ................................................................. 0 103,241 0 103,241 40 SSN ACOUSTICS ......................................................................................................... 0 214,835 20,000 0 234,835 

Towed Array-unfunded requirement ..................................................................... [20,000 ] 

41 UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................. 0 7,331 0 7,331 42 SONAR SWITCHES AND TRANSDUCERS ..................................................................... 0 11,781 0 11,781 

ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

44 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE SYSTEM ............................................................... 0 21,119 0 21,119 45 SSTD .......................................................................................................................... 0 8,396 0 8,396 46 FIXED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 0 146,968 0 146,968 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
366 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

47 SURTASS .................................................................................................................... 0 12,953 0 12,953 48 MARITIME PATROL AND RECONNSAISANCE FORCE ................................................... 0 13,725 0 13,725 

ELECTRONIC WARFARE EQUIPMENT 

49 AN/SLQ–32 ................................................................................................................ 0 324,726 28,000 0 352,726 

SEWIP Block II unfunded requirement ................................................................. [28,000 ] 

RECONNAISSANCE EQUIPMENT 

50 SHIPBOARD IW EXPLOIT ............................................................................................ 0 148,221 0 148,221 

51 AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS) .............................................................. 0 152 0 152 

SUBMARINE SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT 

52 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT PROG ................................................................. 0 79,954 0 79,954 

OTHER SHIP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

53 COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY .................................................................. 0 25,695 0 25,695 54 TRUSTED INFORMATION SYSTEM (TIS) ...................................................................... 0 284 0 284 55 NAVAL TACTICAL COMMAND SUPPORT SYSTEM (NTCSS) ......................................... 0 14,416 0 14,416 56 ATDLS ........................................................................................................................ 0 23,069 0 23,069 57 NAVY COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NCCS) ..................................................... 0 4,054 0 4,054 58 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ................................................................... 0 21,014 0 21,014 59 SHALLOW WATER MCM .............................................................................................. 0 18,077 0 18,077 

60 NAVSTAR GPS RECEIVERS (SPACE) .......................................................................... 0 12,359 0 12,359 61 AMERICAN FORCES RADIO AND TV SERVICE ............................................................ 0 4,240 0 4,240 62 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP .................................................................... 0 17,440 0 17,440 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

63 OTHER TRAINING EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 0 41,314 0 41,314

AVIATION ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

64 MATCALS .................................................................................................................... 0 10,011 0 10,011 

65 SHIPBOARD AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL .......................................................................... 0 9,346 0 9,346 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
367 

66 AUTOMATIC CARRIER LANDING SYSTEM ................................................................... 0 21,281 0 21,281 67 NATIONAL AIR SPACE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 0 25,621 0 25,62168 FLEET AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS ................................................................... 0 8,249 0 8,249 69 LANDING SYSTEMS .................................................................................................... 0 14,715 0 14,715 70 ID SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 0 29,676 0 29,676 71 NAVAL MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 0 13,737 0 13,737 

OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

72 DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND & CONTROL ............................................................. 0 1,314 0 1,314 74 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 0 13,600 0 13,600 75 DCGS-N ...................................................................................................................... 0 31,809 0 31,809 76 CANES ........................................................................................................................ 0 278,991 0 278,991 77 RADIAC ...................................................................................................................... 0 8,294 0 8,294 78 CANES-INTELL ............................................................................................................ 0 28,695 0 28,695 79 GPETE ........................................................................................................................ 0 6,962 0 6,962 80 MASF .......................................................................................................................... 0 290 0 290 81 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM TEST FACILITY .................................................................... 0 14,419 0 14,419 82 EMI CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION ............................................................................. 0 4,175 0 4,175 83 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 44,176 0 44,176 

SHIPBOARD COMMUNICATIONS 

84 SHIPBOARD TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................. 0 8,722 0 8,722 85 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION ...................................................................... 0 108,477 0 108,477 86 COMMUNICATIONS ITEMS UNDER $5M ..................................................................... 0 16,613 0 16,613 

SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS 

87 SUBMARINE BROADCAST SUPPORT ........................................................................... 0 20,691 0 20,691 88 SUBMARINE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................... 0 60,945 0 60,945 

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

89 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................... 0 30,892 0 30,892 90 NAVY MULTIBAND TERMINAL (NMT) .......................................................................... 0 118,113 0 118,113 

SHORE COMMUNICATIONS 

91 JCS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 4,591 0 4,591 92 ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 0 1,403 0 1,403 

CRYPTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
368 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

93 INFO SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ............................................................. 0 135,687 0 135,687 94 MIO INTEL EXPLOITATION TEAM ................................................................................ 0 970 0 970 

CRYPTOLOGIC EQUIPMENT 

95 CRYPTOLOGIC COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP .................................................................. 0 11,433 0 11,433 

OTHER ELECTRONIC SUPPORT 

96 COAST GUARD EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 2,529 0 2,529 

SONOBUOYS 

97 SONOBUOYS—ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 168,763 0 168,763 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

98 WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 0 46,979 0 46,979 

100 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 123,884 0 123,884 

103 METEOROLOGICAL EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 0 15,090 0 15,090104 DCRS/DPL .................................................................................................................. 0 638 0 638 106 AIRBORNE MINE COUNTERMEASURES ...................................................................... 0 14,098 0 14,098 111 AVIATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 49,773 0 49,773

SHIP GUN SYSTEM EQUIPMENT 

112 SHIP GUN SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 5,300 0 5,300 

SHIP MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT 

115 SHIP MISSILE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 298,738 0 298,738 120 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 71,245 0 71,245 

FBM SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

123 STRATEGIC MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIP ........................................................................ 0 240,694 0 240,694 

ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

124 SSN COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEMS ............................................................................. 0 96,040 0 96,040 125 ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 30,189 0 30,189 

OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
369 

129 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP .................................................................. 0 22,623 0 22,623 130 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 9,906 0 9,906

OTHER EXPENDABLE ORDNANCE 

134 TRAINING DEVICE MODS ........................................................................................... 0 99,707 0 99,707 

CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

135 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 2,252 0 2,252 136 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS ..................................................................................... 0 2,191 0 2,191 137 CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE EQUIP .................................................................. 0 2,164 0 2,164 138 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 14,705 0 14,705 

139 TACTICAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................. 0 2,497 0 2,497 140 AMPHIBIOUS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 0 12,517 0 12,517 141 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 3,018 0 3,018 142 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION ........................................................................................ 0 14,403 0 14,403 143 PHYSICAL SECURITY VEHICLES ................................................................................. 0 1,186 0 1,186 

SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

144 MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 0 18,805 0 18,805 145 OTHER SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 0 10,469 0 10,469 146 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 5,720 0 5,720 147 SPECIAL PURPOSE SUPPLY SYSTEMS ....................................................................... 0 211,714 0 211,714 

TRAINING DEVICES 

148 TRAINING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 7,468 0 7,468 

COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

149 COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 36,433 0 36,433 150 EDUCATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 3,180 0 3,180 151 MEDICAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 4,790 0 4,790 153 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 4,608 0 4,608 154 OPERATING FORCES SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................. 0 5,655 0 5,655 155 C4ISR EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 0 9,929 0 9,929 156 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 0 26,795 0 26,795 157 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 88,453 0 88,453 159 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 0 99,094 0 99,094 

OTHER 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
370 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

160 NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE SERVICE ................................................................ 0 99,014 0 99,014 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

160 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 21,439 0 21,439 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

161 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 328,043 0 328,043 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ........................................................................ 0 6,614,715 –13,400 0 6,601,315 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

1 AAV7A1 PIP ................................................................................................................ 0 26,744 0 26,744 

2 LAV PIP ...................................................................................................................... 0 54,879 0 54,879 

ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS 

3 EXPEDITIONARY FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ................................................................... 0 2,652 0 2,652 4 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT TOWED HOWITZER .................................................................. 0 7,482 0 7,482 5 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM ............................................................ 0 17,181 0 17,181 6 WEAPONS AND COMBAT VEHICLES UNDER $5 MILLION ........................................... 0 8,224 0 8,224 

OTHER SUPPORT 

7 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 0 14,467 0 14,467 

8 WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................ 0 488 0 488 

GUIDED MISSILES 

9 GROUND BASED AIR DEFENSE .................................................................................. 0 7,565 0 7,565 

10 JAVELIN ...................................................................................................................... 0 1,091 0 1,091 11 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW ............................................................................................... 0 4,872 0 4,872 

12 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-H) ................................................... 0 668 0 668 

OTHER SUPPORT 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
371 

13 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 0 12,495 140,000 0 152,495 

Additional missiles ............................................................................................... [140,000 ] 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 

14 UNIT OPERATIONS CENTER ....................................................................................... 0 13,109 0 13,109 

15 COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (C ...................................... 0 35,147 0 35,147 

REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 

16 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 0 21,210 0 21,210

OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 

17 COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 0 792 0 792 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 

19 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & ELEC) ............................................................. 0 3,642 0 3,642 20 AIR OPERATIONS C2 SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 0 3,520 0 3,520 

RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

21 RADAR SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 0 35,118 0 35,118 

22 GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR (G/ATOR) ....................................................... 3 130,661 –1 –32,115 2 98,546 

Not meeting performance reqs reduce until technology is refined ..................... [–32,115 ] 

23 RQ–21 UAS ................................................................................................................ 4 84,916 4 84,916 

INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

24 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 0 9,136 0 9,136 

25 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 29,936 0 29,936 28 DCGS-MC ................................................................................................................... 0 1,947 0 1,947 

OTHER COMM/ELEC EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

31 NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................... 0 2,018 0 2,018 

OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 

32 NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE NETWORK (NGEN) .................................................. 0 67,295 0 67,295 33 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES ............................................................................ 0 43,101 0 43,101 34 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 0 29,255 0 29,255 

35 RADIO SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 0 80,584 0 80,584 36 COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS ................................................................. 0 66,123 0 66,123 37 COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT ............................................................. 0 79,486 0 79,486 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

37 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 2,803 0 2,803 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
372 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLES 

38 COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLES ........................................................................ 0 3,538 0 3,538 39 COMMERCIAL CARGO VEHICLES ............................................................................... 0 22,806 0 22,806 

TACTICAL VEHICLES 

41 MOTOR TRANSPORT MODIFICATIONS ......................................................................... 0 7,743 0 7,743 43 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ................................................................................ 109 79,429 109 79,429 

44 FAMILY OF TACTICAL TRAILERS ................................................................................ 0 3,157 0 3,157 

OTHER SUPPORT 

45 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 6,938 0 6,938 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

46 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT .............................................................. 0 94 0 94 47 BULK LIQUID EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 0 896 0 896 48 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 0 136 0 136 49 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED ................................................................................. 0 10,792 0 10,792 50 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 3,235 0 3,235 51 EOD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 0 7,666 0 7,666 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

52 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 33,145 0 33,145 53 GARRISON MOBILE ENGINEER EQUIPMENT (GMEE) .................................................. 0 1,419 0 1,419 

GENERAL PROPERTY 

57 TRAINING DEVICES .................................................................................................... 0 24,163 0 24,163 

58 CONTAINER FAMILY ................................................................................................... 0 962 0 962 59 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 0 6,545 0 6,545 60 FAMILY OF INTERNALLY TRANSPORTABLE VEH (ITV) ................................................ 0 7,533 0 7,533 

OTHER SUPPORT 

62 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 4,322 0 4,322 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
373 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

63 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 8,292 0 8,292 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ................................................................... 116 1,131,418 –1 107,885 115 1,239,303 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL FORCES 

1 F–35 .......................................................................................................................... 44 5,260,212 –99,100 44 5,161,112 

Efficiencies and excess cost growth .................................................................... [–99,100 ] 

2 F–35 (AP) .................................................................................................................. 0 460,260 0 460,260 

TACTICAL AIRLIFT 

3 KC–46A TANKER ........................................................................................................ 12 2,350,601 –24,000 12 2,326,601 

FY15 excess to need by $24 million due to program delays .............................. [–24,000 ] 

OTHER AIRLIFT 

4 C–130J ...................................................................................................................... 14 889,154 14 889,154 

5 C–130J (AP) .............................................................................................................. 0 50,000 0 50,000 6 HC–130J .................................................................................................................... 5 463,934 5 463,934 7 HC–130J (AP) ............................................................................................................ 0 30,000 0 30,000 8 MC–130J .................................................................................................................... 8 828,472 8 828,472 9 MC–130J (AP) ............................................................................................................ 0 60,000 0 60,000 

MISSION SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 

11 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/C ............................................................................................... 6 2,617 6 2,617 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

12 TARGET DRONES ........................................................................................................ 75 132,028 75 132,028 

14 RQ–4 ......................................................................................................................... 0 37,800 0 37,800 15 MQ–9 ......................................................................................................................... 29 552,528 24 480,000 53 1,032,528 

Accelerating procurement schedule to meet CCDR demand ............................... 24 [480,000 ] 

STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 

17 B–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 32,458 0 32,458 18 B–1B ......................................................................................................................... 0 114,119 0 114,119 19 B–52 .......................................................................................................................... 0 148,987 0 148,987 20 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES .................................................... 0 84,335 0 84,335 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
374 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

TACTICAL AIRCRAFT 

22 F–15 .......................................................................................................................... 0 464,367 249,304 0 713,671 

EPAWSS upgrade .................................................................................................. [11,600 ] F–15C AESA radars .............................................................................................. 6 [48,000 ] F–15D AESA radars .............................................................................................. 24 [192,500 ] ADCP II upgrades ................................................................................................. [10,000 ] F–15C MIDS JTRS transfer to RDT&E .................................................................. [–6,387 ] F–15E MIDS JTRS transfer to RDT&E .................................................................. [–6,409 ] 

23 F–16 .......................................................................................................................... 0 17,134 0 17,134 24 F–22A ........................................................................................................................ 0 126,152 0 126,152 25 F–35 MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................................ 0 70,167 0 70,167 26 INCREMENT 3.2B ....................................................................................................... 0 69,325 0 69,325 

AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 

28 C–5 ............................................................................................................................ 0 5,604 0 5,604 30 C–17A ........................................................................................................................ 0 46,997 0 46,997 31 C–21 .......................................................................................................................... 0 10,162 0 10,162 32 C–32A ........................................................................................................................ 0 44,464 0 44,464 33 C–37A ........................................................................................................................ 0 10,861 0 10,861 

TRAINER AIRCRAFT 

34 GLIDER MODS ............................................................................................................ 0 134 0 134 

35 T–6 ............................................................................................................................ 0 17,968 0 17,968 36 T–1 ............................................................................................................................ 0 23,706 0 23,706 37 T–38 .......................................................................................................................... 0 30,604 0 30,604 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

38 U–2 MODS ................................................................................................................. 0 22,095 0 22,095 

39 KC–10A (ATCA) .......................................................................................................... 0 5,611 0 5,611 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
375 

40 C–12 .......................................................................................................................... 0 1,980 0 1,980 42 VC–25A MOD ............................................................................................................. 0 98,231 0 98,231 43 C–40 .......................................................................................................................... 0 13,171 0 13,171 44 C–130 ........................................................................................................................ 0 7,048 123,200 0 130,248 

C–130H Electronic Prop Control System – UPL .................................................. [13,500 ] C–130H In-flight Prop Balancing System – UPL ................................................ [1,500 ] C–130H T–56 3.5 Engine Mods ........................................................................... [33,200 ] Funds added to comply with Sec 134, FY15 NDAA ............................................. [75,000 ] 

45 C–130J MODS ............................................................................................................ 0 29,713 0 29,713 46 C–135 ........................................................................................................................ 0 49,043 0 49,043 47 COMPASS CALL MODS ............................................................................................... 0 68,415 28,700 0 97,115 

Modification for restored EC–130H ...................................................................... [28,700 ] 

48 RC–135 ..................................................................................................................... 0 156,165 0 156,165 

49 E–3 ............................................................................................................................ 0 13,178 0 13,178 50 E–4 ............................................................................................................................ 0 23,937 0 23,937 51 E–8 ............................................................................................................................ 0 18,001 0 18,001 52 AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM ........................................................... 0 183,308 0 183,308 53 FAMILY OF BEYOND LINE-OF-SIGHT TERMINALS ....................................................... 0 44,163 0 44,163 54 H–1 ............................................................................................................................ 0 6,291 0 6,291 55 UH–1N REPLACEMENT .............................................................................................. 0 2,456 0 2,456 56 H–60 .......................................................................................................................... 0 45,731 0 45,731 57 RQ–4 MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 50,022 0 50,022 58 HC/MC–130 MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 0 21,660 0 21,660 59 OTHER AIRCRAFT ....................................................................................................... 0 117,767 –2,246 0 115,521 

C2ISR TDL transfer to COMSEC equipment ......................................................... [–2,246 ] 

60 MQ–1 MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 3,173 0 3,173 

61 MQ–9 MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 115,226 0 115,226 63 CV–22 MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 58,828 0 58,828 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

64 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 0 656,242 0 656,242 

COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

65 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP ............................................................... 0 33,716 0 33,716 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
376 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT 

67 B–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 38,837 0 38,837 68 B–52 .......................................................................................................................... 0 5,911 0 5,911 69 C–17A ........................................................................................................................ 0 30,108 0 30,108 70 CV–22 POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT ........................................................................ 0 3,353 0 3,353 71 C–135 ........................................................................................................................ 0 4,490 0 4,490 72 F–15 .......................................................................................................................... 0 3,225 0 3,225 73 F–16 .......................................................................................................................... 0 14,969 0 14,969 74 F–22A ........................................................................................................................ 0 971 0 971 76 MQ–9 ......................................................................................................................... 0 5,000 0 5,000 

INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 

77 INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIVENESS .................................................................................. 0 18,802 0 18,802

WAR CONSUMABLES 

78 WAR CONSUMABLES .................................................................................................. 0 156,465 0 156,465 

OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES 

79 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ................................................................................. 0 1,052,814 59,086 0 1,111,900 

Transfer from RDT&E for NATO AWACS ............................................................... [59,086 ] 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

79 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 42,503 0 42,503 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................................... 193 15,657,769 24 814,944 217 16,472,713 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT—BALLISTIC 

1 MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQ-BALLISTIC ...................................................................... 0 94,040 0 94,040 

TACTICAL 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
377 

3 JOINT AIR-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE ................................................................... 360 440,578 360 440,578 4 SIDEWINDER (AIM–9X) .............................................................................................. 506 200,777 506 200,777 5 AMRAAM .................................................................................................................... 262 390,112 262 390,112 6 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ................................................................................... 3,756 423,016 3,756 423,016 7 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ........................................................................................... 1,942 133,697 1,942 133,697 

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 

8 INDUSTR’L PREPAREDNS/POL PREVENTION .............................................................. 0 397 0 397 

CLASS IV 

9 MM III MODIFICATIONS .............................................................................................. 0 50,517 0 50,517 

10 AGM–65D MAVERICK ................................................................................................. 0 9,639 0 9,639 

11 AGM–88A HARM ........................................................................................................ 0 197 0 197 12 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ...................................................................... 0 25,019 0 25,019 

MISSILE SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

14 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 0 48,523 0 48,523 

SPECIAL PROGRAMS 

28 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAMS .................................................................................... 0 276,562 0 276,562 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

28 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 893,971 0 893,971 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................................................ 6,826 2,987,045 6,826 2,987,045 SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE SPACE PROGRAMS 

1 ADVANCED EHF .......................................................................................................... 0 333,366 0 333,366 

2 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER SATELLITES(SPACE) ............................................................... 0 53,476 0 53,476 3 GPS III SPACE SEGMENT ........................................................................................... 1 199,218 –1 –199,218 0 0 

GPS III SV10 early to need ................................................................................... –1 [–199,218 ] 

4 SPACEBORNE EQUIP (COMSEC) ................................................................................ 0 18,362 0 18,362 5 GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE) .................................................................................. 0 66,135 0 66,135

6 DEF METEOROLOGICAL SAT PROG(SPACE) ................................................................ 0 89,351 –89,351 0 0 

Cut DMSP #20 ...................................................................................................... [–89,351 ] 

7 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH CAPABILITY ............................................................ 0 571,276 0 571,276 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
378 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

8 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH(SPACE) ........................................................... 5 800,201 5 800,201 9 SBIR HIGH (SPACE) ................................................................................................... 0 452,676 0 452,676 

TOTAL SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .............................................................. 6 2,584,061 –1 –288,569 5 2,295,492 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 

1 ROCKETS .................................................................................................................... 0 23,788 0 23,788 

CARTRIDGES 

2 CARTRIDGES .............................................................................................................. 0 131,102 38,500 0 169,602 

Increase to match size of A–10 fleet .................................................................. [38,500 ] 

BOMBS 

3 PRACTICE BOMBS ...................................................................................................... 0 89,759 0 89,759 

4 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 637,181 0 637,181 5 MASSIVE ORDNANCE PENETRATOR (MOP) ................................................................ 0 39,690 0 39,690 6 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .............................................................................. 6,341 374,688 6,341 374,688 

OTHER ITEMS 

7 CAD/PAD .................................................................................................................... 0 58,266 0 58,266 

8 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (EOD) ................................................................... 0 5,612 0 5,612 9 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 103 0 103 

10 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................................................... 0 1,102 0 1,102 11 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 3,044 0 3,044 

FLARES 

12 FLARES ...................................................................................................................... 0 120,935 0 120,935 

FUZES 

13 FUZES ........................................................................................................................ 0 213,476 0 213,476 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
379 

SMALL ARMS 

14 SMALL ARMS ............................................................................................................. 0 60,097 0 60,097 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE .............................................. 6,341 1,758,843 38,500 6,341 1,797,343 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 

1 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 8,834 0 8,834 

CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 

2 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE ...................................................................................... 0 58,160 0 58,160 

3 CAP VEHICLES ........................................................................................................... 0 977 0 977 4 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 12,483 0 12,483

SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 

5 SECURITY AND TACTICAL VEHICLES ......................................................................... 0 4,728 0 4,728 6 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 4,662 0 4,662 

FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 

7 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE VEHICLES ................................................................ 0 10,419 0 10,419 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

8 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 23,320 0 23,320

BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 

9 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV & CLEANING EQUIP ............................................................. 0 6,215 0 6,215 

10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 87,781 0 87,781 

COMM SECURITY EQUIPMENT(COMSEC) 

11 COMSEC EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................. 0 136,998 2,246 0 139,244 

Transfer for Link 16 upgrades ............................................................................. [2,246 ] 

12 MODIFICATIONS (COMSEC) ........................................................................................ 0 677 0 677 

INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 

13 INTELLIGENCE TRAINING EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 4,041 0 4,041 14 INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 22,573 0 22,573 15 MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 0 14,456 0 14,456

ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 

16 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS ................................................................... 0 31,823 0 31,823 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
380 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

17 NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM .................................................................................... 0 5,833 0 5,833 18 BATTLE CONTROL SYSTEM—FIXED ........................................................................... 0 1,687 0 1,687 19 THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................... 0 22,710 0 22,710 20 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST .......................................................................... 0 21,561 0 21,561 21 STRATEGIC COMMAND AND CONTROL ...................................................................... 0 286,980 0 286,980 22 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN COMPLEX .............................................................................. 0 36,186 0 36,186 24 INTEGRATED STRAT PLAN & ANALY NETWORK (ISPAN) ............................................ 0 9,597 0 9,597 

SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 

25 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 0 27,403 0 27,403 26 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & CONTROL SYS ................................................................... 0 7,212 0 7,212 27 MOBILITY COMMAND AND CONTROL ......................................................................... 0 11,062 19,900 0 30,962 

Additional battlefield air operations kits to meet need ...................................... [19,900 ] 

28 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM ................................................................. 0 131,269 0 131,269 29 COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ...................................................................................... 0 33,606 0 33,606 

30 MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMM N ............................................................ 0 5,232 0 5,232 31 C3 COUNTERMEASURES ............................................................................................ 0 7,453 0 7,453 32 INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM ............................................................. 0 3,976 0 3,976 33 GCSS-AF FOS ............................................................................................................. 0 25,515 0 25,515 34 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE ACCOUNTING AND MGMT SYSTEM ........................................ 0 9,255 0 9,255 35 THEATER BATTLE MGT C2 SYSTEM ........................................................................... 0 7,523 0 7,523 36 AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CTR-WPN SYS ................................................................ 0 12,043 0 12,043 37 AIR OPERATIONS CENTER (AOC) 10.2 ...................................................................... 0 24,246 0 24,246 

AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS 

38 INFORMATION TRANSPORT SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 0 74,621 0 74,621 39 AFNET ........................................................................................................................ 0 103,748 –17,000 0 86,748 

Restructure program ............................................................................................ [–17,000 ] 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
381 

41 JOINT COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT ELEMENT (JCSE) ............................................... 0 5,199 0 5,199 42 USCENTCOM .............................................................................................................. 0 15,780 0 15,780 

SPACE PROGRAMS 

43 FAMILY OF BEYOND LINE-OF-SIGHT TERMINALS ....................................................... 0 79,592 0 79,592 44 SPACE BASED IR SENSOR PGM SPACE .................................................................... 0 90,190 0 90,190 45 NAVSTAR GPS SPACE ................................................................................................ 0 2,029 0 2,029 

46 NUDET DETECTION SYS SPACE ................................................................................. 0 5,095 0 5,095 47 AF SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK SPACE ................................................................ 0 76,673 0 76,673 48 SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM SPACE ........................................................................... 0 113,275 0 113,275 49 MILSATCOM SPACE .................................................................................................... 0 35,495 0 35,495 50 SPACE MODS SPACE ................................................................................................. 0 23,435 0 23,435 51 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEM ........................................................................................... 0 43,065 0 43,065 

ORGANIZATION AND BASE 

52 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 0 77,538 36,000 0 113,538 

Increase JTAC training and rehearsal simulators per AF unfunded priority list [36,000 ] 

54 RADIO EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 0 8,400 0 8,400 

55 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 6,144 0 6,144 56 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 0 77,010 0 77,010 

MODIFICATIONS 

57 COMM ELECT MODS .................................................................................................. 0 71,800 0 71,800 

PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 

58 NIGHT VISION GOGGLES ............................................................................................ 0 2,370 0 2,370 

59 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 79,623 0 79,623 

DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS HANDLING EQ 

60 MECHANIZED MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP ................................................................ 0 7,249 0 7,249 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

61 BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 0 9,095 0 9,095 62 ENGINEERING AND EOD EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 17,866 0 17,866 64 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 0 61,850 0 61,850 

65 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 30,477 0 30,477 

SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 

67 DARP RC135 .............................................................................................................. 0 25,072 0 25,072 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
382 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

68 DCGS-AF .................................................................................................................... 0 183,021 0 183,021 70 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 0 629,371 0 629,371 71 DEFENSE SPACE RECONNAISSANCE PROG. .............................................................. 0 100,663 0 100,663 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

71 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 15,038,333 0 15,038,333 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

73 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 59,863 0 59,863 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .............................................................. 0 18,272,438 41,146 0 18,313,584 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCAA 

1 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 1,488 0 1,488 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCMA 

2 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 2,494 0 2,494 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DHRA 

3 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................... 0 9,341 0 9,341 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

7 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY ........................................................................... 0 8,080 10,000 0 18,080 

Sharkseer increase ............................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

8 TELEPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 0 62,789 0 62,789 

9 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 9,399 0 9,399 

10 NET CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES) .......................................................... 0 1,819 0 1,819 11 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEM NETWORK .............................................................. 0 141,298 0 141,298 12 CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ..................................................................................... 0 12,732 0 12,732 

13 WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATION AGENCY ................................................................. 0 64,098 0 64,098 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
383 

14 SENIOR LEADERSHIP ENTERPRISE ............................................................................ 0 617,910 0 617,910 15 JOINT INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................... 0 84,400 0 84,400 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DLA 

16 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 5,644 0 5,644 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DMACT 

17 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 4 11,208 4 11,208 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DODEA 

18 AUTOMATION/EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT & LOGISTICS ................................................. 0 1,298 0 1,298 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DSS 

20 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 1,048 0 1,048 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 

21 VEHICLES ................................................................................................................... 0 100 0 100 

22 OTHER MAJOR EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 0 5,474 0 5,474

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY 

23 THAAD ........................................................................................................................ 30 464,067 30 464,067 24 AEGIS BMD ................................................................................................................ 40 558,916 9 147,765 49 706,681 

Increase SM–3 Block IB purchase ....................................................................... 9 [117,880 ] Increase SM–3 Block IB canisters ....................................................................... 9 [2,565 ] Undifferentiated Block IB test and evaluation costs .......................................... [27,320 ] 

25 AEGIS BMD (AP) ........................................................................................................ 0 147,765 –147,765 0 0 

Early to need ........................................................................................................ [–147,765 ] 

26 BMDS AN/TPY–2 RADARS ......................................................................................... 0 78,634 0 78,634 27 AEGIS ASHORE PHASE III .......................................................................................... 0 30,587 0 30,587 28 IRON DOME ................................................................................................................ 1 55,000 –13,900 1 41,100 

Request excess of requirement ............................................................................ [–13,900 ] 

XX DAVIDS SLING ............................................................................................................ 0 0 150,000 0 150,000 

Increase for David’s Sling co-production ............................................................ [150,000 ] 

XXX ARROW 3 ................................................................................................................... 0 0 15,000 0 15,000 

Increase for Arrow 3 co-production ..................................................................... [15,000 ] 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, NSA 

35 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ............................................... 0 37,177 0 37,177 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
384 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

36 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD ........................................................................................... 17 46,939 17 46,939 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS 

38 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS ............................................................................................ 0 13,027 0 13,027 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS 

40 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS .......................................................................................... 0 27,859 0 27,859 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

40 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 617,757 0 617,757 

AVIATION PROGRAMS 

41 MC–12 ....................................................................................................................... 0 63,170 –63,170 0 0 

SOCOM requested realignment ............................................................................ [–63,170 ] 

42 ROTARY WING UPGRADES AND SUSTAINMENT .......................................................... 0 135,985 0 135,985 44 NON-STANDARD AVIATION ......................................................................................... 0 61,275 0 61,275 

45 U–28 .......................................................................................................................... 0 0 63,170 0 63,170 

SOCOM requested realignment ............................................................................ [63,170 ] 

47 RQ–11 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE ........................................................................ 0 20,087 0 20,087 48 CV–22 MODIFICATION ................................................................................................ 0 18,832 0 18,832 

49 MQ–1 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE .......................................................................... 0 1,934 0 1,934 50 MQ–9 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE .......................................................................... 0 11,726 10,000 0 21,726 

MQ–9 capability enhancements ........................................................................... [10,000 ] 

51 STUASL0 .................................................................................................................... 0 1,514 0 1,514 

52 PRECISION STRIKE PACKAGE .................................................................................... 0 204,105 0 204,105 53 AC/MC–130J .............................................................................................................. 0 61,368 0 61,368 54 C–130 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 0 66,861 –35,449 0 31,412 

C–130 TF/TA adjustments .................................................................................... [–35,449 ] 

SHIPBUILDING 

55 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 0 32,521 0 32,521 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
385 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

56 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M ........................................................................................... 0 174,734 0 174,734 

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

57 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 0 93,009 0 93,009 

58 DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS .............................................. 0 14,964 0 14,964 59 OTHER ITEMS <$5M .................................................................................................. 0 79,149 0 79,149 60 COMBATANT CRAFT SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 0 33,362 0 33,362 61 SPECIAL PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 0 143,533 0 143,533 62 TACTICAL VEHICLES ................................................................................................... 0 73,520 0 73,520 63 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M ........................................................................................ 0 186,009 0 186,009 64 COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 0 19,693 0 19,693 65 GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ............................................................... 0 3,967 0 3,967 66 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ......................................................... 0 19,225 0 19,225 68 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................................. 0 213,252 0 213,252

CBDP 

74 CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL SITUATIONAL AWARENESS ................................................... 0 141,223 0 141,223 75 CB PROTECTION & HAZARD MITIGATION .................................................................. 0 137,487 0 137,487 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

XX USCC CYBER CAPABILITIES ...................................................................................... 0 0 75,000 0 75,000 

Cyber capabilities ................................................................................................. [75,000 ] 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................................... 92 5,130,853 9 210,651 101 5,341,504 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 

1 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .............................................................. 0 99,701 0 99,701 

TOTAL JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .................................................. 0 99,701 0 99,701 TOTAL PROCUREMENT ............................................................................................... 22,785 106,967,393 100 4,880,184 22,885 111,847,577 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
386 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 

3 AERIAL COMMON SENSOR (ACS) (MIP) ..................................................................... 5 99,500 5 99,500 4 MQ–1 UAV ................................................................................................................. 2 16,537 2 16,537 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

16 MQ–1 PAYLOAD (MIP) ............................................................................................... 0 8,700 0 8,700 

23 ARL SEMA MODS (MIP) ............................................................................................. 0 32,000 0 32,000 31 RQ–7 UAV MODS ....................................................................................................... 0 8,250 0 8,250 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY .................................................................. 7 164,987 7 164,987 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 

3 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 270 37,260 270 37,260 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ..................................................................... 270 37,260 270 37,260 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 

16 MORTAR SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 0 7,030 0 7,030 

21 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION ................................................ 0 19,000 0 19,000 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ................................................................ 0 26,030 0 26,030 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
387 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 4,000 0 4,000 

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

8 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 11,700 0 11,700

9 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 4,000 0 4,000 

10 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES .................................................................................... 0 7,000 0 7,000 

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

12 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 105MM, ALL TYPES ........................................... 0 5,000 0 5,000 13 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................ 0 10,000 0 10,000 15 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL ............................................. 0 2,000 0 2,000 

ROCKETS 

17 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 0 136,340 0 136,340 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

19 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................ 0 4,000 0 4,000 21 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES .................................................................................................. 0 8,000 0 8,000 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ....................................................... 0 192,040 0 192,040 OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 

5 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) .............................................................. 1,191 243,998 1,191 243,998

9 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK EXT SERV ............................................... 0 223,276 0 223,276 

11 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP .............................................................................. 0 130,000 0 130,000 12 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED (MRAP) MODS ............................................. 0 393,100 0 393,100 

COMM—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

21 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... 0 5,724 0 5,724 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

51 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM ............................................ 0 29,500 0 29,500 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

57 DCGS-A (MIP) ............................................................................................................ 0 54,140 0 54,140 59 TROJAN (MIP) ............................................................................................................. 0 6,542 0 6,542 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
388 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

61 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING AND COLL(CHARCS) ..................................................... 0 3,860 0 3,860 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

68 FAMILY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITIE ............................................... 0 14,847 0 14,847 69 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES .......................................... 0 19,535 0 19,535 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 

84 COMPUTER BALLISTICS: LHMBC XM32 ..................................................................... 0 2,601 0 2,601 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS 

87 FIRE SUPPORT C2 FAMILY ........................................................................................ 0 48 0 48 94 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) ....................................................................... 0 252 0 252 

ELECT EQUIP—AUTOMATION 

101 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP ..................................................................... 0 652 0 652 

CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 

111 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS) ............................................................................... 0 4,035 0 4,035 

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

131 FORCE PROVIDER ...................................................................................................... 12 53,800 12 53,800 

133 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM ........................................ 0 700 0 700 

MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

159 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS ............................................................................................... 0 10,486 0 10,486 

OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

169 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................... 0 8,500 0 8,500 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ....................................................................... 1,203 1,205,596 1,203 1,205,596 

JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND FORCE TRAINING 

3 TRAIN THE FORCE ..................................................................................................... 0 7,850 0 7,850 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
389 

JIEDDO DEVICE DEFEAT 

2 DEFEAT THE DEVICE .................................................................................................. 0 77,600 0 77,600 

NETWORK ATTACK 

1 ATTACK THE NETWORK .............................................................................................. 0 219,550 –4,464 0 215,086 

Adjustment due to low execution in prior years .................................................. [–4,464 ] 

STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

4 OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................. 0 188,271 –43,807 0 144,464 

Maintain prior year funding level ........................................................................ [–43,807 ] 

TOTAL JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND .................................................. 0 493,271 –48,271 0 445,000 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY OTHER AIRCRAFT 

26 STUASL0 UAV ............................................................................................................. 3 55,000 3 55,000 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

30 AV–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 41,365 0 41,365 

32 F–18 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 8,000 0 8,000 37 EP–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 6,300 0 6,300 47 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ..................................................................................... 0 14,198 0 14,198 51 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 72,700 0 72,70052 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES ................................................................................... 0 13,988 0 13,988 59 V–22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY ............................................................................ 0 4,900 0 4,900 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP & FACILITIES 

65 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................. 0 943 0 943 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 3 217,394 3 217,394 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY TACTICAL MISSILES 

10 LASER MAVERICK ...................................................................................................... 0 3,344 0 3,344 

TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 0 3,344 0 3,344 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
390 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 

1 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 9,715 0 9,715 2 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 0 11,108 0 11,108 3 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 0 3,603 0 3,603 6 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ..................................................................... 0 11,982 0 11,982 

11 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................. 0 4,674 0 4,674 12 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO ................................................................... 0 3,456 0 3,456 13 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ............................................................................... 0 1,989 0 1,989 14 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ....................................................................... 0 4,674 0 4,674 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

20 120MM, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................... 0 10,719 0 10,719 

23 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................ 0 3,993 0 3,993 24 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 0 67,200 0 67,200 26 FUZE, ALL TYPES ....................................................................................................... 0 3,299 0 3,299 25 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................ 0 518 0 518 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ........................................................ 0 136,930 0 136,930 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

135 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 186 0 186 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

160 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 12,000 0 12,000 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
391 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ........................................................................ 0 12,186 0 12,186 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS GUIDED MISSILES 

10 JAVELIN ...................................................................................................................... 0 7,679 0 7,679 

OTHER SUPPORT 

13 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 0 10,311 0 10,311 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 

14 UNIT OPERATIONS CENTER ....................................................................................... 0 8,221 0 8,221

OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 

18 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 0 3,600 0 3,600 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 

19 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & ELEC) ............................................................. 0 8,693 0 8,693 

INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

27 RQ–11 UAV ................................................................................................................ 0 3,430 0 3,430 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

52 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 7,000 0 7,000 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ................................................................... 0 48,934 0 48,934 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE OTHER AIRCRAFT 

15 MQ–9 ......................................................................................................................... 0 13,500 0 13,500 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

44 C–130 ........................................................................................................................ 0 1,410 0 1,410 56 H–60 .......................................................................................................................... 0 39,300 0 39,300 58 HC/MC–130 MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 0 5,690 0 5,690 61 MQ–9 MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 69,000 0 69,000 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................................... 0 128,900 0 128,900 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
392 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

TACTICAL 

6 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ................................................................................... 1,811 280,902 1,811 280,902 

7 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ........................................................................................... 63 2,520 63 2,520 

CLASS IV 

10 AGM–65D MAVERICK ................................................................................................. 0 5,720 0 5,720 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................................................ 1,874 289,142 1,874 289,142 PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE CARTRIDGES 

2 CARTRIDGES .............................................................................................................. 0 8,371 0 8,371 

BOMBS 

4 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 17,031 0 17,031 6 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .............................................................................. 5,953 184,412 5,953 184,412 

FLARES 

12 FLARES ...................................................................................................................... 0 11,064 0 11,064 

FUZES 

13 FUZES ........................................................................................................................ 0 7,996 0 7,996 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE .............................................. 5,953 228,874 5,953 228,874 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 

25 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 0 3,953 0 3,953 27 MOBILITY COMMAND AND CONTROL ......................................................................... 0 2,000 0 2,000 

AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
393 

42 USCENTCOM .............................................................................................................. 0 10,000 0 10,000 

ORGANIZATION AND BASE 

52 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 0 4,065 0 4,065 

56 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 0 15,400 0 15,400 

PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 

58 NIGHT VISION GOGGLES ............................................................................................ 0 3,580 0 3,580 59 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 3,407 0 3,407 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

62 ENGINEERING AND EOD EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 46,790 0 46,790 64 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 0 400 0 400 65 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 9,800 0 9,800 

SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 

71 DEFENSE SPACE RECONNAISSANCE PROG. .............................................................. 0 28,070 0 28,070 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

71 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 3,732,499 0 3,732,499 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .............................................................. 0 3,859,964 0 3,859,964 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

8 TELEPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 0 1,940 0 1,940 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

40 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 35,482 0 35,482 

AVIATION PROGRAMS 

41 MC–12 ....................................................................................................................... 0 5,000 0 5,000 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

56 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M ........................................................................................... 746,066 35,299 746,066 35,299 

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

61 SPECIAL PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 1 15,160 1 15,160 

63 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M ........................................................................................ 50 15,000 50 15,000 68 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................................. 3 104,537 3 104,537


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
394 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................................... 746,120 212,418 746,120 212,418 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT ............................................................................................... 755,430 7,257,270 –48,271 755,430 7,208,999 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(395) 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 

AND EVALUATION 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
396 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND 

EVALUATION 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION. 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ......................................................................... 13,018 13,018 

2 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 239,118 40,000 279,118 

Basic research program increase ............................................................................................... [40,000 ] 

3 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 72,603 72,603 4 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH CENTERS .......................................................................... 100,340 100,340 

SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 425,079 40,000 465,079 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

5 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 28,314 28,314 

6 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC SURVIVABILITY .................................................................................... 38,374 38,374 7 0602122A TRACTOR HIP ................................................................................................................................... 6,879 6,879 8 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 56,884 56,884 9 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 19,243 19,243 

10 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 45,053 45,053 11 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 29,428 29,428 12 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND SIMULATION ......................................................................................... 27,862 27,862 13 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................ 68,839 68,839 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
397 

14 0602618A BALLISTIAG TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 92,801 92,801 15 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND EQUIPMENT DEFEATING TECHNOLOGY ...................................................... 3,866 3,86616 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 5,487 5,487 17 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 48,340 48,340 18 0602705A ELECTRONIAG AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES ...................................................................................... 55,301 55,301 19 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 33,807 33,807 20 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 25,068 25,068 21 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 23,681 23,681 22 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 20,850 20,850 23 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 36,160 36,160 24 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................... 12,656 12,656 25 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 63,409 63,409 26 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................ 24,735 24,735 27 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 35,795 35,795 28 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 76,853 76,853 

SUBTOTAL, APPLIED RESEARCH ...................................................................................................... 879,685 879,685 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

29 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 46,973 46,973 

30 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................. 69,584 69,584 31 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................. 89,736 89,736 32 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 57,663 57,663 33 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................... 113,071 113,071 

34 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................... 5,554 5,554 35 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................ 12,636 12,636 37 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE ................................................................................................................................. 7,502 7,502 38 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING & SIMULATION SYSTEMS .................................................................. 17,425 17,425 39 0603020A TRACTOR ROSE ................................................................................................................................ 11,912 11,912 40 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM—TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................ 27,520 27,520 41 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL .................................................................................................................................. 2,381 2,381 42 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS ................................................................................................................................ 2,431 2,431 43 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 26,874 26,874 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
398 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

44 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................. 49,449 49,449 45 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE ................................................................................................................................ 10,999 10,999 46 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................... 177,159 –10,000 167,159 

Encourage use of commercial technology .................................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

47 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ....................................................... 13,993 13,993 

48 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 5,105 5,105 49 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 40,929 40,929 50 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 10,727 10,727 51 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 20,145 20,145 52 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE AND SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ........................................ 38,163 38,163 53 0603794A C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 37,816 37,816 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... 895,747 –10,000 885,747 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

54 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ............................................................................ 10,347 10,347 

55 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION .............................................................................................. 25,061 25,061 56 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER—ADV DEV .............................................................................. 49,636 49,636 57 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND TARGET DEFEATING SYS-ADV DEV ........................................................ 13,426 13,426 58 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 46,749 46,749 60 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY .......................................................................................... 6,258 6,258 61 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM—ADV DEV ........................................................... 13,472 13,472 62 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 7,292 7,292 63 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY—DEM/VAL ...................................................................... 8,813 8,813 65 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 6,075 6,075 67 0603804A LOGISTIAG AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ADV DEV ........................................................................ 21,233 21,233 68 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS—ADV DEV ........................................................................................................ 31,962 31,962 69 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 22,194 22,194 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
399 

71 0604100A ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................ 9,805 9,805 72 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 40,917 40,917 73 0604120A ASSURED POSITIONING, NAVIGATION AND TIMING (PNT) ................................................................ 30,058 30,058 74 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2–INTERCEPT (IFPC2) ................................ 155,361 155,361 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................ 498,659 498,659 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

76 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONIAG ......................................................................................................................... 12,939 12,939 

78 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 18,843 18,843 79 0604280A JOINT TACTICAL RADIO ..................................................................................................................... 9,861 9,861 80 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) ........................................................................ 8,763 8,763 81 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM ...................................................................................................... 4,309 4,309 82 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE ................................................................................................................................ 15,138 15,138 83 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS ......................................................................................................... 74,128 2,500 76,628 

Transfer from WTCV .................................................................................................................... [2,500 ] 

85 0604611A JAVELIN ............................................................................................................................................ 3,945 3,945 87 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ..................................................................................................................... 10,076 10,076 88 0604641A TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLE (TUGV) ............................................................................ 40,374 40,374 89 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS—ENG DEV ................................................................................................ 67,582 67,582 90 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, AND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 1,763 1,763 91 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING DEVICES—ENG DEV .................................................................................. 27,155 27,155 92 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE—ENG DEV .............................................. 24,569 24,569 93 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 23,364 23,364 94 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 8,960 8,960 95 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE SIMULATIONS (DIS)—ENG DEV ........................................................... 9,138 9,138 96 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER (CATT) CORE ........................................................................ 21,622 21,622 97 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION ...................................................................... 99,242 99,242 98 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS—ENG DEV ............................................................................................ 21,379 21,379 99 0604804A LOGISTIAG AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ........................................................................ 48,339 48,339 

100 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS—ENG DEV .................................................... 2,726 2,726 101 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ................................ 45,412 45,412 102 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER—ENG DEV ...................................................................................... 55,215 55,215 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
400 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

104 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & CONTROL HARDWARE & SOFTWARE ............................................... 163,643 163,643 105 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 12,309 12,309 106 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS) ............................................................. 15,700 15,700 107 0604823A FIREFINDER ...................................................................................................................................... 6,243 6,243 108 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—WARRIOR DEM/VAL ........................................................................................ 18,776 18,776 109 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS—EMD ............................................................................................................ 1,953 1,953 110 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 67,358 67,358 111 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A) .......................................................... 136,011 –50,000 86,011 

Restructure program ................................................................................................................... [–50,000 ] 

112 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLE (AMPV) .................................................................................. 230,210 230,210 113 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK CENTER (JTNC) ..................................................................................... 13,357 13,357 114 0605031A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK (JTN) ...................................................................................................... 18,055 18,055 115 0605032A TRACTOR TIRE .................................................................................................................................. 5,677 5,677 116 0605035A COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) ........................................................................ 77,570 24,000 101,570 

Army UPL for AH–64 ASE development ...................................................................................... [24,000 ] 

117 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 18,112 60,000 78,112 

Army UPL for AH–64 ASE development ...................................................................................... [60,000 ] 

118 0605350A WIN-T INCREMENT 3—FULL NETWORKING ..................................................................................... 39,700 39,700 119 0605380A AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM (JTRS) ................................................................................... 12,987 –6,832 6,155 

Only for SALT program ................................................................................................................ [–6,832 ] 

120 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) .......................................................................................... 88,866 88,866 121 0605456A PAC–3/MSE MISSILE ........................................................................................................................ 2,272 2,272 122 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD) ................................................................ 214,099 214,099 123 0605625A MANNED GROUND VEHICLE ............................................................................................................. 49,247 49,247 124 0605626A AERIAL COMMON SENSOR ............................................................................................................... 2 2 125 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION (MIP) ................................................................................... 10,599 10,599 126 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH .. 32,486 32,486 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
401 

127 0605830A AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 8,880 8,880 128 0210609A PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) ..................................................................................... 152,288 152,288 129 0303032A TROJAN—RH12 ................................................................................................................................ 5,022 5,022 130 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 12,686 12,686 

SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................ 2,068,950 29,668 2,098,618 RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

131 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 20,035 20,035 

132 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 16,684 16,684 133 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 62,580 62,580 134 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER ................................................................................................................... 20,853 20,853 135 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL .................................................................................................................. 205,145 205,145 136 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................ 19,430 19,430 138 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND FACILITIES .............................................................................................. 277,646 277,646 139 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND TARGETS ............................................................. 51,550 51,550 140 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 33,246 33,246 141 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................................ 4,760 4,760 142 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO RDT&E ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ 8,303 8,303 143 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 20,403 20,403 144 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN ITEMS ................................................................................................... 10,396 10,396 145 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL TESTING ............................................................................................... 49,337 49,337 146 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER ............................................................................................................. 52,694 52,694 147 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD COLLABORATION & INTEG ............................................................ 938 938148 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................... 60,319 60,319 149 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................. 28,478 28,478 150 0605805A MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY ........................................................ 32,604 –8,000 24,604 

Under execution of prior year funds ........................................................................................... [–8,000 ] 

151 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT .............................................................. 3,186 3,186 152 0605898A MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 48,955 48,955 

SUBTOTAL, RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................... 1,027,542 –8,000 1,019,542 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
402 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

154 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 18,397 18,397 155 0603813A TRACTOR PULL ................................................................................................................................. 9,461 9,461 156 0607131A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS .................................................. 4,945 4,945 157 0607133A TRACTOR SMOKE .............................................................................................................................. 7,569 7,569 158 0607135A APACHE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .................................................................................. 69,862 69,862 159 0607136A BLACKHAWK PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................... 66,653 66,653 160 0607137A CHINOOK PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................ 37,407 37,407 161 0607138A FIXED WING PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................... 1,151 1,151 162 0607139A IMPROVED TURBINE ENGINE PROGRAM .......................................................................................... 51,164 51,164 163 0607140A EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FROM NIE ............................................................................................. 2,481 2,481 164 0607141A LOGISTIAG AUTOMATION ................................................................................................................... 1,673 1,673 166 0607665A FAMILY OF BIOMETRIAG ................................................................................................................... 13,237 13,237 167 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT .................................................................................................. 105,816 105,816 169 0202429A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT—COCOM EXERCISE .............................................................................. 40,565 40,565 171 0203728A JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP OPERATION COORDINATION SYSTEM (JADOAG) ....................................... 35,719 35,719 172 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 257,167 40,000 297,167 

Stryker modification and improvement ...................................................................................... [40,000 ] 

173 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 15,445 15,445 175 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................. 364 364 176 0203758A DIGITIZATION .................................................................................................................................... 4,361 4,361 177 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................... 3,154 3,154 

178 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS .................................................................... 35,951 35,951 179 0203808A TRACTOR CARD ................................................................................................................................ 34,686 34,686 180 0205402A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE—OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV ............................................................ 10,750 10,750 181 0205410A MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................. 402 402 183 0205456A LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD) SYSTEM ............................................................... 64,159 64,159 184 0205778A GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS) .................................................................. 17,527 17,527 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
403 

185 0208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 20,515 20,515 187 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 12,368 12,368 188 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 31,154 31,154 189 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 12,274 12,274 190 0303142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT (SPACE) ...................................................................................... 9,355 9,355 191 0303150A WWMCAG/GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................... 7,053 7,053 193 0305179A INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE (IBS) ........................................................................................ 750 750 194 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ......................................................................................... 13,225 13,225 195 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 22,870 22,870 196 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 25,592 25,592 199 0305233A RQ–7 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 7,297 7,297 201 0310349A WIN-T INCREMENT 2—INITIAL NETWORKING .................................................................................. 3,800 3,800 202 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ 48,442 48,442 

9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 4,536 4,536 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 1,129,297 40,000 1,169,297 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ................................................................ 6,924,959 91,668 7,016,627 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 116,196 116,196 

2 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ......................................................................... 19,126 19,126 3 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 451,606 55,000 506,606 

Basic research program increase ............................................................................................... [55,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 586,928 55,000 641,928 APPLIED RESEARCH 

4 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................... 68,723 68,723 

5 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 154,963 154,963 6 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 49,001 49,001 7 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 42,551 42,551 8 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................................ 45,056 45,056 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
404 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

9 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 115,051 115,051 

10 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING ENVIRONMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................. 42,252 42,252 11 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 6,119 6,119 12 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 123,750 18,600 142,350 

Accelerate undersea warfare research ....................................................................................... [18,600 ] 

13 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 179,686 179,686 14 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................. 37,418 37,418 

SUBTOTAL, APPLIED RESEARCH ...................................................................................................... 864,570 18,600 883,170 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

15 0603114N POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................... 37,093 37,093 

16 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 38,044 38,044 17 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 34,899 34,899 18 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION (ATD) ................................................................ 137,562 137,562 19 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................... 12,745 12,745 20 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 258,860 –10,000 248,860 

Capable manpower, enablers, and sea basing ......................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

21 0603680N MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 57,074 57,074 

22 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 4,807 4,807 23 0603747N UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 13,748 13,748 24 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING EXPERIMENTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 66,041 66,041 25 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................... 1,991 1,991 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... 662,864 –10,000 652,864 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

26 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................... 41,832 41,832 

27 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY .................................................................................................................. 5,404 5,404 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
405 

28 0603237N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND AND CONTROL ................................................................................ 3,086 3,086 29 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 11,643 11,643 30 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 5,555 5,555 31 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE .......................................................................................... 3,087 3,087 32 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 1,636 1,636 33 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER MINE COUNTERMEASURES .......................................................... 118,588 118,588 34 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO DEFENSE ................................................................................................. 77,385 77,385 35 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 8,348 8,348 36 0603525N PILOT FISH ....................................................................................................................................... 123,246 123,246 37 0603527N RETRACT LARCH .............................................................................................................................. 28,819 28,819 38 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER ............................................................................................................................ 112,678 112,678 39 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL ................................................................................................................. 710 710 40 0603553N SURFACE ASW .................................................................................................................................. 1,096 1,096 41 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 87,160 11,000 98,160 

Accelerate unmanned underwater vehicle development ............................................................ [11,000 ] 

42 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 10,371 10,371 

43 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED DESIGN ................................................................................................. 11,888 11,888 44 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & FEASIBILITY STUDIES ...................................................................... 4,332 4,332 45 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ........................................................................................... 482,040 482,040 46 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 25,904 25,904 47 0603576N CHALK EAGLE ................................................................................................................................... 511,802 511,802 48 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LAG) ........................................................................................................ 118,416 118,416 49 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ....................................................................................................... 35,901 35,901 50 0603595N OHIO REPLACEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 971,393 971,393 51 0603596N LAG MISSION MODULES ................................................................................................................... 206,149 206,149 52 0603597N AUTOMATED TEST AND RE-TEST (ATRT) .......................................................................................... 8,000 8,000 53 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS .............................................................................................................. 7,678 7,678 54 0603611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT VEHICLES ................................................................................................ 219,082 219,082 55 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM .................................................................... 623 623 56 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 18,260 18,260 57 0603658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 76,247 76,247 58 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 4,520 4,520 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
406 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

59 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ......................................................................................................... 20,711 20,711 60 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. 47,761 47,761 61 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT ................................................................................................................ 5,226 5,226 62 0603734N CHALK CORAL .................................................................................................................................. 182,771 182,771 63 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY ........................................................................................................ 3,866 3,866 64 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE .............................................................................................................................. 360,065 360,065 65 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA ................................................................................................................................ 237,416 237,416 66 0603751N RETRACT ELM .................................................................................................................................. 37,944 37,944 67 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN ............................................................................................................................. 47,312 47,312 68 0603787N SPECIAL PROCESSES ....................................................................................................................... 17,408 17,408 69 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 9,359 9,359 70 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 887 887 71 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TESTING ........................................................................................... 29,448 29,448 72 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEMS—DEM/VAL ................................................. 91,479 91,479 73 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS ................................................................... 67,360 67,360 74 0604112N GERALD R. FORD CLASS NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER (CVN 78—80) ......................................... 48,105 79,100 127,205 

Full ship shock trials for CVN–78 .............................................................................................. [79,100 ] 

75 0604122N REMOTE MINEHUNTING SYSTEM (RMS) ........................................................................................... 20,089 20,089 76 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (TADIRCM) ....................................... 18,969 18,969 77 0604279N ASE SELF-PROTECTION OPTIMIZATION ............................................................................................. 7,874 7,874 78 0604292N MH-XX .............................................................................................................................................. 5,298 5,298 79 0604454N LX (R) ............................................................................................................................................... 46,486 29,000 75,486 

Accelerate LX (R) ........................................................................................................................ [29,000 ] 

80 0604653N JOINT COUNTER RADIO CONTROLLED IED ELECTRONIC WARFARE (JCREW) ................................... 3,817 3,817 81 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ................................................................ 9,595 9,595 

82 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING SUPPORT ..................... 29,581 29,581 83 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT ....................................................... 285,849 285,849 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
407 

84 0605812M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH .. 36,656 36,656 85 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT—MIP ............................................................................................... 9,835 9,835 86 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT—MIP ................................................................................. 580 580 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................ 5,024,626 119,100 5,143,726 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

87 0603208N TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT ........................................................................................................... 21,708 21,708 

88 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 11,101 11,101 89 0604214N AV–8B AIRCRAFT—ENG DEV ........................................................................................................... 39,878 39,878 90 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................. 53,059 53,059 91 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 21,358 21,358 92 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING ............................................................................................. 4,515 4,515 93 0604221N P–3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 1,514 1,514 94 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 5,875 5,875 95 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM .......................................................................................................... 81,553 81,553 96 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE ....................................................................................................................... 272,149 272,149 97 0604245N H–1 UPGRADES ................................................................................................................................ 27,235 27,235 98 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS .......................................................................................................... 35,763 35,763 99 0604262N V–22A .............................................................................................................................................. 87,918 87,918 

100 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 12,679 12,679 101 0604269N EA–18 .............................................................................................................................................. 56,921 56,921 102 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 23,685 23,685 103 0604273N EXECUTIVE HELO DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................... 507,093 507,093 104 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER (NGJ) ................................................................................................... 411,767 411,767 105 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM—NAVY (JTRS-NAVY) ..................................................................... 25,071 25,071 106 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT SYSTEM ENGINEERING ................................................................. 443,433 443,433 107 0604311N LPD–17 CLASS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ........................................................................................... 747 747 108 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB) ....................................................................................................... 97,002 97,002 109 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................... 129,649 129,649 110 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM ............................................................................................................................... 11,647 11,647 111 0604376M MARINE AIR GROUND TASK FORCE (MAGTF) ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) FOR AVIATION ............. 2,778 2,778 112 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE CONTROL—COUNTER AIR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ............................... 23,695 23,695 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
408 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

113 0604404N UNMANNED CARRIER LAUNCHED AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE AND STRIKE (UCLASS) SYSTEM ....... 134,708 –134,708 0 

Excess FY15 funds buy down FY16 requirements ..................................................................... [–134,708 ] 

114 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER SENSORS ............................................................................................... 43,914 43,914 115 0604503N SSN–688 AND TRIDENT MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................ 109,908 109,908 116 0604504N AIR CONTROL ................................................................................................................................... 57,928 57,928 117 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 120,217 120,217 118 0604522N AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM ...................................................................... 241,754 241,754 119 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN ............................................................................................................................. 122,556 122,556 120 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 48,213 12,000 60,213 

Accelerate submarine combat and weapon system modernization ........................................... [12,000 ] 

121 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ LIVE FIRE T&E ........................................................................................ 49,712 49,712 

122 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 4,096 4,096 123 0604580N VIRGINIA PAYLOAD MODULE (VPM) .................................................................................................. 167,719 167,719 124 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................ 15,122 15,122 125 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 33,738 33,738 126 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 8,123 8,123 127 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, SIMULATION, AND HUMAN FACTORS ......................................................... 7,686 7,686 128 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON SYSTEMS ................................................................................................ 405 405 129 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT & CONTROL) .................................................................................... 153,836 153,836 130 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: HARD KILL) .................................................................................... 99,619 99,619 131 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW) ............................................................................... 116,798 116,798 132 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING ........................................................................................................... 4,353 4,353 133 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 9,443 9,443 134 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM ................................................................................................................... 32,469 32,469 135 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ................................................................................................ 537,901 –12,500 525,401 

F–35B Block 4 development early to need ................................................................................ [–12,500 ] 

136 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ................................................................................................ 504,736 –12,500 492,236 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
409 

F–35C Block 4 development early to need ................................................................................ [–12,500 ] 

137 0604810M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER FOLLOW ON DEVELOPMENT—MARINE CORPS ........................................... 59,265 59,265 138 0604810N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER FOLLOW ON DEVELOPMENT—NAVY ........................................................... 47,579 47,579 139 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 5,914 5,914 140 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 89,711 89,711 141 0605212N CH–53K RDTE .................................................................................................................................. 632,092 632,092 142 0605220N SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR (SSC) ................................................................................................ 7,778 7,778 143 0605450N JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) .......................................................................................... 25,898 25,898 144 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME AIRCRAFT (MMA) ................................................................................... 247,929 247,929 145 0204202N DDG–1000 ........................................................................................................................................ 103,199 103,199 146 0304231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM—MIP ................................................................................................ 998 998 147 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC SYSTEMS .................................................................................................. 17,785 17,785 148 0305124N SPECIAL APPLICATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................... 35,905 35,905 

SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................ 6,308,800 –147,708 6,161,092 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

149 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 30,769 30,769 

150 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 112,606 112,606 151 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 61,234 61,234 152 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION ........................................................... 6,995 6,995 153 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—NAVY ...................................................................................... 4,011 4,011 154 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES ....................................................................................................... 48,563 48,563 155 0605285N NEXT GENERATION FIGHTER ............................................................................................................ 5,000 5,000 157 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICES ............................................................................................... 925 925 158 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ................................................................ 78,143 78,143 159 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 3,258 3,258 160 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ........................................................................ 76,948 76,948 161 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT SUPPORT ............................................................................................ 132,122 132,122 162 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 351,912 351,912 163 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION CAPABILITY .......................................................................... 17,985 17,985 164 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT ............................................................ 5,316 5,316 165 0605867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT ........................................................................... 6,519 6,519 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
410 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

166 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 13,649 13,649 

SUBTOTAL, MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................ 955,955 955,955 OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

174 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT ............................................................................ 107,039 107,039 

175 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 46,506 46,506 176 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 3,900 800 4,700 

Accelerate combat rapid attack weapon .................................................................................... [800 ]

177 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................... 16,569 16,569 178 0203761N RAPID TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION (RTT) ........................................................................................... 18,632 18,632 179 0204136N F/A–18 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................ 133,265 133,265 181 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS (TACTICAL) ...................................................................................... 62,867 62,867 182 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................... 36,045 36,045 183 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK MISSION PLANNING CENTER (TMPC) ................................................. 25,228 25,228

184 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .............................................................................................. 54,218 54,218 185 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL SUPPORT UNITS (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT) .................................................. 11,335 11,335 186 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR (G/ATOR) .............................................................................. 80,129 80,129 187 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 39,087 39,087 188 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT SUPPORT ...................................................................................................... 1,915 1,915 189 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) READINESS SUPPORT ........................................................................ 46,609 46,609 190 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 52,708 52,708 191 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS ...................................................................................................................... 149,997 149,997 192 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ............................................................................... 24,460 24,460 193 0205632N MK–48 ADCAP .................................................................................................................................. 42,206 5,500 47,706 

Accelerate torpedo upgrades ...................................................................................................... [5,500 ] 

194 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 117,759 117,759 195 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 101,323 101,323 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
411 

196 0206313M MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................................. 67,763 67,763 197 0206335M COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (CAC2S) ................................................... 13,431 13,431198 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS .................................................. 56,769 56,769 199 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT SERVICES SUPPORT ................................................................................ 20,729 20,729 200 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS (MIP) ........................................................ 13,152 13,152 201 0206629M AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT VEHICLE ....................................................................................................... 48,535 48,535 202 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES ................................................................................................................... 76,016 76,016 203 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) .......................................................... 32,172 32,172 208 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (SPACE) ............................................................................................ 53,239 53,239 209 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK ENTERPRISE SERVICES (CANES) .............................................. 21,677 21,677210 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 28,102 28,102 211 0303150M WWMCAG/GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................... 294 294 213 0305160N NAVY METEOROLOGICAL AND OCEAN SENSORS-SPACE (METOC) ................................................... 599 599 214 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES ..................................................................... 6,207 6,207 215 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ......................................................................................... 8,550 8,550 216 0305205N UAS INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY ..................................................................................... 41,831 41,831 217 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 1,105 1,105 218 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 33,149 33,149 219 0305220N RQ–4 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 227,188 227,188 220 0305231N MQ–8 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 52,770 52,770 221 0305232M RQ–11 UAV ...................................................................................................................................... 635 635 222 0305233N RQ–7 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 688 688 223 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL UAS (STUASL0) ................................................................................... 4,647 4,647 224 0305239M RQ–21A ............................................................................................................................................ 6,435 6,435 225 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 49,145 49,145 226 0305242M UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS (UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP) .................................................................... 9,246 9,246 227 0305421N RQ–4 MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................................... 150,854 150,854 228 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION SUPPORT ........................................................................................... 4,757 4,757 229 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ....................................................................................................... 24,185 24,185 231 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY (MARITECH) .............................................................................................. 4,321 4,321 231 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 1,252,185 1,252,185 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 3,482,173 6,300 3,488,473 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
412 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ................................................................. 17,885,916 41,292 17,927,208 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 329,721 45,000 374,721 

Basic research program increase ............................................................................................... [45,000 ] 

2 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 141,754 141,754 3 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................. 13,778 13,778 

SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 485,253 45,000 530,253 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

4 0602102F MATERIALS ....................................................................................................................................... 125,234 –10,000 115,234 

Nanostructured and biological materials ................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

5 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES .............................................................................................. 123,438 123,438 6 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................. 100,530 100,530 7 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION ................................................................................................................ 182,326 182,326 8 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS ...................................................................................................................... 147,291 147,291 9 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 116,122 116,122 

10 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS .............................................................................................................. 99,851 99,851 11 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................... 115,604 115,604 12 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION SCIENCES AND METHODS ....................................................................... 164,909 164,909 13 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH ..................................................................................................... 42,037 42,037 

SUBTOTAL, APPLIED RESEARCH ...................................................................................................... 1,217,342 –10,000 1,207,342 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

14 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 37,665 37,665 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
413 

15 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) .......................................................................... 18,378 18,378 16 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS ................................................................................................... 42,183 42,183 17 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/DEMO ............................................................................................. 100,733 100,733 18 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 168,821 168,821 19 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 47,032 47,032 20 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 54,897 54,897 21 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (MSSS) ................................................................................. 12,853 12,853 22 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 25,448 25,448 23 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 48,536 48,536 24 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 30,195 30,195 25 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 42,630 42,630 26 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................. 46,414 46,414 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... 675,785 675,785 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

27 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 5,032 5,032 

29 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 4,070 4,070 30 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 21,790 21,790 31 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 4,736 4,736 33 0603830F SPACE SECURITY AND DEFENSE PROGRAM .................................................................................... 30,771 30,771 34 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE—DEM/VAL ........................................................................ 39,765 39,765 36 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE ....................................................................................................................... 1,246,228 –460,000 786,228 

Delayed EMD contract award ...................................................................................................... [–460,000 ] 

37 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER .................................................................................................................. 3,512 3,512 38 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM (HDBTDS) PROGRAM .................................. 54,637 54,637 40 0604422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON ........................................................................................................ 76,108 76,108 44 0604857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE .............................................................................................. 6,457 13,500 19,957 

Increase to match previous year funding level ......................................................................... [13,500 ]

45 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 246,514 246,514 46 0605230F GROUND BASED STRATEGIC DETERRENT ........................................................................................ 75,166 75,166 49 0207110F NEXT GENERATION AIR DOMINANCE ................................................................................................ 8,830 8,830 50 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG-RANGE RADAR (3DELRR) .................................................................... 14,939 14,939 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
414 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

51 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT) (SPACE) .......................................... 142,288 142,28852 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 81,732 15,000 96,732 

Increase USCC Cyber Operations Technology Development ....................................................... [15,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................ 2,062,575 –431,500 1,631,075 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

55 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 929 929 

56 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................ 60,256 60,256 57 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 5,973 5,973 58 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)—EMD ............................................................................................ 32,624 32,624 59 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 24,208 24,208 60 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 32,374 32,374 61 0604426F SPACE FENCE ................................................................................................................................... 243,909 243,909 62 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK ...................................................................................................... 8,358 8,358 63 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD .................................................................... 292,235 292,235 64 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 40,154 40,154 65 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 2,506 2,506 66 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT ................................................................................................................. 57,678 57,678 67 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 8,187 8,187 68 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ............................................................................................................. 15,795 15,795 69 0604800F F–35—EMD ..................................................................................................................................... 589,441 –25,000 564,441 

F–35A Block 4 development early to need ................................................................................ [–25,000 ] 

71 0604853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)—EMD ............................................ 84,438 84,438 72 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON ................................................................................................... 36,643 36,643 73 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................................... 142,551 142,551 74 0605213F F–22 MODERNIZATION INCREMENT 3.2B ........................................................................................ 140,640 140,640 75 0605214F GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS FUZE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 3,598 3,598 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
415 

76 0605221F KC–46 .............................................................................................................................................. 602,364 –200,000 402,364 

Schedule delay and availability of unobligated prior year funds ............................................. [–200,000 ] 

77 0605223F ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING ............................................................................................................. 11,395 11,395 78 0605229F AGAR HH–60 RECAPITALIZATION ..................................................................................................... 156,085 156,085 80 0605431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM (SPACE) .............................................................................................. 228,230 228,230 81 0605432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE) ............................................................................................................ 72,084 72,084 82 0605433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM (SPACE) ............................................................................................. 56,343 56,343 83 0605458F AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER 10.2 RDT&E ......................................................................................... 47,629 47,629 84 0605931F B–2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .......................................................................................... 271,961 271,961 85 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS MODERNIZATION .............................................................................................. 212,121 212,121 86 0207171F F–15 EPAWSS .................................................................................................................................. 186,481 29,500 215,981 

NRE for ADCPII upgrade ............................................................................................................. [28,000 ] Flight test support ...................................................................................................................... [1,500 ] 

87 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION TRAINING ................................................................................................... 18,082 18,082 88 0305176F COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER LOCATOR ............................................................................................ 993 993 89 0307581F NEXTGEN JSTARS ............................................................................................................................. 44,343 44,343 91 0401319F PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT (PAR) ............................................................................... 102,620 102,620 92 0701212F AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................. 14,563 14,563 

SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................ 3,847,791 –195,500 3,652,291 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

93 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 23,844 23,844 

94 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 68,302 68,302 95 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE .............................................................................................................. 34,918 34,918 97 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 10,476 10,476 98 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 673,908 673,908 99 0605860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH PROGRAM (SPACE) .............................................................................. 21,858 21,858 

100 0605864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP) .......................................................................................................... 28,228 28,228 101 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................... 40,518 40,518 102 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT ........................................................ 27,895 27,895 103 0606017F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND MATURATION ................................................................................. 16,507 16,507 104 0606116F SPACE TEST AND TRAINING RANGE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 18,997 18,997 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
416 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

106 0606392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER (SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE ........................................................... 185,305 185,305 107 0308602F ENTEPRISE INFORMATION SERVICES (EIS) ...................................................................................... 4,841 4,841 108 0702806F ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 15,357 15,357 109 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING ................................................................................................................ 1,315 1,315 111 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................. 2,315 2,315 

SUBTOTAL, MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................ 1,174,584 1,174,584 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

112 0603423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM III—OPERATIONAL CONTROL SEGMENT ......................................... 350,232 350,232 113 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE FLIGHT TRAINING .......................................................................... 10,465 10,465 

114 0604445F WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE .............................................................................................................. 24,577 24,577 117 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS) .............................................................. 69,694 –45,400 24,294 

Restructure program ................................................................................................................... [–45,400 ] 

118 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY EXECUTIVE AGENCY ............................................................................ 26,718 26,718 119 0605278F HC/MC–130 RECAP RDT&E ............................................................................................................. 10,807 10,807 121 0101113F B–52 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 74,520 74,520 122 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ......................................................................................... 451 451 123 0101126F B–1B SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 2,245 2,245 124 0101127F B–2 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................. 108,183 108,183 125 0101213F MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS ................................................................................................................. 178,929 178,929 126 0101313F STRAT WAR PLANNING SYSTEM—USSTRATCOM ............................................................................. 28,481 28,481 127 0101314F NIGHT FIST—USSTRATCOM ............................................................................................................. 87 87 128 0101316F WORLDWIDE JOINT STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS .......................................................................... 5,315 5,315 131 0105921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO STRATCOM—SPACE ACTIVITIES .................................................................. 8,090 8,090 132 0205219F MQ–9 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 123,439 123,439 134 0207131F A–10 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 0 16,200 16,200 

Sustain avionics software development ..................................................................................... [16,200 ] 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
417 

135 0207133F F–16 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................ 148,297 148,297 136 0207134F F–15E SQUADRONS .......................................................................................................................... 179,283 12,796 192,079 

Transfer from procurement ......................................................................................................... [12,796 ] 

137 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE SUPPRESSION ............................................................................................. 14,860 14,860 138 0207138F F–22A SQUADRONS .......................................................................................................................... 262,552 262,552 139 0207142F F–35 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................ 115,395 115,395 140 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES ................................................................................................................... 43,360 43,360 141 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) .......................................................... 46,160 46,160 143 0207224F COMBAT RESCUE AND RECOVERY .................................................................................................. 412 412 144 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE—PARARESCUE .................................................................................................... 657 657 145 0207247F AF TENCAP ....................................................................................................................................... 31,428 31,428 146 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS PROCUREMENT ................................................................................. 1,105 1,105 147 0207253F COMPASS CALL ................................................................................................................................ 14,249 14,249 148 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................. 103,942 103,942 149 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM) ...................................................................... 12,793 12,793 150 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CENTER (AOC) ...................................................................................... 21,193 21,193 151 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING CENTER (CRC) ..................................................................................... 559 559 152 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (AWAAG) ................................................................... 161,812 161,812 153 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 6,001 6,001 155 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM ACTIVITIES ............................................................................ 7,793 7,793 156 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL PARTY-MOD .............................................................................................. 12,465 12,465 157 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK ............................................................................................................. 1,681 1,681 159 0207452F DCAPES ............................................................................................................................................ 16,796 16,796 161 0207590F SEEK EAGLE ..................................................................................................................................... 21,564 21,564 162 0207601F USAF MODELING AND SIMULATION .................................................................................................. 24,994 24,994 163 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION CENTERS ........................................................................................ 6,035 6,035 164 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND EXERCISES ........................................................................................ 4,358 4,358 165 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................... 55,835 55,835 167 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS ...................................................................................... 12,874 12,874 168 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS ...................................................................................... 7,681 7,681 171 0301017F GLOBAL SENSOR INTEGRATED ON NETWORK (GSIN) ....................................................................... 5,974 5,974 177 0301400F SPACE SUPERIORITY INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................................ 13,815 13,815 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
418 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

178 0302015F E–4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC) ............................................................. 80,360 80,360 179 0303001F FAMILY OF ADVANCED BLOS TERMINALS (FAB-T) ........................................................................... 3,907 3,907 180 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) .................................... 75,062 75,062 181 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 46,599 46,599 183 0303142F GLOBAL FORCE MANAGEMENT—DATA INITIATIVE ........................................................................... 2,470 2,470 186 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................................ 112,775 112,775 189 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (GATM) ................................................................................... 4,235 4,235 192 0305110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK (SPACE) ......................................................................................... 7,879 7,879 193 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE ........................................................................................................................... 29,955 29,955 194 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, APPROACH, AND LANDING SYSTEM (ATCALS) ........................................... 21,485 21,485195 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS .............................................................................................................................. 2,515 2,515 198 0305128F SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 472 472 199 0305145F ARMS CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................. 12,137 12,137 200 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................... 361 361 203 0305173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST AND EVALUATION CENTER .................................................................... 3,162 3,162 204 0305174F SPACE INNOVATION, INTEGRATION AND RAPID TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................ 1,543 1,543 205 0305179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE (IBS) ........................................................................................ 7,860 7,860 206 0305182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM (SPACE) ................................................................................................ 6,902 6,902 207 0305202F DRAGON U–2 ................................................................................................................................... 34,471 34,471 209 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 50,154 50,154 210 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 13,245 13,245 211 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 22,784 22,784 212 0305219F MQ–1 PREDATOR A UAV .................................................................................................................. 716 716 213 0305220F RQ–4 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 208,053 208,053 214 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC COLLABORATIVE TARGETING ............................................................................ 21,587 21,587 215 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK EXECUTIVE AGENT (CDL EA) .......................................................................... 43,986 43,986 216 0305238F NATO AGS ......................................................................................................................................... 197,486 

¥59,086 138,400 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
419 

Transfer from procurement for NATO AWACS ............................................................................. [

¥59,086 ] 

217 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS ENTERPRISE ..................................................................................................... 28,434 28,434 218 0305265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT .................................................................................................................. 180,902 180,902 220 0305614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 81,911 81,911 221 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION ............................................................................................................. 3,149 3,149 222 0305913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM (SPACE) ............................................................................................... 14,447 14,447 223 0305940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS OPERATIONS .................................................................................. 20,077 20,077 225 0308699F SHARED EARLY WARNING (SEW) ..................................................................................................... 853 853 226 0401115F C–130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON .............................................................................................................. 33,962 33,962 227 0401119F C–5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS (IF) ......................................................................................................... 42,864 42,864 228 0401130F C–17 AIRCRAFT (IF) ......................................................................................................................... 54,807 54,807 229 0401132F C–130J PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................ 31,010 31,010 230 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM) ....................................................................... 6,802 6,802 231 0401219F KC–10S ............................................................................................................................................ 1,799 1,799 232 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT ...................................................................................................... 48,453 48,453 233 0401318F CV–22 .............................................................................................................................................. 36,576 36,576 235 0408011F SPECIAL TACTIAG / COMBAT CONTROL ........................................................................................... 7,963 7,963 236 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ....................................................................................................... 1,525 1,525 237 0708610F LOGISTIAG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT) .............................................................................. 112,676 –31,000 81,676 

Program growth ........................................................................................................................... [–31,000 ] 

238 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 12,657 12,657 239 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING .................................................................................................................. 1,836 1,836 240 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 121 121 241 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY ........................................................................................... 5,911 5,911 242 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 3,604 3,604 243 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION .......................................................................................................... 4,598 4,598 244 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND ANALYSIS AGENCY .................................................................................. 1,103 1,103 

246 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 101,840 101,840 246 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 12,780,142 165,000 12,945,142 

Three program increases ............................................................................................................ [165,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 17,010,339 58,510 17,068,849 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
420 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ..................................................................... 26,473,669 

Ø533,490 25,940,179 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVE ................................................................................................. 38,436 38,436 

2 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 333,119 333,119 3 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES ......................................................................................................... 42,022 42,022 4 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH SCIENCE ....................................................................... 56,544 56,544 5 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 49,453 49,453 6 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY INSTITUTIONS .............................. 25,834 25,834 7 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 46,261 46,261 

SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 591,669 591,669 

APPLIED RESEARCH 

8 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 19,352 19,352 

9 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 114,262 114,262 

10 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH PROGRAM ................................................................................. 51,026 51,026 11 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF S&T PRIORITIES ................................................ 48,226 –15,000 33,226 

General program decrease .......................................................................................................... [–15,000 ] 

12 0602303E INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 356,358 356,358 14 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE ...................................................................................................... 29,265 29,265 15 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 208,111 208,111 16 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 13,727 13,727 18 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 314,582 –5,000 309,582 

Multi-azimuth defense fast intercept round engagement system ............................................. [–5,000 ] 

19 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 220,115 –10,000 210,115 

Decrease in program growth ...................................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
421 

20 0602716E ELECTRONIAG TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 174,798 174,798 21 0602718BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFEAT TECHNOLOGIES ........................................................... 155,415 155,415 22 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED RESEARCH ..................................................... 8,824 8,824 23 1160401BB SOF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 37,517 37,517 

SUBTOTAL, APPLIED RESEARCH ...................................................................................................... 1,751,578 –30,000 1,721,578 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

24 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 25,915 25,915 

26 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ........................................................................... 71,171 71,171 27 0603133D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTING ..................................................................................................... 21,782 21,782 28 0603160BR COUNTERPROLIFERATION INITIATIVES—PROLIFERATION PREVENTION AND DEFEAT ...................... 290,654 290,654 30 0603176C ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 12,139 12,139 31 0603177C DISCRIMINATION SENSOR TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 28,200 28,200 32 0603178C WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 45,389 30,000 75,389 

Fiber laser prototype development ............................................................................................. [20,000 ] 

Divert attitude control tech to support MOKV ............................................................................ [10,000 ] 

33 0603179C ADVANCED C4ISR ............................................................................................................................. 9,876 9,876 34 0603180C ADVANCED RESEARCH ..................................................................................................................... 17,364 17,364 35 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 18,802 18,802 36 0603264S AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)—THEATER CAPABILITY ........................ 2,679 2,679 37 0603274C SPECIAL PROGRAM—MDA TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 64,708 64,708 38 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 185,043 185,043 39 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................ 126,692 126,692 40 0603288D8Z ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................................................. 14,645 –5,000 9,645 

General program decrease .......................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

41 0603289D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS ......................................................................... 59,830 59,830 42 0603294C COMMON KILL VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 46,753 20,000 66,753 

Increase for Multiple Object Kill Vehicle .................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

43 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................. 140,094 140,094 44 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH .............................................................................................................................. 118,666 118,666 45 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 43,966 43,966 46 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................................ 141,540 –10,000 131,540 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
422 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

General program decrease .......................................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

47 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITIES ................................................................................ 6,980 6,980 50 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ..................................... 157,056 157,056 51 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 33,515 33,515 52 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTIAG R&D TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 16,543 16,543 53 0603713S DEPLOYMENT AND DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................ 29,888 29,888 54 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ....................................................................... 65,836 65,836 55 0603720S MICROELECTRONIAG TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT ................................................. 79,037 79,037 56 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 9,626 9,626 57 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONIAG TECHNOLOGIES ....................................................................................... 79,021 79,021 58 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................ 201,335 201,335 59 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................... 452,861 –20,000 432,861 

Decrease to reduce inefficiency .................................................................................................. [–20,000 ] 

60 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 257,127 257,127 61 0603769SE DISTRIBUTED LEARNING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 10,771 10,77162 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE ................................................................................................ 15,202 15,202 63 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL PROJECTS .............................................................................................. 90,500 –20,000 70,500 

Program decrease ....................................................................................................................... [–20,000 ] 

66 0603833D8Z ENGINEERING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 18,377 18,377 67 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 82,589 82,589 

68 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT ......................................................................... 37,420 37,420 69 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................... 42,488 42,488 70 1160402BB SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 57,741 57,741 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... 3,229,821 –5,000 3,224,821 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES 

71 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P .......................... 31,710 31,710 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
423 

73 0603600D8Z WALKOFF .......................................................................................................................................... 90,567 90,567 74 0603714D8Z ADVANCED SENSORS APPLICATION PROGRAM ................................................................................ 15,900 4,000 19,900 

Increase to match previous year funding level ......................................................................... [4,000 ] 

75 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ................................................ 52,758 52,758 

76 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT ......................................................... 228,021 228,021 77 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT ...................................................... 1,284,891 1,284,891 78 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—DEM/VAL ........................................................ 172,754 172,754 79 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSORS ........................................................................................... 233,588 233,588 80 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................. 409,088 409,088 81 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS—MDA ............................................................................................................. 400,387 400,387 82 0603892C AEGIS BMD ....................................................................................................................................... 843,355 843,355 83 0603893C SPACE TRACKING & SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 31,632 31,632 84 0603895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS .............................................................. 23,289 23,289 85 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND AND CONTROL, BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND 

COMMUNICATI.

450,085 450,085 

86 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT ........................................................... 49,570 49,570 87 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS CENTER (MDIOC) ................................................ 49,211 49,211 88 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH ........................................................................................................................ 9,583 9,583 89 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR (SBX) .................................................................................................. 72,866 72,866 90 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 102,795 166,000 268,795 

Increase for Arrow/David’s Sling ................................................................................................ [166,000 ] 

91 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST .................................................................................................. 274,323 274,323 92 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TARGETS ............................................................................................ 513,256 513,256 93 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING ................................................................................................................ 10,129 10,129 94 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE ........................................................................................................................ 10,350 10,350 95 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CORROSION PROGRAM ......................................................................... 1,518 10,000 11,518 

Program Increase ........................................................................................................................ [10,000 ] 

96 0604115C TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 96,300 96,300 97 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES .......................................................................................... 469,798 469,798 98 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (UAS) COMMON DEVELOPMENT 3,129 3,129 

103 0604826J JOINT C5 CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT, INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY ASSESSMENTS ........ 25,200 25,200 105 0604873C LONG RANGE DISCRIMINATION RADAR (LRDR) ............................................................................... 137,564 137,564 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
424 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

106 0604874C IMPROVED HOMELAND DEFENSE INTERCEPTORS ............................................................................ 278,944 20,000 298,944 

Redesigned kill vehicle development ......................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

107 0604876C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT TEST ................................................ 26,225 26,225 

108 0604878C AEGIS BMD TEST .............................................................................................................................. 55,148 55,148 109 0604879C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSOR TEST .................................................................................... 86,764 86,764 110 0604880C LAND-BASED SM–3 (LBSM3) ........................................................................................................... 34,970 34,970 111 0604881C AEGIS SM–3 BLOCK IIA CO-DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................... 172,645 172,645 112 0604887C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE SEGMENT TEST ............................................................. 64,618 64,618 114 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM ............................................................... 2,660 2,660 115 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................ 963 963 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................ 6,816,554 200,000 7,016,554 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION 

116 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD .............................. 8,800 8,800 117 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 78,817 10,000 88,817 

CPGS development and flight test ............................................................................................. [10,000 ] 

118 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—EMD ............................................................... 303,647 303,647 119 0604764K ADVANCED IT SERVICES JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE (AITS-JPO) ......................................................... 23,424 23,424 120 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (JTIDS) ....................................................... 14,285 14,285 121 0605000BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFEAT CAPABILITIES .............................................................. 7,156 7,156 122 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 12,542 12,542 123 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL SECURITY INITIATIVE ................................................................................ 191 191 124 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 3,273 3,273 125 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 5,962 5,962 126 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................ 13,412 13,412 127 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND INTEGRATION .................................................................................................... 2,223 2,223 128 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY INTIATIVES (DAI)—FINANCIAL SYSTEM .............................................................. 31,660 31,660 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
425 

129 0605090S DEFENSE RETIRED AND ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM (DRAS) .............................................................. 13,085 13,085 130 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES ........................................................... 7,209 7,209 131 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 15,158 –10,000 5,158 

Early to need ............................................................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

132 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (EEIM) .................................................... 4,414 4,414 

SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................ 545,258 0 545,258 MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

133 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS) ......................................................................... 5,581 5,581 

134 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................. 3,081 3,081 135 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP) .......................................... 229,125 229,125 136 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS ................................................................................................... 28,674 28,674 138 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC) .............................................................. 45,235 45,235 139 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 24,936 24,936 141 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO) ...................................... 35,471 35,471 144 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ................................................................................................................... 37,655 –5,000 32,655 

Reducing reporting and inefficiencies ....................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

145 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—OSD ........................................................................................ 3,015 3,015 146 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL SECURITY ........................................................................................ 5,287 5,287 147 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION ............................................................ 5,289 5,289 148 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD (INTELLIGENCE) .................................................................................. 2,120 2,120 149 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 102,264 102,264 158 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER .... 2,169 2,169 159 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 13,960 13,960 160 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC) ....................................................................... 51,775 51,775 161 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND EVALUATION .............................................. 9,533 9,533

162 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................ 17,371 17,371 163 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 71,571 71,571 164 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS .......................................................................................... 4,123 4,123 165 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS SECURITY INITIATIVE (DOSI) ....................................................................... 1,946 1,946 166 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 7,673 7,673 169 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION OPERATIONS (IO) CAPABILITIES .......................................................... 10,413 10,413 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
426 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

170 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE (DMDPO) .......................................................... 971 971 171 0305193D8Z CYBER INTELLIGENCE ...................................................................................................................... 6,579 6,579 173 0804767D8Z COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT AND TRAINING TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2)—MHA ..................... 43,811 43,811 174 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ—MDA ................................................................................................................. 35,871 35,871 176 0903230D8W WHS—MISSION OPERATIONS SUPPORT - IT ................................................................................... 1,072 1,072 176 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 49,500 49,500 

SUBTOTAL, MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................ 856,071 –5,000 851,071 OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

178 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY SYSTEM (ESS) ............................................................................................ 7,929 7,929 

179 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH (RIO) AND PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE INFORMATION MANA 1,750 1,750 180 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE SHARED INFORMATION SYSTEM (OHASIS) ....................... 294 294 181 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT ............................................................ 22,576 22,576 182 0607310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 1,901 1,901 183 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY COOPERATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-TSCMIS) .. 8,474 8,474 184 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT) .......................... 33,561 33,561 186 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID SYSTEM (PDAS) ............................................................................... 3,061 3,061 187 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY .................................................................................................................... 64,921 64,921 189 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION INFORMATION SHARING ........................................................................... 3,645 3,645 193 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT ................................................................ 963 963 

194 0302019K DEFENSE INFO INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING AND INTEGRATION ............................................... 10,186 10,186 195 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS—DAG ............................................................................................. 36,883 36,883 196 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) .................................... 13,735 13,735 197 0303135G PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE (PKI) ............................................................................................... 6,101 6,101 198 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI) .................................................................................... 43,867 43,867 199 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 8,957 8,957 200 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 146,890 146,890 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
427 

201 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................................... 21,503 21,503 202 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................... 20,342 20,342 203 0303170K NET-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES) ................................................................................. 444 444 205 0303610K TELEPORT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................ 1,736 1,736 206 0304210BB SPECIAL APPLICATIONS FOR CONTINGENCIES ................................................................................. 65,060 65,060 210 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................ 2,976 2,976 215 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................. 4,182 4,182 216 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY ............................................................................................................................... 18,130 18,130 218 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 5,302 5,302 221 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 3,239 3,239 225 0305327V INSIDER THREAT .............................................................................................................................. 11,733 11,733 226 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM .............................................................. 2,119 2,119 234 0708011S INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ............................................................................................................ 24,605 24,605 235 0708012S LOGISTIAG SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................... 1,770 1,770 236 0902298J MANAGEMENT HQ—OJAG ................................................................................................................ 2,978 2,978 237 1105219BB MQ–9 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 18,151 5,000 23,151 

MQ–9 capability enhancements ................................................................................................. [5,000 ] 

238 1105232BB RQ–11 UAV ...................................................................................................................................... 758 758 240 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................... 173,934 17,207 191,141 

ISR payload technology improvements ....................................................................................... [2,000 ] C–130 TF/TA Program Adjustment ............................................................................................. [15,207 ] 

241 1160405BB INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 6,866 6,866 242 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ........................................................................................................ 63,008 63,008 243 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................... 25,342 25,342 244 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................ 3,401 3,401 245 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................................. 3,212 3,212 246 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 63,597 63,597 247 1160489BB GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 3,933 3,933 248 1160490BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................ 10,623 10,623 248 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 3,564,272 3,564,272 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 4,538,910 22,207 4,561,117 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
428 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

xx xxxxx DEFENSE WIDE CYBER VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT .................................................................... 0 200,000 200,000 

Assess all major weapon systems for cyber vulnerability ......................................................... [200,000 ] 

xxx xxxxxx UCAS-D DEVELOPMENT AND FOLLOW ON PROTOTYPING ................................................................ 0 725,000 725,000 

Supports continued efforts on UCAS-D and follow on prototyping ........................................... [725,000 ] 

x xxxxx TECHNOLOGY OFFSET INITIATIVE ..................................................................................................... 0 400,000 400,000 

Supports innovative technology development ............................................................................ [400,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED ............................................................................................................ 0 1,325,000 1,325,000 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW .................................................................... 18,329,861 1,507,207 19,837,068 

OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

1 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 76,838 76,838 

2 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 46,882 46,882 3 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES .............................................................................. 46,838 46,838 

SUBTOTAL, MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................ 170,558 170,558 TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE ................................................................................ 170,558 170,558 TOTAL RDT&E ................................................................................................................................... 69,784,963 1,106,677 70,891,640 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
429 

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

60 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY ............................................................................................. 1,500 1,500 

SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................... 1,500 1,500 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY .................................................................. 1,500 1,500 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

231 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 35,747 35,747 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 35,747 35,747 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ................................................................... 35,747 35,747 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

133 0205671F JOINT COUNTER RCIED ELECTRONIC WARFARE ................................................................................. 300 300 

246 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 16,800 16,800 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 17,100 17,100 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ....................................................................... 17,100 17,100 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
430 

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

248 A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 137,087 137,087 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 137,087 137,087 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ...................................................................... 137,087 137,087 TOTAL RDT&E ..................................................................................................................................... 191,434 191,434 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(431) 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
432 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,094,429 –1,094,429 0 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [–1,094,429 ] 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 68,873 68,873 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 508,008 508,008 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 763,300 –763,300 0 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [–763,300 ] 

050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 1,054,322 –1,054,322 0 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [–1,054,322 ] 

060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,546,129 –1,546,129 0 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [–1,546,129 ] 

070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 3,158,606 –3,158,606 0 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [–3,158,606 ] 

080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 438,909 438,909 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 1,214,116 77,200 1,291,316 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [77,200 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 7,616,008 10,500 7,626,508 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [10,500 ] 

110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 2,617,169 34,000 2,651,169 

Kwajalein facilities restoration ........................................................................................................................................... [34,000 ] 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
433 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 421,269 421,269 130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 164,743 164,743 170 COMBATANT COMMANDS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ............................................................................................................. 448,633 –12,357 436,276 

Streamlining of Army Combatant Commands Direct Mission Support .............................................................................. [–12,357 ] 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 21,114,514 –7,507,443 13,607,071 

MOBILIZATION 

180 STRATEGIC MOBILITY ............................................................................................................................................................... 401,638 401,638 

190 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS ............................................................................................................................................... 261,683 261,683 200 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................... 6,532 6,532 

SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 669,853 669,853 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

210 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 131,536 131,536 

220 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 47,843 47,843 230 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 42,565 42,565 240 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ....................................................................................................................... 490,378 490,378 250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 981,000 33,200 1,014,200 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [33,200 ] 

260 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 940,872 940,872 270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 230,324 230,324 280 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 603,519 603,519 290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 491,922 491,922 300 EXAMINING ............................................................................................................................................................................... 194,079 194,079 310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 227,951 227,951 320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 161,048 161,048 330 JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS .......................................................................................................................... 170,118 170,118 

SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................................. 4,713,155 33,200 4,746,355 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 485,778 485,778 

360 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................................. 813,881 813,881 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
434 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

370 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................ 714,781 714,781 380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 322,127 322,127 390 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 384,813 384,813 400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 1,781,350 1,781,350 410 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 292,532 292,532 420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 375,122 375,122 430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,119,848 –4,500 1,115,348 

Army outreach reduction ..................................................................................................................................................... [–4,500 ] 

440 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................................................................ 225,358 225,358 450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 239,755 239,755 460 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS ................................................................................................................... 223,319 223,319 470 INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS ............................................................................................................................. 469,865 469,865 480 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 40,521 40,521 480 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,120,974 25,500 1,146,474 

Additional SOUTHCOM ISR and intel support .................................................................................................................... [20,000 ] Readiness increase ............................................................................................................................................................. [5,500 ] 

xx UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –238,451 –238,451 

Streamlining of Army Management Headquarters ............................................................................................................. [–238,451 ] 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................ 8,610,024 –217,451 8,392,573 UNDISTRIBUTED 

xx UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT ............................................................................................................... 0 –281,500 –281,500 

Foreign currency adjustment .............................................................................................................................................. [–281,500 ] 

xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 0 –260,100 –260,100 

Bulk fuel savings ................................................................................................................................................................ [–260,100 ] 

SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED .................................................................................................................................................... 0 –541,600 –541,600 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
435 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ........................................................................................................................... 35,107,546 –8,233,294 26,874,252 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 16,612 16,612 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 486,531 486,531 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 105,446 105,446 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 516,791 516,791 060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 87,587 87,587 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 348,601 348,601 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 81,350 81,350 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 59,574 32,400 91,974 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [32,400 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 570,852 570,852 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 245,686 245,686 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 40,962 40,962 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 2,559,992 32,400 2,592,392 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 10,665 10,665 

140 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 18,390 18,390 150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 14,976 14,976 160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 8,841 8,841 170 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 52,928 52,928 

xx UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –6,011 –6,011 

Streamlining of Army Reserve Management Headquarters ............................................................................................... [–6,011 ] 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................ 105,800 –6,011 99,790 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 0 –7,600 –7,600 

Bulk fuel savings ................................................................................................................................................................ [–7,600 ] 

SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED .................................................................................................................................................... 0 –7,600 –7,600 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
436 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES .................................................................................................................... 2,665,792 18,789 2,684,581 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 709,433 709,433 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 167,324 167,324 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 741,327 741,327 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 88,775 7,700 96,475 

ARNG border security enhancement ................................................................................................................................... [7,700 ] 

050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 32,130 32,130 060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 943,609 52,600 996,209 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [39,600 ] ARNG border security enhancement ................................................................................................................................... [13,000 ] 

070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 703,137 703,137 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 84,066 84,066 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 166,848 22,500 189,348 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [22,500 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 1,022,970 1,022,970 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 673,680 673,680 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 954,574 954,574 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 6,287,873 82,800 6,370,673 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 6,570 6,570 

140 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 59,629 –250 59,379 

Reduction to National Guard Heritage Paintings ............................................................................................................... [–250 ] 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
437 

150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 68,452 68,452 160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 8,841 8,841 170 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 283,670 –11,500 272,170 

Reduction to Army Marketing Program .............................................................................................................................. [–11,500 ] 

180 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 2,942 2,942 

xx UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –26,631 –26,631 

Streamlining of Army National Guard Management Headquarters ................................................................................... [–26,631 ] 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................ 430,104 –38,381 391,723 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 0 –25,300 –25,300 

Bulk fuel savings ................................................................................................................................................................ [–25,300 ] 

SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED .................................................................................................................................................... 0 –25,300 –25,300 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ............................................................................................................................ 6,717,977 19,119 6,737,096 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 4,940,365 –4,940,365 0 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ............................................................................................................ [–4,940,365 ] 

020 FLEET AIR TRAINING ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,830,611 1,830,611 030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 37,225 37,225 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................. 103,456 103,456 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 376,844 13,900 390,744 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [13,900 ] 

060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 897,536 –897,536 0 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [–897,536 ] 

070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 33,201 33,201 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 544,056 5,300 549,356 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [5,300 ] 

090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 4,287,658 –4,287,658 0 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [–4,287,658 ] 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
438 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 787,446 787,446 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 5,960,951 –5,960,951 0 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [–5,960,951 ] 

120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................ 1,554,863 1,554,863 130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 704,415 704,415 140 ELECTRONIC WARFARE ............................................................................................................................................................ 96,916 96,916 150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 192,198 192,198 160 WARFARE TACTICS ................................................................................................................................................................... 453,942 453,942 170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 351,871 351,871 180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,186,847 1,186,847 190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 123,948 123,948 200 DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................. 2,443 2,443 210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 98,914 98,914 220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 73,110 –5,483 67,628 

Streamlining of Navy Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support ........................................................................... [–5,483 ] 

230 CRUISE MISSILE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 110,734 110,734 240 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,206,736 1,206,736 250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 141,664 141,664 260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................................................................... 523,122 523,122 270 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................... 371,872 371,872 280 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................................................... 896,061 896,061 290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 2,220,423 2,220,423 300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 4,472,468 14,000 4,486,468 

Funding increase for Behavioral Counseling ..................................................................................................................... [14,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 34,581,896 

Ø16,058,793 18,523,103 

MOBILIZATION 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
439 

310 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE ......................................................................................................................................... 422,846 422,846 320 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 6,464 500 6,964 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [500 ] 

330 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 361,764 361,764 340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 69,530 69,530 350 INDUSTRIAL READINESS ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,237 2,237 360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................... 21,823 21,823 

SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 884,664 500 885,164 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

370 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 149,375 149,375 

380 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 9,035 9,035 390 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ..................................................................................................................................... 156,290 156,290 400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 653,728 653,728 410 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8,171 8,171 420 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 168,471 168,471 430 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 196,048 196,048 440 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 234,233 234,233 450 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 137,855 137,855 460 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 77,257 77,257 470 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 47,653 47,653 

SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................................. 1,838,116 1,838,116 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

480 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 923,771 923,771 

490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 13,967 13,967 500 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 120,812 120,812 510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 350,983 350,983 520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 265,948 265,948 530 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 335,482 335,482 550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 197,724 197,724 570 PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN ................................................................................................................................... 274,936 274,936 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
440 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 1,122,178 1,122,178 590 HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................... 48,587 48,587 600 COMBAT/WEAPONS SYSTEMS ................................................................................................................................................... 25,599 25,599 610 SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................................ 72,768 72,768 620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................... 577,803 577,803 680 INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND AGENCIES .................................................................................................................... 4,768 4,768 680 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 560,754 560,754 

xx UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –209,823 –209,823 

Streamlining of Navy Management Headquarters ............................................................................................................. [–209,823 ] 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................ 4,896,080 –209,823 4,686,257 UNDISTRIBUTED 

xx UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT ............................................................................................................... 0 –59,900 –59,900 

Foreign currency adjustment .............................................................................................................................................. [–59,900 ] 

xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 0 –482,300 –482,300 

Bulk fuel savings ................................................................................................................................................................ [–482,300 ] 

SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED .................................................................................................................................................... 0 –542,200 –542,200 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ............................................................................................................................ 42,200,756 

Ø16,810,316 25,390,440 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 931,079 –931,079 0 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [–931,079 ] 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 931,757 –931,757 0 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [–931,757 ] 

030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 227,583 227,583 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
441 

040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING ..................................................................................................................................................... 86,259 86,259 050 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................................... 746,237 746,237 060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,057,362 1,200 2,058,562 

Readiness funding increase for Criminal Investigative Equipment .................................................................................. [1,200 ] 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 4,980,277 

Ø1,861,636 3,118,641 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

070 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 16,460 16,460 

080 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 977 977 090 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 97,325 97,325 100 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 40,786 40,786 110 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 347,476 347,476 120 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 164,806 164,806 130 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 39,963 39,963 140 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 23,397 23,397 

SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................................. 731,190 731,190 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 37,386 37,386 

160 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 358,395 358,395 180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 76,105 76,105 180 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 45,429 45,429 

xx UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –32,588 –32,588 

Streamlining of Marine Corps Management Headquarters ................................................................................................ [–32,588 ] 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................ 517,315 –32,588 484,727 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

xx UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT ............................................................................................................... 0 –19,800 –19,800 

Foreign currency adjustment .............................................................................................................................................. [–19,800 ] 

xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 0 –17,000 –17,000 

Bulk fuel savings ................................................................................................................................................................ [–17,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED .................................................................................................................................................... 0 –36,800 –36,800 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
442 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ........................................................................................................... 6,228,782 

Ø1,931,024 4,297,758 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 563,722 563,722 

020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................. 6,218 6,218 030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 82,712 82,712 040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 326 326 050 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 13,436 13,436 070 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 557 557 090 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 14,499 14,499 100 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 117,601 117,601 120 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................................................... 29,382 29,382 130 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 48,513 48,513 140 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 102,858 102,858 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 979,824 979,824 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

150 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,505 1,505 

160 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 13,782 13,782 

170 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 3,437 3,437 180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 3,210 3,210 

xx UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –1,386 –1,386 

Streamlining of Navy Reserve Management Headquarters ................................................................................................ [–1,386 ] 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................ 21,934 –1,386 20,548 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
443 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 0 –39,700 –39,700 

Bulk fuel savings ................................................................................................................................................................ [–39,700 ] 

SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED .................................................................................................................................................... 0 –39,700 –39,700 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES .................................................................................................................... 1,001,758 –41,086 960,672 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 97,631 97,631 

020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 18,254 18,254 030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 28,653 28,653 

040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 111,923 111,923 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 256,461 256,461 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

050 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 924 924 

060 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10,866 10,866 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 8,785 8,785 

xx UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –1,473 –1,473 

Streamlining of Marine Corps Reserve Management Headquarters .................................................................................. [–1,473 ] 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................ 20,575 –1,473 19,102 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 0 –1,000 –1,000 

Bulk fuel savings ................................................................................................................................................................ [–1,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED .................................................................................................................................................... 0 –1,000 –1,000 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ............................................................................................................... 277,036 –2,473 274,563 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
444 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 3,336,868 –3,336,868 0 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [–3,336,868 ] 

020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................ 1,897,315 –1,897,315 0 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [–1,897,315 ] 

030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ............................................................................................................... 1,797,549 –40,300 1,757,249 

Cancel transition of A–10 to F–15E training .................................................................................................................... [–78,000 ] Readiness increase ............................................................................................................................................................. [37,700 ] 

040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 6,537,127 –6,537,127 0 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [–6,537,127 ] 

050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 1,997,712 1,997,712 060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2,841,948 2,841,948 070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING .......................................................................................................................................... 930,341 930,341 080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................... 924,845 924,845 100 LAUNCH FACILITIES .................................................................................................................................................................. 271,177 271,177 110 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................................... 382,824 382,824 120 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 900,965 –15,380 885,586 

Streamlining of Air Force Combatant Commanders Direct Mission Support .................................................................... [–15,380 ] 

130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 205,078 –41,000 164,078 

Cutting Joint Enabling Capabilities Command .................................................................................................................. [–41,000 ] 

xxx CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 907,496 16,800 924,296 

Increase One Program ........................................................................................................................................................ [20,000 ] 

Unjustified increase ............................................................................................................................................................ [–3,200 ] 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 22,931,245 –11,851,190 11,080,055 

MOBILIZATION 

140 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,229,196 2,229,196 

150 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................ 148,318 148,318 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
445 

160 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,617,571 –1,617,571 0 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [–1,617,571 ] 

170 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 259,956 259,956 180 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 708,799 708,799 

SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 4,963,840 –1,617,571 3,346,269 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

190 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 92,191 92,191 

200 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 21,871 21,871 210 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC) ........................................................................................................................ 77,527 77,527 220 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 228,500 228,500 230 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 772,870 772,870 240 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 359,304 43,100 402,404 

Readiness increase for RPA training ................................................................................................................................. [43,100 ] 

250 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 710,553 710,553 260 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 228,252 228,252 270 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 76,464 76,464 280 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 375,513 375,513 290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 79,690 79,690 300 EXAMINING ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3,803 3,803 310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 180,807 180,807 320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 167,478 167,478 330 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 59,263 59,263 

SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................................. 3,434,086 43,100 3,477,186 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

340 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,141,491 1,141,491 

350 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 862,022 –10,000 852,022 

Acquisition Management Adjustment ................................................................................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

360 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 61,745 61,745 370 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 298,759 298,759 380 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,108,220 –12,000 1,096,220 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
446 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Reduce IT procurement ....................................................................................................................................................... [–12,000 ] 

390 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 689,797 –20,700 669,097 

DEAMS reduction-Funding ahead of need .......................................................................................................................... [–20,700 ] 

400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 498,053 498,053 410 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 900,253 900,253 420 CIVIL AIR PATROL .................................................................................................................................................................... 25,411 25,411 450 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................ 89,148 89,148 450 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,187,859 –4,900 1,182,959 

Unjustified increase ............................................................................................................................................................ [–4,900 ] 

xx UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –276,203 –276,203 

Streamlining of Air Force Management Headquarters ....................................................................................................... [–276,203 ] 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................ 6,862,758 –323,803 6,538,955 UNDISTRIBUTED 

xx Restore EC–130 Compass Call ............................................................................................................................................... 0 27,300 27,300 

Costs associated with preventing divestiture of EC–130 ................................................................................................. [27,300 ] 

x Restore A–10 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0 235,300 235,300 

Costs associated with preventing divestiture of A–10 fleet ............................................................................................. [235,300 ] 

xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 0 –618,300 –618,300 

Bulk fuel savings ................................................................................................................................................................ [–618,300 ] 

UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT ............................................................................................................... 0 –137,800 –137,800 

Foreign currency adjustment .............................................................................................................................................. [–137,800 ] 

SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED .................................................................................................................................................... 0 –493,500 –493,500 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................... 38,191,929 

Ø14,242,964 23,948,965 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
447 

OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,779,378 1,779,378 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 226,243 226,243 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 487,036 487,036 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 109,342 109,342 050 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 373,707 373,707 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 2,975,706 2,975,706 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 

060 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 53,921 53,921 

070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 14,359 14,359 

080 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC) ..................................................................................................................... 13,665 13,665 090 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP) ............................................................................................................................ 6,606 6,606 

xx UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –2,116 –2,116 

Costs associated with preventing divestiture of A–10 fleet ............................................................................................. [2,500 ] 

Streamlining of Air Force Reserve Management Headquarters ......................................................................................... [–4,616 ] 

SUBTOTAL, ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................. 88,551 –2,116 86,435 UNDISTRIBUTED 

xxxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 0 –101,100 –101,100 

Bulk fuel savings ................................................................................................................................................................ [–101,100 ] 

SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED .................................................................................................................................................... 0 –101,100 –101,100 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ................................................................................................................ 3,064,257 –103,216 2,961,041 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 

010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 3,526,471 3,526,471 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 740,779 2,600 743,379 

ARNG border security enhancement ................................................................................................................................... [2,600 ] 

030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,763,859 1,763,859 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 288,786 288,786 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
448 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

050 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 582,037 582,037 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 6,901,932 2,600 6,904,532 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES 

060 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 23,626 23,626 

070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 30,652 30,652 

xx UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –3,015 –3,015 

Streamlining of Air National Guard Management Headquarters ....................................................................................... [–3,015 ] 

xxx UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 42,200 42,200 

Costs associated with preventing divestiture of A–10 fleet ............................................................................................. [42,200 ] 

SUBTOTAL, ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................. 54,278 39,185 93,463 UNDISTRIBUTED 

xxxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 0 –162,600 –162,600 

Bulk fuel savings ................................................................................................................................................................ [–162,600 ] 

SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED .................................................................................................................................................... 0 –162,600 –162,600 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .............................................................................................................................. 6,956,210 –120,815 6,835,395 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ........................................................................................................................................................... 485,888 20,000 505,888 

Middle East Assurance Initiative ........................................................................................................................................ [20,000 ] 

020 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ............................................................................................................................... 534,795 –4,000 530,795 

DOD Rewards reduction-funding ahead of need ............................................................................................................... [–4,000 ] 

030 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES ........................................................................................................... 4,862,368 4,862,368 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 5,883,051 16,000 5,899,051 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
449 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

040 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY ......................................................................................................................................... 142,659 142,659 

050 NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY ............................................................................................................................................. 78,416 78,416 060 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND RECRUITING ............................................................................................... 354,372 354,372 

SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................................. 575,447 575,447 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 

070 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................................... 160,320 160,320 

090 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ....................................................................................................................................... 570,177 570,177 100 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY .......................................................................................................................... 1,374,536 1,374,536 110 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................................. 642,551 642,551 120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ............................................................................................................................. 1,282,755 10,000 1,292,755 

Sharkseer increase .............................................................................................................................................................. [10,000 ] 

140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY ........................................................................................................................................ 26,073 26,073 150 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY .................................................................................................................................................. 366,429 366,429 160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ....................................................................................................................................................... 192,625 192,625 180 DEFENSE PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING AGENCY .......................................................................................................................... 115,372 115,372 190 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY ........................................................................................................................... 524,723 –7,000 517,723 

Reduction to Combating Terrorism Fellowship ................................................................................................................... [–7,000 ] 

200 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................. 508,396 508,396 230 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................... 33,577 33,577 240 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY ................................................................................................................................... 415,696 415,696 260 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................... 2,753,771 30,250 2,784,021 

Impact Aid ........................................................................................................................................................................... [30,000 ] School lunches for territories ............................................................................................................................................. [250 ] 

270 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY ...................................................................................................................................................... 432,068 432,068 290 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 110,612 –53,100 57,512 

Guam outside the fence infastructure ............................................................................................................................... [–20,000 ] Defense industry adjustment .............................................................................................................................................. [–33,100 ] 

300 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ............................................................................................................................... 1,388,285 –9,500 1,378,785 

BRAC 2017 Planning and Support ..................................................................................................................................... [–10,500 ] 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
450 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OSD fleet architecture study .............................................................................................................................................. [1,000 ] 

310 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................... 83,263 83,263 320 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ................................................................................................................................ 621,688 621,688 320 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 14,379,428 14,379,428 

xx UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –897,552 –897,552 

Streamlining of Department of Defense Management Headquarters ................................................................................ [–897,552 ] 

SUBTOTAL, ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................. 25,982,345 

Ø926,902 25,055,443 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

xx UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT ............................................................................................................... 0 –51,900 –51,900 

Foreign currency adjustment .............................................................................................................................................. [–51,900 ] 

xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS ..................................................................................................................................... 0 –36,000 –36,000 

Bulk fuel savings ................................................................................................................................................................ [–36,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED .................................................................................................................................................... 0 –87,900 –87,900 

TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........................................................................................................ 32,440,843 

Ø998,802 31,442,041 

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF 

010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE ................................................................................................ 14,078 14,078 

SUBTOTAL, US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF ............................................................................................ 14,078 14,078 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID 

010 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID ............................................................................................................ 100,266 100,266 

SUBTOTAL, OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID ....................................................................................... 100,266 100,266 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
451 

010 FORMER SOVIET UNION (FSU) THREAT REDUCTION ................................................................................................................ 358,496 358,496 

SUBTOTAL, COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT ...................................................................................................... 358,496 358,496 

DOD ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND 

010 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD ....................................................................................................................................................... 84,140 84,140 

SUBTOTAL, DOD ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND ........................................................................................ 84,140 84,140 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY 

040 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY ................................................................................................................................... 234,829 234,829 

SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY ................................................................................................................ 234,829 234,829 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY 

050 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY .................................................................................................................................... 292,453 292,453 

SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY ................................................................................................................. 292,453 292,453 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE 

060 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................................... 368,131 368,131 

SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE ....................................................................................................... 368,131 368,131 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE 

070 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE .............................................................................................................................. 8,232 8,232 

SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE ........................................................................................................... 8,232 8,232 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES 

080 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES ........................................................................................................ 203,717 203,717 

SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES .................................................................................... 203,717 203,717 

TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 1,664,342 1,664,342 TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................... 176,517,228 

Ø42,446,082 134,071,146 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
452 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 257,900 1,094,429 1,352,329 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [1,094,429 ] 

040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,110,836 763,300 1,874,136 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [763,300 ] 

050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 261,943 1,054,322 1,316,265 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [1,054,322 ] 

060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 22,160 1,546,129 1,568,289 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [1,546,129 ] 

070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 1,119,201 3,158,606 4,277,807 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [3,158,606 ] 

080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 117,881 117,881 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 50,000 50,000 140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................................ 4,500,666 4,500,666 150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. 10,000 10,000 160 RESET ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,834,777 1,834,777 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 9,285,364 7,616,786 16,902,150 

MOBILIZATION 

190 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS ............................................................................................................................................... 40,000 40,000 

SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 40,000 40,000 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
453 

350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 529,891 529,891 380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 5,033 5,033 420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 100,480 100,480 450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 154,350 154,350 480 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,267,632 1,267,632 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................ 2,057,386 2,057,386 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ........................................................................................................................... 11,382,750 7,616,786 18,999,536 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 2,442 2,442 

050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 813 813 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 779 779 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 20,525 20,525 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 24,559 24,559 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES .................................................................................................................... 24,559 24,559 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,984 1,984 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 4,671 4,671 060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15,980 15,980 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 12,867 12,867 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 23,134 23,134 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 1,426 1,426 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 60,062 60,062 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 783 783 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................ 783 783 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
454 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ............................................................................................................................ 60,845 60,845 

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND MINISTRY OF DEFENSE 

010 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2,214,899 2,214,899 

030 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 182,751 182,751 

040 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 281,555 281,555 

SUBTOTAL, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE ......................................................................................................................................... 2,679,205 2,679,205 

MINISTRY OF INTERIOR 

060 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 901,137 901,137 

080 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 116,573 116,573 

090 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 65,342 65,342 

SUBTOTAL, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR ........................................................................................................................................ 1,083,052 1,083,052 TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND ...................................................................................................................... 3,762,257 3,762,257 IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND 

010 IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND ................................................................................................................................................. 715,000 715,000 

SUBTOTAL, IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND ............................................................................................................................. 715,000 715,000 

TOTAL IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND ..................................................................................................................................... 715,000 715,000 

SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
455 

010 SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND ............................................................................................................................................... 600,000 600,000 

SUBTOTAL, SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND ............................................................................................................................ 600,000 600,000 

TOTAL SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND ................................................................................................................................... 600,000 600,000 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 358,417 4,943,665 5,302,082 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [4,940,365 ] Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [3,300 ] 

030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 110 110 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................. 4,513 4,513 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 126,501 126,501 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 75,897 914,536 990,433 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [897,536 ] Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [17,000 ] 

070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 2,770 2,770 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 34,101 34,101 090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 1,184,878 4,287,658 5,472,536 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [4,287,658 ] 

100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 16,663 16,663 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,922,829 5,960,951 7,883,780 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [5,960,951 ] 

130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 33,577 33,577 160 WARFARE TACTICS ................................................................................................................................................................... 26,454 26,454 170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 22,305 22,305 180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 513,969 513,969 190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 10,007 10,007 250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 60,865 60,865 260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................................................................... 275,231 275,231 290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 7,819 7,819 300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 61,422 61,422 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
456 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 4,738,328 16,106,810 20,845,138 MOBILIZATION 

340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 5,307 5,307 

360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................... 160,002 160,002 

SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 165,309 165,309 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 44,845 44,845 

SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................................. 44,845 44,845 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

480 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2,513 2,513 

490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 500 500 510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 5,309 5,309 

520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 1,469 1,469 550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 156,671 156,671 580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 8,834 8,834 620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................... 1,490 1,490 680 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 6,320 6,320 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................ 183,106 183,106 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ............................................................................................................................ 5,131,588 16,106,810 21,238,398 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 353,133 931,079 1,284,212 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
457 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [931,079 ] 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 259,676 931,757 1,191,433 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [931,757 ] 

030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 240,000 240,000 060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 16,026 16,026 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 868,835 1,862,836 2,731,671 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

110 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 37,862 37,862 

SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................................. 37,862 37,862 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 43,767 43,767 

180 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,070 2,070 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................ 45,837 45,837 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ........................................................................................................... 952,534 1,862,836 2,815,370 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 4,033 4,033 

020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................. 60 60 030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 20,300 20,300 100 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 7,250 7,250 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 31,643 31,643 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES .................................................................................................................... 31,643 31,643 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 2,500 2,500 

040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 955 955 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
458 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 3,455 3,455 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ............................................................................................................... 3,455 3,455 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,505,738 3,333,368 4,839,106 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [3,336,868 ] Retain Current A–10 Fleet .................................................................................................................................................. [–1,400 ] Unjustified Increase ............................................................................................................................................................ [–2,100 ] 

020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................ 914,973 1,887,615 2,802,588 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [1,897,315 ] Unjustified Increase ............................................................................................................................................................ [–14,000 ] 

Readiness funding increase ............................................................................................................................................... [4,300 ] 

030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ............................................................................................................... 31,978 31,978 040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,192,765 6,537,127 7,729,892 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [6,537,127 ] 

050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 85,625 85,625 060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 917,269 917,269 070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING .......................................................................................................................................... 30,219 30,219 080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................... 174,734 174,734 100 LAUNCH FACILITIES .................................................................................................................................................................. 869 869 110 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................................... 5,008 5,008 120 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 100,190 100,190 

xxx CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 22,893 22,893 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 4,982,261 11,758,110 16,740,371 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
459 

MOBILIZATION 

140 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,995,703 2,995,703 

150 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................ 108,163 108,163 

160 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 511,059 1,617,571 2,128,630 

Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA ................................................................................................................. [1,617,571 ] 

180 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4,642 4,642 

SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION ....................................................................................................................................................... 3,619,567 1,617,571 5,237,138 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

190 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 92 92 

240 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 11,986 11,986 

SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING ................................................................................................................................. 12,078 12,078 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

340 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 86,716 86,716 

380 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3,836 3,836 400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 165,348 165,348 

410 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 204,683 –63,000 141,683 

Reduction to the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq ................................................................................................... [–63,000 ] 

450 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................ 61 61 450 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 15,463 15,463 

SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................ 476,107 –63,000 413,107 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................... 9,090,013 13,312,681 22,402,694 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 51,086 51,086 

050 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7,020 7,020 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 58,106 58,106 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ................................................................................................................ 58,106 58,106 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
460 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 19,900 19,900 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 19,900 19,900 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .............................................................................................................................. 19,900 19,900 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ........................................................................................................................................................... 9,900 9,900 

030 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES ........................................................................................................... 2,345,835 2,345,835 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES ............................................................................................................................................. 2,355,735 2,355,735 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 

090 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ....................................................................................................................................... 18,474 18,474 

120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ............................................................................................................................. 29,579 29,579 140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY ........................................................................................................................................ 110,000 110,000 160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ....................................................................................................................................................... 5,960 5,960 190 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY ........................................................................................................................... 1,677,000 –100,000 1,577,000 

Reduction from Coalition Support Funds ........................................................................................................................... [–100,000 ] 

260 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................... 73,000 73,000 300 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ............................................................................................................................... 106,709 106,709 320 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ................................................................................................................................ 2,102 2,102 320 A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,427,074 1,427,074 

SUBTOTAL, ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................ 3,449,898 –100,000 3,349,898 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
461 

TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........................................................................................................ 5,805,633 –100,000 5,705,633 TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................... 37,638,283 38,799,113 76,437,396 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(463) 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
464 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL. 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY PERSONNEL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 130,491,227 –1,254,500 129,236,727 

Military Personnel Underexecution ........................................................................................................................ [–987,200 ] 

Additional support for the National Guard’s Operation Phalanx ......................................................................... [21,700 ] Reduction for anticipated cost of TRICARE consolidation ................................................................................... [–85,000 ] TRICARE program improvement initiatives .......................................................................................................... [15,000 ] Financial literacy improvement ............................................................................................................................ [85,000 ] Reduction from Foreign Currency Gains, Army .................................................................................................... [–65,200 ] Reduction from Foreign Currency Gains, Navy .................................................................................................... [–81,400 ] Reduction from Foreign Currency Gains, Marine Corps ....................................................................................... [–27,000 ] Reduction from Foreign Currency Gains, Air Force .............................................................................................. [–130,400 ] 

SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................ 130,491,227 –1,254,500 129,236,727 MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS .............................................................................................. 6,243,449 6,243,449 SUBTOTAL, MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS .......................................................................... 6,243,449 0 6,243,449 TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................ 136,734,676 –1,254,500 135,480,176 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
465 

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY PERSONNEL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 3,204,758 0 3,204,758 SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................ 3,204,758 0 3,204,758 

TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................ 3,204,758 0 3,204,758 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(467) 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
468 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY 

020 SUPPLY MANAGEMENT—ARMY ......................................................................................................................................... 50,432 50,432 

SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY ................................................................................................................... 50,432 50,432 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE 

010 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS ................................................................................................................................................ 62,898 62,898 

SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................... 62,898 62,898 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE 

030 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA) ................................................................................................................................. 45,084 45,084 

SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................................................................... 45,084 45,084 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA 

020 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA ........................................................................................................................................ 1,154,154 1,154,154 

SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA .................................................................................................................... 1,154,154 1,154,154 

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND ...................................................................................................................................... 1,312,568 1,312,568 NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND 

040 POST DELIVERY AND OUTFITTING ..................................................................................................................................... 15,456 15,456 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
469 

060 LG MED SPD RO/RO MAINTENANCE .................................................................................................................................. 124,493 124,493 070 DOD MOBILIZATION ALTERATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 8,243 8,243 080 TAH MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................................ 27,784 27,784 090 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 25,197 25,197 100 READY RESERVE FORCE ................................................................................................................................................... 272,991 272,991 

SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND ............................................................................................................... 474,164 474,164 

TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND ....................................................................................................................... 474,164 474,164 

CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 

01 CHEM DEMILITARIZATION—O&M ...................................................................................................................................... 139,098 139,098 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................................... 139,098 139,098 

RDT&E 

02 CHEM DEMILITARIZATION—RDT&E ................................................................................................................................... 579,342 579,342 

SUBTOTAL, RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................ 579,342 579,342 

PROCUREMENT 

03 CHEM DEMILITARIZATION—PROC ..................................................................................................................................... 2,281 2,281 

SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT ............................................................................................................................................... 2,281 2,281 

TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION ........................................................................................................ 720,721 720,721 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES 

010 DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE ................................................................................... 739,009 22,000 761,009 

SOUTHCOM Operational support .................................................................................................................................. [30,000 ] Transfer to Demand Reduction Program ..................................................................................................................... [–8,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES ................................................................................ 739,009 22,000 761,009 

DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
470 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

020 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. 111,589 8,000 119,589 

Expanded drug testing ................................................................................................................................................. [8,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM .......................................................................................................... 111,589 8,000 119,589 TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ........................................................................................... 850,598 30,000 880,598 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

010 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .............................................................................................................................. 310,459 310,459 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................... 310,459 310,459 

RDT&E 

020 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .............................................................................................................................. 4,700 –2,600 2,100 

Funding ahead of need ................................................................................................................................................ [–2,600 ] 

SUBTOTAL, RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................ 4,700 –2,600 2,100 

PROCUREMENT 

030 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .............................................................................................................................. 1,000 –1,000 0 

Funding ahead of need ................................................................................................................................................ [–1,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT ............................................................................................................................................... 1,000 –1,000 0 

TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .................................................................................................................. 316,159 –3,600 312,559 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 

010 IN-HOUSE CARE ................................................................................................................................................................ 9,082,298 9,082,298 

020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE ..................................................................................................................................................... 14,892,683 14,892,683 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
471 

030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................... 2,415,658 –10,290 2,405,368 

Reduction of funds related to Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB) project .......................................... [–10,290 ] 

040 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 1,677,827 1,677,827 050 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................. 327,967 327,967 060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................... 750,614 750,614 070 BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 1,742,893 1,742,893 

xx UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT ........................................................................................................ 0 –36,400 –36,400 

Foreign currency adjustment ....................................................................................................................................... [–36,400 ] 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................................... 30,889,940 –46,690 30,843,250 

RDT&E 

090 R&D RESEARCH ................................................................................................................................................................ 10,996 10,996 

100 R&D EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................................... 59,473 –3,150 56,323 

Reduction of funds related to Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB) project .......................................... [–3,150 ] 

110 R&D ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 231,356 –3,100 228,256 

Reduction of funds related to Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB) project .......................................... [–3,100 ] 

120 R&D DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION ................................................................................................................................... 103,443 103,443 130 R&D ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 515,910 515,910 140 R&D MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................... 41,567 41,567 150 R&D CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT ................................................................................................................................... 17,356 17,356 

SUBTOTAL, RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................ 980,101 –6,250 973,851 

PROCUREMENT 

160 PROC INITIAL OUTFITTING ................................................................................................................................................. 33,392 33,392 

170 PROC REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION ......................................................................................................................... 330,504 330,504 180 PROC THEATER MEDICAL INFORMATION PROGRAM .......................................................................................................... 1,494 1,494 190 PROC IEHR ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7,897 7,897 

SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT ............................................................................................................................................... 373,287 373,287 

TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................. 32,243,328 –52,940 32,190,388 TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 35,917,538 –26,540 35,890,998 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
472 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE 

020 TRANSPORTATION OF FALLEN HEROES ............................................................................................................................. 2,500 2,500 

SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................... 2,500 2,500 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE 

030 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA) ................................................................................................................................. 86,350 86,350 

SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................................................................... 86,350 86,350 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND ...................................................................................................................................... 88,850 88,850 DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES 

010 DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE ................................................................................... 186,000 186,000 

SUBTOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES ................................................................................ 186,000 186,000 

TOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF .......................................................................................... 186,000 186,000 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

010 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .............................................................................................................................. 10,262 10,262 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................... 10,262 10,262 

TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ................................................................................................................. 10,262 10,262 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
473 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 

010 IN-HOUSE CARE ................................................................................................................................................................ 65,149 65,149 020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE ..................................................................................................................................................... 192,210 192,210 030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................... 9,460 9,460 

060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................... 5,885 5,885 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................................... 272,704 272,704 

TOTAL, DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................ 272,704 272,704 

COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND 

090 COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND ..................................................................................................................... 2,100,000 –1,100,000 1,000,000 

Request excess to need ............................................................................................................................................... [–1,100,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND ................................................................................................. 2,100,000 –1,100,000 1,000,000 

TOTAL, COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND ........................................................................................................ 2,100,000 –1,100,000 1,000,000 UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE 

xxx UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE ..................................................................................................................... 0 300,000 300,000 

Provides assistance to Ukraine ................................................................................................................................... [300,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL, UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE ................................................................................................. 0 300,000 300,000 TOTAL, UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE ....................................................................................................... 0 300,000 300,000 TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATION ......................................................................................................................................... 2,657,816 –800,000 1,857,816 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(475) 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
476 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION. 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION MILCON, ARMY MILCON, ARMY ALASKA Fort Greely Physical Readiness Training Facility ........................... 7,800 7,800 MILCON, ARMY CALIFORNIA Concord Pier ............................................................................... 98,000 98,000 MILCON, ARMY COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado Rotary Wing Taxiway .................................................... 5,800 5,800 MILCON, ARMY GEORGIA Fort Gordon Command and Control Facility .................................... 90,000 90,000 MILCON, ARMY GERMANY Grafenwoehr Vehicle Maintenance Shop ........................................... 51,000 51,000 MILCON, ARMY GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay Unaccompanied Personnel Housing ............................. 0 76,000 76,000 MILCON, ARMY MARYLAND Fort Meade Access Control Point-Reece Road ................................ 0 19,500 19,500 MILCON, ARMY MARYLAND Fort Meade Access Control Point-Mapes Road ............................... 0 15,000 15,000 MILCON, ARMY NEW YORK Fort Drum, New York NCO Academy Complex ................................................ 19,000 19,000 MILCON, ARMY NEW YORK U.S. Military Academy Waste Water Treatment Plant ...................................... 70,000 70,000 MILCON, ARMY OKLAHOMA Fort Sill Reception Barracks Complex Ph2 ................................ 56,000 56,000 MILCON, ARMY OKLAHOMA Fort Sill Training Support Facility ............................................. 13,400 13,400 MILCON, ARMY TEXAS Corpus Christi Powertrain Facility (Infrastructure/Metal) .................... 85,000 85,000 MILCON, ARMY TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Homeland Defense Operations Center ......................... 43,000 –43,000 0 MILCON, ARMY VIRGINIA Fort Lee Training Support Facility ............................................. 33,000 33,000 MILCON, ARMY VIRGINIA Joint Base Myer-Henderson Instruction Building ..................................................... 37,000 –37,000 0 MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Host Nation Support .................................................... 36,000 36,000 MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Minor Construction ....................................................... 25,000 25,000 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
477 

MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................... 73,245 73,245 MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Prior Year Unobligated Amounts ................................. 0 –52,000 –52,000 

SUBTOTAL, MILCON, ARMY ............................................................................................................................................................ 743,245 –21,500 721,745 

MIL CON, NAVY MIL CON, NAVY ARIZONA Yuma Aircraft Maint. Facilities & Apron (So. CALA) ............. 50,635 50,635 MIL CON, NAVY BAHRAIN ISLAND SW Asia Mina Salman Pier Replacement .................................. 37,700 37,700 MIL CON, NAVY BAHRAIN ISLAND SW Asia Ship Maintenance Support Facility .............................. 52,091 52,091 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, California Raw Water Pipeline Pendleton to Fallbrook ................ 44,540 –44,540 0 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, California Pendleton Ops Center .................................................. 0 25,000 25,000 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Coronado Coastal Campus Utilities ............................................. 4,856 4,856 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Lemoore F–35C Hangar Modernization and Addition ................ 56,497 56,497 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Lemoore F–35C Training Facilities ............................................ 8,187 8,187 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Lemoore RTO and Mission Debrief Facility ................................ 7,146 7,146 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Miramar KC–130J Enlisted Air Crew Trainer ............................. 0 11,200 11,200 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Point Mugu E–2C/D Hangar Additions and Renovations ............... 19,453 19,453 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Point Mugu Triton Avionics and Fuel Systems Trainer ................... 2,974 2,974 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA San Diego LCS Support Facility .................................................... 37,366 37,366 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Twentynine Palms, California Microgrid Expansion ..................................................... 9,160 9,160 MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Jacksonville Fleet Support Facility Addition .................................... 8,455 8,455 MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Jacksonville Triton Mission Control Facility ..................................... 8,296 8,296 MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Mayport LCS Mission Module Readiness Center ....................... 16,159 16,159 MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Pensacola A-School Unaccopanied Housing (Corry Station) ........ 18,347 18,347 MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Whiting Field T–6B JPATS Training Operations Facility .................... 10,421 10,421 MIL CON, NAVY GEORGIA Albany Ground Source Heat Pumps ......................................... 7,851 7,851 MIL CON, NAVY GEORGIA Kings Bay Industrial Control System Infrastructure ..................... 8,099 8,099 MIL CON, NAVY GEORGIA Townsend Townsend Bombing Range Expansion Phase 2 .......... 48,279 –5,000 43,279 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
478 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Live-Fire Training Range Complex (NW Field) ............. 125,677 125,677 MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Closure ...................... 10,777 10,777 MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Sanitary Sewer System Recapitalization ..................... 45,314 45,314 MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Barking Sands PMRF Power Grid Consolidation .................................. 30,623 30,623 MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam UEM Interconnect Sta C to Hickam ............................. 6,335 6,335 MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam Welding School Shop Consolidation ............................ 8,546 8,546 MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Airfield Lighting Modernization .................................... 26,097 26,097 MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Bachelor Enlisted Quarters .......................................... 68,092 68,092 MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Kaneohe Bay P–8A Detachment Support Facilities ........................... 12,429 12,429 MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII MCB Hawaii LHD Pad Conversions MV22 Landing Pads ................. 0 12,800 12,800 MIL CON, NAVY ITALY Sigonella P–8A Hangar and Fleet Support Facility ..................... 62,302 62,302 MIL CON, NAVY ITALY Sigonella Triton Hangar and Operation Facility .......................... 40,641 40,641 MIL CON, NAVY JAPAN Camp Butler Military Working Dog Facilities (Camp Hansen) ......... 11,697 11,697 MIL CON, NAVY JAPAN Iwakuni E–2D Operational Trainer Complex ............................. 8,716 8,716 MIL CON, NAVY JAPAN Iwakuni Security Modifications—CVW5/MAG12 HQ .................. 9,207 9,207 MIL CON, NAVY JAPAN Kadena AB Aircraft Maint. Shelters & Apron ................................. 23,310 23,310 MIL CON, NAVY JAPAN Yokosuka Child Development Center ........................................... 13,846 13,846 MIL CON, NAVY MARYLAND Patuxent River Unaccompanied Housing ............................................. 40,935 40,935 MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune Range Safety Improvements ........................................ 0 19,400 19,400 MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North 

Carolina 

Simulator Integration/Range Control Facility .............. 54,849 54,849 

MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Marine Corps 

Air Station 

Air Field Security Improvements .................................. 0 23,300 23,300 

MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Marine Corps 

Air Station 

KC130J Enlsited Air Crew Trainer Facility ................... 4,769 4,769 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
479 

MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Marine Corps 

Air Station 

Unmanned Aircraft System Facilities .......................... 29,657 29,657 

MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA New River Operational Trainer Facility ......................................... 3,312 3,312 MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA New River Radar Air Traffic Control Facility Addition .................. 4,918 4,918 MIL CON, NAVY POLAND RedziKowo Base AEGIS Ashore Missile Defense Complex ...................... 51,270 51,270 MIL CON, NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA Parris Island Range Safety Improvements & Modernization ............ 27,075 27,075 MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Dam Neck Maritime Surveillance System Facility ......................... 23,066 23,066 MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Norfolk Communications Center ............................................... 75,289 75,289 MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Norfolk Electrical Repairs to Piers 2,6,7, and 11 ................... 44,254 44,254 MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Norfolk MH60 Helicopter Training Facility ............................... 7,134 7,134 MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Portsmouth Waterfront Utilities ....................................................... 45,513 45,513 MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Quantico ATFP Gate ..................................................................... 5,840 5,840 MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Quantico Electrical Distribution Upgrade ................................... 8,418 8,418 MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Quantico Embassy Security Guard BEQ & Ops Facility .............. 43,941 43,941 MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Quantico TBS Fire Station Replacement ..................................... 0 17,200 17,200 MIL CON, NAVY WASHINGTON Bangor WRA Land/Water Interface ........................................... 34,177 34,177 MIL CON, NAVY WASHINGTON Bremerton Dry Dock 6 Modernization & Utility Improve. .............. 22,680 22,680 MIL CON, NAVY WASHINGTON Indian Island Shore Power to Ammunition Pier ................................. 4,472 4,472 MIL CON, NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations MCON Design Funds .................................................... 91,649 91,649 MIL CON, NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 22,590 22,590 

SUBTOTAL, MIL CON, NAVY ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,605,929 59,360 1,665,289 

MILCON, AIR FORCE MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35A Flight Sim/Alter Squad Ops/AMU Facility ........ 37,000 37,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

ALASKA Eielson AFB Rpr Central Heat & Power Plant Boiler Ph3 ............... 34,400 34,400 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

ARIZONA Davis-Monthan AFB HC–130J AGE Covered Storage .................................... 4,700 4,700 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
480 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

ARIZONA Davis-Monthan AFB HC–130J Wash Rack .................................................... 12,200 12,200 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

ARIZONA Luke AFB Communications Facility .............................................. 0 21,000 21,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

ARIZONA Luke AFB F–35A ADAL Fuel Offload Facility ................................ 5,000 5,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

ARIZONA Luke AFB F–35A Aircraft Maintenance Hangar/Sq 3 .................. 13,200 13,200 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

ARIZONA Luke AFB F–35A Bomb Build-Up Facility .................................... 5,500 5,500 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

ARIZONA Luke AFB F–35A Sq Ops/AMU/Hangar/Sq 4 ................................ 33,000 33,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

COLORADO U.S. Air Force Academy Front Gates Force Protection Enhancements ............... 10,000 10,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

FLORIDA Cape Canaveral Afs Range Communications Facility .................................. 21,000 21,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

FLORIDA Eglin AFB F–35A Consolidated HQ Facility .................................. 8,700 8,700 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

FLORIDA Hurlburt Field ADAL 39 Information Operations Squad Facility ......... 14,200 14,200 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

GREENLAND Thule AB Thule Consolidation Ph 1 ............................................ 41,965 41,965 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

GUAM Joint Region Marianas APR—Dispersed Maint Spares & SE Storage Fac ...... 19,000 19,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

GUAM Joint Region Marianas APR—Installation Control Center ................................ 22,200 22,200 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
481 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

GUAM Joint Region Marianas APR—South Ramp Utilities Phase 2 .......................... 7,100 7,100 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

GUAM Joint Region Marianas PRTC Roads ................................................................. 2,500 2,500 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

HAWAII Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam F–22 Fighter Alert Facility ........................................... 46,000 46,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

JAPAN Yokota AB C–130J Flight Simulator Facility ................................. 8,461 8,461 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

KANSAS McConnell AFB Air Traffic Control Tower .............................................. 0 11,200 11,200 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

KANSAS McConnell AFB KC–46A ADAL Deicing Pads ........................................ 4,300 4,300 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

LOUISIANA Barksdale AFB Consolidated Communications Facility ........................ 0 20,000 20,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

MARYLAND Fort Meade CYBERCOM Joint Operations Center, Increment 3 ...... 86,000 86,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

MISSOURI Whiteman AFB Consolidated Stealth Ops & Nuclear Alert Fac ........... 29,500 29,500 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

MONTANA Malmstrom AFB Tactical Response Force Alert Facility ......................... 19,700 19,700 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

NEBRASKA Offutt AFB Dormitory (144 RM) ..................................................... 21,000 21,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

NEVADA Nellis AFB F–35A Airfield Pavements ........................................... 31,000 31,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

NEVADA Nellis AFB F–35A Live Ordnance Loading Area ............................ 34,500 34,500 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

NEVADA Nellis AFB F–35A Munitions Maintenance Facilities .................... 3,450 3,450 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB Construct AT/FP Gate—Portales ................................. 7,800 7,800 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB Marshalling Area ARM/DE-ARM Pad D ........................ 3,000 3,000 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
482 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB Fixed Ground Control ................................................... 0 3,200 3,200 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

NEW MEXICO Kirtland AFB Space Vehicles Component Development Lab ............. 12,800 12,800 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

NEW YORK Fort Drum, New York ASOS Expansion ........................................................... 0 6,000 6,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

NIGER Agadez Construct Airfield and Base Camp ............................. 50,000 50,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB Air Traffic Control Tower/Base Ops Facility ................ 17,100 17,100 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

OKLAHOMA Altus AFB Dormitory (120 RM) ..................................................... 18,000 18,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC–46A FTU ADAL Fuel Cell Maint Hangar ................. 10,400 10,400 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB Air Traffic Control Tower .............................................. 12,900 12,900 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB KC–46A Depot Maintenance Dock ............................... 37,000 37,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

OMAN Al Musannah AB Airlift Apron .................................................................. 25,000 25,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

SOUTH DAKOTA Ellsworth AFB Dormitory (168 RM) ..................................................... 23,000 23,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio BMT Classrooms/Dining Facility 3 ............................... 35,000 35,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio BMT Recruit Dormitory 5 ............................................. 71,000 71,000 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
483 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

UNITED KINGDOM Croughton RAF Consolidated SATCOM/Tech Control Facility ................ 36,424 36,424 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

UNITED KINGDOM Croughton RAF JIAC Consolidation—Ph 2 ........................................... 94,191 94,191 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

UTAH Hill AFB F–35A Flight Simulator Addition Phase 2 ................... 5,900 5,900 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

UTAH Hill AFB F–35A Hangar 40/42 Additions and AMU ................... 21,000 21,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

UTAH Hill AFB Hayman Igloos ............................................................. 11,500 11,500 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED Classified Location Long Range Strike Bomber .......................................... 77,130 77,130 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED Classified Location Munitions Storage ........................................................ 3,000 3,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Prior Year Unobligated Amounts ................................. 0 –50,000 –50,000 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................... 89,164 89,164 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Military Construction ..................... 22,900 22,900 

MILCON, AIR 

FORCE 

WYOMING F. E. Warren AFB Weapon Storage Facility .............................................. 95,000 95,000 

SUBTOTAL, MILCON, AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................................................... 1,354,785 11,400 1,366,185 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MIL CON, DEFWIDE ALABAMA Fort Rucker Fort Rucker ES/PS Consolidation/Replacement ........... 46,787 46,787 MIL CON, DEFWIDE ALABAMA Maxwell AFB Maxwell ES/MS Replacement/Renovation .................... 32,968 32,968 MIL CON, DEFWIDE ARIZONA Fort Huachuca JITC Buildings 52101/52111 Renovations ................... 3,884 3,884 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
484 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MIL CON, DEFWIDE CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, Cali- fornia SOF Combat Service Support Facility .......................... 10,181 10,181 MIL CON, DEFWIDE CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, Cali- fornia SOF Performance Resiliency Center-West .................... 10,371 10,371 MIL CON, DEFWIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Logistics Support Unit One Ops Fac. #2 ............. 47,218 47,218 MIL CON, DEFWIDE CALIFORNIA Fresno Yosemite IAP ANG Replace Fuel Storage and Distrib. Facilities ............... 10,700 10,700 MIL CON, DEFWIDE COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado SOF Language Training Facility ................................... 8,243 8,243 MIL CON, DEFWIDE CONUS CLASSIFIED Classified Location Operations Support Facility ......................................... 20,065 20,065 MIL CON, DEFWIDE DELAWARE Dover AFB Construct Hydrant Fuel System ................................... 21,600 21,600 MIL CON, DEFWIDE DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonier, Djibouti Construct Fuel Storage & Distrib. Facilities ............... 43,700 43,700 MIL CON, DEFWIDE FLORIDA Hurlburt Field SOF Fuel Cell Maintenance Hangar ............................. 17,989 17,989 MIL CON, DEFWIDE FLORIDA MacDill AFB SOF Operational Support Facility ................................. 39,142 39,142 MIL CON, DEFWIDE GEORGIA Moody AFB Replace Pumphouse and Truck Fillstands .................. 10,900 10,900 MIL CON, DEFWIDE GERMANY Garmisch Garmisch E/MS-Addition/Modernization ....................... 14,676 14,676 MIL CON, DEFWIDE GERMANY Grafenwoehr Grafenwoehr Elementary School Replacement ............ 38,138 38,138 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
485 

MIL CON, DEFWIDE GERMANY Rhine Ordnance Barracks Medical Center Replacement Incr 5 ............................ 85,034 85,034 MIL CON, DEFWIDE GERMANY Spangdahlem AB Construct Fuel Pipeline ................................................ 5,500 5,500 MIL CON, DEFWIDE GERMANY Spangdahlem AB Medical/Dental Clinic Addition .................................... 34,071 34,071 MIL CON, DEFWIDE GERMANY Stuttgart-Patch Barracks Patch Elementary School Replacement ....................... 49,413 49,413 MIL CON, DEFWIDE HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement ............................. 122,071 122,071 MIL CON, DEFWIDE HAWAII Schofield Barracks Behavioral Health/Dental Clinic Addition .................... 123,838 123,838 MIL CON, DEFWIDE JAPAN Kadena AB Airfield Pavements ....................................................... 37,485 37,485 MIL CON, DEFWIDE KENTUCKY Fort Campbell, Kentucky SOF Company HQ/Classrooms ..................................... 12,553 12,553 MIL CON, DEFWIDE KENTUCKY Fort Knox Fort Knox HS Renovation/MS Addition ......................... 23,279 23,279 MIL CON, DEFWIDE MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Campus Feeders Phase 2 ................................. 33,745 33,745 MIL CON, DEFWIDE MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize Building #2 Incr 1 ........................ 34,897 34,897 MIL CON, DEFWIDE NEVADA Nellis AFB Replace Hydrant Fuel System ...................................... 39,900 39,900 MIL CON, DEFWIDE NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB Construct Pumphouse and Fuel Storage ..................... 20,400 20,400 MIL CON, DEFWIDE NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB SOF Squadron Operations Facility ............................... 11,565 11,565 MIL CON, DEFWIDE NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB SOF ST Operational Training Facilities ........................ 13,146 13,146 MIL CON, DEFWIDE NEW YORK West Point West Point Elementary School Replacement ............... 55,778 55,778 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
486 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MIL CON, DEFWIDE NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North Carolina SOF Combat Service Support Facility .......................... 14,036 14,036 MIL CON, DEFWIDE NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North Carolina SOF Marine Battalion Company/Team Facilities ......... 54,970 54,970 MIL CON, DEFWIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg Butner Elementary School Replacement ...................... 32,944 32,944 MIL CON, DEFWIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF 21 STS Operations Facility ................................... 16,863 16,863 MIL CON, DEFWIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Battalion Operations Facility ................................ 38,549 38,549 MIL CON, DEFWIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Indoor Range ........................................................ 8,303 8,303 MIL CON, DEFWIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Intelligence Training Center ................................. 28,265 28,265 MIL CON, DEFWIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Special Tactics Facility (PH 2) ............................. 43,887 43,887 MIL CON, DEFWIDE OHIO Wright-Patterson AFB Satellite Pharmacy Replacement ................................. 6,623 6,623 MIL CON, DEFWIDE OREGON Klamath Falls IAP Replace Fuel Facilities ................................................. 2,500 2,500 MIL CON, DEFWIDE PENNSYLVANIA Philadelphia Replace Headquarters .................................................. 49,700 –49,700 0 MIL CON, DEFWIDE POLAND RedziKowo Base Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System Complex .......... 169,153 169,153 MIL CON, DEFWIDE SOUTH CAROLINA Fort Jackson Pierce Terrace Elementary School Replacement .......... 26,157 26,157 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
487 

MIL CON, DEFWIDE SPAIN Rota Rota ES and HS Additions ........................................... 13,737 13,737 MIL CON, DEFWIDE TEXAS Fort Bliss Hospital Replacement Incr 7 ....................................... 239,884 239,884 MIL CON, DEFWIDE TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Ambulatory Care Center Phase 4 ................................ 61,776 61,776 MIL CON, DEFWIDE VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir Construct Visitor Control Center .................................. 5,000 5,000 MIL CON, DEFWIDE VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir Replace Ground Vehicle Fueling Facility ..................... 4,500 4,500 MIL CON, DEFWIDE VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley-Eustis Replace Fuel Pier and Distribution Facility ................. 28,000 28,000 MIL CON, DEFWIDE VIRGINIA Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek—Story SOF Applied Instruction Facility .................................. 23,916 23,916 MIL CON, DEFWIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Lo- cations Contingency Construction ............................................ 10,000 10,000 MIL CON, DEFWIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Lo- cations ECIP Design ................................................................. 10,000 10,000 MIL CON, DEFWIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Lo- cations Energy Conservation Investment Program ................... 150,000 150,000 MIL CON, DEFWIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Lo- cations Exercise Related Minor Construction ........................... 8,687 8,687 MIL CON, DEFWIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Lo- cations Planning and Design ................................................... 118,632 118,632 MIL CON, DEFWIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Lo- cations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 23,676 23,676 MIL CON, DEFWIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Lo- cations Prior year savings, including rescoped medical facil- ity at Fort Knox. 0 –120,000 –120,000 MIL CON, DEFWIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Loca- tions Planning & Design ....................................................... 31,772 31,772 

SUBTOTAL, MIL CON, DEF-WIDE ................................................................................................................................................... 2,300,767 –169,700 2,131,067 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
488 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILCON, ARNG MILCON, ARNG ALABAMA Camp Foley Vehicle Maintenance Shop ........................................... 0 4,500 4,500 MILCON, ARNG CONNECTICUT Camp Hartell Ready Building (CST-WMD) ......................................... 11,000 11,000 MILCON, ARNG DELAWARE Dagsboro National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop ................. 10,800 10,800 MILCON, ARNG FLORIDA Palm Coast National Guard Readiness Center ............................... 18,000 18,000 MILCON, ARNG GEORGIA Fort Stewart Tactical Aerial Unmanned Systems ............................. 0 6,800 6,800 MILCON, ARNG ILLINOIS Sparta Basic 10M–25M Firing Range (Zero) .......................... 1,900 1,900 MILCON, ARNG KANSAS Salina Automated Combat Pistol/MP Firearms Qual Cour ..... 2,400 2,400 MILCON, ARNG KANSAS Salina Modified Record Fire Range ........................................ 4,300 4,300 MILCON, ARNG MARYLAND Easton National Guard Readiness Center ............................... 13,800 13,800 MILCON, ARNG MISSISSIPPI Gulfport Aviation Classification and Repair .............................. 0 40,000 40,000 MILCON, ARNG NEVADA Reno National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop Add/A ...... 8,000 8,000 MILCON, ARNG OHIO Camp Ravenna Modified Record Fire Range ........................................ 3,300 3,300 MILCON, ARNG OREGON Salem National Guard/Reserve Center Bldg Add/Alt (J .......... 16,500 16,500 MILCON, ARNG PENNSYLVANIA Fort Indiantown Gap Training Aids Center .................................................... 16,000 16,000 MILCON, ARNG VERMONT North Hyde Park National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop Addit ....... 7,900 7,900 MILCON, ARNG VIRGINIA Richmond National Guard/Reserve Center Building (JFHQ) ......... 29,000 29,000 MILCON, ARNG WASHINGTON Yakima Enlisted Barracks, Transient Training ......................... 19,000 19,000 MILCON, ARNG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................... 20,337 20,337 MILCON, ARNG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 15,000 15,000 

SUBTOTAL, MILCON, ARNG ............................................................................................................................................................ 197,237 51,300 248,537 

MILCON, ANG MILCON, ANG ALABAMA Dannelly Field TFI—Replace Squadron Operations Facility ................ 7,600 7,600 MILCON, ANG CALIFORNIA Moffett Field Replace Vehicle Maintenance Facility ......................... 6,500 6,500 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
489 

MILCON, ANG COLORADO Buckley Air Force Base ASE Maintenance and Storage Facility ....................... 5,100 5,100 MILCON, ANG CONNECTICUT Bradley Ops and Deployment Facility ....................................... 0 6,300 6,300 MILCON, ANG FLORIDA Cape Canaveral Afs Space Control Facility .................................................. 0 6,100 6,100 MILCON, ANG GEORGIA Savannah/Hilton Head IAP C–130 Squadron Operations Facility ........................... 9,000 9,000 MILCON, ANG HAWAII Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam F–22 Composite Repair Facility .................................. 0 9,700 9,700 MILCON, ANG IOWA Des Moines Map Air Operations Grp/CYBER Beddown-Reno Blg 430 .... 6,700 6,700 MILCON, ANG KANSAS Smokey Hill ANG Range Range Training Support Facilities ............................... 2,900 2,900 MILCON, ANG LOUISIANA New Orleans Replace Squadron Operations Facility ......................... 10,000 10,000 MILCON, ANG MAINE Bangor IAP Add to and Alter Fire Crash/Rescue Station ............... 7,200 7,200 MILCON, ANG NEW HAMPSHIRE Pease International Trade 

Port 

Bidg Mo KC–46 Fuselage Trainer ................................ 0 1,500 1,500 

MILCON, ANG NEW HAMPSHIRE Pease International Trade 

Port 

KC–46A ADAL Flight Simulator Bldg 156 ................... 2,800 2,800 

MILCON, ANG NEW JERSEY Atlantic City IAP Fuel Cell and Corrosion Control Hangar ..................... 10,200 10,200 MILCON, ANG NEW YORK Niagara Falls IAP Remotely Piloted Aircraft Beddown Bldg 912 ............. 7,700 7,700 MILCON, ANG NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte/Douglas IAP Replace C–130 Squadron Operations Facility ............. 9,000 9,000 MILCON, ANG NORTH DAKOTA Hector IAP Intel Targeting Facilities .............................................. 7,300 7,300 MILCON, ANG OKLAHOMA Will Rogers World Airport Medium Altitude Manned ISR Beddown ...................... 7,600 7,600 MILCON, ANG OREGON Klamath Falls IAP Replace Fire Crash/Rescue Station ............................. 7,200 7,200 MILCON, ANG WEST VIRGINIA Yeager Airport Force Protection—Relocate Coonskin Road ................ 3,900 3,900 MILCON, ANG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................... 5,104 5,104 MILCON, ANG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 7,734 7,734 

SUBTOTAL, MILCON, ANG .............................................................................................................................................................. 123,538 23,600 147,138 

MILCON, ARMY R MILCON, ARMY 

R 

CALIFORNIA Miramar Army Reserve Center .................................................... 24,000 24,000 

MILCON, ARMY 

R 

FLORIDA MacDill AFB AR Center/AS Facility ................................................... 55,000 55,000 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
490 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILCON, ARMY 

R 

MISSISSIPPI Starkville Army Reserve Center .................................................... 9,300 9,300 

MILCON, ARMY 

R 

NEW YORK Orangeburg Organizational Maintenance Shop ............................... 4,200 4,200 

MILCON, ARMY 

R 

PENNSYLVANIA Conneaut Lake DAR Highway Improvement .......................................... 5,000 5,000 

MILCON, ARMY 

R 

PUERTO RICO Fort Buchanan Access Control Point .................................................... 0 10,200 10,200 

MILCON, ARMY 

R 

VIRGINIA Fort AP Hill Equipment Concentration ............................................ 0 24,000 24,000 

MILCON, ARMY 

R 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................... 9,318 9,318 

MILCON, ARMY 

R 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................... 6,777 6,777 

SUBTOTAL, MILCON, ARMY R ........................................................................................................................................................ 113,595 34,200 147,795 

MIL CON, NAVY RES MIL CON, NAVY 

RES 

NEVADA Fallon NAVOPSPTCEN Fallon ................................................... 11,480 11,480 

MIL CON, NAVY 

RES 

NEW YORK Brooklyn Reserve Center Storage Facility ................................... 2,479 2,479 

MIL CON, NAVY 

RES 

VIRGINIA Dam Neck Reserve Training Center Complex ................................ 18,443 18,443 

MIL CON, NAVY 

RES 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations MCNR Planning & Design ............................................ 2,208 2,208 

MIL CON, NAVY 

RES 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations MCNR Unspecified Minor Construction ........................ 1,468 1,468 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
491 

SUBTOTAL, MIL CON, NAVY RES ................................................................................................................................................... 36,078 36,078 

MILCON, AF RES MILCON, AF 

RES 

CALIFORNIA March AFB Satellite Fire Station .................................................... 4,600 4,600 

MILCON, AF 

RES 

FLORIDA Patrick AFB Aircrew Life Support Facility ........................................ 3,400 3,400 

MILCON, AF 

RES 

GEORGIA Dobbins Fire Station/Security Complex ...................................... 0 10,400 10,400 

MILCON, AF 

RES 

OHIO Youngstown Indoor Firing Range ..................................................... 9,400 9,400 

MILCON, AF 

RES 

TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Consolidate 433 Medical Facility ................................ 9,900 9,900 

MILCON, AF 

RES 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................... 13,400 13,400 

MILCON, AF 

RES 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Military Construction ..................... 6,121 6,121 

SUBTOTAL, MILCON, AF RES ......................................................................................................................................................... 46,821 10,400 57,221 

NATO SEC INV PRGM NATO SEC INV 

PRGM 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED NATO Security Investment 

Program 

NATO Security Investment Program ............................. 120,000 120,000 

SUBTOTAL, NATO SEC INV PRGM .................................................................................................................................................. 120,000 120,000 TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 6,641,995 –940 6,641,055 

FAMILY HOUSING FAM HSG CON, ARMY FAM HSG CON, 

ARMY 

FLORIDA Camp Rudder Family Housing Replacement Construction ................. 8,000 8,000 

FAM HSG CON, 

ARMY 

GERMANY Wiesbaden Army Airfield Family Housing Improvements ..................................... 3,500 3,500 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
492 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

FAM HSG CON, 

ARMY 

ILLINOIS Rock Island Family Housing Replacement Construction ................. 20,000 20,000 

FAM HSG CON, 

ARMY 

KOREA Camp Walker Family Housing New Construction ............................... 61,000 61,000 

FAM HSG CON, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Family Housing P & D ................................................. 7,195 7,195 

SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG CON, ARMY ................................................................................................................................................. 99,695 99,695 

FAM HSG O&M, ARMY FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings .................................................................. 25,552 25,552 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leased Housing ............................................................ 144,879 144,879 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance of Real Property Facilities ...................... 75,197 75,197 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management Account .................................................. 48,515 48,515 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Military Housing Privitization Initiative ....................... 22,000 22,000 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Miscellaneous ............................................................... 840 840 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Services ........................................................................ 10,928 10,928 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities ......................................................................... 65,600 65,600 

SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG O&M, ARMY ................................................................................................................................................ 393,511 393,511 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
493 

FAM HSG CON, N/MC FAM HSG CON, 

N/MC 

VIRGINIA Wallops Island Construct Housing Welcome Center ............................ 438 438 

FAM HSG CON, 

N/MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Design .......................................................................... 4,588 4,588 

FAM HSG CON, 

N/MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Improvements ............................................................... 11,515 11,515 

SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG CON, N/MC .................................................................................................................................................. 16,541 16,541 

FAM HSG O&M, N/MC FAM HSG O&M, 

N/MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings Account .................................................... 17,534 17,534 

FAM HSG O&M, 

N/MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leasing ......................................................................... 64,108 64,108 

FAM HSG O&M, 

N/MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance of Real Property ..................................... 99,323 99,323 

FAM HSG O&M, 

N/MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management Account .................................................. 56,189 56,189 

FAM HSG O&M, 

N/MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Miscellaneous Account ................................................. 373 373 

FAM HSG O&M, 

N/MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Privatization Support Costs ......................................... 28,668 28,668 

FAM HSG O&M, 

N/MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Services Account .......................................................... 19,149 19,149 

FAM HSG O&M, 

N/MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities Account ........................................................... 67,692 67,692 

SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG O&M, N/MC ................................................................................................................................................. 353,036 353,036 

FAM HSG CON, AF FAM HSG CON, 

AF 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Improvements ............................................................... 150,649 150,649 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
494 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

FAM HSG CON, 

AF 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................... 9,849 9,849 

SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG CON, AF ...................................................................................................................................................... 160,498 160,498 

FAM HSG O&M, AF FAM HSG O&M, 

AF 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings Account .................................................... 38,746 38,746 

FAM HSG O&M, 

AF 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Housing Privatization ................................................... 41,554 41,554 

FAM HSG O&M, 

AF 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leasing ......................................................................... 28,867 28,867 

FAM HSG O&M, 

AF 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance ................................................................. 114,129 114,129 

FAM HSG O&M, 

AF 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management Account .................................................. 52,153 52,153 

FAM HSG O&M, 

AF 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Miscellaneous Account ................................................. 2,032 2,032 

FAM HSG O&M, 

AF 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Services Account .......................................................... 12,940 12,940 

FAM HSG O&M, 

AF 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities Account ........................................................... 40,811 40,811 

SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG O&M, AF ..................................................................................................................................................... 331,232 331,232 

FAM HSG O&M, DW FAM HSG O&M, 

DW 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Furnishings Account .................................................... 4,203 4,203 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
495 

FAM HSG O&M, 

DW 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Leasing ......................................................................... 51,952 51,952 

FAM HSG O&M, 

DW 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Maintenance of Real Property ..................................... 1,448 1,448 

FAM HSG O&M, 

DW 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Management Account .................................................. 388 388 

FAM HSG O&M, 

DW 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Services Account .......................................................... 31 31 

FAM HSG O&M, 

DW 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations Utilities Account ........................................................... 646 646 

SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG O&M, DW .................................................................................................................................................... 58,668 58,668 TOTAL FAMILY HOUSING ............................................................................................................................................................... 1,413,181 1,413,181 

DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE DOD BRAC—ARMY DOD BRAC— 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Closure, Army Base Realignment and Closure ................................... 29,691 29,691 

SUBTOTAL, DOD BRAC—ARMY ..................................................................................................................................................... 29,691 29,691 

DOD BRAC—NAVY DOD BRAC— 

NAVY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Closure, Navy Base Realignment & Closure ...................................... 118,906 118,906 

DOD BRAC— 

NAVY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–100: Planing, Design and Management ............. 7,787 7,787 

DOD BRAC— 

NAVY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–101: Various Locations ....................................... 20,871 20,871 

DOD BRAC— 

NAVY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–138: NAS Brunswick, ME .................................... 803 803 

DOD BRAC— 

NAVY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–157: MCSA Kansas City, MO .............................. 41 41 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
496 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

DOD BRAC— 

NAVY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–172: NWS Seal Beach, Concord, CA ................... 4,872 4,872 

DOD BRAC— 

NAVY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DON–84: JRB Willow Grove & Cambria Reg AP .......... 3,808 3,808 

SUBTOTAL, DOD BRAC—NAVY ...................................................................................................................................................... 157,088 157,088 

DOD BRAC—AIR FORCE DOD BRAC— 

AIR FORCE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Locations DoD BRAC Activities—Air Force .................................. 64,555 64,555 

SUBTOTAL, DOD BRAC—AIR FORCE ............................................................................................................................................ 64,555 64,555 TOTAL DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ................................................................................................................... 251,334 251,334 TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC ................................................................................................ 8,306,510 –940 8,305,570 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(497) 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
498 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL 

SECURITY PROGRAMS 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS. 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Discretionary Summary By Appropriation 

Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: 

Energy Programs 

Nuclear Energy ......................................................................................................................................................... 135,161 135,161 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National nuclear security administration: 

Weapons activities .......................................................................................................................................... 8,846,948 180,000 9,026,948 

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ................................................................................................................... 1,940,302 5,000 1,945,302 

Naval reactors ................................................................................................................................................ 1,375,496 0 1,375,496 Federal salaries and expenses ....................................................................................................................... 402,654 0 402,654 

Total, National nuclear security administration ................................................................................................... 12,565,400 185,000 12,750,400 Environmental and other defense activities: 

Defense environmental cleanup ..................................................................................................................... 5,527,347 –451,797 5,075,550 Other defense activities ................................................................................................................................. 774,425 0 774,425 

Total, Environmental & other defense activities ................................................................................................. 6,301,772 –451,797 5,849,975 

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ........................................................................................................................ 18,867,172 –266,797 18,600,375 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
499 

Total, Discretionary Funding ............................................................................................................................................................. 19,002,333 –266,797 18,735,536 

Nuclear Energy 

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ................................................................................................................................... 126,161 126,161 Used nuclear fuel disposition ................................................................................................................................................... 9,000 9,000 

Total, Nuclear Energy ........................................................................................................................................................................ 135,161 0 135,161 

Weapons Activities 

Directed stockpile work 

Life extension programs 

B61 Life extension program .................................................................................................................................... 643,300 643,300 W76 Life extension program .................................................................................................................................... 244,019 244,019 W88 Alt 370 ............................................................................................................................................................. 220,176 220,176 

W80–4 Life extension program ............................................................................................................................... 195,037 195,037 

Total, Life extension programs ....................................................................................................................................... 1,302,532 0 1,302,532 

Stockpile systems 

B61 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 52,247 52,247 W76 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 50,921 50,921 W78 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 64,092 64,092 W80 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 68,005 68,005 B83 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 42,177 42,177 W87 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 89,299 89,299 W88 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 115,685 115,685 

Total, Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................. 482,426 0 482,426 Weapons dismantlement and disposition 

Operations and maintenance .................................................................................................................................. 48,049 48,049 

Stockpile services 

Production support .................................................................................................................................................. 447,527 447,527 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
500 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Research and development support ........................................................................................................................ 34,159 34,159 R&D certification and safety ................................................................................................................................... 192,613 192,613 Management, technology, and production .............................................................................................................. 264,994 264,994 

Total, Stockpile services ................................................................................................................................................. 939,293 0 939,293 

Nuclear material commodities 

Uranium sustainment .............................................................................................................................................. 32,916 32,916 Plutonium sustainment ........................................................................................................................................... 174,698 174,698 Tritium sustainment ................................................................................................................................................ 107,345 107,345 Domestic uranium enrichment ................................................................................................................................ 100,000 100,000 

Total, Nuclear material commodities ............................................................................................................................. 414,959 0 414,959 

Total, Directed stockpile work ................................................................................................................................................ 3,187,259 0 3,187,259 

Research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) 

Science 

Advanced certification ............................................................................................................................................. 50,714 50,714 Primary assessment technologies ........................................................................................................................... 98,500 98,500 Dynamic materials properties ................................................................................................................................. 109,000 109,000 Advanced radiography ............................................................................................................................................. 47,000 47,000 Secondary assessment technologies ....................................................................................................................... 84,400 84,400 

Total, Science .................................................................................................................................................................. 389,614 0 389,614 

Engineering 

Enhanced surety ...................................................................................................................................................... 50,821 50,821 Weapon systems engineering assessment technology ............................................................................................ 17,371 17,371 Nuclear survivability ................................................................................................................................................ 24,461 24,461 Enhanced surveillance ............................................................................................................................................. 38,724 10,000 48,724 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
501 

Program increase ............................................................................................................................................ [10,000 ] 

Total, Engineering ............................................................................................................................................................ 131,377 10,000 141,377 

Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield 

Ignition ..................................................................................................................................................................... 73,334 73,334 Support of other stockpile programs ...................................................................................................................... 22,843 22,843 Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support ................................................................................................ 58,587 58,587 Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion .............................................................................................................. 4,963 4,963 Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas ..................................................................................... 8,900 8,900 Facility operations and target production ............................................................................................................... 333,823 333,823 Undistributed ........................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield ........................................................................................................ 502,450 0 502,450 

Advanced simulation and computing .............................................................................................................................. 623,006 623,006 Response Capabilities Program ....................................................................................................................................... 0 20,000 20,000 

Supports flexible design capability for national labs ............................................................................................ [20,000 ] 

Nonnuclear Readiness Campaign .................................................................................................................................... 0 0 Advanced manufacturing 

Additive manufacturing ........................................................................................................................................... 0 0 Component manufacturing development ................................................................................................................ 112,256 112,256 Processing technology development ........................................................................................................................ 17,800 17,800 

Total, Advanced manufacturing ...................................................................................................................................... 130,056 0 130,056 

Total, RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,776,503 30,000 1,806,503 Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF) 

Operating 

Program readiness ................................................................................................................................................... 75,185 75,185 Material recycle and recovery .................................................................................................................................. 173,859 173,859 Containers ................................................................................................................................................................ 0 0 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
502 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Storage ..................................................................................................................................................................... 40,920 40,920 Maintenance and repair of facilities ...................................................................................................................... 0 0 Recapitalization ....................................................................................................................................................... 104,327 104,327 

Total, Operating ............................................................................................................................................................... 394,291 0 394,291 

Construction: 

Albuquerque Complex upgrades project .................................................................................................................. 0 0 15–D–613 Emergency Operations Center, Y–12 .................................................................................................... 0 0 15–D–612 Emergency Operations Center, LLNL ..................................................................................................... 0 0 15–D–611 Emergency Operations Center, SNL ....................................................................................................... 0 0 15–D–301 HE Science & Engineering Facility, PX ................................................................................................. 0 0 15–D–302, TA–55 Reinvestment project, Phase 3, LANL ...................................................................................... 18,195 18,195 12–D–301 TRU waste facilities, LANL .................................................................................................................... 0 0 11–D–801 TA–55 Reinvestment project Phase 2, LANL ........................................................................................ 3,903 3,903 07–D–220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility upgrade project, LANL .................................................... 11,533 11,533 07–D–220-04 Transuranic liquid waste facility, LANL .......................................................................................... 40,949 40,949 06–D–141 PED/Construction, Uranium Capabilities Replacement Project Y–12 .................................................. 430,000 430,000 04–D–125 Chemistry and metallurgy replacement project, LANL ......................................................................... 155,610 155,610 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 660,190 0 660,190 

Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities .................................................................................................................. 1,054,481 0 1,054,481 Secure transportation asset 

Operations and equipment ............................................................................................................................................... 146,272 146,272 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 105,338 105,338 

Total, Secure transportation asset ......................................................................................................................................... 251,610 0 251,610 Nuclear counterterrorism incident response ............................................................................................................................. 0 0 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
503 

Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Programs ............................................................................................................... 0 0 Infrastructure and safety 

Operations of facilities 

Kansas City Plant .................................................................................................................................................... 100,250 100,250 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ................................................................................................................ 70,671 70,671 

Los Alamos National Laboratory .............................................................................................................................. 196,460 196,460 Nevada National Security Site ................................................................................................................................. 89,000 89,000 Pantex ...................................................................................................................................................................... 58,021 58,021 Sandia National Laboratory ..................................................................................................................................... 115,300 115,300 Savannah River Site ................................................................................................................................................ 80,463 80,463 Y–12 National security complex .............................................................................................................................. 120,625 120,625 

Total, Operations of facilities ......................................................................................................................................... 830,790 0 830,790 

Safety operations .............................................................................................................................................................. 107,701 107,701 

Maintenance ..................................................................................................................................................................... 227,000 227,000 Recapitalization ................................................................................................................................................................ 257,724 150,000 407,724 

Increase to support deferred maintenance ............................................................................................................. [150,000 ] 

Construction: 

16–D–621 Substation replacement at TA–3, LANL ................................................................................................ 25,000 25,000 15–D–613 Emergency Operations Center, Y–12 .................................................................................................... 17,919 17,919 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 42,919 0 42,919 

Total, Infrastructure and safety .............................................................................................................................................. 1,466,134 150,000 1,616,134 

Site stewardship 

Environmental projects and operations ........................................................................................................................... 0 0 Nuclear materials integration .......................................................................................................................................... 17,510 17,510 Minority serving institution partnerships program .......................................................................................................... 19,085 19,085 

Total, Site stewardship ............................................................................................................................................................. 36,595 0 36,595 

Defense nuclear security 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
504 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Operations and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................... 619,891 619,891 Construction: 

14–D–710 Device assembly facility argus installation project, NV ....................................................................... 13,000 13,000 

Total, Defense nuclear security .............................................................................................................................................. 632,891 0 632,891 Information technology and cybersecurity ................................................................................................................................. 157,588 157,588 Legacy contractor pensions ....................................................................................................................................................... 283,887 283,887 Domestic uranium enrichment .................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 

Total, Weapons Activities .................................................................................................................................................................. 8,846,948 180,000 9,026,948 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs 

Global threat reduction initiative ..................................................................................................................................... 0 0 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D 

Global material security .......................................................................................................................................... 426,751 426,751 

Material management and minimization ................................................................................................................ 311,584 311,584 

Nonproliferation and arms control .......................................................................................................................... 126,703 126,703 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D ................................................................................................................... 419,333 419,333 Nonproliferation Construction: 

99–D–143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility, SRS ....................................................................... 345,000 345,000 Analysis of Alternatives .................................................................................................................................. 0 5,000 5,000 

Assess alternatives to MOX ................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
505 

Total, Nonproliferation construction ..................................................................................................................... 345,000 5,000 350,000 

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs ...................................................................................................... 1,629,371 5,000 1,634,371 

Legacy contractor pensions ....................................................................................................................................................... 94,617 94,617 Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program ....................................................................................................... 234,390 234,390 Use of prior-year balances ........................................................................................................................................................ –18,076 –18,076 Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ........................................................................................................................... 1,940,302 5,000 1,945,302 

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ......................................................................................................................................... 1,940,302 5,000 1,945,302 

Naval Reactors 

Naval reactors operations and infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 445,196 445,196 Naval reactors development ...................................................................................................................................................... 444,400 444,400 Ohio replacement reactor systems development ...................................................................................................................... 186,800 186,800 S8G Prototype refueling ............................................................................................................................................................. 133,000 133,000 Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 45,000 45,000 Construction: 

15–D–904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3 ............................................................................................................... 900 900 15–D–903 KL Fire System Upgrade ................................................................................................................................. 600 600 15–D–902 KS Engineroom team trainer facility .............................................................................................................. 3,100 3,100 14–D–902 KL Materials characterization laboratory expansion, KAPL ............................................................................ 30,000 30,000 14–D–901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, NRF ........................................................................................ 86,000 86,000 10-D–903, Security upgrades, KAPL ................................................................................................................................ 500 500 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................................... 121,100 0 121,100 

Total, Naval Reactors ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,375,496 0 1,375,496 

Federal Salaries And Expenses 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
506 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 402,654 402,654 

Total, Office Of The Administrator ................................................................................................................................................... 402,654 0 402,654 

Defense Environmental Cleanup 

Closure sites: 

Closure sites administration ............................................................................................................................................ 4,889 4,889 

Hanford site: 

River corridor and other cleanup operations: 

River corridor and other cleanup operations .......................................................................................................... 196,957 196,957 

Central plateau remediation: 

Central plateau remediation ................................................................................................................................... 555,163 555,163 Richland community and regulatory support .......................................................................................................... 14,701 14,701 

Construction: 

15–D–401 Containerized sludge removal annex, RL .............................................................................................. 77,016 77,016 

Total, Hanford site .................................................................................................................................................................... 843,837 0 843,837 Idaho National Laboratory: 

Idaho cleanup and waste disposition .............................................................................................................................. 357,783 357,783 Idaho community and regulatory support ........................................................................................................................ 3,000 3,000 

Total, Idaho National Laboratory ............................................................................................................................................. 360,783 0 360,783 

NNSA sites 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ......................................................................................................................... 1,366 1,366 Nevada .............................................................................................................................................................................. 62,385 62,385 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
507 

Sandia National Laboratories ........................................................................................................................................... 2,500 2,500 Los Alamos National Laboratory ....................................................................................................................................... 188,625 20,000 208,625 

Accelerate cleanup of transuranic waste ............................................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

Construction: 

15–D–406 Hexavalent chromium D & D (Vl-Lanl-0030) ........................................................................................ 0 

Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites .................................................................................................................................. 254,876 20,000 274,876 

Oak Ridge Reservation: 

OR Nuclear facility D & D 

OR Nuclear facility D & D ....................................................................................................................................... 75,958 75,958 Construction: 

14–D–403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility ....................................................................................... 6,800 6,800 

Total, OR Nuclear facility D & D .................................................................................................................................... 82,758 0 82,758 

U233 Disposition Program ................................................................................................................................................ 26,895 26,895 OR cleanup and disposition: 

OR cleanup and disposition .................................................................................................................................... 60,500 60,500 Construction: 

15–D–405—Sludge Buildout ......................................................................................................................... 0 0 

Total, OR cleanup and disposition ................................................................................................................................. 60,500 0 60,500 

OR reservation community and regulatory support .................................................................................................................. 4,400 4,400 Solid waste stabilization and disposition 

Oak Ridge technology development .............................................................................................................. 2,800 2,800 

Total, Oak Ridge Reservation .................................................................................................................................................. 177,353 0 177,353 

Office of River Protection: 

Waste treatment and immobilization plant 

01–D–416 A-D/ORP-0060 / Major construction ..................................................................................................... 595,000 595,000 01–D–16E Pretreatment facility .............................................................................................................................. 95,000 95,000 

Total, Waste treatment and immobilization plant ......................................................................................................... 690,000 0 690,000 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
508 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Tank farm activities 

Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ............................................................................................. 649,000 649,000 Construction: 

15–D–409 Low Activity Waste Pretreatment System, Hanford ...................................................................... 75,000 75,000 

Total, Tank farm activities .............................................................................................................................................. 724,000 0 724,000 

Total, Office of River protection ............................................................................................................................................. 1,414,000 0 1,414,000 

Savannah River sites: 

Savannah River risk management operations ................................................................................................................. 386,652 386,652 SR community and regulatory support ............................................................................................................................ 11,249 11,249 Radioactive liquid tank waste: 

Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ................................................................................. 581,878 581,878 Construction: 

15–D–402—Saltstone Disposal Unit #6 ....................................................................................................... 34,642 34,642 05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah River .......................................................................... 194,000 194,000 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................. 228,642 0 228,642 

Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste .............................................................................................................................. 810,520 0 810,520 

Total, Savannah River site ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,208,421 0 1,208,421 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

Waste isolation pilot plant ............................................................................................................................................... 212,600 212,600 

Construction: 

15–D–411 Safety significant confinement ventilation system, WIPP .................................................. 23,218 23,218

15–D–412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP ............................................................................................................ 7,500 7,500 

Total, Construction ........................................................................................................................................ 30,718 0 30,718 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
509 

Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ......................................................................................................................... 243,318 0 243,318 

Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 281,951 281,951 Program support ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14,979 14,979 Safeguards and Security: 

Oak Ridge Reservation ..................................................................................................................................................... 17,228 17,228 Paducah ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8,216 8,216 Portsmouth ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8,492 8,492 Richland/Hanford Site ...................................................................................................................................................... 67,601 67,601 Savannah River Site ......................................................................................................................................................... 128,345 128,345 Waste Isolation Pilot Project ............................................................................................................................................ 4,860 4,860 West Valley ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1,891 1,891 

Technology development ............................................................................................................................................................ 14,510 14,510 Use of prior-year balances ........................................................................................................................................................ 0 0 

Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup ....................................................................................................................................... 5,055,550 20,000 5,075,550 

Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution ............................................................................................................................ 471,797 –471,797 0 

Requires industry match authorization that will not be forthcoming ............................................................................. [–471,797 ] 

Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................................................................................................ 5,527,347 –451,797 5,075,550 

Other Defense Activities 

Specialized security activities ................................................................................................................................................... 221,855 221,855 Environment, health, safety and security 

Environment, health, safety and security ........................................................................................................................ 120,693 120,693 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 63,105 63,105 

Total, Environment, Health, safety and security .................................................................................................................... 183,798 0 183,798 Enterprise assessments 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
510 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Enterprise assessments .................................................................................................................................................... 24,068 24,068 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 49,466 49,466 

Total, Enterprise assessments ................................................................................................................................................. 73,534 0 73,534 

Office of Legacy Management 

Legacy management ......................................................................................................................................................... 154,080 154,080 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 13,100 13,100 

Total, Office of Legacy Management ...................................................................................................................................... 167,180 0 167,180 Defense-related activities Defense related administrative support 

Chief financial officer ...................................................................................................................................................... 35,758 35,758 Chief information officer .................................................................................................................................................. 83,800 83,800 Management ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 

Total, Defense related administrative support ....................................................................................................................... 122,558 0 122,558 

Office of hearings and appeals ................................................................................................................................................ 5,500 5,500 

Subtotal, Other defense activities .................................................................................................................................................... 774,425 0 774,425 

Total, Other Defense Activities ......................................................................................................................................................... 774,425 0 774,425 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
511 

Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 

4701) 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

Departmental Recommendations 

On April 28, 2015, Senator McCain, with concurrence by Senator 

Reed, introduced by request the Administration’s proposed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. This bill— 

S.1118—was introduced for the purpose of placing the Administration’s proposals before Congress and the public without expressing 

the views of Senators McCain or Reed on the substance of those 

proposals. In accordance with past practice, the committee reported 

an original bill rather than acting on S.1118. 

Committee Action 

The committee vote to report the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 passed by roll call vote, 22–4, as follows: 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz, 

McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Kaine, King, 

and Heinrich. Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, Gillibrand, and 

Hirono. 

The other 16 roll call votes on motions and amendments to the 

bill which were considered during the course of the full committee 

markup are as follows: 

1. MOTION: To conduct full committee markup of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 in closed session 

because of classified and proprietary information expected to be 

discussed. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 17–9 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Fischer, 

Cotton, Rounds, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Reed, Nelson, Manchin, 

Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and King 

Opposed: Senators Ayotte, Ernst, Lee, Cruz, McCaskill, Shaheen, 

Gillibrand, Blumenthal, and Heinrich 

2. MOTION: To include a provision for the Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau to take into account the actual number of members 

of the Army National Guard in each State when allocating full-time 

operational support duty personnel. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 19–7 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Tillis, Lee, Graham, Cruz, McCaskill, 

Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Kaine, and King 

Opposed: Senators Ernst, Sullivan, Reed, Nelson, Donnelly, 

Hirono, and Heinrich 

3. MOTION: To include a provision that would require the Department of Defense: to provide current and evidence-based standards of care regarding contraception methods and counseling to all 

health care providers employed by the Department; to ensure service women have access to comprehensive contraception counseling 

prior to deployment and throughout their military careers; and to 

require the Secretary of Defense to establish a uniform, standard 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
512 

curriculum to be used in family planning education programs for 

all members of the Armed Forces 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14–12 

In favor: Senators Ayotte, Fischer, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, 

Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 

Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Cotton, 

Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, and Cruz 

4. MOTION: Motion to strike a provision that would modify the 

waiver and exception of section 1608 of the fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act and replace with a provision that 

would add a special rule to section 1608 of the fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 15–11 

In Favor: Senators McCain, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 

Ernst, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, 

Gillibrand, and Blumenthal 

Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Tillis, Reed, Nelson, 

Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

5. MOTION: To strike the provision in the chairman’s mark that 

would require the Secretary of Defense to certify certain matters 

before transferring to a foreign country detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12–14 

In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, 

Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, and 

Cruz 

6. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the 

transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to countries on 

which the State Department has issued a threat warning. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13–13 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, and Cruz 

Opposed: Senators Wicker, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, 

Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, 

and Heinrich 

7. MOTION: To include a provision to prohibit the construction 

of domestic detention facilities or to transfer detainees held at 

Guantanamo to the United States until the Secretary of Defense 

submits a plan and Congress approves the plan. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 19–7 

In favor: Senators McCain, Wicker, Rounds, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, 

Graham, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, 

Ernst, and Cruz 

8. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the expenditure of funds in fiscal years 2016 through 2020 to dismantle 

a nuclear weapon of the United States, unless that nuclear weapon 

was retired before September 30, 2008, or is being dismantled pursuant to a nuclear arms reduction treaty. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
513 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13–13 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, and Cruz 

Opposed: Senators Tillis, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, 

Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, 

and Heinrich 

9. MOTION: To strike a provision that would amend Section 

10106 of title 10, United States Code, by specifying the Army National Guard as the primary combat reserve of the Army. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13–13 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Rounds, 

Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz, Gillibrand, and Donnelly 

Opposed: Senators Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, and 

Heinrich 

10. MOTION: A provision to eliminate the 4 year, 7.5% per year 

reduction to HQ and administrative support costs and replace with 

a 1 year 3.75% reduction and request for a plan for what, if anything, should be done in the out years. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10–16 

In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, 

Cruz, McCaskill, and Manchin 

11. MOTION: To exempt certain service members from impact of 

changes proposed to the calculation of the basic allowance for housing. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 9–17 

In favor: Senators Ayotte, Rounds, Cruz, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, Kaine, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Fischer, 

Cotton, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Hirono, and King. 

12. MOTION: To include a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to certify that Congress has received the written 

MOU between the United States and any country to which a detainee at Guantanamo is transferred and to include a provision to 

require the Secretary of Defense to report on previous MOUs between the United States and countries to which Guantanamo detainees have been transferred. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 17–9 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, 

Cruz, McCaskill, Gillibrand, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, Manchin, Shaheen, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and King. 

13. MOTION: To strike a provision requiring a GAO assessment 

of the potential costs and benefits for privatizing the Department 

of Defense commissaries and a provision requiring a Department of 

Defense plan on privatization of the Defense Commissary System 

and to replace them with a modified provision that would require 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
514 

a GAO assessment of the potential costs and benefits from 

privatizing Department of Defense commissaries. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 11–15 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Rounds, Sullivan, Graham, 

Nelson, Gillibrand, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, 

Ernst, Tillis, Lee, Cruz, Reed, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, 

Blumenthal, and King 

14. MOTION: To limit the obligation of $38 billion of overseas 

contingency operation funding unless the discretionary caps are increased for defense and non-defense in equal amounts, or an equal 

amount of emergency funding is provided to non-defense spending. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12–14 

In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, 

Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, and 

Cruz 

15. MOTION: To transfer up to $38 billion of overseas contingency operation funding to base budget if an act is passed that increases spending for defense and non-defense in a proportionally 

equal manner. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 23–3 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 

Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators Sessions, Lee, and Cruz 

16. MOTION: A sense of the Senate that sequestration is a 

harmful way to budget and that sequestration relief should increase spending for defense and non-defense in equal amounts, and 

that increase should be offset by changes in mandatory and discretionary spending, and revenues. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 16–10 

In favor: Senators Ayotte, Rounds, Tillis, Graham, Reed, Nelson, 

McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, 

Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Fischer, 

Cotton, Ernst, Sullivan, Lee, and Cruz 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget Office 

cost estimate on this legislation because it was not available at the 

time the report was filed. It will be included in material presented 

during Senate floor debate on the legislation. 

Regulatory Impact 

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the bill be 

included in the report on the bill. The committee finds that there 

is no regulatory impact in the case of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2016. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
515 

Changes in Existing Law 

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law made by 

certain portions of the bill have not been shown in this section of 

the report because, in the opinion of the committee, it is necessary 

to dispense with showing such changes in order to expedite the 

business of the Senate and reduce the expenditure of funds. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(516) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. REED 

This bill includes many provisions which improve our national 

security and provide the necessary training, equipment and support our men and women in uniform deserve. However, I was ultimately unable to vote for this bill because it continues an 

unsustainable approach to our national security and economic future that must be addressed. 

Our national defense decisions should be based on actual needs, 

not on arbitrary spending caps or budget gimmicks. 

The President’s Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for the defense 

was $38 billion above the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA) spending 

caps. 

The President requested this $38 billion be authorized and appropriated as part of the annual base budget. The requested also 

contained $50.9 billion for overseas contingency operations (OCO) 

pursuant to the Office of Management and Budget’s standards for 

additional funding. For some time now, the President, Secretary 

Carter, Secretary Hagel, Secretary Panetta, and Secretary Gates 

have implored Congress to end the damaging effects of the Budget 

Control Act’s harmful sequester and spending caps. 

However, the Chairman’s mark, following the lead of the Senate 

Republican’s Budget Resolution, does not clearly address the BCA’s 

destructive impacts. Instead, it turns to a gimmick. This mark 

transfers $39.3 billion from the base budget to the OCO budget, for 

a total of $90.2 billion in OCO, but a base budget conveniently 

below BCA levels in order to avoid triggering automatic reductions 

through sequestration. 

This transfer from base to OCO raises several concerns: 

First, adding funds to OCO does not solve, and actually complicates, the Department of Defense’s (DOD) budgetary problems. 

Defense budgeting needs to be based on our long-term military 

strategy, which requires DOD to focus at least five years into the 

future. A one year plus up to OCO does not provide DOD with the 

certainty and stability it needs when building its five year budget. 

As General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, testified, ‘‘we 

need to fix the base budget . . . we won’t have the certainty we 

need’’ if there is a year-by-year OCO fix. Defense Secretary Carter 

added that raising OCO does not allow the Defense Department to 

plan ‘‘efficiently or strategically.’’ This instability undermines the 

morale of our troops and their families—who want to know their 

futures are planned for more than one year at a time—and the confidence of our defense industry partners we rely on to provide the 

best technologies available to our troops. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
517 

Second, the transfer does not provide additional funds for the 

many domestic agencies which are also critical to our national security. We cannot defend our homeland without the FBI, funded 

through the Department of Justice, or TSA, ICE and the Coast 

Guard, funded through the Department of Homeland Security. Furthermore, without adequate support for the State Department, 

danger to our troops increases. As retired Marine Corps General 

Mattis said, ‘‘If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I 

need to buy more ammunition.’’ In addition, failing to provide BCA 

cap relief to non-DOD departments and agencies would also shortchange veterans who receive employment services, transition assistance, and housing/homeless support. 

Third, moving funding from the base budget to OCO has no impact on reducing the deficit. OCO and emergency funding are outside budget caps for a reason—they provide for ongoing military operations or to respond to other unforeseen events like natural disasters. To transfer funds into these accounts to skirt the law is not 

fiscally responsible or honest accounting. 

During the markup, I offered an amendment to address these 

concerns. My amendment would have fully authorized the President’s Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request, but prohibit the obligation 

or expenditure of the $39.3 billion moved to OCO by the Chairman’s mark until BCA caps are raised or eliminated for all agencies, defense and non-defense, or similar emergency funding is also 

provided for domestic agencies. Unfortunately, my amendment 

failed on a 14–12 vote. 

I commend the leadership of Chairman McCain for completing 

the markup of this bill. I stand ready to work with my colleagues 

to find a bipartisan solution to the BCA caps and sequestration 

which are risking harm to all agencies and functions of our government. Our men and women in uniform and those they protect deserve a resolution to this problem. 

JACK REED. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(518) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. INHOFE 

I voted in favor of the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee. This year’s National Defense Authorization Act contains 

many provisions that will maintain our military’s capabilities, restore its readiness, and support our military families. While I have 

long advocated for an end to sequestration to our national security, 

the president has not shown a willingness to come to the table with 

realistic plans to stop his disarming of America. The committee instead moved forward with providing necessary funding by utilizing 

the overseas contingency operations (OCO) account in order to 

meet our military’s basic readiness needs. While the use of OCO in 

this manner does not provide a long-term solution to the ongoing 

defense spending shortfalls, given the growing worldwide threats, 

it far outweighs the damage that would have been done to our nation’s security next year under current budget caps. 

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

The committee included a provision that again prevents Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) next year. I support this provision. 

The United States has reduced force size and capability to unacceptable levels. Our naval fleet is at a historically low level of 

ships; our Air Force is the smallest in its history; and our Army 

may shrink to a force not seen since before World War II. We must 

have the infrastructure to support growing and rebuilding our military to the size and capability required to provide for this nation’s 

security. Additionally, the defense community should not bear the 

near-term costs of a BRAC round in this tough economic climate 

for savings that will not be realized for another 20 years. 

Commissaries 

I disagree with legislation contained in this bill that directs the 

Department of Defense to privatize military commissaries on a 

minimum of five major bases and sets into motion the potential for 

all commissaries to be privatized. This will be done without an assessment, and it ignores recommendations made by the Military 

Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission in January. The commissary benefit is the most utilized service the military offers its members, and 95 percent of service members and 

their families use the commissaries for the purchase of household 

goods in order to achieve needed savings in their family budgets. 

Before making any changes to military commissaries, Congress 

must understand the potential impact of these changes, to include 

privatization, on the overall system and our military. The FY15 

NDAA required the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of the 

management, food, and pricing options for the commissary system 

utilizing an independent organization experienced in grocery retail 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
519 

analysis. The committee expects to receive a report in September 

2015. The statute, however, did not require an analysis to determine whether privatization would be a viable option for commissary operations. Congress should consider the information from 

the Department of Defense report due in September, the recommendations of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, the recommendations being prepared by 

the Department of Defense on the commission’s recommendations, 

and the results of an analysis on privatization before making any 

changes to the commissary system. To do otherwise, would break 

faith with our service members and their families. 

Guantanamo Bay 

My greatest disappointment in the bill is the inclusion of language that would allow the closure of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay (GTMO), Cuba, and the eventual transfer of GTMO 

detainees to the United States. Members from many states have 

voiced concern with housing these terrorists in their states, especially now that ISIL has demonstrated the ability to call up sleeper 

cells to attack locations here in our country. Furthermore, I disagree with those who think that closing the detention facility at 

GTMO will end the propaganda campaign being waged by our enemies. The propaganda war will simply shift to whatever facility 

these terrorists are brought to in the U.S., allowing them to engage 

in a whole new propaganda campaign against ‘GTMO North.’ The 

terrorists created GTMO’s image, not actions at GTMO. The attacks leading up to, including on and after 9/11, were not the result 

of holding detainees at GTMO. Moving these terrorists held at 

GTMO to the United States will not stop future terrorist attacks 

against our homeland. We are at war; these are war criminals and 

need to be handled accordingly. The President continues to want to 

deal with this threat through law enforcement. Law enforcement 

alone is not enough to protect us. Furthermore, the risk of a terrorist’s release in the U.S., or elsewhere, and the security risk to those 

living near the location selected to house these terrorists is too 

great in my opinion. 

Military Force Structure 

Finally, I am disappointed we did not prioritize sustaining the 

size of our military force structure, particularly our Army. The 

threats we face are outpacing our ability to deter and confront 

them as a result of the massive cuts associated with sequestration. 

I believe we are sacrificing too much capability at a time when we 

should be maintaining our current structure and capabilities in 

these uncertain times. We have been wrong in the past when it 

comes to assumptions regarding the size of our forces and the capabilities required to protect this country. Despite the increased funding in this bill due to OCO, we are on the road to repeat the same 

mistakes that will take years to fix. 

JAMES M. INHOFE. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(520) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MS. AYOTTE 

The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) voted overwhelmingly to approve its version of the fiscal year (FY) 2016 National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), building once again on its welldeserved reputation of bipartisan support for our men and women 

in uniform. While this bill and associated report are not perfect, 

they include several praiseworthy components, including provisions 

related to the A–10 and the service of military families. Despite 

these positive provisions in the bill, I remain deeply concerned 

about the impact of the Budget Control Act’s discretionary defense 

spending caps on our nation’s ability to defend itself and its interests. 

A–10 

I am pleased that the SASC, the House Armed Services Committee, and the full House of Representatives have again rejected 

the Air Force’s dangerous and misguided proposal to prematurely 

divest the A–10. 

The bill passed by SASC on a strong and bipartisan basis would 

prohibit the Air Force from retiring, preparing to retire, or placing 

in storage or on backup aircraft inventory status any A–10 aircraft 

before December 31, 2016. The legislation would prohibit any significant reductions in A–10 unit manning levels before that date. 

The legislation would also require the Secretary of the Air Force 

to commission an independent assessment of the required capabilities or mission platform to eventually replace the A–10 and its 

uniquely effective close air support (CAS) capabilities. 

Soldiers, special operators, and Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTACs) consistently say that the A–10 is the Air Force’s best 

CAS aircraft and that it provides CAS capabilities that no other 

current aircraft can. They also say that if the Air Force were permitted to prematurely divest the A–10 before an equally capable 

replacement reaches full operational capability, the quality of CAS 

available to our ground forces will decline and Americans will be 

killed and injured unnecessarily. That is why I have fought, and 

will continue to fight, to oppose the premature divestment of the 

A–10. 

If there were any lingering doubt about the continued lethality, 

survivability, effectiveness, or relevance of the A–10, one only need 

to look to Iraq and Syria where the A–10 is taking the fight to the 

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). 

With A–10s fighting ISIL in the Middle East, assuring allies in 

Europe, and deterring aggression on the Korean peninsula, now is 

not the time to divest the Air Force’s most combat-effective and 

cost-efficient CAS aircraft. 

If the Air Force decides to ignore the clear and consistent will of 

the overwhelming majority of soldiers, special operators, and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
521 

JTACs, I will continue to stand with them in opposition to the Air 

Force’s plans to prematurely divest the A–10. 

Instead of engaging in an annual battle over the future of the A– 

10, I welcome the opportunity to work with the Air Force to begin 

to identify the required capabilities and mission platform that 

could eventually replace the A–10. Once an equally capable platform reaches full operational capability, I will be among the first 

to support the retirement of the A–10. 

Military Families Serve Too 

Americans who step forward to defend our country deserve great 

credit for their uniquely honorable, difficult, and important service 

to our country. We are safe and free because of the bravery and 

sacrifice of service members and veterans. However, as we honor 

our troops and veterans, we also must not forget that military families serve too—often making serious career and personal sacrifices 

on behalf of our country and their loved ones in uniform. 

On March 3, 2015, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General 

Martin Dempsey testified that ‘‘Those who defend this Nation and 

the families who support them remain our most valuable national 

treasure and our competitive advantage.’’ 

As General Dempsey’s statement suggests, when honoring our 

service members, we must also not forget the family members who 

make their service possible. 

Anyone who has served in the military, been married to a service 

member, or even attended a military retirement ceremony understands that a successful military career depends greatly on the 

support and sacrifice of military families. A career in the military 

often involves frequent moves and long separations that present 

unique and tremendous challenges for military families. 

The service and sacrifice of military families not only deserve 

recognition and respect, but military families are also a critical 

component of military readiness. It is difficult for a mother, father, 

husband, or wife serving in the military to focus on training and 

their mission if they are worried about the well-being of their 

spouse or children. 

Perhaps that is why, on March 10, 2015, the Commandant of the 

United States Marine Corps, General Joseph Dunford, testified 

that ‘‘A key element in our overall readiness is family readiness. 

The family members of our Marines are very much a part of the 

Marine Corps family. Their sacrifices and support are not taken for 

granted.’’ 

However, current laws and regulations fail to fully reflect the 

sacrifices of military families or their importance to military readiness. Under current laws and regulations, the military members 

who sit as juries in courts martial are sometimes confronted with 

the undesirable dilemma of either supporting justice or a military 

family—but not both. 

In rare and tragic cases, a military family that has sacrificed in 

support of their service member suffers when the service member 

commits misconduct after reaching retirement eligibility. In some 

of these cases, the jury must choose either to impose a just sentence that will take the retirement benefits a family was counting 

on, or give an unjustly weak sentence to spare the innocent family. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
522 

When the jury chooses justice for the service member, the innocent 

family is often left with nothing. 

For these reasons, I am proud that that the version of the National Defense Authorization Act passed by SASC includes the 

amendment I introduced, along with Senator Gillibrand, which 

would make transitional benefits available to innocent, retirementeligible military family members in instances when the service 

member forfeits those benefits due to a court martial. 

I am also pleased that the bill passed by the committee includes 

my Sense of Congress language that recognizes the valuable service 

of military families and emphasizes the view of the committee that 

military juries should not have to choose between a fair sentence 

and protecting military families. 

I am pleased that the committee recognized the principle that innocent military families who serve and sacrifice alongside their 

service member should receive transitional benefits. That same rationale suggests that a military family that sacrifices for years 

alongside a service member should not be deprived of the retirement benefits they helped earn and have come to rely on. 

That is why I also introduced an amendment with Senator Gillibrand that would have provided access to the portion of retirement 

benefits a family member would have received in a divorce settlement had the service member not forfeited them. 

I look forward to working in a bipartisan manner with my colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives, as well as 

with the Department of Defense, to ensure that our laws and military regulations fully reflect the fact that military families serve 

too. 

Defense Sequestration: A Serious Threat to Our National Security 

The protection of American national security interests require 

that the United States maintain sufficient military strength to assure our allies, deter our adversaries, and when necessary, decisively defeat our enemies. 

Sound national security strategy is based on a clear-eyed assessment of our interests, the threats to those interests, and the means 

required to protect those interests from the most likely and most 

dangerous threats. 

Unfortunately, the gap is growing between the military we need 

and the military we have. 

Any objective analysis of global events demonstrates that the 

world is becoming more dangerous. From ISIS’s terror in Iraq and 

Syria, to Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability, to Putin’s 

aggression in Ukraine, to China’s bullying of its neighbors in the 

east and south China Seas, now is not the time to cut American 

military strength. 

As Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified February 26, 2015, ‘‘. . . in my 50-plus years in the intelligence business, I don’t know of a time that has been more beset by challenges 

and crises around the world. I worry a lot about the safety and security of this country for a lot of reasons.’’ 

In light of these growing threats and with American troops in 

harm’s way, one would expect the U.S. to be building its military 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
523 

capabilities and capacities. Instead, Congress and the administration have not made the tough decisions necessary to eliminate the 

defense sequestration budget caps. 

While there is no question that the Department of Defense must 

work harder to serve as a better steward of our tax dollars, Americans should have no doubt that defense sequestration represents a 

dangerous and irresponsible policy that will leave our troops illprepared, our allies in doubt, our enemies emboldened, and our 

citizens less safe. 

As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin 

Dempsey testified on March 3, 2015, ‘‘. . . with threats proliferating, resources declining, and sequestration just months away, our 

ability to assure our allies is in question and our advantages over 

our adversaries are shrinking.’’ 

As someone who voted against the Budget Control Act and has 

worked to end defense sequestration, I will continue to work in a 

bipartisan manner to end defense sequestration once and for all to 

ensure the federal government fulfills its preeminent responsibility 

of protecting the American people. 

KELLY AYOTTE. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(524) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. TILLIS 

Mr. Chairman and Senator Reed, I have the privilege of representing America’s Global Response Force, the XVIII ABN Corps 

and the 82nd ABN Division. As Senator Reed knows from his long 

service in the Division, the 82nd is the most decorated combat unit 

in the armed forces—it is America’s Guard of Honor. General Colin 

Powell famously said, ‘‘There is nothing that gets a bad guy’s attention quicker than knowing the 82nd ABN is flying straight for his 

nose.’’ But to put it bluntly, the Air Force wants to take the ‘‘air’’ 

out of ‘‘airborne’’. In 2012 the Air Force decided to de-activate the 

Reserve Air Wing at Pope Army Airfield at Fort Bragg and eliminate on-site daily support for training for XVIII ABN Corps, 82nd 

ABN and USASOC. 

The 440th Air Wing at Pope Field consists of 8–12 C–130 Hs 

Last year this committee required the Air Force to produce a report on the C–130 fleet during which time the Air Force was required to maintain its wings at Pope and Little Rock for one year— 

the report came out in April, the committee expected it last December. The Congress was to be given time to respond. 

Unfortunately the Air Force began dismantling the Wing at Pope 

long before the report was produced and in direct opposition to this 

Committee’s instructions. 

When asked about this, the Air Force said, ‘‘Congress said nothing about us taking away pilots and maintainers, we are leaving 

the Aircraft’’. 

The Chairman’s mark is full of behaviors like this: including Air 

Force refusal to heed the recommendations of the National Commission on the Air Force and the SECAF’s refusal to cut the size 

of AF headquarters. 

I have repeatedly asked the Air Force for documentation as to 

the impact on Airborne and Special Operations training the departure of dedicated Air Force Wings will have. The Air Force and the 

Army Staff have consistently produced statistics about planes needed to ‘‘deploy’’ Fort Bragg troops which because of the volume have 

to come from across the country. It has not produced figures as to 

the effect of the removal of the Pope planes on the day to day training of Airborne and Special Operations forces. 

The USAF Reserve said that planes at Pope were a ‘‘luxury’’. 

When I asked if the commanders of XVIII ABN Corps and 82nd 

ABN had been consulted, I was told that the Air Force does not 

consult with Army three stars. 

The Chief of Staff of the Air Force said that the Air Force needed 

to maintain C–130s at Minneapolis, Youngstown and Pittsburgh 

for important missions. With all due respect is there any mission 

at Pittsburgh, Youngstown and Minneapolis that is as important as 

supporting Airborne and Special Operations units. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
525 

In the last three months, senior commanders at Fort Bragg have 

taken the extraordinary step of delivering public remarks noting 

that Airborne and Special Operations leadership were not consulted about the Air Force decision and that the loss of on-site 

planes will severely hamper their ability to train and meet requirements of emergency contingencies. 

The Pope planes provide between 25–40% of all Airborne and 

SOF daily training missions. 

Last year they dropped 50% of the 82nd ABN’s chutes. The 440th 

AW provides 100% of 18 ASOG (Air Force) training—Air Force 

Special Operations Group 

Even as a cost savings device the transfer of 8–12 planes out of 

Pope makes no sense, as planes will have to be flown in (often on 

a voluntarily basis if they are Reserve units) from around the country and those units will have to go on TDY orders, etc. This also 

does not provide for the moving to the left effects of weather 

grounding planes that would have to fly into Pope from as far away 

as Washington State. As the XVIII ABN Corps Commander said, 

the downstream effects will be problematic. 

Joint Airborne/Air Transportability Training (JA/ATT) 

From FY 2010 through FY 14 the 440th AW provided 507 

JAATT’s (Missions/Contract’s) with 668 C–130 Tails used. Of the 

507 Missions, 128 were ‘‘Add-on’’ missions that the 440th by virtue 

of being here was able to help support. We were able to fill local 

priority shortfalls 29 times during this time frame. The 440th on 

average, flies 89% of all of its JAATT’s for locally assigned units 

on Fort Bragg. Over the five year time span, the 440th has a 95% 

mission effective rate due to the ability to generate spare aircraft 

to support the missions. The unfunded spares were utilized for 

local missions 146 times creating a 28.80% spare utilization rate 

helping allow 42,635 Paratroopers to be air dropped for locally assigned units on Fort Bragg. 

Air Force’s Own Air Mobility Command Talking Points 

noted 

‘‘The loss of 440AW does remove the 4 tails a week available for 

opportune training Ft Bragg has utilized outside of the JA/ATT 

process . . . As MAF fleets get smaller & re-balanced between the 

Active & Reserve, JA/ATT planning/scheduling will have to become 

more efficient IOT maximize effectiveness of the USAF airlift platforms made available . . . this is a fundamental change that has 

to occur even if the C–130s at Pope AAF were never part of the 

FY15 President’s Budget.’’ 

The Air Force’s own scheduling system can’t handle the requirements at Fort Bragg if the Pope planes go away. 

This amendment is simple. It stops the movement of C–130 H 

units from one facility of the Department of Defense for one year 

until certification is provided by the Secretary of the Air Force, 

after certification by the senior commanders of the United States 

Airborne and Special Operations Forces certify that the departure 

of such aircraft does not impact the training requirements of their 

units. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
526 

There are new commanders at Fort Bragg. This gives them the 

time to evaluate the impact of the movement of C–130s in and out 

of Fort Bragg. 

If the actual combat commanders certify that this should happen—and I am not talking about Pentagon bureaucrats and the 

Army Staff—then we should all be satisfied with their judgement. 

THOM TILLIS. 

Æ 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS