```

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

   114th Congress   }                      {       Report 
                              SENATE
    lst Session     }                      {       114-49
_____________________________________________________________
                                  
                                            Calendar No. 88
 
                     NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

                                 REPORT

                         [to accompany s. 1376]

                                   on

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

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                               ----------                              

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                      
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                                     

                                     

                  May 19, 2015.--Ordered to be printed

                                     

        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

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

                                  
                                                 Calendar No. 88
                                                 

                     NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

                        ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

                                 REPORT

                         [to accompany s. 1376]

                                   on

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

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                               __________

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                                     

                                     

                  May 19, 2015.--Ordered to be printed

 

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                     JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            JACK REED, Rhode Island
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               BILL NELSON, Florida
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire          JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JONI ERNST, Iowa                     JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 TIM KAINE, Virginia
MIKE LEE, Utah                       ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina       MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
TED CRUZ, Texas
                    Christian Brose, Staff Director
               Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director

                                  (ii)

  
                            C O N T E N T S

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

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

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

                                _______
                                

                  May 19, 2015.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1376]

    The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an 
original bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 
-------- for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths 
for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and recommends 
that the bill do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    This bill would:
          (1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) 
        research, development, test and evaluation, (c) 
        operation and maintenance and the revolving and 
        management funds of the Department of Defense for 
        fiscal year 2016;
          (2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each 
        military active duty component of the Armed Forces for 
        fiscal year 2016;
          (3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the 
        Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of 
        the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2016;
          (4) impose certain reporting requirements;
          (5) impose certain limitations with regard to 
        specific procurement and research, development, test 
        and evaluation actions and manpower strengths; provide 
        certain additional legislative authority, and make 
        certain changes to existing law;
          (6) authorize appropriations for military 
        construction programs of the Department of Defense for 
        fiscal year 2016; and
          (7) authorize appropriations for national security 
        programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 
        2016.

Committee overview

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

SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS AND BUDGET AUTHORITY 
        IMPLICATION

    The administration's budget request for national defense 
discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services for fiscal year 2016 was $604.1 
billion. Of this amount, $534.2 billion was requested for base 
Department of Defense (DOD) programs, $19.0 billion was 
requested for national security programs in the Department of 
Energy (DOE) and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 
(DNFSB), and $50.9 billion was requested for Overseas 
Contingency Operations (OCO).
    The committee recommends an overall discretionary 
authorization of $604.1 billion in fiscal year 2016, including 
$496.5 billion for base DOD programs, $18.7 billion for 
national security programs in the DOE and the DNFSB, and $88.9 
billion for OCO.
    The two tables preceding the detailed program adjustments 
in Division D of this bill summarize the direct discretionary 
authorizations in the committee recommendation and the 
equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2016 defense 
programs. The first table summarizes the committee's 
recommended discretionary authorizations by appropriation 
account for fiscal year 2016 and compares these amounts to the 
request. The second table summarizes the total budget authority 
implication for national defense by including national defense 
funding for items that are not in the jurisdiction of the 
defense committees or are already authorized.

BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT (SEC. 4)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that the budgetary effects of this Act be determined in 
accordance with the procedures established in the Statutory 
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (title I of Public Law 111-139).
            DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

                          TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the appropriations for procurement activities at the levels 
identified in section 4101 of division D of this Act.

                       Subtitle B--Navy Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Construction of additional Arleigh Burke destroyer (sec. 117)

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

Fleet replenishment oiler program (sec. 118)

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

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

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

                     Subtitle C--Air Force Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              Budget Items

                                  Army

Common missile warning system

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

PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement

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

Army Tactical Missile System

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

Improved recovery vehicle

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

Precision sniper rifle

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

Compact semi-automatic sniper system

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

Common remotely operated weapons station

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

Handgun

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

Sniper rifle modifications

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

Items less than $5.0 million

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

Army ammunition decrease

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

Transportable Tactical Command Communications

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

Prophet Ground System

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

Counterfire radars

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

Global Combat Support System--Army

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

Automated data processing equipment

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

Non-system training devices

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

                                  Navy

F/A-18E/F aircraft procurement

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

F-35C

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

F-35B

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

AV-8 series aircraft 

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

F-18 series kill chain enhancements 

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

V-22 Osprey 

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

Tomahawk 

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

Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile

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

Ordnance support equipment

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

Virginia-class submarines

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

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers

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

Afloat Forward Staging Base

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

Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA) Replacement

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

LX(R)

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

Landing craft utility replacement

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

T-ATS(X)

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

Destroyer modernization

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

Littoral Combat Ship Mine Countermeasures Mission Module

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

Remote Minehunting System

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

Submarine towed arrays 

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

Surface electronic warfare improvement program

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

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

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

Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar

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

                               Air Force

F-35A

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

MQ-9

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

F-15 capability upgrades

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

Budget request realignment

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

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

C-130H Propulsion System Enhancements

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

C-130H avionics modernization program

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

A-10 Munitions Buyback

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

Battlefield air operations kits

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

Air Force Network Procurements

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

Joint terminal attack controller training and rehearsal system 
        simulators

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

                              Defense Wide

MC-12

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

MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

    The budget request included $11.7 million in Procurement, 
Defense-Wide (PDW), for the acquisition and support of special 
operations-unique mission kits for the MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial 
Vehicle (UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is 
responsible for the rapid development and acquisition of 
special operations capabilities to, among other things, 
effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks 
while avoiding collateral damage.
    The committee understands that the budget request only 
partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its 
fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an 
increase of $10.0 million in PDW for the MQ-9 UAV.
    The committee strongly supports SOCOM's efforts to 
accelerate fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging 
technologies on its fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. The committee has 
authorized additional funds above the budget request in each of 
the last 3 years to enhance these efforts and understands that 
SOCOM has successfully developed and acquired a number of new 
capabilities, including improved weapon effectiveness, target 
location and tracking, image resolution, and video transmission 
during that time.

                       Items of Special Interest

Armored vehicle transmission industrial base

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

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

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

Combat logistics fleet

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

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

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

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

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

Enhance cockpit displays to improve safety and mission effectiveness

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

Expeditionary Health Services Systems

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

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program

    The committee supports, and is committed to, the F-35 Joint 
Strike Fighter program. The committee notes the progress made 
in the System Development and Demonstration phase since the 
program was re-baselined following the Nunn-McCurdy breach in 
2011, generally achieving program schedule goals and driving 
aircraft flyaway costs downward despite ongoing technological 
challenges and deficiencies revealed in both hardware and 
software testing. The committee desires to increase the annual 
procurement quantities for all three variants insofar as 
program performance and available funding allow.
    The committee is concerned with the growing fighter force 
structure capacity shortfalls in the Departments of the Air 
Force and Navy due to delays in the F-35 program, noting the 
original program delivery plan expected to have 1,013 aircraft 
of all three variants delivered by fiscal year 2016, with 
actual and currently planned deliveries now only totaling 179. 
These program delivery delays occurred while legacy fighter 
aircraft continue to reach the end of their designed service 
lives, become increasingly less capable due to adversaries' 
technological advances, or are being divested in significant 
numbers due to shrinking defense budgets.
    The committee is also concerned that the Department of 
Defense established the requirement for the F-35 program of 
record total buy quantity under very different strategic 
circumstances nearly 20 years ago. In addition, prospective 
adversary technological advances and increased capabilities 
with regard to establishing contested combat environments, 
combined with updated threat assessments and an evolving 
national defense strategy, have significantly changed the 
calculus for force sizing constructs.
    The committee notes that the rapid pace of new 
technological developments in such areas as unmanned systems, 
robotics, cyber, directed energy, propulsion, hypersonics, 
nanotechnology, and composites, among many others, is pointing 
the way to the future. Moreover, with many significant defense 
modernization programs scheduled to peak simultaneously in the 
middle of the next decade, informed strategic choices must be 
made on how the nation's resources will be applied to meet 21st 
century challenges.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report, within 180 days following the enactment of 
this Act, to either revalidate the current requirement for the 
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter total program of record quantity, or 
identify a new requirement for the total number of F-35 
aircraft the Department would ultimately procure. The report 
should include the relevant portions of the defense strategy, 
critical assumptions, priorities, and force sizing construct 
used to revalidate the current requirement. If a new 
requirement is identified, the report should include the 
overarching plan for fielding complementary weapons systems to 
meet combatant commander objectives and fulfilling warfighting 
capability and capacity requirements in the areas of an 
optimized force mix of long-range versus medium/short-range 
ISR/strike platforms; manned versus unmanned platforms; 
observability characteristics; land-based versus sea-based; 
advanced fourth-generation platforms of proven design; next 
generation air superiority capabilities; and promising, game-
changing, advanced technology innovations.
    The required report may be classified, but must include an 
unclassified executive summary.

Joint Standoff Weapon

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

Land mobile radio

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

Missile and munitions industrial base

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

Modernization for Light Armored Vehicles

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

Navy maritime security barriers

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

Navy training helicopters

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

Night Vision Reset

    Night vision systems are an essential capability for 
successful conventional military and counterterrorism 
operations.
    As night vision technologies continue to proliferate around 
the world, the committee believes it is crucial that the 
Department of Defense maintains and where possible extends its 
technological advantage in night vision systems. The committee 
notes that the Army has plans and programs in place to address 
the technological opportunities, operational requirements, and 
industrial base challenges associated with current and future 
night vision systems. In this regard, the committee encourages 
the Secretary of the Army to develop and implement a 
comprehensive night vision systems research, development, 
acquisition, reset maintenance, and sustainment strategy that 
improves readiness, identifies and delivers promising new or 
emerging technologies, and ensures the affordability of night 
vision systems by managing cost throughout their life cycle.

Patriot Product Improvement Future Lower Tier Sensor Alternatives

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

Route and area clearance mine protected vehicles

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

San Antonio-Class Amphibious Transport Dock program

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

Single-source providers of critical acquisition program components

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

Standoff precision guided weapons

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

Unmanned Undersea Vehicles

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

Vehicle occupant protection technology

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

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)
    This provision would authorize the appropriations for 
research, development, test, and evaluation activities at the 
levels identified in section 4201 of division D of this Act.

    Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

Centers for science, technology, and engineering partnership (sec. 211)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Chapter 139 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a 
program that would enhance the Department of Defense 
laboratories with innovative academic and industry partners in 
research and development activities. The provision would enable 
more effective transfer of laboratory-generated innovations to 
small businesses and other industry partners to promote their 
transition into military systems or for development into 
commercial technologies. The provision would also improve the 
overall quality of research efforts, while reducing the costs 
of ownership and maintenance of world-class research 
infrastructure, and enhance the return on taxpayer investment 
in facilities and personnel at the laboratories. The provision 
is modeled on similar authority that has been provided to 
Department of Defense agencies by Congress under the Center of 
Industrial and Technical Excellence program. The provision is 
also supportive of the Department's ``Better Buying Power'' 
efforts to ``improve the return on investment in Department of 
Defense laboratories.''
    The labs have a tradition of partnerships with industry and 
academia that has led to significant advances in mission areas 
and technologies ranging from robotics to cyber security to 
aeronautics. A recent example is the development of the Army 
Research Laboratory's (ARL's) ``Open Campus''' initiative, the 
goal of which is to develop processes and engagements through 
which the academic community, industry, small business, and 
other government laboratories can efficiently engage with ARL's 
specialized research staff and unique technical facilities in a 
broad range of Army technology mission areas. Another is the 
Air Force Research Laboratory partnership with the Wright 
Brothers Institute on the Tec-Edge Innovation and Collaboration 
Center, which promotes public-private research partnerships in 
unmanned air systems, advanced sensors, and rapid prototyping 
of advanced materials. The committee believes that more can be 
done to encourage and strengthen these types of activities.
    A recent report by the Institute for Defense Analyses 
indicates that mutually beneficial partnerships between 
Department of Defense laboratories and academia ``are not as 
abundant as those in the intramural research programs at the 
Department of Energy.'' The committee believes that this 
provision would support the enhancement of beneficial 
activities with both academia and the private sector.
Department of Defense technology offset program to build and maintain 
        the military technological superiority of the United States 
        (sec. 212)
    The committee notes with concern that the United States has 
not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the 
end of World War II, and that taken together, they constitute 
the greatest challenge in a generation to the integrity of the 
liberal world order, which has consistently been underwritten 
by U.S. military technological superiority. At the same time, 
the committee is alarmed by the apparent erosion in recent 
years of this technological advantage, which is in danger of 
disappearing altogether. To prevent such a scenario and to 
maintain the country's global military technological edge, the 
committee recommends a provision that would establish a new 
$400.0 million initiative.
    In doing so, the committee notes that the Defense 
Department is facing an emerging innovation gap. Commercial 
research and development in the United States now represents 80 
percent of the national total, and the top four U.S. defense 
contractors combined spend only one-quarter of what the single 
biggest internet company does on research and development. 
Furthermore, global research and development is now more than 
twice that of the United States. The committee also notes that 
defense innovation is moving too slowly--in cycles that can 
last up to 18 years, whereas commercial innovation can be 
measured in cycles of 18 months or less.
    The committee understands that accessing sources of 
innovation beyond the Defense Department is critical for 
national security, particularly in the areas of directed 
energy, low-cost high-speed munitions, cyber capabilities, 
autonomous systems, undersea warfare, and intelligence data 
analytics. However, there are currently too many barriers that 
limit cooperation with U.S. allies and global commercial firms, 
posing a threat to the country's future military technological 
dominance.
    For the past several years, U.S. adversaries have been 
rapidly improving their own military capabilities to counter 
our unique advantages. Structural trends, such as the diffusion 
of certain advanced military technologies, pose new operational 
challenges to U.S. armed forces. As a result, the dominance of 
the United States military can no longer be taken for granted. 
Consequently, the Department of Defense must remain focused on 
the myriad potential threats of the future and thus maintain 
technological superiority against potential adversaries.
    The committee notes that since 1960, the department has 
invested more than $6.0 billion in directed energy science and 
technology initiatives. The committee is concerned that, 
despite this significant investment, the department's directed 
energy initiatives are not resourced at levels necessary to 
transition them to full-scale acquisition programs. The 
committee is encouraged by the Navy's demonstration a 100-150 
kilowatt prototype laser and by the Air Force's demonstration 
of high-powered electromagnetic weapons capabilities. However, 
the committee is concerned about the future of directed energy 
technologies as a whole. The committee notes that there is no 
inter-service entity dedicated to advancing promising directed 
energy platforms beyond the development point towards 
acquisition.
    The committee is encouraged that the department established 
a department-wide Defense Innovation Initiative in November 
2014 to pursue innovative ways to sustain and advance our 
military superiority and to improve business operations 
throughout the department. However, the committee is concerned 
by the possibility that this initiative is not being 
implemented in an appropriate and expeditious manner.
    In response to these factors, the committee recommends a 
provision that would establish an initiative within the 
Department of Defense to maintain and enhance the military 
technological superiority of the United States. The provision 
would establish a program to accelerate the fielding of offset 
technologies, including, but not limited to, directed energy, 
low-cost high-speed munitions, autonomous systems, undersea 
warfare, cyber technology, and intelligence data analytics, 
developed by the department and to accelerate the 
commercialization of such technologies. As part of this 
program, the committee expects that the Secretary of Defense 
would also establish updated policies and new acquisition and 
management practices that would speed the delivery of offset 
technologies into operational use.
    The provision would authorize $400.0 million for fiscal 
year 2016 for the initiative, of which $200.0 million would be 
authorized specifically for directed energy technology. 
Accordingly, the provision would mandate the Secretary to 
develop a directed energy strategy to ensure that appropriate 
technologies are developed and deployed at an accelerated pace, 
and update it every 2 years. The committee expects that this 
strategy would include a recommendation on rationalizing the 
roles and authorities of the Joint Technology Office for High 
Energy Lasers. The provision would further direct the Secretary 
to submit this strategy to the Senate Armed Services Committee 
and the House Armed Services Committee no later than 90 days 
after completing the strategy, and biennially thereafter.
    To speed up the development of these vitally needed 
national security capabilities, the committee directs that the 
Secretary of Defense shall consider all appropriate flexible 
acquisition authorities granted in law and in this Act. These 
should include the management structure and streamlined 
procedures for rapid prototyping outlined in section 803 of 
this Act on the middle tier of acquisition for rapid 
prototyping and rapid fielding, and the procedures and 
authorities to be considered under section 805 of this Act on 
use of alternative acquisition paths to acquire critical 
national security capabilities to include other transactions, 
rapid acquisition, and commercial item authorities.
    The committee expects that the Secretary of Defense would 
keep the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 
Committee on Armed Services regularly updated on progress of 
activities under this technology offsets initiative.
Reauthorization of Defense Research and Development Rapid Innovation 
        Program (sec. 213)
    The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 
has established a Rapid Innovation Program to accelerate the 
fielding of innovative technologies, as authorized in the Ike 
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
(Public Law 111-383). The committee further notes that the DOD 
has established a competitive, merit-based process to solicit 
proposals from interested contractors, review and select 
projects based on military needs and standardized evaluation 
criteria, and award contracts to execute program projects. The 
committee is encouraged that the military services and the 
congressional defense components participating in the program 
have practices and tools in place to manage and monitor the 
execution of projects.
    According to the Government Accountability Office, some 
completed projects have already successfully transitioned 
technology to acquisition programs and other military users 
through the Rapid Innovation Program. In addition, the DOD 
estimates that 50 percent of all fiscal year 2011 funding 
projects have out-year funding commitments from military users 
indicating the likelihood that they will transition 
technologies. The Government Accountability Office assessed 
projects scheduled to be completed through July 2014 and found 
that 50 percent successfully transitioned to acquisition 
programs or other users. Although it is too soon to accurately 
assess the overall success of the Rapid Innovation Program, the 
committee is encouraged by the results achieved thus far. The 
committee notes that the Rapid Innovation Program has been 
highlighted as a part of the department's Better Buying Power 
Acquisition Initiative.
    The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize 
the Rapid Innovation Program for an additional 5 years. At the 
same time, the committee recommends that the DOD takes steps to 
ensure that the selection of projects through the Program is 
not subject to improper influence outside of the established 
selection process.
Reauthorization of Global Research Watch Program (sec. 214)
    The committee notes that since its inception in 2003, the 
Global Research Watch Program has made significant progress 
toward its program goals, as outlined in the original 
authorizing legislation. The committee also notes that the 
current authorization in section 2365 of title 10, United 
States Code, will expire on September 30, 2015.
    Consequently, the committee recommends a provision that 
would reauthorize the program for an additional 10 years. The 
committee further recommends that the program be expanded to 
include private sector persons as part of its global focus. The 
definition of ``person'' is in section 1 of title 1, United 
States Code, and it includes corporations, companies, 
associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock 
companies.
Science and technology activities to support business systems 
        information technology acquisition programs (sec. 215)
    The committee recommends a provision that would mandate the 
establishment of science and technology activities that would 
help reduce the technical risk and life cycle costs of major 
information technology acquisition programs. The committee 
notes that the Government Accountability Office and the 
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation have repeatedly 
reported to Congress failures in the acquisition of major 
information technology business systems programs. Among these 
are the Expeditionary Combat Support System and the Defense 
Integrated Military Human Resources System, which spent 
billions of dollars and delivered no useful capability.
    The committee notes that current information technology 
programs, including those intended to support efforts at 
achieving audit ability, track pay and personnel records, and 
manage health care information, are also not performing in a 
manner that inspires confidence in the delivery of useful 
technologies within current cost and schedule estimates.
    The committee believes that failures of these acquisition 
programs are the result of myriad causes, one of which is the 
weakness of the Department of Defense's acquisition workforce 
in developing and deploying these systems. The Department does 
not internally employ or have external access to expertise that 
can develop and technically manage these programs. The 
Department also does not maintain sufficient expertise to 
support the modification of antiquated business processes, 
thereby precluding department-wide organizational support by 
commercially-available modern information technology products 
and services. Furthermore, the Department does not have the 
testing infrastructure or workforce expertise to adequately 
ensure that systems will perform when deployed.
    The committee believes another cause of failure is the 
expensive and technically complex modification of commercially 
available software to support perceived departmental needs. The 
business systems covered in this provision support business 
functions that are similar to those found in the private 
sector, such as accounting, contract management, health 
records, and pay systems. The Department lacks the expertise to 
modify their antiquated and labor-intensive business processes 
so that lower-cost, commercially-available solutions can be 
applied to support departmental operations. Instead, the 
Department employs contractors to customize commercial software 
programs with the expectation that they can support existing 
processes, thereby expending minimal effort or rigor to modify 
the processes themselves.
    Finally, the committee believes these programs are 
suffering from the same cybersecurity challenges that all 
private and public sector information technology programs are 
facing. Given the importance of these systems in supporting 
departmental operations and deployed forces, they can be 
inviting targets for cyberattack.
    The committee's recommended provision is based on the 
precepts built into the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act 
of 2009 and in the strong tradition of developing technical 
expertise to improve acquisition outcomes of conventional 
weapons systems. The provision would require the Department to 
fund appropriate research, development, and capability-building 
activities to make it a ``smarter buyer'' of these programs. 
Activities under the program would include using industry, 
academic, and government expertise to: develop technologies and 
processes that manage the customization of commercial software 
in a cost-effective manner; control problems when attempting to 
scale commercial solutions to the scope of the defense 
enterprise; and secure the networks, computers, and information 
associated with these programs. The provision would also 
support the development of smaller-scale information technology 
prototypes with limited deployments that can then be scaled to 
full operational capability.
    The provision, if implemented, would also spur the 
Department to engage with industry and academia to address the 
business process and management issues that currently haunt 
these programs. The committee notes that there is significant 
business management expertise resident in academia and the 
private sector, yet it is rarely engaged to address management 
challenges facing department and costing taxpayers billions of 
dollars.
    The committee believes that successful implementation of 
this provision would help build the expertise and tools 
necessary to develop information technology business systems in 
the future. The committee also believes that these efforts, 
when applied to the management of business information 
technology systems, would improve cost, schedule, and 
performance outcomes.
Expansion of eligibility for financial assistance under Department of 
        Defense science, mathematics, and research for transformation 
        program to include citizens of countries participating in the 
        technical cooperation program (sec. 216)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2192a of title 10, United States Code, to expand the 
Department of Defense's Science, Mathematics, and Research for 
Transformation (SMART) program, which awards service-based 
scholarships to students studying in the fields of science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics, to include students 
from the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. 
The selection of these countries is based on those which are 
currently parties to the Technical Cooperation Program 
Memorandum of Understanding of October 24, 1995.
    Current authority for the program limits scholarship awards 
to only U.S. citizens. However, National Science Foundation 
data indicate that over 50 percent of engineering doctorates 
are granted to foreign graduate students, with the percentage 
growing annually. By removing this restriction, the Department 
can recruit foreign nationals from these four countries to 
participate in the program, with the goal of bringing on the 
best and brightest students to defense laboratories. The 
limited easing of this restriction would serve as a pilot 
project for assessing potential future expansion of this 
authority to other friendly countries.
Streamlining the Joint Federated Assurance Center (sec. 217)
    The committee recommends a provision that would streamline 
the structure of the Joint Federated Assurance Center (JFAC).
    Section 937 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) established JFAC to serve 
as a joint, department-wide federation of existing capabilities 
to ensure security in the software and hardware developed, 
acquired, maintained, and used by the Department of Defense. 
Section 937 directed the Center for Assured Software of the 
National Security Agency to coordinate research and development 
to improve software assurance and the Defense Microelectronics 
Activity to coordinate research and development to improve 
hardware assurance. These designations resulted in an 
unnecessary layer of bureaucracy in the JFAC structure and 
should be eliminated.
Limitation on availability of funds for development of the Shallow 
        Water Combat Submersible (sec. 218)
    The committee remains concerned about cost and schedule 
overruns associated with U.S. Special Operations Command's 
(SOCOM) undersea mobility acquisition programs generally and, 
specifically, the Shallow Water Combat Submersible (SWCS) 
program.
    According to the Government Accountability Office, 
approximately $677.5 million was expended to develop and 
procure the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) to fill 
SOCOM's requirement for a dry combat submersible for special 
operations personnel, more than $600.0 million over original 
budget projections. The ASDS program suffered from ineffective 
contract oversight, technical challenges, and reliability and 
performance issues. Unfortunately, the SWCS program has 
experienced many of the same deficiencies as its predecessor.
    In June 2014, the SWCS program was re-baselined as a result 
of significant cost and schedule overruns. Less than a year 
after this re-baselining, the SWCS program is again 19 percent 
over budget and 21 percent behind schedule (as of January 
2015). Overall, the committee understands the engineering and 
management development phase of the program is approximately 
126 percent over budget and more than a year behind schedule.
    The committee has sought to encourage better acquisition 
oversight of the SWCS program through various legislative 
provisions and report language in past National Defense 
Authorization Acts. For example, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) 
directed the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special 
Operations and Low-intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC) to provide a 
report to the congressional defense committees on cost and 
schedule overruns associated with the SWCS program and efforts 
to correct such deficiencies. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) also 
clarified that the SOCOM Acquisition Executive is subordinate 
to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 
and Logistics (USD AT&L) for acquisition matters and directed 
the USD AT&L and ASD SOLIC to improve oversight of SOCOM 
acquisition programs--particularly those special operations-
peculiar platforms, like SWCS, that are at greatest risk of 
incurring delays and additional costs. Lastly, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) directed increased oversight of SOCOM undersea acquisition 
programs by the USD AT&L, but exempted the SWCS program from 
such requirements at the request of SOCOM due to perceived 
program stability and low technological risk at the time.
    Given the concerns outlined above, the committee recommends 
a provision that would prohibit the expenditure of more than 25 
percent of the funds available for the SWCS program for fiscal 
year 2016 until the USD (AT&L) designates a civilian official 
within his office responsible for providing oversight and 
assistance to SOCOM for all undersea mobility programs and, in 
coordination with the ASD SOLIC, provides the congressional 
defense committees a report on the SWCS program outlining:
          (1) An analysis of the reasons for cost and schedule 
        overruns associated with the SWCS program;
          (2) The revised timeline for SWCS initial and full 
        operational capability;
          (3) The projected cost to meet the basis of issue 
        requirement;
          (4) A plan to prevent, identify, and mitigate any 
        additional cost and schedule overruns;
          (5) Any opportunities to recover cost or schedule;
          (6) Any lessons learned from the SWCS program that 
        could be applied to future undersea mobility 
        acquisition programs; and
          (7) Any other matters the Under Secretary deems 
        relevant.
Limitation on availability of funds for distributed common ground 
        system of the Army (sec. 219)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2016 for 
the Department of Defense by section 201 and available for 
research, development, test, and evaluation, Army, for the 
distributed common ground system of the Army (DCGS-A), not more 
than 75 percent may be obligated or expended until the 
Secretary of the Army reviews program planning and submits to 
congressional defense committees, the Select Committee on 
Intelligence of the Senate, and the Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence of the House of Representatives a report. The 
report is to address segmentation of software components; 
identification of commercial software capable of fulfilling 
DCGS-A system requirements; cost analysis; determination of 
commercial software compliance relative to guidance in 
Intelligence Community Technology Enterprise, the Defense 
Intelligence Information Enterprise, and the Joint Information 
Environment; identification of software which may be acquired 
through competitive means; an acquisition plan; and a review of 
the time table for the DCGS-A program.
Limitation on availability of funds for Distributed Common Ground 
        System of the United States Special Operations Command (sec. 
        220)
    The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 
availability of research, development, test, and evaluation 
funds for the distributed common ground system of the U.S. 
Special Operations Command (SOCOM) until the Commander of SOCOM 
submits a report to the committee.

                       Subtitle C--Other Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

Airborne data link plan (sec. 234)

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

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

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

                              Budget Items

Army defense research sciences

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

High-performance computing modernization

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

Infantry support weapons

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

Integrated personnel and pay systems for Army and Air Force

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

Common infrared countermeasures

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

Aircraft survivability development

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

Joint Tactical Radio System

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

Munitions Standardization, Effectiveness and Safety

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

Stryker modification and improvement

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

Navy defense research sciences

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

Undersea warfare applied research

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

Capable manpower, enablers, and sea basing

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

Advanced submarine system development

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

USS Gerald R. Ford full ship shock trials

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

LX(R)

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

Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System

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

Submarine tactical warfare systems development

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

F-35B/C engineering and manufacturing development

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

Submarine acoustic warfare development

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

Mk-48 ADCAP

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

Air Force defense research sciences

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

Nanostructured and biological materials

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

Long range strike--bomber

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

F-35A engineering and manufacturing development

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

KC-46 aerial refueling tanker aircraft program

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

F-15 capability upgrades

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

Budget request realignment

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

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

Logistics information technology

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

Applied research for the advancement of science and technology 
        priorities

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

Multi-azimuth defense fast intercept round engagement system

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

Materials and biological technology

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

Science and technology analytic assessments

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

Joint capability technology demonstration

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

Network-centric warfare technology

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

Quick Reaction Special Projects

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

Advanced sensor application program

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

Corrosion control and prevention funding increase

     The budget request included $6.8 billion in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for Advanced 
Component Development & Prototypes, of which $1.5 million was 
for the PE 604016D8Z Department of Defense Corrosion Program.
    The committee continues to be concerned that the Department 
has consistently underfunded the DOD Corrosion Program since 
fiscal year 2011. The Department estimates that the negative 
effects of corrosion cost approximately $20.8 billion annually 
to prevent and mitigate corrosion of its assets, including 
military equipment, weapons, facilities, and other 
infrastructure.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 
million in RDT&E, PE 604016D8Z, for the Department of Defense 
Corrosion Program.

Global Combat Support System--Joint

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

Systems engineering

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

MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

    The budget request included $18.2 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), for 
the development, integration, and testing of special 
operations-unique mission kits for the MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial 
Vehicle (UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is 
responsible for the rapid development and acquisition of 
special operations capabilities to, among other things, 
effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks 
while avoiding collateral damage.
    The committee understands that the budget request only 
partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its 
fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an 
additional $5.0 million in RDTEDW for the MQ-9 UAV.
    The committee strongly supports SOCOM's efforts to 
accelerate fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging 
technologies on its fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. The committee has 
authorized additional funds above the budget request in each of 
the last 3 years to enhance these efforts and understands that 
SOCOM has successfully developed and acquired a number of new 
capabilities, including improved weapon effectiveness, target 
location and tracking, image resolution, and video transmission 
during that time.

C-130 terrain following/terrain avoidance radar

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

Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance Payload Technology 
        Improvements Program

    The budget request included $1.3 million in Research, 
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), for 
the development, integration, and testing of special 
operations-unique intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (ISR) sensor technologies on tactical unmanned 
aerial vehicles. U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is 
responsible for the rapid development and acquisition of 
special operations capabilities to, among other things, 
effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks 
while avoiding collateral damage.
    The committee understands that the budget request only 
partially addresses ISR sensor technology gaps identified by 
SOCOM on its fleet of tactical UAVs. Therefore, the committee 
recommends an additional $2.0 million in RDTEDW for the ISR 
Payload Technology Improvements Program.

Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration and prototyping

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Advancement in radar technologies

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

Advancements in Antenna Research and Capabilities

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

Air Force seismic activity research

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

Conditions and Capabilities of the Undersea Warfare Test Capabilities

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

Cost estimate for a land-based electromagnetic railgun program

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

Database on Department of Defense research grants

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

Entrepreneurial sabbatical for Department of Defense laboratory 
        scientists

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

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

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

High Power Microwave Counter-electronics Capabilities

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

Improved turbine engine program

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

Improvised Explosive Device Detection Systems

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

Market survey of active protection systems

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

Medical evaluation of Anthropomorphic data on vehicle blast testing

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

National Defense Education Program

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

Training Range Upgrades

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

              Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)
    This provision would authorize the appropriations for 
operation and maintenance activities at the levels identified 
in section 4301 of division D of this Act.

                 Subtitle B--Energy and the Environment

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

                 Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment

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

                          Subtitle D--Reports

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

          Subtitle E--Limitations and Extensions of Authority

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

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

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

                       Subtitle F--Other Matters

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

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

Adoption of retired military working dogs (sec. 352)

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

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

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

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

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

                              Budget Items

Transfer to overseas contingency operations

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

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

Army and Army Reserve readiness unfunded priorities increases

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

Insider threat unfunded priorities increases

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

Streamlining Combatant Commands

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

Army outreach reduction

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

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase

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

Streamlining Management Headquarters

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

Foreign currency fluctuation deductions

    The budget request included $35.1 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), $42.2 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.2 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $38.1 billion for Operation 
and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $32.4 billion for 
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW).
    The committee believes that when foreign currency 
fluctuation (FCF) rates are determined by the Department of 
Defense, the balance of the FCF funds should be considered, 
particularly if the balance is close to the cap of $970.0 
million. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has 
informed the committee that as of March 2015, the Department 
has not transferred in any prior year unobligated balances to 
replenish the account for fiscal year 2015 from a beginning 
balance of $970.0 million. GAO analysis projects that the 
Department will experience a net gain of $739.8 million in 
fiscal year 2015 due to favorable foreign exchange rates, of 
which $456.1 million is attributed to Operation and Maintenance 
(O&M). Additionally, GAO analysis projects the Department will 
experience a net gain of $891.4 million in fiscal year 2016 in 
FCF, of which $587.4 million is attributed to O&M.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of: $281.5 
million to OMA, $59.9 million to OMN, $19.8 million to OMMC, 
$137.8 million to OMAF, and $51.9 million to OMDW for FCF.

Bulk fuel savings

    The budget request included $35.1 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Army (OMA), $2.6 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), $6.7 billion in Operation and 
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), $42.2 billion for 
Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.2 billion for 
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $1.0 billion 
for Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve (OMNR), $277 
million for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve 
(OMMCR), $38.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force 
(OMAF), $3.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force 
Reserve (OMAFR), $6.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air 
National Guard (OMANG), and $32.4 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW).
    The committee understands that as of March 2015, the 
Department has overstated its projected bulk fuel costs for 
fiscal year 2016 by $1.7 billion.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends the following 
decreases: $260.1 million to OMA, $7.6 million to OMAR, $25.3 
to OMARNG, $482.3 million to OMN, $17.0 million to OMMC, $39.7 
to OMNR, $1.0 million to OMMCR, $618.3 million to OMAF, $101.1 
to OMAFR, $162.6 million to OMANG, and $36.0 million to OMDW 
for bulk fuel savings.

Army and Air National Guard Operation Phalanx increase

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

Army National Guard portrait cuts

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

Army National Guard marketing program reduction

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

Army National Guard readiness funding increase

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

Marine Corps readiness unfunded priorities increases

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

Criminal Investigative Equipment

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

A-10 to F-15E training transition

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

Air Force readiness unfunded priorities increases

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

Joint Enabling Capabilities Command

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

Air Force Headquarters reductions

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

Remotely piloted aircraft

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

Air Force acquisition tools reduction

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

Air Force enterprise information technology systems

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

Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System reduction

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

EC-130H Buyback

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

A-10 Operation and Maintenance Buyback

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

Middle East Assurance Initiative

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

Department of Defense Rewards Program reduction

    The budget request included $1.9 billion in the Operation 
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which $12.3 million was for 
the Department of Defense (DOD) rewards program.
    The committee continues to be concerned that the DOD 
Rewards Program has been hampered by historical under-
execution.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 
million in OMDW for the DOD Rewards Program (SAG 4GTN). 
Additionally, the committee is encouraged by the DOD Rewards 
Program as an effective tool against counterterrorism 
worldwide. The committee is also encouraged by the prospect of 
DOD developing a budgeting forecasting tool to help improve the 
use of future resources.

Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program

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

Funding for impact aid

    The amount authorized to be appropriated for Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide, includes the following changes from 
the budget request. The provisions underlying these changes in 
funding levels are discussed in greater detail in title V of 
this committee report.

                    [Changes in millions of dollars]
 
 
 
Impact aid for schools with military dependent                     +25.0
 students.............................................
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities......              +5.0
    Total.............................................             +30.0
 

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

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

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

    The budget request included $32.4 billion for Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $1.3 billion was for 
SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense.
    The committee understands that $10.5 million was to be used 
for base realignment and closure (BRAC) planning and support. 
The bill recommended by the committee would prohibit the 
expenditure of funds for a new BRAC round.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.5 
million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of 
Defense.

Studies of fleet platform architectures for the Navy

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

A-10 retirement manpower transfer

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Army and Air Force full spectrum training requirements

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

Body armor modernization

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

Care of stock in storage

    The committee notes that the military services have 
established several locations of pre-positioned stock and 
equipment around the globe in support of combatant commanders' 
requirements for operational plans, training, and 
contingencies. The committee is concerned such military 
equipment suffers varying degrees of degradation and corrosion 
while being stored outdoors for extended periods of time. Such 
degradation and corrosion is caused by weatherization and 
equipment being stored in a stagnant state without minimal 
levels of care of stock in storage (COSIS). The Government 
Accountability Office has estimated that the Department of 
Defense incurs over $20.0 billion every year in corrosion costs 
for its weapon systems and infrastructure.
    The committee is concerned that minimal funding has been 
allocated to COSIS, historically, and instead has gone to other 
priorities, which ultimately leads to higher costs in the long-
term. Furthermore, the committee believes that moving equipment 
under basic COSIS and cover--even indoor facilities that are 
not necessarily climate-controlled or using equipment covers--
could generate significant cost avoidance for pre-positioned 
stock and military equipment.
    The committee is aware of a recent effort by the Army in 
Kuwait to move some pre-positioned equipment to indoor storage, 
but the committee is concerned that such a move was merely a 
target of opportunity and not part of a broad strategy backed 
by effective planning and resources.
    Accordingly, the committee strongly urges the Department 
and the military services to identify and implement 
opportunities to improve the COSIS and covered storage of its 
pre-positioned stock, and to notify the committee of potential 
opportunities where additional resources could be applied to 
improve COSIS.
    Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services 
of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than 
March 1, 2016 on specific locations and opportunities where 
COSIS could improve for outdoor pre-positioned stock to ensure 
equipment is stored in a way that minimizes weatherization and 
weapon system degradation. The report shall include an estimate 
of the return on investment of storing pre-positioned equipment 
indoors.

Category I ammunition items in OCONUS environments

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

Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF)

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

Commercial innovation in energy technologies

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

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

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

Department of Defense airfield reflective pavement markings

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

Department of Defense energy security and efficiency technologies

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

Department of Defense fuel consumption estimates

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

Department of Defense investment in community relations activities

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

Depot maintenance core workload capability

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

Effects of operation and maintenance funding levels

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

Encouraging the Use of the Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) Program

    The committee is aware of the readiness challenges facing 
the Armed Forces due to the constraints put forth by 
sequestration. Additionally, the committee is aware of the 
Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) program, which contributes 
to military readiness and provides realistic training in a 
joint environment for National Guard, Reserve, and Active-Duty 
members, preparing them to serve during a national crisis at 
home or abroad.
    The committee understands the IRT program offers complex 
and challenging training opportunities for domestic and 
international crises, opportunities which can seldom be 
replicated outside of these crises. The committee is also aware 
that states that utilize the IRT program include, Alabama, 
Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, 
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North 
Dakota, Ohio, and South Dakota.
    The committee encourages the Department of Defense to 
continue to utilize the IRT programs as well as the other 
training opportunities that also provide hands-on and mission-
essential training and are available to Active, Reserve, and 
National Guard forces.

Enhanced Performance Round and Special Operations Science and 
        Technology review

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

Fabric-based respiratory protective equipment

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

Foreign language training

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

Installation access programs and systems

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

Major test range and test facility bases reimbursement

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

Medical textile apparel for healthcare workers and patients

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

Mentor Protege program

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

Obstructions on or near military installations

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

Operational Energy

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

Personal protection equipment

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

Red Hill underground fuel storage facility

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

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

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

Resilience of Department of Defense-owned utility infrastructure

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

Tubular light-emitting diode technology

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

Utah Test and Training Range

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

                       Subtitle A--Active Forces

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

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

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

                       Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2016, as shown 
below:

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

End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves 
        (sec. 412)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2016, as shown 
below:

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

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

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

Fiscal year 2016 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 
        (sec. 414)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be 
employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2016, 
as shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2016                  Change from
                                                  FY 2015  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     authorized                              FY 2016       FY 2015
                                                             Request   Recommendation   request     authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...........................       1,600      1,600           1,600          0               0
Air National Guard............................         350        350             350          0               0
Army Reserve..................................         595        595             595          0               0
Air Force Reserve.............................          90         90              90          0               0
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.................................       2,635      2,635           2,635          0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active duty for 
        operational support (sec. 415)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
limits on the number of reserve personnel authorized to be on 
active duty for operational support under section 115(b) of 
title 10, United States Code, as of September 30, 2016, as 
shown below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     FY 2016                  Change from
                                                  FY 2015  -----------------------------------------------------
                    Service                     authorized                              FY 2016       FY 2015
                                                             Request   Recommendation   request     authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard...........................      17,000     17,000          17,000          0               0
Army Reserve..................................      13,000     13,000          13,000          0               0
Navy Reserve..................................       6,200      6,200           6,200          0               0
Marine Corps Reserve..........................       3,000      3,000           3,000          0               0
Air National Guard............................      16,000     16,000          16,000          0               0
Air Force Reserve.............................      14,000     14,000          14,000          0               0
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    DOD Total.................................      69,200     69,200          69,200          0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

              Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations

Military personnel (sec. 421)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for military personnel at the levels identified 
in section 4401 of division D of this Act.

                              Budget Items

Military personnel funding changes
    The amount authorized to be appropriated for military 
personnel programs include the following changes from the 
budget request:

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

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

                  Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

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

                Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify 
section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 
secretaries of the military departments to defer promotion 
consideration for reserve component officers in a non-
participatory (membership points only) status. Currently, 
section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, requires 
servicemembers identified on the Reserve Active Status List to 
be considered for promotion to the next higher grade. This 
includes certain categories of reservists on the Reserve Active 
Status List who, by Department of Defense guidance, are in the 
Individual Ready Reserve and the Standby Reserve and who remain 
eligible for promotion consideration, but are not actively 
participating in Reserve duty because they are in a status in 
which they are receiving membership only points for Reserve 
credit. Under current law, some individuals assigned to the 
Individual Ready Reserve may be discharged from the reserve 
component upon their second deferral for promotion because they 
are considered to have twice failed for promotion. This 
provision would provide the reserve component flexibility to 
remove individuals from promotion consideration during a period 
when they are least competitive for promotion, and would allow 
the services to retain servicemembers with significant military 
training as well as civilian technical and professional skills 
that could contribute to their desirability for selection to be 
promoted should the individual elect to return to military 
service.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                Subtitle C--General Service Authorities

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

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

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

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

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

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

               Subtitle D--Member Education and Training

                 Part I--Educational Assistance Reform

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 
Secretary concerned to determine that off-duty training or 
education through the tuition assistance program is likely to 
contribute to the professional development of a servicemember. 
The committee notes that this provision was recommended in the 
final report of the Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission. The committee strongly recommends 
good stewardship of the tuition assistance program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                         Part II--Other Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                      Subtitle E--Military Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 806b of title 10, United States Code, (Article 6b, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), to allow an 
interlocutory appeal by a victim based on assertion that the 
victim's rights at an Article 32, UCMJ investigation were 
violated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subtitle F--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family Readiness 
                                Matters

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that 
        benefit dependents of members of the armed forces and 
        Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 561)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$25.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for 
continuation of the Department of Defense (DOD) assistance 
program to local educational agencies that are impacted by 
enrollment of dependent children of military members and DOD 
civilian employees.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for 
impact aid payments for children with disabilities under 
section 8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), using the formula set forth in 
section 363 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398), 
for continuation of Department of Defense assistance to local 
educational agencies that benefit eligible dependents with 
severe disabilities.

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

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

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

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

            Subtitle G--Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements

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

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

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

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

                       Subtitle H--Other Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                         Part II--Other Matters

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

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

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

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

Enhancements to Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (sec. 588)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Assessment on Servicemembers lacking post-transition housing

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

Availability of Special Victims' Counsel as Individual Military Counsel

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

Changes to the Joint Travel Regulation

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

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

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

Comptroller General report on Department of Defense credentialing and 
        licensing programs

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

Cyber security training, testing and certification

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

Disability pilot program feasibility report

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

Extending Special Victims' Counsel eligibility for civilian sexual 
        assault survivors

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

Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview

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

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

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

Increasing the transparency of the military justice system

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

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

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

National Guard and Reserve headquarters

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

Public Schools on Department of Defense Installations

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

Punishment for collateral misconduct revealed by reports of sexual 
        misconduct

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

Religious freedom and role of military chaplains

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

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

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

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

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

Social Security Number Use Reduction Plan

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

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

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

                     Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

Fiscal year 2016 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
pay raise of 1.3 percent for all members of the uniformed 
services in pay grades O-6 and below effective January 1, 2016.
Modification of percentage of national average monthly cost of housing 
        usable in computation of basic allowance for housing inside the 
        United States (sec. 602)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 403(b) of title 37, United States Code, to authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to reduce the monthly amount of the 
basic allowance for housing (BAH) by up to 5 percent of the 
national average for housing for a given pay grade and 
dependency status. Servicemembers will not see this 
modification of their BAH until they change duty stations.
Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in rates of basic 
        allowance for housing (sec. 603)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority of the Secretary of Defense to temporarily 
increase the rate of basic allowance for housing in areas 
impacted by natural disasters or experiencing a sudden influx 
of personnel.
Basic allowance for housing for married members of the uniformed 
        services assigned for duty within normal commuting distance and 
        for other members living together (sec. 604)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 403 of title 37, United States Code, to limit the basic 
allowance for housing (BAH) for dual military married couples 
who are assigned within normal commuting distance from each 
other to one allowance at the with dependent rate, for the 
member with the higher pay grade. The provision would also 
limit BAH for uniformed service members above E-3 residing with 
other uniformed service members to 75 percent of their 
otherwise prevailing rate, or the E-4 without dependents rate, 
whichever is greater. Affected members would see no reduction 
in their BAH as a result of this provision so long as they 
maintain uninterrupted eligibility to receive BAH within a 
particular housing area.
Repeal of inapplicability of modification of basic allowance for 
        housing to benefits under the laws administered by the 
        Secretary of Veterans Affairs (sec. 605)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
subsection (b) of section 604 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. 
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) effective January 1, 2016.
Limitation on eligibility for supplemental subsistence allowances to 
        members serving outside the United States and associated 
        territory (sec. 606)
    The committee recommends a provision that would sunset on 
September 30, 2016, the supplemental subsistence allowance for 
servicemembers serving inside the United States. Servicemembers 
serving outside the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or Guam would still be 
eligible to receive the supplemental subsistence allowance from 
the Department of Defense. The provision is based on the final 
report of the Military Compensation and Retirement 
Modernization Commission.
Availability of information (sec. 607)
    The committee recommends a provision that would allow for 
the Secretary of Defense to obtain from the Secretary of 
Agriculture information for the purposes of determining the 
number of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program applicant 
households that contain one or more members of a regular or 
reserve component of the Armed Forces.

           Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 
        reserve forces (sec. 611)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment 
bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus, 
special pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high-
priority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons 
without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment and 
reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, the Selected 
Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with 
prior service, travel expenses for certain inactive-duty 
training, and income replacement for reserve component members 
experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for Active-Duty 
service.
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for 
        health care professionals (sec. 612)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate 
accession bonus, education loan repayment for certain health 
professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve, accession and 
retention bonuses for psychologists, the accession bonus for 
registered nurses, incentive special pay for nurse 
anesthetists, special pay for Selected Reserve health 
professionals in critically short wartime specialties, the 
accession bonus for dental officers, the accession bonus for 
pharmacy officers, the accession bonus for medical officers in 
critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus 
for dental specialist officers in critically short wartime 
specialties.
One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear 
        officers (sec. 613)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-
qualified officers extending period of active service, the 
nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual 
incentive bonus.
One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated 
        special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the 
general bonus authority for officers, special bonus and 
incentive pay authorities for nuclear officers, special 
aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities for officers, and 
special bonus and incentive pay authorities for officers in 
health professions, and contracting bonus for cadets and 
midshipmen enrolled in the Senior Officers' Training Corps. The 
provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to pay 
hazardous duty pay, assignment or special duty pay, skill 
incentive pay or proficiency bonus, and retention incentives 
for members qualified in critical military skills or assigned 
to high priority units.
One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 37 
        bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 
1 year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention 
bonus, assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus for 
active members, the enlistment bonus, precommissioning 
incentive pay for foreign language proficiency, the accession 
bonus for new officers in critical skills, the incentive bonus 
for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease 
personnel shortage, the incentive bonus for transfer between 
Armed Forces, and the accession bonus for officer candidates.
Increase in maximum annual amount of nuclear officer bonus pay (sec. 
        616)
    The committee recommends a provision that would increase 
the maximum annual amount of nuclear officer bonus pay to 
$50,000 for retention purposes. This provision would take 
effect January 1, 2016.
Repeal of obsolete authority to pay bonus to encourage Army personnel 
        to refer persons for enlistment in the Army (sec. 617)
    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
section 3252 of title 10, United States Code. This section 
authorized the Secretary of the Army to pay bonuses to 
encourage Army personnel to refer persons for enlistment in the 
Army. The committee notes that the recent nationwide Army 
National Guard Recruiting Assistance Program scandal, which 
defrauded the American taxpayers of millions of dollars, has 
given the committee serious doubts as to the wisdom of 
authorizing such incentive programs.

            Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances

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

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

                       Part I--Retired Pay Reform

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

                         Part II--Other Matters

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

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

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

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

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

                       Items of Special Interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report on wait-times at child development centers 

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

           Subtitle A--TRICARE and Other Health Care Benefits

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program to award 
grants to community partners to provide intensive outpatient 
programs to treat members of the Armed Forces suffering from 
post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from military sexual 
trauma, including treatment for substance abuse, depression, 
and other issues related to those conditions.

                 Subtitle B--Health Care Administration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Annual report on autism care demonstration program

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

Antimicrobial coatings

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

Continued support for diagnosis and treatment for traumatic brain 
        injury 

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

Intensive behavioral counseling

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

Mild traumatic brain injury research

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

Molecular diagnostics

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

Newborn infant screening evaluation and treatment

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

Preseparation counseling on opioid therapy for chronic pain management

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

Prosthetic socket manufacturing cells

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

Reform of the TRICARE program

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

Training for physician assistants specializing in psychiatric care

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

TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration

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

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

             Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management

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

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

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

 Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs

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

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

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

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

Designation of milestone decision authority (sec. 843)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Penalty for cost overruns (sec. 849)

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

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

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

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

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

           Subtitle D--Provisions Related to Commercial Items

Inapplicability of certain laws and regulations to the acquisition of 
        commercial items and commercially available off-the-shelf items 
        (sec. 861)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2375 of title 10, United States Code, to require the 
establishment of a list in the Defense Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement of inapplicable defense-unique statues to 
contracts for commercial items and commercial available off-
the-shelf items. These would be in addition to those 
inapplicable government-wide statutes currently listed in the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) pursuant to section 
1906(b) of title 41, United States Code.
    The committee is concerned by the growing number of 
government-unique contract clauses that are now required for 
FAR Part 12 commercial contracts. By industry estimates these 
clauses have grown since the mid-1990s from 13 to 63, and in 
some cases over 80, government-unique contract clauses today. 
With these requirements come additional costs and regulatory 
burden ultimately paid by the taxpayer while each added new 
clause limits the pool of potential commercial companies 
willing to act as defense suppliers. The committee intends that 
this provision be used by the Department of Defense to reduce 
unnecessary requirements on contractors providing commercial 
items.

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

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

Continuing validity of commercial item determinations (sec. 863)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters

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

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

Acquisition workforce (sec. 872)

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

Unified information technology services (sec. 873)

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

Cloud strategy for Department of Defense (sec. 874)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improved auditing of contracts (sec. 878)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUBZone qualified disaster areas (sec. 882)

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

Base closure HUBZones (sec. 883)

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

                       Items of Special Interest

AbilityOne Program

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

Acquisition of Commercial Test, Research, and Measurement Capability

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

Barriers to innovation from non-traditional and commercial contractors

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

Competition in the procurement of collaboration services

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

Inspector General report on pricing of engine sustainment contract

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

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

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

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

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

Review of should-cost process

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

Security and facility clearances

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

              Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Special Operations Policy and Oversight Council

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

                     Subtitle A--Financial Matters

General transfer authority (sec. 1001)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the transfer up to $4.5 billion of fiscal year 2016 funds 
authorized in division A of this Act to unforeseen higher 
priority needs in accordance with normal reprogramming 
procedures. Transfers of funds between military personnel 
authorizations would not be counted toward the dollar 
limitation in this provision.
Annual audit of financial statements of Department of Defense 
        components by independent external auditors (sec. 1002)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Department of Defense Inspector General to fulfill its 
statutory audit responsibilities to perform financial statement 
audits for the military departments and other designated 
components of the Department by contracting with independent 
external auditors. The committee notes that some organizations 
in DOD are already making use of independent audit services. 
The committee expects that this provision will allow DOD to 
complete its audit requirements in a more cost effective 
manner, by leveraging private sector expertise, and in a manner 
consistent with auditing in other government agencies. The 
committee expects that for each audit, the Inspector General 
will evaluate the qualifications of the independent external 
auditor's staff and their independence, review the scope of the 
audit work, monitor audit progress, and review, if appropriate, 
audit documentation. Upon completion of the audit, the 
Inspector General shall issue a report to Congress that 
includes the independent external auditor's opinion on the 
entity's financial statements, as well as any accompanying 
management letters and any observations on the audit or on the 
financial statements.
Treatment as part of the base budget of certain amounts authorized for 
        overseas contingency operations upon enactment of an act 
        revising the Budget Control Act discretionary spending limits 
        for fiscal year 2016 (sec. 1003)
    If an act is enacted at a later date that would revise the 
defense and non-defense discretionary spending limits in 
proportionally equal amounts, than amounts authorized in title 
XV above $50.9 billion and equal to the amount of the increase 
to the defense discretionary cap for fiscal year 2016, will be 
deemed to be authorized in title III.
Sense of Senate on sequestration (sec. 1004)
    The committee recommends a provision that would express the 
sense of the Senate on the negative impact that the statutory 
budget caps are having on the Department of Defense and United 
States national security, as well as the need for legislation 
to adjust those caps.
    The committee acknowledges that the Budget Control Act of 
2011 (BCA) represented a step forward in tackling the fiscal 
imbalances of our country. It took steps to bring down deficits 
and stabilize debt growth. It included statutory budget caps to 
ensure Congress appropriated within its means. This was an 
important improvement to address the national debt, which the 
former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike 
Mullen, once called the biggest threat to our national 
security.
    However, the BCA also included an enforcement mechanism 
known as sequestration--shortsighted, non-strategic, and 
across-the-board cuts to discretionary spending to achieve the 
BCA's budget caps. Under sequestration, the size of those 
spending reductions was designed to be so unacceptable that 
sequestration would never occur. In its place, Congress was to 
enact targeted measures to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 
trillion over 10 years. Ultimately, Congress was unable to 
fulfill this requirement and the revised budget caps went into 
effect in March 2013 with enforcement of sequestration.
    The committee understands the harmful impacts that these 
non-strategic cuts to defense spending have had on our national 
security. The readiness of our military forces have been 
degraded, equipment maintenance has been postponed, and 
employees have been furloughed. Furthermore, these 
sequestration-level budget caps are forcing the Department of 
Defense to manage the challenges today based on a spend plan 
set 4 years ago--before the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq 
and the Levant (ISIL), the Ebola crisis, and Russia's 
aggression in Ukraine.
    Additionally, the committee recognizes that there are 
important non-defense agencies tasked with protecting our 
security. From the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to the 
Department of Homeland Security, and even the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of 
Health, our nation's security and well-being are at risk of 
harm. The impacts of the BCA caps and sequestration have been 
felt across the country.
    There was success in 2013 to enact targeted cuts and adjust 
some of statutory budget caps. The Murray-Ryan Bipartisan 
Budget Act of 2013 showed there is bipartisan agreement on 
addressing the budget caps in a balanced, equal way between 
defense and non-defense accounts. The committee acknowledges 
the negative impact of the budget caps and the need to adjust 
them.

                  Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities

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

                Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

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

                      Subtitle D--Counterterrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

         Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations

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

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

Protection of Department of Defense installations (sec. 1042)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Management of military technicians (sec. 1046)

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

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

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

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

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

                    Subtitle F--Studies and Reports

Repeal of reporting requirements (sec. 1061)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Subtitle G--Other Matters

Technical and clerical amendments (sec. 1081)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Air and Missile Defense Radar backfit

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

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

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

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

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

Congressional Defense Review to Prepare for Future Strategic Challenges

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

Cruiser and dock landing ship phased modernization

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

Human industrial operations augmentation technology

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

National Guard Counterdrug Program

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

Shipbuilding industrial base and workload allocation

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

Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) Program

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

                         Legislative Provisions

Required probationary period for new employees of the Department of 
        Defense (sec. 1101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would set the 
required probationary period for new employees of the 
Department of Defense at 2 years. The provision would also give 
discretionary authority to the service secretary concerned to 
extend a probationary period of a new employee of the 
Department of Defense.
Delay of periodic step increase for civilian employees of the 
        Department of Defense based upon unacceptable performance (sec. 
        1102)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
Secretary of Defense with the authority to encourage employee 
performance by requiring satisfactory performance for purposes 
of completion of service required for periodic step increases.
    The committee notes that this provision is based on a 
recommendation of the New Beginnings Design Team, which was 
composed of management-labor personnel who came from across the 
country and represented all ranks and a wide range of 
professional backgrounds to examine the Department of Defense 
performance management system and to review the statutes and 
regulations that govern federal hiring.
Procedures for reduction in force of Department of Defense civilian 
        personnel (sec. 1103)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 
Secretary of Defense with the authority to establish procedures 
to provide that, in implementing any reduction in force for 
civilian positions in the Department of Defense in the 
competitive service or the excepted service, the determination 
of which employees shall be separated from employment in the 
Department of Defense shall be made primarily on the basis of 
performance.
United States Cyber Command workforce (sec. 1104)
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
enhanced hiring and retention authorities to the Secretary of 
Defense for civilians on the staff of the United States Cyber 
Command (CYBERCOM) and the elements of the CYBERCOM components 
of the armed services. These enhanced authorities are modeled 
after the personnel authorities in title 10 provided for the 
staff of the intelligence components of the Department of 
Defense. These authorities are also similar to those that 
Congress provided in 2014 for the cyber workforce at the 
Department of Homeland Security. The committee believes that 
these authorities are a very important factor in attracting and 
retaining the high caliber of personnel that are critical to 
the execution of the cyber warfare mission of the Department.
    The provision also would require the Secretary of Defense 
to provide a plan to Congress on implementation of these 
authorities, and an annual report from the Director of the 
Office of Personnel Management on how the authorities are being 
used.
One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation on premium 
        pay and aggregate limitation on pay for federal civilian 
        employees working overseas (sec. 1105)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1101 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as 
most recently amended by section 1101 of the Carl Levin and 
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), to extend through 
2016 the authority of heads of executive agencies to waive 
limitation on the aggregate of basic and premium pay of 
employees who perform work in an overseas location that is in 
the area of responsibility of the commander, U.S. Central 
Command (CENTCOM), or a location that was formerly in CENTCOM 
but has been moved to an area of responsibility for the 
Commander, U.S. Africa Command, in support of a military 
operation or an operation in response to a declared emergency.
Five-year extension of expedited hiring authority for designated 
        defense acquisition workforce positions (sec. 1106)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
expedited hiring authority for designated defense acquisition 
workforce positions for 5 years.
One-year extension of discretionary authority to grant allowances, 
        benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel on official duty 
        in a combat zone (sec. 1107)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1603(a) of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane 
Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234; 122 Stat. 443), to extend 
for 1 year the discretionary authority of the head of a federal 
agency to provide allowances, benefits and gratuities 
comparable to those provided by the Secretary of State to 
members of the Foreign Service under section 413 and chapter 9 
of title I of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-
465), if such individual is on official duty in Pakistan or a 
combat zone as defined by section 112(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986.
Extension of rate of overtime pay for Department of the Navy employees 
        performing work aboard or dockside in support of the nuclear 
        aircraft carrier forward deployed in Japan (sec. 1108)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 5542(a)(6)(B) of title 5, United States Code, to extend 
for 1 year the authority for a civilian employee of the 
Department of the Navy who is assigned to temporary duty to 
perform work aboard, or dockside in direct support of, the 
nuclear aircraft carrier that is forward deployed in Japan to 
receive overtime pay.
Expansion of temporary authority to make direct appointments of 
        candidates possessing bachelor's degrees to scientific and 
        engineering positions at science and technology reinvention 
        laboratories (sec. 1109)
    The committee notes that the rapid hiring authorities, 
originally authorized by section 1107(c)(1) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66), have enabled Defense laboratories to better compete with 
the private sector for the best technical talent emerging from 
our Nation's science and engineering universities. However, the 
committee also notes these authorities are still limiting the 
number of talented individuals that can be brought on board.
    Consequently, the committee recommends enhancing the 
ability of Defense laboratories to rapidly hire world-class 
technical talent by increasing the limit on the number of 
bachelor's degree holders hired under these streamlined 
procedures from 3 percent to 5 percent of total scientific 
personnel. This provision would bring the limit on bachelor's 
degree candidates in line with current limits on master's and 
doctoral level candidates.
Extension of authority for the civilian acquisition workforce personnel 
        demonstration project (sec. 1110)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1762, title 10, United States Code, to extend the 
Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project 
under that section through December 31, 2020.
Pilot program on dynamic shaping of the workforce to improve the 
        technical skills and expertise at certain Department of Defense 
        laboratories (sec. 1111)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Department of Defense (DOD) laboratories to more dynamically 
shape their technical workforces to maintain consistency with 
the accelerating pace of technological change and to meet DOD 
science and technology mission needs as effectively and 
efficiently as possible. The committee notes that the 
workforces of the defense laboratories provide technical 
support to deployed operational forces, support acquisition 
programs with technical and engineering expertise to control 
costs and improve performance, manage complex research and 
development programs on behalf of taxpayers, and perform world-
class, cutting edge research. As technology evolves and 
accelerates, the laboratories need to build and shape 
continuously the technical skills in their workforces and 
effectively move into new technical mission areas, including 
laser weapons, cyber security, cognitive science, 
biotechnology, and other cutting-edge fields of research.
    The committee notes that current personnel policies and 
practices present barriers to the ability of the laboratories 
to reshape their workforces and to meet technical needs. As a 
result, the provision would authorize a pilot program that 
would enable laboratory directors to hire technical experts 
into flexible length and renewable term appointments. A recent 
Institute for Defense Analyses study, ``Federal Term 
Appointment Hiring Authorities for Science, Technology, 
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Personnel,'' indicated that 
the use of these term appointments for science and technology 
missions had a number of benefits, including increased agency 
control in shaping its STEM workforce to meet current and 
anticipated needs, improved management of research portfolios 
through use of expertise from industry and academia, and 
enhanced ability to recruit high-quality term applicants to 
work and manage high priority research efforts. The committee 
believes that these types of appointments are also more 
consistent with the career ambitions of younger scientists and 
engineers, who are in general less attracted by the 
``employment-for-life'' model historically favored by federal 
research institutions.
    The provision would also authorize flexibility in applying 
existing authorities for accessing the expertise of recently 
retired technical personnel and in offering voluntary early 
retirement and voluntary separation incentives. The provision 
would make these workforce shaping tools more readily available 
to laboratory directors, enabling them to better shape the 
technical skill mix of the laboratories.
Pilot program on temporary exchange of financial management and 
        acquisition personnel (sec. 1112)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of the 
temporary assignment of financial management and acquisition 
personnel to nontraditional defense contractors as defined by 
section 2303(9) of title 10, United States Code, and of covered 
employees of such contractors to the Department of Defense. 
Nontraditional defense contractors are commercial companies who 
either do not do business with the Department of Defense or do 
so exclusively through commercial terms and conditions. The 
committee believes that any exchange of government personnel 
with industry designed to improve skills and knowledge of 
finance and acquisition should be with those types of firms 
that do not traditionally do business with the Department of 
Defense and as such may offer different business management 
approaches to address similar problems. These firms also do not 
pose the same potential conflict of interest concerns that any 
exchange with a traditional defense contractor would pose. This 
authority would expire on September 30, 2019.
Pilot program on enhanced pay authorities for certain acquisition and 
        technology positions in the Department of Defense (sec. 1113)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of 
using a higher level pay authority to attract and retain high 
quality acquisition and technology experts in positions 
responsible for management and developing complex, high cost, 
technological acquisition efforts of the Department of Defense. 
The committee is concerned that in some cases the Department of 
Defense cannot competitively compensate the senior level 
government program managers and engineers required for the 
government to oversee major defense acquisition programs. This 
provision would allow in select cases for the Department of 
Defense to pay a higher rate of compensation to recruit and 
retain senior acquisition officials who are exceptionally well 
qualified. These officials would be limited to a 5 year term 
that should correspond to a major weapons systems program 
development or execution period as defined elsewhere in this 
Act. This authority would expire on October 1, 2020.
Pilot program on direct hire authority for veteran technical experts 
        into the defense acquisition workforce (sec. 1114)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
5-year pilot program for the service acquisition executives of 
each military department to directly appoint qualified veteran 
candidates for scientific, technical, engineering, and 
mathematics positions in the defense acquisition activities. 
This direct hire authority would be limited to no more than 1 
percent of the total number of positions in the acquisition 
workforce in each military department that are filled as of the 
close of the previous fiscal year.
Direct hire authority for technical experts into the defense 
        acquisition workforce (sec. 1115)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the service secretaries of each military department to directly 
appoint qualified candidates possessing a scientific or 
engineering degree to positions in the defense acquisition 
activities. This direct hire authority would be limited to no 
more than 5 percent of the total number of scientific and 
engineering positions in the acquisition workforce in each 
military department that are filled as of the close of the 
previous fiscal year. This authority would expire December 31, 
2020.

                       Items of Special Interest

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

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

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

                  Subtitle A--Training and Assistance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would make up to 
$10.0 million available during fiscal year 2016 for the 
Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP) in Afghanistan 
under section 1201 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) as amended. The 
provision would also authorize certain payments to redress 
injury and loss in Iraq in accordance with the authorities and 
limitations in section 8121 of the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act, 2015 (division C of Public Law 113-235), 
other than subsection (h) of such section.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through December 31, 2016, the authority under section 1222 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 
(Public Law 112-239) to transfer defense articles being drawn 
down in Afghanistan, and to provide defense services in 
connection with such transfers, to the military and security 
forces of Afghanistan. The provision would also extend through 
fiscal year 2016 the exemption for excess defense articles 
(EDA) transferred from Department of Defense stocks in 
Afghanistan from counting toward the annual limitation on the 
aggregate value of EDA transferred under section 516 of the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Public Law 87-195).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modification of protection for Afghan allies (sec. 1227)

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

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend 
through fiscal year 2016 the authority under section 1215 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
(Public Law 112-81) as amended, for the Secretary of Defense to 
support the operations and activities of the Office of Security 
Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I). The provision would authorize the 
use of up to $80.0 million in fiscal year 2016 to support OSC-I 
operations and activities.
    The provision would also update reporting requirements to 
reflect the need for OSC-I to coordinate efforts with 
assistance provided pursuant to section 1236 of the Carl Levin 
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) and the 
committee's concern for maintaining accountability of equipment 
provided to the Government of Iraq.

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

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

                  Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Iran

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

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

         Subtitle D--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation

Ukraine security assistance initiative (sec. 1251)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of 
State, to provide security assistance and intelligence support 
to military and other security forces of the Government of 
Ukraine for the purposes of: (1) enhancing the defensive combat 
capabilities of the military and other security forces of the 
Government of Ukraine to defend Ukraine against further 
aggression; (2) assisting Ukraine in developing combat 
capability to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity 
of Ukraine; and (3) supporting Ukraine in defending itself 
against actions by Russia and Russian-backed separatists in 
violation of the ceasefire agreements of September 5, 2014, and 
February 11, 2015.
    The committee notes that the authority granted in this 
provision would not authorize the use of the United States 
Armed Forces on the ground in Ukraine for the purpose of 
conducting combat operations.
    The committee is deeply concerned about the continuing 
aggression by Russia and Russian-backed separatists in 
violation of the ceasefire and continues to emphasize the 
importance of providing security assistance and intelligence 
support, including lethal military assistance, to the 
Government of Ukraine to build its capacity to defend its 
territory and sovereignty and to support the integrity of the 
ceasefire agreement.
    The committee notes the commencement of training of 
Ukrainian security forces using the authority under section 
1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012 (Public Law 112-81), as amended, for the Global Security 
Contingency Fund and supports the expansion of this program to 
additional units of the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior and 
Ministry of Defense.

Eastern European Training Initiative (sec. 1252)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary 
of State, to conduct the Eastern European Training Initiative 
(EETI) to provide multilateral or regional training, and pay 
the incremental expenses of participating in such training, for 
countries in Eastern Europe that are a signatory to the 
Partnership for Peace Framework Documents but not a member of 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or that became a 
NATO member after January 1, 1999. The committee notes the 
purpose of such training is to promote interoperability, 
improve the ability of participating countries to respond to 
external threats including from hybrid warfare, and increase 
the ability of NATO to take collective action when required.
    The committee believes that training under the EETI should 
be provided only to the newer NATO members and appropriate non-
NATO countries participating in the NATO Partnership for Peace 
program, in particular those countries that are at risk or may 
become at risk of intimidation from external threats to their 
sovereignty or territorial integrity from neighboring 
countries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South China Sea Initiative (Sec. 1261)

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

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

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

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

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

                Subtitle F--Reports and Related Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       Subtitle G--Other Matters

NATO Special Operations Headquarters (sec. 1281)

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

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

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Additional Analysis of People's Liberation Army Cyber Capabilities 

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

Annual report on the military power of Iran

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

Briefing on United States Unmanned Aerial System Export Requests

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

Countering Russian propaganda 

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

Designation of lead Inspector General for Overseas Contingency 
        Operations in Afghanistan 

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

Organizational management of Department of Defense security assistance 
        programs 

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

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

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

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

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

United States-Indonesia military cooperation 

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

                    Subtitle A--Funding Allocations

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 1301)
    The committee recommends a provision that would define the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds 
as authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill, 
and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 
fiscal years.

Funding allocations (sec. 1302)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$358.5 million, the amount of the budget request, for the 
Cooperative Threat Reduction program.
                    TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

                     Subtitle A--Military Programs

Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the appropriations for the Defense Working Capital Funds at the 
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the appropriations for the National Defense Sealift Fund at 
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1403)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the appropriations for Chemical Agents and Munitions 
Destruction, Defense, at levels identified in section 4501 of 
division D of this Act.
Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1404)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the appropriations for Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug 
Activities, Defense-wide, at the levels identified in section 
4501 of division D of this Act.
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1405)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of 
the Department of Defense at the levels identified in section 
4501 of division D of this Act.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1406)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the Defense Health Program activities at the 
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.

                       Subtitle B--Other Matters

Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of Defense-
        Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration 
        Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois 
        (sec. 1411)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to transfer $120.4 million from the 
Defense Health Program to the Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration 
Fund created by section 1704 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) for 
the operations of the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health 
Care Center.
Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 
        1412)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$64.3 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2016 for the 
operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
Inspections of the Armed Forces Retirement Home by the Inspector 
        General of the Department of Defense (sec. 1413)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1518 of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 
(24 U.S.C. 418) to require the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense to conduct an inspection of the Armed 
Forces Retirement Home not less than once every 3 years and to 
authorize the Inspector General to determine the scope of the 
inspection through a risk-based analysis of the operations of 
the home. The provision would also remove the requirement for 
the Inspector General to provide the report not later than 90 
days after the inspection.

                              Budget Items

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

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

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

Department of Defense Inspector General procurement reduction

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

Defense Health Program (sec. 1406)

    The amount authorized to be funded for the Defense Health 
Program includes the following changes from the budget request.

                    [Changes in millions of dollars]
 
 
 
Reduction for combating antibiotic resistant bacteria.             -16.5
    Total.............................................             -16.5
 

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

Foreign currency fluctuation deduction

    The budget request included $32.2 billion for Defense 
Health Program.
    The committee believes that when foreign currency 
fluctuation (FCF) rates are determined by the Department of 
Defense, the balance of the FCF funds should be considered, 
particularly if the balance is close to the cap of $970.0 
million. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has 
informed the committee that as of March 2015, the Department 
has not transferred in any prior year unobligated balances to 
replenish the account for fiscal year 2015 from a beginning 
balance of $970.0 million. GAO analysis projects that the 
Department will experience a net gain of $739.8 million in 
fiscal year 2015 due to favorable foreign exchange rates, of 
which $456.1 million is attributed to Operation and Maintenance 
(O&M). Additionally, GAO analysis projects the Department will 
experience a net gain of $891.4 million in fiscal year 2016 in 
FCF, of which $587.4 million is attributed to O&M.
    Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $36.4 
million from Defense Health Program for FCF.

                       Items of Special Interest

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

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

Comptroller General review of electronic waste recycling

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

         Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations

Purpose (sec. 1501)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
this title and make authorization of appropriations available 
upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in 
addition to amounts otherwise authorized in this Act.
Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations.
Procurement (sec. 1503)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the additional appropriation for procurement activities at the 
levels identified in section 4102 of division D of this Act.
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1504)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the additional appropriation for research, development, test, 
and evaluation activities at the levels identified in section 
4202 of division D of this Act.
Operation and Maintenance (sec. 1505)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the additional appropriations for operation and maintenance 
activities at the levels identified in section 4302 of division 
D of this Act.
Military personnel (sec. 1506)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the additional appropriations for military personnel activities 
at the levels identified in section 4402 of division D of this 
Act.
Working capital funds (sec. 1507)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the additional appropriations for the Defense Working Capital 
Funds at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of 
this Act.

Drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-wide (sec. 1508)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the additional appropriations for the Drug Interdiction and 
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide at the levels identified 
in section 4502 of division D of this Act.

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the additional appropriations for the Office of the Inspector 
General of the Department of Defense identified in section 4502 
of division D of this Act.

Defense Health Program (sec. 1510)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the additional appropriations for the Defense Health Program 
activities identified in section 4502 of division D of this 
Act.

Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (sec. 1511)

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

                     Subtitle B--Financial Matters

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)

    The committee recommends a provision that would state that 
the amounts authorized to be appropriated in this title are in 
addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by 
this Act.

                 Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)

    The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 
Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $4.0 billion of overseas 
contingency operation funding authorized for fiscal year 2016 
in this title. This transfer authority would be in addition to 
the authority provided to the Secretary elsewhere in this Act.

          Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1531)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require 
that amounts authorized for the Afghanistan Security Forces 
Fund (ASFF) for fiscal year 2016 continue to be subject to the 
conditions specified in subsections (b) through (g) of section 
1513 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended. The provision would also 
extend the authority under subsection 1532(b) of the Carl Levin 
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) to accept certain 
equipment procured using ASFF funds and to treat such equipment 
as Department of Defense stocks.

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1532)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund and would 
thereby provide the Secretary of Defense with the authority to 
investigate, develop and provide equipment, supplies, services, 
training, facilities, personnel, and funds to assist in the 
defeat of improvised explosive devices for operations in 
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other operations or military 
missions designated by the Secretary.
    The committee notes that JIEDDO has continued to reduce its 
size from a peak of more than 4,200 personnel and a $4.5 
billion annual budget to 1,100 personnel and $450.0 million, 
with plans to reduce further. The committee awaits the plan to 
consolidate and align all of the rapid acquisition or quick 
reaction capability organizations, including JIEDDO, and 
certain other organizations as directed in section 1533 of the 
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), 
and where appropriate to eliminate such organizations.
    The committee expects that the decision on JIEDDO's 
disposition (consolidation with another defense agency, 
military service entity, or stand-alone organization) will be 
made as part of the Secretary's review to streamline the 
Department of Defense management and operational headquarters. 
The streamlining of Department of Defense management and 
operational headquarters is described in another provision in 
title III of this Act.

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

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

                              Budget Items

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund

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

Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq

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

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

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

Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund

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

Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative

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

                       Items of Special Interest

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Analysis Tool

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

                      Subtitle A--Space Activities

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

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

Principal advisor on space control (sec. 1602)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 1605 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public 
Law 113-291) to include improvements in communications 
capability as a goal of pilot programs for commercial satellite 
communications.
    The committee notes the effort the Department has made 
towards pathfinder pilot projects for satellite communications 
capability. However, the committee is concerned that the 
Department is focused solely on savings for legacy satellite 
communication capability and not also seeking to achieve 
potential order-of-magnitude improvements in satellite 
capability at current or lower costs. For example, the 
Department should consider pilot projects that address the 
growing demand for full-motion video in support of 
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) platforms 
used by combatant commanders.
    The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 
prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later than 
June 30, 2016 on the status and plans for this pilot program.

Streamline commercial space launch activities (sec. 1613)

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

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

Authorization of Military Cyber Operations (sec. 1621)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$10.6 million of the unobligated amounts made available in 
fiscal years 2014 and 2015 for the Army for the procurement of 
a relocatable Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility 
(SCIF) for the Cyber Center of Excellence at Fort Gordon, 
Georgia.
    The Department of Defense requested $10.6 million, on 
behalf of the Army, on February 6, 2015, for a new start 
approval to transfer funding to procure six SCIF-level 
classrooms. According to the reprogramining documentation (DoD 
Serial Number FY 15-06PA) provided to the committee, the Army 
has a new requirement for the Cyber Center of Excellence at 
Fort Gordon, Georgia to establish a cyber-school in fiscal year 
2015 for which six SCIF-level classrooms will be necessary to 
support the anticipated training throughput.
    The committee strongly supports the rapid development and 
deployment of a well-trained and highly capable Cyber Mission 
Force. However, the committee believes requests for new-start 
authorizations through the reprograming process should be 
limited only to the most urgent circumstances and should be 
directly linked to an urgent warfighting need as identified by 
a combatant commander or the Joint Chiefs of Staff through an 
urgent operational needs or similar request. While the 
reprogramming request did not reach that threshold, the 
committee does believe the request has merit and meets 
validated requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends it 
be authorized in this Act.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to evaluate the cyber vulnerabilities of 
every major Department of Defense weapons system by not later 
than December 31, 2019.
    The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to 
develop a plan, within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, 
identifying the weapons systems that will be evaluated and an 
estimate of the funding required for conducting the 
assessments. The provision would require the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff to prioritize the order of system 
evaluations based on the criticality of each major weapon 
system, the employment of forces, and threats. The provision 
would require that the assessments build upon and not be 
duplicative of ongoing efforts such as the Navy's ``Task Force 
Cyber Awakening'' and the Air Force's ``Task Force Cyber 
Secure.'' The provision would require the Secretary to keep the 
congressional defense committees regularly apprised of the 
activities underway, to include the number of completed 
evaluations and the number of evaluations remaining. The 
provision would require the Secretary to develop strategies for 
mitigating the risks of cyber vulnerabilities to major weapons 
systems. The provision would also authorize $200.0 million to 
begin the cyber vulnerabilities assessments in fiscal year 
2016.
    The committee believes that this evaluation should cover 
all major weapons systems and that exceptions should be 
limited. Any decision to exempt a particular weapons system 
from being evaluated requires a certification to the 
congressional defense committees that an assessment is not 
necessary because a cyber vulnerability would have minimal 
operational impact.

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

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

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

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

                       Subtitle C--Nuclear Forces

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

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

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

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

Assessment of global nuclear environment (sec. 1633)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  Subtitle D--Missile Defense Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Airborne boost phase defense system (sec. 1648)

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

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

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

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

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

                       Subtitle E--Other Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              Budget Items

Conventional prompt global strike

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

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

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

Fiber combining laser prototype

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

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

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

Multiple Object Kill Vehicle 

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

Operationally Responsive Space program 

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

Redesigned Kill Vehicle 

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

Sharkseer zero day defense for enterprise email 

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

Standard Missile-3 block IB

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

U.S. Cyber Command Technology Development 

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

                       Items of Special Interest

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

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

Comptroller General review of space system acquisition and acquisition 
        oversight 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report on Advanced Extremely High Frequency Terminals for bomber 
        aircraft 

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

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

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

Report on space-based missile defense interceptor 

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

Reserve component Cyber Protection Teams 

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

Solid Rocket Motor industrial base

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

Space control modeling and simulation range

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

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

    The committee appreciates the unique importance of U.S. FAA 
licensed spacesports and recognizes and when appropriate, 
encourages the use of U.S. FAA commercially-licensed spaceports 
and launch and range complexes that provide mid- to low-
inclination orbits or polar high-inclination orbits in support 
of national security space capabilities. The committee 
recognizes that these federally-licensed, non-federally owned 
launch facilities, are available to meet the requirements for 
the national security space program from the Department of 
Defense (DOD), Air Force Space Command.
    The Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska (PSCA) has supported 
numerous launches for Air Force Space Command including 
specific national security launches. It remains the only 
commercial polar launch range available in the United States 
and PSCA, a state-of-the-industry spaceport on Kodiak Island, 
Alaska, provides access to space for vital government and 
commercial interests. The Mid Atlantic Regional Spaceport 
(MARS) at Wallops Island, Virginia provides medium-class and 
small-class launch capabilities for the DOD. It has launched 
numerous missions for DOD with its agency partners, Air Force 
Space Command, ORS, and MDA. MARS provides assured/responsive 
access to mid-to-low inclination orbits for payloads up to 
14,000 lbs.
    The committee believes that these two facilities can be 
used, when appropriate, to support the national security space 
program.

Upgrades to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System

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

Summary and explanation of funding tables
    Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military 
construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It 
includes funding authorizations for the construction and 
operation of military family housing as well as military 
construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies, 
and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 
Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure 
accounts that fund military construction, environmental 
cleanup, and other activities required to implement the 
decisions in base closure rounds.
    The tables contained in this Act provide the project-level 
authorizations for the military construction funding authorized 
in Division B of this Act and summarize that funding by 
account.
    The fiscal year 2016 budget requested $8.3 billion for 
military construction and housing programs. Of this amount, 
$6.6 billion was requested for military construction, $1.4 
billion for the construction and operation of family housing, 
and $251.3 million for base closure activities.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations 
for military construction, housing programs, and base closure 
activities totaling $8.3 billion. The total amount authorized 
for appropriations reflects the committee's continuing 
commitment to invest in the recapitalization of DOD facilities 
and infrastructure.
Short title (sec. 2001)
    The committee recommends a provision that would designate 
division B of this Act as the ``Military Construction 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.''
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by 
        law (sec. 2002)
    The committee recommends a provision that would establish 
the expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military 
construction projects, land acquisition, family housing 
projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization Security Investment Program as of October 1, 2018, 
or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for 
military construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is later.
                 TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $743.3 million for military construction and $493.2 million 
for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2016.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$721.7 million for military construction and $493.2 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2016.
    The budget request included $37.0 million for an 
instruction facility for the U.S. Army Band at Joint Base Myer-
Henderson Hall, Virginia. The committee recommends no funding 
for this project and applies the savings to higher priority 
unfunded military construction projects in fiscal year 2016. 
The committee believes that many of the challenges associated 
with the current facility may be addressed through a 
combination of facilities additions, minor military 
construction, and/or renovation.
    The budget request included $43.0 million for a Homeland 
Defense Operations Center at Joint Base San Antonio, Texas. The 
committee defers consideration of the authorization for this 
facility until after the completion of the plan for reducing 
administrative and headquarters activities required elsewhere 
in this bill.
    Additionally, the committee recommends a reduction of $52.0 
million from prior-year authorization of appropriations to 
reflect project cancellations and bid savings and applies such 
savings to high priority unfunded military construction 
projects in fiscal year 2016.
    The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times 
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of 
other priorities and notes the Army has identified significant 
unfunded military construction priorities, including two access 
control points at Fort Meade, Maryland and an unaccompanied 
personnel barracks at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The committee notes 
that these projects were identified as the top priorities of 
the Chief of Staff of the Army and Commander of U.S. Southern 
Command, respectively. Funding for these projects has been 
added as outlined in the tables in sections 2101 and 4601.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Active Duty component of 
the Army for fiscal year 2016. The authorized amounts are 
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2102)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units 
for the Army for fiscal year 2016. This provision would also 
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, 
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and 
storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Army to improve existing family housing 
units of the Department of the Army in an amount not to exceed 
$3.5 million.
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the active component military construction 
and family housing projects of the Army authorized for 
construction for fiscal year 2016. This provision would also 
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military 
construction and family housing projects for the Active-Duty 
component of the Army. The state list contained in this report 
is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 project 
        (sec. 2105)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B 
of Public Law 112-239) for construction of a cadet barracks 
building at the United States Military Academy, New York, to 
include mechanical equipment and associated distribution lines.

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 
        2106)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization contained in section 2101 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B 
of Public Law 112-81) for three projects until October 1, 2016, 
or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for 
military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.

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

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization contained in section 2101 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B 
of Public Law 112-239) for seven projects until October 1, 
2016, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds 
for military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is 
later.

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

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

Limitation on construction of new facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 
        (sec. 2109)

    The committee recommends a provision that would limit 
funding authorized by the bill for new facilities at Guantanamo 
Bay, Cuba, until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the 
congressional defense committees that any new construction of 
facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have enduring military 
value independent of a high-value detention mission.
                 TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $1.6 billion for military construction and $369.6 million 
for family housing for the Navy for fiscal year 2016.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$1.7 billion for military construction and $369.6 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2016.
    The budget request included $44.5 million for a raw water 
pipeline from Camp Pendleton to the City of Fallbrook in order 
to allow the city to access water from the Santa Margarita 
watershed. The project would also provide upgrades to the 
existing Camp Pendleton water system. The committee notes that 
the requested project is intended to represent a physical 
solution to ongoing litigation over water rights between the 
Fallbrook Public Utilities District (FPUD) and the Navy. 
However, given that negotiations between the Navy and the FPUD 
to resolve this litigation are ongoing, the committee believes 
that this project is early to need. Therefore, the committee 
recommends no funds for this project and directs the Secretary 
of the Navy to submit a rescoped project that would provide the 
funds needed for the upgrade of the Camp Pendleton water 
system. The Secretary may, to the extent funds are provided 
from the State of California, the City of Fallbrook, or another 
source outside the Department of Defense, enter into an 
agreement to construct both the military and civilian elements 
of the projects as outlined by the Omnibus Public Land 
Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11). Prior to entering 
into such an agreement, the Secretary is directed to notify the 
congressional defense committees of the proposed terms 
including the cost allocation between the Department of Defense 
and civilian authorities.
    The budget request also included $48.3 million for the 
Townsend Range Expansion, including $5.0 million for two 
civilian fire stations in Long and McIntosh Counties, Georgia. 
The committee authorizes $43.3 million for the Townsend Range 
expansion without the two civilian fire stations. The committee 
does not believe the Navy has the authority to construct fire 
stations for which it will not have operational control.
    The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times 
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of 
other priorities and notes the Navy has identified significant 
unfunded priorities for military construction in support of the 
Marine Corps, including air field security improvements at 
Cherry Point, North Carolina; a KC-130J enlisted air crew 
trainer at Miramar, California; an LHD pad conversion and new 
MV-22 landing pads at Marine Corps base, Hawaii; range safety 
improvements at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; installation 
operations facilities at Camp Pendleton, California; and a 
replacement fire station for the Basic School at Quantico, 
Virginia. The committee notes that these projects were 
identified as the top priorities of the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps. Funding for these projects has been added as 
outlined in the tables in sections 2201 and 4601.
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 
year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2202)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units 
for the Navy for fiscal year 2016. This provision would also 
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, 
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and 
storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Navy to improve existing family housing 
units of the Department of the Navy in an amount not to exceed 
$11.5 million.
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the Active Duty component military 
construction and family housing projects of the Department of 
the Navy authorized for construction for fiscal year 2016. This 
provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount 
authorized for military construction and family housing 
projects for the Active-Duty components of the Navy and the 
Marine Corps. The state list contained in this report is the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 
        2205)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B 
of Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1666), for three projects until 
October 1, 2016, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2017, whichever is later.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec. 
        2206)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B 
of Public Law 112-239), for seven projects until October 1, 
2016, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds 
for military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is 
later.
              TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $1.4 billion for military construction and $491.7 million 
for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2016.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$1.4 billion for military construction and $491.7 million for 
family housing for fiscal year 2016.
    Additionally, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 
million from prior-year authorization of appropriations to 
reflect project cancellations and bid savings and applies such 
savings to high priority unfunded military construction 
projects in fiscal year 2016.
    The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times 
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of 
other priorities and notes the Air Force has identified 
significant unfunded military construction priorities 
including: a new communications facility at Luke Air Force 
Base, Arizona; a fixed ground control station facility at 
Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico; an air traffic control 
tower at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas; an expansion of the 
Air Support Operations Center at Fort Drum, New York; and a 
consolidated communications facility at Barksdale Air Force 
Base, Louisiana. The committee notes that these projects were 
identified as the top priorities of the Chief of Staff of the 
Air Force. Funding for these projects has been added as 
outlined in the tables in sections 2301 and 4601.

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 
        2301)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
Air Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2016. 
The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis.

Family housing (sec. 2302)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units 
for the Air Force for fiscal year 2016. This provision would 
also authorize funds for facilities that support family 
housing, including housing management offices, housing 
maintenance, and storage facilities.

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of the Air Force to improve existing family 
housing units of the Department of the Air Force in an amount 
not to exceed $150.7 million.

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the active component military construction 
and family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for 
construction for fiscal year 2016. This provision would also 
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military 
construction and family housing projects for the active-duty 
component of the Air Force. The state list contained in this 
report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized 
at each location.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 project 
        (sec. 2305)

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2301(a) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) for a ground control tower at Hickam Air Force Base, 
Hawaii, to include the installation of communications cabling.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2014 project 
        (sec. 2306)

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2301 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) for 
the construction of an operations facility at Royal Air Force 
Station Lakenheath, United Kingdom, to allow for construction 
at an unspecified worldwide location.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2015 project 
        (sec. 2307)

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2301 of the Carl Levin and 
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) for the construction 
of a KC-46A Alter Composite maintenance shop at McConnell Air 
Force Base, Kansas, to allow for a 7,500 square foot facility 
consistent with Air Force guidelines for such facilities.

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2012 project (sec. 
        2308)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization contained in section 2301 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B 
of Public Law 112-81) for one project until October 1, 2016, or 
the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for 
military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 project (sec. 
        2309)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization contained in section 2301 of the Military 
Construction Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public Law 
112-239) for one project until October 1, 2016, or the date of 
the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military 
construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.
           TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

Summary
    The budget request included authorization of appropriations 
of $2.3 billion for military construction for the defense 
agencies and $58.7 million for family housing for the defense 
agencies for fiscal year 2016.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$2.1 billion for military construction and $58.7 million for 
family housing for the defense agencies for fiscal year 2016.
    The budget request included $49.7 million for the Defense 
Logistics Agency Headquarters Facility Replacement at 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The committee defers consideration 
of the authorization for this facility until after the 
completion of the plan for reducing administrative and 
headquarters activities required elsewhere in this bill.
    Additionally, the committee recommends a decrease of $120.0 
million from prior-year authorization of appropriations to 
reflect project cancellations and bid savings and applies such 
savings to high priority unfunded military construction 
projects in fiscal year 2016.
Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2401)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the defense agencies for 
fiscal year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation 
projects. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-
by-installation basis.
Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the military construction and family housing 
projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction 
for fiscal year 2016. This provision would also provide an 
overall limit on the amount authorized for military 
construction and family housing projects for the defense 
agencies. The state list contained in this report is the 
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 
location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2012 project 
        (sec. 2404)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authority contained in section 2401 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B 
of Public Law 112-81) for the High Performance Computing Center 
at Fort Meade, Maryland, to include a generator plant capable 
of providing 60 megawatts of backup electrical power.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 
        2405)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization contained in section 2401 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B 
of Public Law 112-81) for three projects until October 1, 2016, 
or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for 
military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec. 
        2406)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization contained in section 2401 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B 
of Public Law 112-239) for eight projects until October 1, 
2016, of the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for 
the military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is 
later.
Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
        year 2014 project (sec. 2407)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2401 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B 
of Public Law 113-66) for an ambulatory health center at Fort 
Knox, Kentucky, which was subsequently cancelled by the 
Department of Defense, by substituting authorization for a 
102,000 square foot medical clinic at the same location and 
extending the authority until October 1, 2018, or the date of 
the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military 
construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is later. With the 
drawdown in military personnel at Fort Knox, the required level 
of medical support has been similarly reduced.
   TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT 
                                PROGRAM

Summary

    The Department of Defense requested authorization of 
appropriations of $120.0 million for military construction in 
fiscal year 2016 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
(NATO) Security Investment Program. The committee recommends 
the requested amount.

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an 
amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized 
in section 2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due 
to the United States for construction previously financed by 
the United States.

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations of $120.0 million for the U.S. contribution to 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment 
Program for fiscal year 2016.
            TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

Summary
    The Department of Defense requested authorization of 
appropriations of $517.3 million for military construction in 
fiscal year 2016 for facilities for the National Guard and 
reserve components.
    The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 
$636.8 million for military construction in fiscal year 2016 
for facilities for the National Guard and reserve components. 
The detailed funding recommendations are contained in the state 
list table included in this report.
    The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times 
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of 
other priorities and notes the National Guard and Reserve 
forces have identified significant unfunded military 
construction priorities, including a tactical aerial unmanned 
systems hangar at Fort Stewart, Georgia; an equipment 
concentration point at Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia; an access 
control point at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico; an aviation 
classification and repair depot at Gulfport, Mississippi; a 
fire station/security complex at Dobbins, Georgia; a space 
control facility at Cape Canaveral, Florida; an F-22 composite 
repair facility at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii; a 
building modification for the KC-46 fuselage trainer at Pease, 
New Hampshire; operations and deployment facilities at Bradley 
Air National Guard Base, Connecticut; and a vehicle maintenance 
shop at Camp Foley, Alabama. The committee notes that these 
projects were identified as the top unfunded priorities of 
their respective service chiefs or the Chief of the National 
Guard Bureau. Funding for these projects has been added as 
outlined in the tables in this title and section 4601.

Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorizations of Appropriations

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 
        projects (sec. 2601)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Army National Guard for 
fiscal year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2602)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal 
year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land 
        acquisition projects (sec. 2603)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine 
Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2016. The authorized amounts are 
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 
        projects (sec. 2604)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Air National Guard for 
fiscal year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 
        (sec. 2605)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for 
fiscal year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an 
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for the reserve component military construction 
projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2016 in 
this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on 
the amount authorized for military construction projects for 
each of the reserve components of the military departments. The 
state list contained in this report is the binding list of the 
specific projects authorized at each location.

                       Subtitle B--Other Matters

Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain fiscal 
        year 2013 project (sec. 2611)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorization contained in section 2602 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B 
of Public Law 112-81) for construction of an Army Reserve 
Center at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, to allow its 
construction in the vicinity at Aberdeen Proving Ground. The 
provision would also extend the authorization for this project 
until October 1, 2016, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2017, whichever is later.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2015 
        projects (sec. 2612)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 
authorizations contained in section 2604 and 2605 of the 
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 
(division B of Public Law 113-291), for construction of a 
Guardian Angel Operations facility at Davis-Monthan Air Force 
Base, Arizona, and construction of a consolidated Secure 
Compartmented Information Facility at Fort Smith Municipal 
Airport, Arkansas to provide for increased costs associated 
with these projects.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec. 
        2613)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization contained in section 2602 of the Military 
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B 
of Public Law 112-81) for two projects until October 1, 2016, 
or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for 
military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec. 
        2614)
    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
authorization contained in sections 2601, 2602, and 2603 of the 
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 
(division B of Public Law 112-239) for five projects until 
October 1, 2016, or the date of the enactment of an act 
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 
2017, whichever is later.
          TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES

Summary and explanation of tables
    The budget request included $251.3 million for the ongoing 
cost of environmental remediation and other activities 
necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 
1995, and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. The 
committee recommends this amount. The detailed funding 
recommendations are contained in the state list table included 
in this report.
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure 
        activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure 
        Account (sec. 2701)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for ongoing activities that 
are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 
1993, 1995, and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds.

Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and closure 
        (BRAC) round (sec. 2702)

    The committee recommends a provision that would make clear 
that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize a 
future Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. Elsewhere in 
the bill, the committee recommends a reduction of $10.5 million 
for BRAC planning activities.
         TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS

 Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 
                                Changes

Authority for acceptance and use of contributions for certain mutually 
        beneficial projects (sec. 2801)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
Subchapter II of Chapter 138 of title 10, United States Code, 
to authorize the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
Secretary of State, to accept cash contributions from partner 
countries for the purpose of the payment of costs in connection 
with mutually beneficial construction, maintenance, and repair 
projects. Such projects would be required to support bilateral 
defense cooperation agreement, or otherwise benefit the United 
States, as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
Change in authorities relating to scope of work variations for military 
        construction projects (sec. 2802)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a 
military service to increase the scope of a military 
construction project by up to 10 percent once the service 
secretary involved approves the increase and notifies the 
congressional defense committees of the increase and the 
reasons for it.
    The committee recognizes that there are valid reasons why 
the square footage of a facility might be appropriately 
increased as new electronic systems are incorporated, new 
security requirements are identified, or other needs emerge 
after authorization. Rather than requiring a delay in the 
project as new authority is sought, or sub-optimizing the 
project in order to avoid delays, the committee believes that 
the ability of a service to increase the scope by up to 10 
percent, subject to congressional notification and a waiting 
period of 14 days, is warranted.
Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and 
        maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas 
        outside the United States (sec. 2803)
    The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize 
contingency construction authority in certain areas outside the 
United States for an additional year.
Modification of reporting requirement on in-kind construction and 
        renovation payments (sec. 2804)
    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to provide an annual report to the 
congressional defense committees on the in-kind construction 
and renovation payments received by the Department of Defense 
during the preceding fiscal year.
    The provision would also repeal the existing requirement 
for the Comptroller General to provide such a report.
Lab modernization pilot program (sec. 2805)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to use funds appropriated to the 
Department of Defense for research, development, test, and 
evaluation (RDT&E) for the construction of laboratory 
facilities at Department of Defense RDT&E installations. Such 
projects would be required to comply with section 2802 of title 
10, United States Code, be included in the President's budget 
submission, and be specifically appropriated for such purposes. 
Authorized facilities would also be required to support the 
science and technology requirements of more than one military 
department or agency, or a technology development program 
consistent with the technology offset program authorized 
elsewhere in this Act.
Conveyance to Indian tribes of certain housing units (sec. 2806)
    The committee recommends a provision that would permit 
service secretaries to convey excess relocatable military 
housing units to certain Indian tribes, at no cost, and without 
consideration. The provision also provides a mechanism that 
would allow tribes to make requests to the military services. 
The recommended provision would expand the existing Air Force 
program for conveyance of relocatable military housing units 
enacted by section 2308 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) and allows for 
conveyance of excess relocatable military housing units by 
other military services.

        Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration

Utility systems conveyance authority (sec. 2811)
    The committee recommends a provision that would clarify 
section 2688(j) of title 10, United States Code, to allow for 
conveyance of additional utility systems to an entity already 
operating other utility systems on a joint base if doing so 
would be in the best interest of the government and is 
supported by an independent cost estimate.
    The committee notes that there has been confusion about 
whether the definition of a utility system for the treatment of 
wastewater includes the treatment of stormwater. The committee 
believes, consistent with the Department of Defense's 
interpretation, that wastewater includes stormwater.
Leasing of non-excess property of military departments and defense 
        agencies; treatment of value provided by local education 
        agencies and elementary and secondary schools (sec. 2812)
    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, by authorizing 
the Secretary concerned to lease non-excess property for 
consideration in an amount below fair market value if the lease 
is to a local education agency or an elementary or secondary 
school. This provision is intended to help local education 
agencies and schools that are providing support for military 
families.
Modification of facility repair notification requirement (sec. 2813)
    The committee recommends a provision that would modify 
section 2811 of title 10, United States Code, by adding new 
congressional notifications for facility repair projects that 
are expected to cost more than 75 percent of the estimated cost 
of a military construction project to replace the facility or 
the facility is located at an overseas location that has not 
been designated a main operating base or forward operating 
site. These new reporting requirements would only apply to 
facility repair projects that are expected to cost more than 
$1.0 million.

Increase of threshold of notice and wait requirement for certain 
        facilities for reserve components and parity with authority for 
        unspecified minor military construction and repair projects 
        (sec. 2814)

    The committee recommends a provision that would modify 
section 18233a of title 10, United States Code, relating to 
unspecified minor military construction and repair of 
facilities for the reserve components to conform to sections 
2805 and 2811 of title 10, United States Code.

                      Subtitle C--Land Conveyances

Release of reversionary interest retained as part of the conveyance to 
        the economic development alliance of Jefferson County, Arkansas 
        (sec. 2821)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 
terms of conveyance contained in section 2827 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 104-
201) to allow the conveyance for other than the conditions 
contained in the section 2827, if the Economic Development 
Alliance pays fair market value for the property and the costs 
associated with conveyance are born by the Economic Development 
Alliance.

                       Items of Special Interest

Kwajalein Atoll infrastructure

    The committee recognizes the unique and important nature of 
test facilities on the Kwajalein Atoll and appreciates the U.S. 
Army Installation Management Command's (IMCOM) Long-Term 
Management Plan for the Kwajalein Atoll, submitted to the 
committee on February 9, 2015. However, given the remote 
location and the difficult environmental conditions present on 
the atoll, the committee believes that continued vigilance and 
additional facilities investments will be necessary in future 
years to maintain required capabilities. Therefore, the 
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide the 
congressional defense committees an updated report on the 
IMCOM's infrastructure goals and an updated 5-year profile of 
planned facilities recapitalization for the Kwajalein Atoll 
with the fiscal year 2017 budget request and subsequent budget 
requests through fiscal year 2021. Furthermore, the committee 
notes that elsewhere in this Act, an additional $34.0 million 
has been provided to correct facilities sustainment, 
recapitalization, and maintenance deficiencies identified as an 
unfunded requirement by the Chief of Staff of the Army.

Military construction delay report

    The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) and the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-117) included $10.7 million for the construction of a 
control tower at Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Multiple 
contract problems have caused an unacceptable delay in the 
construction of the tower and although it was projected to be 
completed by fiscal year 2012, it is still not finished.
    The committee is concerned about mission and cost impacts 
caused by the delays associated with this project. Therefore, 
the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide 
a report to the congressional defense committees, not later 
than August 1, 2015, detailing the timeline from passage of the 
Fiscal Year 2010 Authorization and Appropriations Acts to the 
completion of the tower and an explanation of delays and cost 
increases associated with this project. The report should also 
include any remedial, legal, or disciplinary actions taken 
against contractors or others involved in the delays and cost 
issues and any lessons learned that could be applied to future 
projects.

Military construction supporting major range and test facility bases

    The committee is concerned about the lack of investment and 
sustainment of Major Range and Test Facility Bases (MRTFB). The 
committee notes that in the last 5 years only seven Military 
Construction (MILCON) projects have been requested in direct 
support of test and evaluation missions at MRTFBs nationwide. 
In fact, some MRTFBs have not received a MILCON project in 
support of test and evaluation missions in over a decade. The 
committee is also aware that the Strategic Plan for Department 
of Defense Test & Evaluation (T&E) Resources from March 2013, 
noted, ``Due to age and outmoded technology, many test 
facilities are increasingly difficult to sustain and/or 
maintain. Obsolescence and deterioration contribute 
significantly to increased levels of maintenance, reductions in 
reliability, and an overall increase in operating costs. 
Services are under pressure to keep existing ground test 
facilities viable and relevant to meet immediate and forecasted 
needs. Across all services, there has been a downward trend in 
T&E MILCON appropriations to address ongoing maintenance, 
sustainment, and modernization needs of our T&E facilities. 
Further analysis is required (e.g., recapitalization rate) to 
provide a comprehensive assessment of MRTFB-only MILCON needs 
and investments.''
    The committee recognizes the difficult overall budget 
environment for MILCON, but notes that the Department of 
Defense's fiscal year 2016 budget request still only funds two 
additional MILCON projects in direct support of test and 
evaluation missions. The committee awaits the comprehensive 
assessment of MRTFB-only MILCON needs and investments, and 
urges the Department of Defense to ensure appropriate funding 
is requested to support current and projected future 
operations.

Military training ranges for Special Operations Forces

    The committee notes that in the report submitted to 
Congress in response to section 344 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) on 
Training Range Infrastructure for Special Operations Forces, 
the Commander of United States Special Operations Command 
(SOCOM) noted that while SOCOM and the Services have worked 
together to greatly improve the access to and capabilities at 
training ranges used by Special Operations Forces (SOF), 
defense budget reductions have forced the military services to 
``reduce or eliminate training range modernization and 
recapitalization programs and to reduce sustainment and 
operating funds.'' These budget reductions have a direct impact 
on training and overall readiness of SOF at a time of continued 
high operational tempo and evolving threats are stretching the 
ability of training ranges to support the unique training 
requirements of SOF.
    The committee receives annual updates from the Department 
of Defense (DOD) on the status of all test and training ranges 
through Sustainable Ranges Reports (SRR) to Congress, which 
summarizes the DOD's actions to ensure the long-term 
sustainability of its training ranges. The SRR responds to 
Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314), which requires DOD 
to develop and submit to Congress a comprehensive plan to 
address training constraints caused by limitations on the use 
of available military lands, marine areas, and airspace in the 
United States and overseas. While each service identifies in 
the report critical issues affecting the training of general 
purpose forces, the unique training requirements of SOF are 
rarely specifically addressed.
    The committee notes that in the December 2013 submission of 
the 2025 Air Test and Training Range Enhancement Plan, in 
response to section 343 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), the Air Force 
described efforts with SOCOM to transform the Melrose Military 
Range in New Mexico into a premier range supporting SOF and its 
intent to partner with SOCOM on future investments. However, 
the report does not satisfy the requirement of section 343 to 
submit a list of prioritized improvements and modernization of 
the facilities, equipment, and technology supporting the 
infrastructure in order to provide a test and training 
environment that accurately simulates and or portrays the full 
spectrum of threats and targets of likely United States 
adversaries in 2025 nor does it propose a list of prioritized 
projects, easements, acquisitions, or other actions, including 
estimated costs required to upgrade the test and training range 
infrastructure, taking into consideration the criteria set 
forth in the legislation.
    Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 
to submit a report, not later than March 1, 2016, on a 
comprehensive range plan to include proposed investments over 
the next five years by the Air Force and SOCOM to address the 
training range requirements of Melrose Range. The report should 
describe requirements and proposed funding to maximize the 
available range training space and safety margins for air to 
ground integration training with other DOD and SOCOM 
components. The report should also describe any planned 
transition from basic bombing and gunnery to integrated air and 
ground training and any associated requirements for expansion 
of land or infrastructure at the range. The report should note 
the extent to which such requirements are addressed in the 
budget request for fiscal year 2017 and future years defense 
plan.
    The committee also strongly encourages the Secretary of 
Defense to include in future SRR reports to Congress a review 
of the general capabilities, critical issues, and future 
capabilities necessary for ranges supporting unique SOF 
training requirements.

Redevelopment of the former Indiana Army Ammunition Plant

    The committee is aware of ongoing efforts between the Army 
and the local reuse authority to finalize property conveyance 
at the inactivated Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (INAAP). This 
conveyance was authorized by the Strom Thurmond National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-
736) for the purpose of developing the site ``as an industrial 
park to replace all or part of the economic activity lost at 
the inactivated plant.'' In executing land transfers, the Army 
is obligated to fully comply with requirements of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
Liability Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-510) and the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-580). In 
return, the local reuse authority is obligated by statute to 
pay fair market value for conveyed property as determined by 
the Secretary in accordance with Federal appraisal standards 
and procedures. The committee expects both the Army and the 
local reuse authority to abide by the mutually-agreed terms of 
the Memorandum of Agreement governing the conveyance and to 
work in good faith to resolve environmental and liability 
concerns related to hazardous waste on the property. The 
committee further encourages the Army and the local reuse 
authority to expedite actions necessary to execute remaining 
conveyances in a timely fashion.

Repair by replacement

    The committee is aware that some within the Department of 
Defense interpret section 2811 of title 10, United States Code, 
as providing authority to conduct ``repair by replacement'' or, 
in other words, replacement of an entire facility using 
operation and maintenance funds. However, the committee notes 
that section 2811 specifically prohibits the ``construction of 
new facilities or additions to existing facilities.'' Under 
this authority, replacement of a component of a complete and 
useable facility or system is allowable so long as it does not 
increase the capacity of the component or facility (unless to 
correct a life, safety, or code deficiency), but replacement of 
an entire facility is prohibited and should be accomplished via 
military construction.
    Given confusion within the Department regarding allowable 
activities under section 2811, the committee urges the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense Energy, Installations and 
Environment to review relevant written guidance memoranda and 
issue clarifications as necessary.

Safe and suitable housing for junior enlisted servicemembers

    The committee believes that the services have a 
responsibility to provide safe and suitable housing for 
servicemembers--including junior enlisted personnel living in 
unaccompanied housing.
    The committee notes the unacceptable conditions of Building 
191 at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Building 191 violates current 
state and federal building and fire codes, does not have an 
operational fire suppression system, and features heating, 
ventilation, air conditioning, power distribution, and lighting 
systems that are at the end of their life cycle. The same 
barracks building does not have code compliant fresh air 
ventilation and there have been sewage failures, rodent 
problems, mold problems, and regular hot water failure.
    The committee believes junior enlisted sailors should not 
have to live in such conditions. The committee is concerned 
that the project to tear down Building 191--and replace it with 
a new Junior Enlisted Unaccompanied House (P-285)--was 
originally planned for fiscal year 2015 and has been postponed 
to fiscal year 2016 and then to fiscal year 2018. The committee 
believes it is difficult for the Navy to justify continued 
deferral of P-285, especially in light of some of the lower 
priority military construction projects in its FY 2016 request 
and given the unacceptable conditions found in Building 191 at 
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
    In the fiscal year 2017 budget request, the committee 
expects the Navy to request funding for P-285 or to justify why 
such a request is not a priority for the Navy.
 DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
                          OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

      TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

Overview
    Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy 
defense activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 
2016, including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of 
plant and capital equipment; research and development; nuclear 
weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration 
and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses 
necessary to carry out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
Organization Act (Public Law 95-91). This title authorizes 
appropriations in three categories: (1) National Nuclear 
Security Administration; (2) defense environmental cleanup; and 
(3) other defense activities.
    The committee recommends a provision allocating funding 
consistent with the funding allocations in section 4701. The 
committee notes that recent actions taken at the Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), and its projected initial 
operating date of March 2016, necessitate quarterly reporting 
to the congressional defense committees on actions taken 
towards bringing WIPP towards full operational status, 
including key milestones, status of any capital projects under 
Department of Energy Order 413.3, as well as obligations and 
expenditures of fiscal year 2015 funding. Such reporting shall 
be due within 30 days of the quarter for which it is reporting. 
The committee further requests the General Accountability 
Office review these quarterly updates and report to the 
congressional defense committees on significant findings and 
trends in the above tasks.
    The committee further directs the Government Accountability 
Office to continue its ongoing evaluation of the Hanford Waste 
Treatment Plant in the areas of cost-schedule performance, 
technology readiness levels, contractor assurance system, and 
other agreements to be mutually agreed upon with a briefing to 
the committee due no later than February 28, 2016.

         Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 
total of $12.8 billion for the Department of Energy in fiscal 
year 2015 for the National Nuclear Security Administration to 
carry out programs necessary to national security.
Defense environmental clean-up (sec. 3102)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$5.1 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities at 
the Department of Energy. The defense environmental cleanup 
activities support the cleanup of contaminated facilities, 
soil, ground, and surface water, and the treatment and disposal 
of radioactive and other waste generated through the production 
of nuclear weapons and weapons materials.

Other defense activities (sec. 3103)

    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
$774.4 million for other defense activities for fiscal year 
2016, including funds for health, safety, and security, the 
Office of Legacy Management, and Nuclear Energy.

   Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

Responsive capabilities program (sec. 3111)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA) to establish and carry out a program to exercise the 
technical capabilities of the NNSA with respect to design and 
production of nuclear weapons to ensure that NNSA is ready to 
respond to future uncertainties not addressed by existing life 
extension programs.
    The program shall be integrated across the science, 
engineering, design, and manufacturing cycle of the NNSA, and 
integrate physics, engineering, and production capabilities 
into joint test assemblies and designs. The program shall 
result in: (1) Physics models of components and systems, 
capable of being certified as safe and reliable in the absence 
of testing, and contribute to the predictive design framework; 
(2) shortened engineering design cycles that minimize the 
amount of time leading to an engineering prototype; and (3) 
rapid manufacturing capabilities to reduce the time and cost of 
production.
    In January 2015, the United States Strategic Command issued 
a report titled ``Report on Balance in Nuclear Weapons 
Program.'' The report found that ``the nation requires an agile 
and capable infrastructure with requisite capacities able to 
respond to technical and geopolitical developments. Investments 
in processing and production infrastructure are needed to 
enhance the nation's ability to respond to uncertainty. 
Additionally, a full design and production capability is a 
critical component of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.''
    The committee notes it is the view of the Director of the 
Sandia National Laboratory that we must ``engage in a long-term 
transformation of the approach to the design, development, 
qualification, and production of nuclear weapons. Lowering the 
cost, reducing the time to deploy, and being responsive to 
changing external threats will help assure we continue to meet 
the nation's needs into the future. The nature of the emerging 
threat itself provides another strategic reason for ensuring we 
are not surprised.'' Likewise, the Director of the Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory has told this committee that 
``mission success depends on the laboratories' science and 
technology excellence and their ability to deliver innovative, 
cost-efficient solutions.''
    The committee authorizes $20.0 million in fiscal year 2016, 
identified elsewhere in the committee report, to commence a 
responsive capabilities program.

Long-term plan for meeting national security requirements for 
        unencumbered uranium (sec. 3112)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Energy to submit a plan, on even-numbered years, 
with the President's budget submission, for meeting the 
national security requirements for unencumbered uranium through 
2065. Unencumbered uranium is uranium for which the United 
States has no obligations to foreign governments to use uranium 
only for peaceful purposes. The committee remains concerned 
about accurately accounting for the inventory of existing 
unencumbered uranium that is allocated for national security 
purposes as well as future costs for any future production 
options being considered and policy options that could help 
offset such costs.

Defense nuclear nonproliferation management plan (sec. 3113)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require in 
each odd numbered year that the Administrator, National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA), submit a management plan of 
defense nuclear nonproliferation programs of the NNSA. Updates 
to this plan are required in each even numbered year.

Plan for deactivation and decommissioning of nonoperational defense 
        nuclear facilities (sec. 3114)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Energy to develop a plan to perform a cost-benefit 
analysis of defense nuclear facilities requiring deactivation 
and decommissioning as to whether they should be kept in cold 
shutdown awaiting demolition, or accelerated to save long-term 
storage costs. The plan will be required beginning every even 
calendar year no later than March 31, 2016, and end after the 
fifth report submission on March 31, 2026. The committee is 
concerned about the large inventory of nonoperational buildings 
at active defense nuclear facilities, such as at the Y-12 
plant, some dating to the Manhattan Project, that continue to 
sit idle and must be continuously maintained in a safe 
condition by the National Nuclear Security Administration 
instead of being transferred to the Office of Environmental 
Management for demolition. The accelerated cleanup of the Rocky 
Flats plant saved the taxpayer billions of dollars. The 
committee expects the Department of Energy will take a similar 
approach with these facilities.

Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant contract oversight 
        (sec. 3115)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Energy to arrange to have an owner's agent assist 
the Secretary in carrying out oversight responsibilities 
associated with Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization 
Plant contract DE-AC27-01RV14136. Since the current contractor 
for the Waste Treatment Plant is its own design agent, the 
owner's design agent will act as an independent expert on the 
project.

Assessment of emergency preparedness of defense nuclear facilities 
        (sec. 3116)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Energy to include in each award-fee evaluation 
conducted of a management and operating contract for a 
Department of Energy defense nuclear facility in 2016, or any 
even-numbered year thereafter, an assessment of the adequacy of 
the emergency preparedness of that facility, including an 
assessment of the seniority level of employees and contractors 
of the Department of Energy that participate in emergency 
preparedness exercises at that facility.
    The committee is concerned that on September 3, 2014, the 
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) issued a 
recommendation to the Department of Energy that it make 
specific improvements in its emergency management directive and 
strengthen the implementation of its emergency management 
requirements to ensure the continued protection of workers and 
the public. The DNFSB attributed observed problems to the 
absence of sound emergency preparedness and response programs 
at defense nuclear facilities. The committee notes that the 
Secretary of Energy accepted the recommendation on November 7, 
2014, and is in the process of developing an implementation 
plan to accomplish the improvements.

Laboratory- and facility-directed research and development programs 
        (sec. 3117)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 4811(c) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 
2791(c)) to strike the 6 percent upper bound for National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) weapons laboratory-
directed research and development programs with a floor not to 
go below 5 percent and with an upper bound not to exceed 8 
percent. The committee recommends a similar provision 
recommended for NNSA weapons production facilities and the 
Nevada Site Office with an upper bound of 4 percent. These 
funds have served as the source of new innovations throughout 
the NNSA complex, keeping scientists and engineers at the 
cutting edge of technology, which translates into cost-saving 
innovations for the nation's stockpile program, with an ability 
to meet any future uncertainties that might arise. The funds 
are also used to attract young scientists and engineers to 
mentor under senior personnel to ensure there is a fresh talent 
pool coming into the NNSA complex on an enduring basis.

Limitation on bonuses for employees of the National Nuclear Security 
        Administration who engage in improper program management (sec. 
        3118)

    The committee recommends a provision that would provide 
authority to the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration to withhold bonus payments to employees who 
engage in improper program management on the date such a 
determination is made.

Modification of authorized personnel levels of the Office of the 
        Administrator for Nuclear Security (sec. 3119)

    The committee recommends a provision that permits the 
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA) to hire above the statutory limit of 1,690 full-time 
positions using up to 100 exempt employees hired under section 
3241 of the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (50 
U.S.C section 2441). The committee recognizes the need of the 
NNSA to hire positions that are unique to the Administration in 
areas such as cost evaluation, program management, science and 
engineering, and encourages the Administrator to use exempt 
hiring to bring new expertise into the NNSA.

Modification of submission of assessments of certain budget requests 
        relating to the nuclear weapons stockpile (sec. 3120)

    The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) annual reporting 
deadline for reviewing the budget of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA) weapons program from 90 days to 
150 days in odd-numbered years when NNSA is required to submit 
a detailed Stockpile Stewardship Management Plan (SSMP).
    Each fiscal year, section 3113 of the Ike Skelton National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383), requires GAO to report not later than 90 days after NNSA 
submits its nuclear security budget material to Congress on an 
assessment of whether the budget materials provide sufficient 
funding for the modernization of the nuclear security 
enterprise. GAO reviews budgetary materials that include the 
SSMP, which NNSA is required to develop in consultation with 
the Department of Defense. GAO would be required to submit a 
detailed report in odd-numbered years and a summary in even-
numbered years. However, for the odd-numbered years, NNSA's 
detailed SSMP is frequently issued 60 days after the agency 
issues its nuclear security budget materials. This delay 
significantly reduces GAO's time to review detailed SSMP 
information and still meet the 90-day statutory reporting 
deadline.

Repeal of phase three review of certain defense environmental cleanup 
        projects (sec. 3121)

    The committee recommends a provision that would repeal 
phase three of section 3134 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) as 
the Government Accountability Office has reported on all phases 
of this project.

Modifications to cost-benefit analysis for competition of management 
        and operating contracts (sec. 3122)

    The committee recommends a provision that would amend 
section 3121 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to make technical 
corrections to increase the utility of reports on competition 
for management and operating contracts at facilities of the 
National Nuclear Security Administration and change the timing 
of the Government Accountability Office's review to assess 
whether estimated cost savings and other benefits are actually 
occurring as planned.

Review of implementation of recommendations of the Congressional 
        Advisory Panel on the governance of the Nuclear Security 
        Enterprise (sec. 3123)

    The committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
to enter into agreements with the National Academy of Sciences 
and the National Academy of Pubic Administration to assess 
implementation of recommendations of the Congressional Advisory 
Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise that 
can be carried out without additional legislation. In addition 
to monitoring implementation, the agreement should specify that 
the two entities should determine whether the implementation 
was effective in addressing the problem it was intended to 
solve. The agreement shall utilize the procedures of the 
National Academies in reviewing and publishing the joint 
report.

                              Budget Items

Defense Environmental Cleanup, Los Alamos National Laboratory

    The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to 
the Department of Energy Defense Environmental Clean-up account 
to accelerate the cleanup of transuranic waste at the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, and in particular to enhance the 
ability to sort, track and re-package transuranic waste drums. 
These actions are needed to avoid future preventable incidents 
associated with the Los Alamos drum that underwent an 
exothermic reaction at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.

Deferred Maintenance

    The budget request for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) contained $257.7 million for 
Recapitalization and $227.0 million for Maintenance. 
Respectively, these programs fund day-to-day preventative or 
corrective maintenance activities and efforts to reduce the 
large backlog of deferred maintenance across the nuclear 
security enterprise. Fiscal Year 2016 budget justification 
materials submitted by NNSA note that NNSA's deferred 
maintenance backlog is over $3.6 billion and growing.
    The committee is encouraged that the Administrator and the 
Secretary have taken steps to stop the growth in the backlog of 
deferred maintenance, but believes more must be done to 
actually decrease the total amount of the backlog. Therefore, 
the committee recommends $407.7 million for Recapitalization, 
an increase of $150.0 million to the budget request.

Enhanced surveillance

    The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to 
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Weapons 
Account, Engineering, Enhanced Surveillance. This program 
provides important models and tools used to predict the aging 
of nuclear weapons systems, which is of importance to combatant 
commanders and the Nuclear Weapons Council in determining 
whether a life-extension program will be required.

Plutonium disposition program

    The Department of Energy (DOE) continues to struggle with 
its plutonium disposition program, the intent of which is for 
the United States and Russia to each dispose of 34 metric tons 
of surplus weapons-grade plutonium--an agreement between the 
two countries was signed in 2000 and updated in 2011. The 
existing strategy is based on constructing a facility to 
fabricate mixed oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel and irradiating this 
fuel in specially-modified commercial nuclear reactors. Once 
used and removed from a reactor, the plutonium can no longer be 
readily used to make a nuclear weapon.
    In 2013, in light of the cost increases and the current 
budget environment associated with the MOX facility and the 
overall Plutonium Disposition program, DOE's fiscal year 2014 
budget request stated that the strategy for converting 
plutonium to MOX fuel may be much higher than initially 
anticipated. The budget request announced that, as a result of 
these projected cost increases, the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) would slow down activities associated 
with the current plutonium disposition strategy and conduct an 
analysis of alternatives to complete the mission more 
efficiently.
    In April 2014, DOE released its analysis of the existing 
MOX strategy and four other alternatives including downblending 
the 34 metric tons and disposing this material at DOE's Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), or at a new repository that would 
need to be constructed if WIPP could not be modified to dispose 
of this downblended material. The April 2014 analysis found 
that the downblending option was significantly less expensive 
than the other four alternatives examined.
    An April 2015 independent analysis conducted by the 
Aerospace Corporation of the lifecycle costs associated with 
the MOX and downblended options also concluded that the 
downblending option was significantly less expensive than the 
MOX option. Although cost is a factor in considering 
disposition strategies, it is important to note that the only 
option that meets the requirements outlined in the Plutonium 
Management and Disposition Act PMDA, signed by the United 
States and Russia, is MOX. All other alternatives would not 
only require that we renegotiate the PMDA with Russia, but will 
likely also require statutory and regulatory changes that could 
cause additional delay.
    The committee is concerned, however, that these analyses 
inadequately assessed the technical, regulatory, and political 
feasibility of the downblending option. To address these 
inadequacies, the committee directs NNSA to prepare an analysis 
of the downblending option that includes answers to the 
following questions:
          (1) What is the capital cost, operating and 
        maintenance cost, other program costs, and overall 
        lifecycle costs associated with the optimal 
        downblending strategy?
          (2) What is the existing subscribed capacity at WIPP 
        and how would DOE accommodate the volume of downblended 
        material from the 34 metric tons from the plutonium 
        disposition program? Since WIPP is currently not 
        accepting transuranic waste as a result of the February 
        2014 accident, and thus created a backlog of waste that 
        is being temporarily stored at multiple sites, when 
        would the first shipment of plutonium be transported to 
        WIPP if this option was selected? What costs are 
        associated with this delay?
          (3) Would the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act need to be 
        modified to accommodate this additional volume? If yes, 
        how long with this likely take to complete? What, if 
        any, costs are associated with this delay?
          (4) Are there statutory changes or other regulations 
        that would need to be modified to support the 
        downblending option? If so, how long would it take to 
        change these regulations and what are the associated 
        costs?
          (5) Would a new geologic repository be needed to 
        accommodate all or some of this additional volume? If 
        so, what would be the potential cost and schedule of 
        siting, constructing, and operating such a repository? 
        By way of comparison, what was the capital cost of 
        constructing WIPP?
          (6) What is the optimal blending of weapons-grade 
        plutonium with inert material to maximize space in a 
        repository?
          (7) How might the percentage of plutonium in 
        containers of downblended material affect the security 
        requirements associated with transporting the material 
        to a repository, the security requirements at the 
        repository, and the ability of international monitors 
        to monitor the downblended material in a repository?
          (8) What are the nonproliferation and arms control 
        concerns associated with disposing of weapons-grade 
        plutonium in containers that lack a radioactive barrier 
        in a repository?
          (9) Would the PMDA need to be renegotiated if MOX was 
        no longer the preferred option for the United States to 
        dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium? What are the 
        concerns associated with this action?
          (10) What are the technical impediments to 
        downblending weapons-grade plutonium from pit and non-
        pit sources?
          (11) What are the views of the US Environmental 
        Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
        and State of New Mexico in pursuing a downblend 
        strategy?
    The fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $345.0 million 
in Nonproliferation Construction for the MOX Fuel Fabrication 
Facility (MFFF). The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 
million for Nonproliferation Construction to support analysis 
of the downblending alternative. The committee requests that 
all cost analyses conducted as part of this analysis follow the 
best practice guidance of the Government Accountability 
Office's (GAO) Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.
    The committee requests the Department of Energy to conduct 
a two-step analysis of alternative uses for the MOX Fuel 
Fabrication Facility (MFFF) should an alternative plutonium 
disposition strategy be adopted and this facility were no 
longer needed for this purpose. To preserve the long-term 
mission for the Savannah River Site, (1) identify potential 
long-term mission needs at the Savannah River Site over the 
next 30 to 50 years, and (2) using best practices identified by 
the GAO, conduct an analysis of alternatives to identify how 
these mission needs could be met by using the MOX Fuel 
Fabrication Facility.
    The analysis for the downblending option and the 
alternatives to using the MFFF shall be due to the 
congressional defense committees no later than October 31, 
2015. The committee directs the Government Accountability 
Office to review the NNSA analysis as outlined in this section 
with a report to the congressional defense committees no later 
than 30 days after receipt of the NNSA analysis.

Responsive capabilities program

    The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in 
fiscal year 2016 to support the establishment of a new 
responsive capabilities program within the National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA). Elsewhere in this bill, the 
committee recommends a provision that would require the 
Administrator of the NNSA to establish and carry out a program 
to exercise the technical capabilities of the NNSA with respect 
to design and production of nuclear weapons to ensure that NNSA 
is ready to respond to future uncertainties not addressed by 
existing life-extension programs.
    The program shall be integrated across the science, 
engineering, design, and manufacturing cycle of the NNSA, and 
integrate physics, engineering, and production capabilities 
into joint test assemblies and designs. The program shall 
result in: (1) physics models of components and systems, 
capable of being certified as safe and reliable in the absence 
of testing, and contribute to the predictive design framework; 
(2) shortened engineering design cycles that minimize the 
amount of time leading to an engineering prototype; and (3) 
rapid manufacturing capabilities to reduce the time and cost of 
production.

Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund 

    The committee notes that a legislative assumption 
accompanies the budget request of $471.8 million for the 
uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund, to 
reauthorize section 1101 of the Energy Policy Act of 2002 
(Public Law 102-48, 42 U.S.C. 2297g) for matching industry 
contributions. As in fiscal year 2015, this legislation was not 
reauthorized and the committee assumes it will not be 
reauthorized again this year. Accordingly, the committee 
recommends a decrease of $471.8 million.

                       Items of Special Interest

Ability of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to communicate 
        with the Secretary of Energy 

    Section 312 of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, as amended, (42 
U.S.C. 2268a) says in part ``Mission--The mission of the Board 
shall be to provide independent analysis, advice and 
recommendations to the Secretary of Energy to inform the 
Secretary in the role of operator and regulator of defense 
nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy, in providing 
adequate protection of public health and safety at such defense 
nuclear facilities.'' Due to the recent reorganization of the 
Department to form an Office of the Undersecretary for 
Management and Performance, the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
Safety Board (DNFSB) no longer reports directly to the 
Secretary of Energy. It has been lowered within this relatively 
new organization to the Associate Under Secretary for 
Environment, Health, Safety and Security. This re-organization 
leaves the committee with the impression that the Department is 
not adhering to the statutory language (as found in section 
312), and intent of the DNFSB organization act, and that is to 
report to the Secretary of Energy on matters concerning the 
adequate protection of the public health and safety of defense 
nuclear facilities.
    The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to report to 
the congressional defense committees no later than February 28, 
2016 on actions the Secretary will or has taken to ensure that 
the DNFSB has the ability to interact with, and report to the 
Secretary of Energy (as found in section 312 of the DNFSB 
organization act) on matters involving adequate protection of 
the public health and safety of defense nuclear facilities.

Interoperable Warhead--1

    The committee recognizes that future life extension 
programs for U.S. nuclear weapons components and stockpile 
systems, such as the Interoperable Warhead--1 (IW-1), will face 
technical challenges. Maintaining readiness to meet these 
challenges during the 5 year delay of the IW-1 program, which 
will develop the first interoperable nuclear packages for both 
Air Force and Navy ballistic missile systems under the Nuclear 
Weapons Council's ``3+2'' strategy, is important for future 
confidence in the nation's nuclear deterrent. Technical 
capabilities essential to our nuclear readiness reside in the 
National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) national 
laboratories and production and testing organizations; they 
comprise areas of nuclear design and engineering, advanced 
simulation and experimentation, science, surveillance, and 
production.
    Technical questions concerning IW-1 need to be understood 
and addressed. Integration of the IW-1 nuclear package into 
different Air Force and Navy missiles with different space, 
weight, and operational requirements, while assuring the 
accuracy of warhead delivery in both systems, could be 
problematic. This and other concerns will also pertain to 
future life-extension programs beyond IW-1. For example, the 
goal to enhance surety of stockpile systems increases technical 
challenges. Optimizing system design to best meet requirements 
involves technical trade studies, presently incomplete for the 
IW-1, that draw on all nuclear capabilities listed above to 
ensure component and weapon system certification. Other 
difficult technical questions surround pit reuse, which may 
become a key ingredient of life extension programs in the 
future. In addition to drawing on nuclear design, simulation, 
experimental validation capabilities, trade studies concerning 
pit reuse will involve pit production capability and capacity 
issues.
    The committee feels strongly that maintaining the readiness 
of scientists, engineers and production staff by challenging 
them to address these and other crucial technical issues during 
the 5-year delay of the IW-1 program will be essential to this 
and other stockpile life extension programs.

Lithium supply and demand 

    The Administrator of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration shall report to the congressional defense 
committees no later than February 28, 2016 on the supply and 
demand for lithium to be used on weapons production through 
2045.

Microlab Technology Transfer 

    The committee is aware that directors of national 
laboratories, as well as a Brookings Institution study, have 
recognized that most national laboratories are located outside 
of major metropolitan areas, and most lab research occurs 
``behind the fence'' of main campuses, inaccessible to the 
public. The study recommends establishing off-campus microlabs 
that would serve as the ``front-door'' to national laboratories 
to give academia, local government, businesses owners, and 
communities direct access to the equipment, facilities, and 
personnel of national labs.
    The committee therefore directs the Administrator to work 
with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) lab 
directors to develop a plan for a ``microlab'' program in order 
to accelerate technology transfer from NNSA national 
laboratories, weapons production plants and facilities operated 
by the Nevada Site Office to private industry. The committee 
expects the Administrator to include an estimate of the 
associated costs, need, and benefit for establishing a microlab 
at a facility, and require cost-sharing from academia, local 
government, and private industry. The committee encourages the 
Administrator to work with the Department of Energy's Office of 
Technology Transitions and consider utilizing funds under the 
statutorily created Energy Technology Commercialization Fund 
(TCF) to help establish the federal share of establishing a 
microlab. The committee directs NNSA to brief the congressional 
defense committees on the plan no later than September 31, 
2015.

Report on program management at the National Nuclear Security 
        Administration

    The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 
States to report to the congressional defense committees no 
later than February 28th, 2016, on the program management 
capabilities of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA).
    The NNSA is organized into program offices to manage a wide 
variety of programs and relies on federal program and project 
managers as well as contracting officers to ensure that 
resources are used effectively and that programs and projects 
achieve their missions on time and on budget. The committee 
believes that these officials should also be held accountable 
when resources are not used effectively, programs or projects 
do not achieve their missions on time or on budget, or when 
programs or projects experience other types of management 
challenges.
    A number of NNSA programs and projects have suffered 
significant delays and cost overruns or other forms of 
mismanagement that raise questions about how these managers 
interact, coordinate, and are held accountable. For example, 
the Government Accountability Office's 2015 high-risk report 
indicated that the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research 
Replacement project, the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, 
and the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) have all suffered 
extensive cost growth and schedule delays. In addition, the 
NNSA created a program manager position for NNSA's uranium 
program after a peer review of the UPF project found, among 
other things, that the program lacked a firm requirement in 
terms of how much uranium is needed by the program over the 
next 20 years.
    In light of these past incidents, the report shall examine: 
(1) the extent to which NNSA's programs and projects have 
program or project managers; (2) the technical qualifications 
and training required to become an NNSA program manager, 
project manager, or contracting officer and the extent to which 
those currently holding these positions meet those 
requirements; (3) the extent to which NNSA has clearly defined 
roles and responsibilities for its program managers, project 
managers, and contracting officers; and (4) the mechanisms in 
place to hold responsible officials accountable for program and 
project performance, and the extent to which NNSA has used 
these mechanisms.
          TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Authorization for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3201)
    The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board at $29.2 million.

                       DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001 )
    The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 
the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and 
activities in accordance with the tables in division D of this 
Act, subject to reprogramming in accordance with established 
procedures.
    Consistent with the previously expressed views of the 
committee, the provision would also require that decisions by 
an agency head to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a 
specific entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on 
authorized, transparent, statutory criteria, or merit-based 
selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of 
sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and 
other applicable provisions of law.
Clarification of applicability of undistributed reductions of certain 
        operation and maintenance funding among all operation and 
        maintenance funding (sec. 4002)
    The committee recommends a provision that clarifies that 
the undistributed reductions in funding for operation and 
maintenance due to bulk fuel purchases and foreign currency 
fluctuations, as shown in table 4301, can be applied to all 
operation and maintenance funding, regardless if funding is 
available in table 4301 or table 4302.
Funding tables (secs. 4101-4701)
    The committee recommends provisions that provide line-item 
guidance for the funding authorized in this Act. The provisions 
display the line-item funding requested by the administration 
in the fiscal year 2016 budget request and show where the 
committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
    The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized 
amounts, as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from 
the administration request, as set forth in budget 
justification documents of the Department of Defense, without a 
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
    SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

                         SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
                                            (In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 2016                         Senate
                                                                      Request      Senate Change    Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
              DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
 
                                           NATIONAL DEFENSE BASE BUDGET
 
                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051)
 
DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
 
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY......................................      5,689,357          26,000       5,715,357
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY.......................................      1,419,957         190,000       1,609,957
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY......................................      1,887,073          70,611       1,957,684
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY.................................      1,233,378         -10,952       1,222,426
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY.........................................      5,899,028        -358,000       5,541,028
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY......................................     16,126,405       2,346,700      18,473,105
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY.......................................      3,154,154          48,668       3,202,822
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC..................................        723,741                         723,741
SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY...............................     16,597,457       1,656,000      18,253,457
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY.........................................      6,614,715         -13,400       6,601,315
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS.......................................      1,131,418         107,885       1,239,303
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.................................     15,657,769         814,944      16,472,713
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE..................................      2,987,045                       2,987,045
SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE....................................      2,584,061        -288,569       2,295,492
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE............................      1,758,843          38,500       1,797,343
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE....................................     18,272,438          41,146      18,313,584
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE.......................................      5,130,853         210,651       5,341,504
JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND.............................         99,701                          99,701
SUBTOTAL, TITLE I--PROCUREMENT..................................    106,967,393       4,880,184     111,847,577
 
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY........................      6,924,959          91,668       7,016,627
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY........................     17,885,916          41,292      17,927,208
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF..........................     26,473,669        -533,490      25,940,179
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW..........................     18,329,861       1,507,207      19,837,068
OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE................................        170,558                         170,558
SUBTOTAL, TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION..     69,784,963       1,106,677      70,891,640
 
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY...................................     35,107,546      -8,233,294      26,874,252
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES...............................      2,665,792          18,789       2,684,581
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG...................................      6,717,977          19,119       6,737,096
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY...................................     42,200,756     -16,810,316      25,390,440
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS...........................      6,228,782      -1,931,024       4,297,758
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES...............................      1,001,758         -41,086         960,672
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.............................        277,036          -2,473         274,563
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE..............................     38,191,929     -14,242,964      23,948,965
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.............................      3,064,257        -103,216       2,961,041
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG....................................      6,956,210        -120,815       6,835,395
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE.........................     32,440,843        -998,802      31,442,041
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS....................................      1,664,342                       1,664,342
SUBTOTAL, TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..................    176,517,228     -42,446,082     134,071,146
 
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
Military Personnel Appropriations...............................    130,491,227      -1,254,500     129,236,727
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions.............      6,243,449                       6,243,449
SUBTOTAL, TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL..........................    136,734,676      -1,254,500     135,480,176
 
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY......................................         50,432                          50,432
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE.................................         62,898                          62,898
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..............................         45,084                          45,084
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA......................................      1,154,154                       1,154,154
NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND...................................        474,164                         474,164
CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION.............................        720,721                         720,721
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF....................        850,598          30,000         880,598
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.................................        316,159          -3,600         312,559
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM..........................................     32,243,328         -52,940      32,190,388
SUBTOTAL, TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.......................     35,917,538         -26,540      35,890,998
 
TOTAL, DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS.........    525,921,798     -37,740,261     488,181,537
 
DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
 
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
ARMY............................................................        743,245         -21,500         721,745
NAVY............................................................      1,605,929          59,360       1,665,289
AIR FORCE.......................................................      1,354,785          11,400       1,366,185
DEFENSE-WIDE....................................................      2,300,767        -169,700       2,131,067
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD.............................................        197,237          51,300         248,537
AIR NATIONAL GUARD..............................................        123,538          23,600         147,138
ARMY RESERVE....................................................        113,595          34,200         147,795
NAVY RESERVE....................................................         36,078                          36,078
AIR FORCE RESERVE...............................................         46,821          10,400          57,221
NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM................................        120,000                         120,000
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.................................      6,641,995            -940       6,641,055
 
FAMILY HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION, ARMY..............................................         99,695                          99,695
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY.................................        393,511                         393,511
CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS.............................         16,541                          16,541
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS................        353,036                         353,036
CONSTURCTION, AIR FORCE.........................................        160,498                         160,498
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............................        331,232                         331,232
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE.........................         58,668                          58,668
SUBTOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING........................................      1,413,181                       1,413,181
 
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
ARMY............................................................         29,691                          29,691
NAVY............................................................        157,088                         157,088
AIR FORCE.......................................................         64,555                          64,555
SUBTOTAL, BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE..........................        251,334                         251,334
 
TOTAL, DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS.........      8,306,510            -940       8,305,570
 
TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051).    534,228,308     -37,741,201     496,487,107
 
                            ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053)
 
DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS
 
                                       DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS
ENERGY PROGRAMS
NUCLEAR ENERGY..................................................        135,161                         135,161
SUBTOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS.......................................        135,161                         135,161
 
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES..............................................      8,846,948         180,000       9,026,948
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION................................      1,940,302           5,000       1,945,302
NAVAL REACTORS..................................................      1,375,496                       1,375,496
FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES...................................        402,654                         402,654
SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION..............     12,565,400         185,000      12,750,400
 
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP...................................      5,527,347        -451,797       5,075,550
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........................................        774,425                         774,425
SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES............      6,301,772        -451,797       5,849,975
 
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS...................     19,002,333        -266,797      18,735,536
 
TOTAL, DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND        19,002,333        -266,797      18,735,536
 INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS......................
 
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053)......     19,002,333        -266,797      18,735,536
 
 
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNDING, BASE BUDGET REQUEST............    553,230,641     -38,007,998     515,222,643
 
                                       NATIONAL DEFENSE OCO BUDGET REQUEST
 
                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051)
 
PROCUREMENT
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY......................................        164,987                         164,987
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY.......................................         37,260                          37,260
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY......................................         26,030                          26,030
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY.................................        192,040                         192,040
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY.........................................      1,205,596                       1,205,596
JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND............................        493,271         -48,271         445,000
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY......................................        217,394                         217,394
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY.......................................          3,344                           3,344
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC..................................        136,930                         136,930
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY.........................................         12,186                          12,186
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS.......................................         48,934                          48,934
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.................................        128,900                         128,900
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE..................................        289,142                         289,142
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE............................        228,874                         228,874
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE....................................      3,859,964                       3,859,964
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE.......................................        212,418                         212,418
SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT...........................................      7,257,270         -48,271       7,208,999
 
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY........................          1,500                           1,500
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY........................         35,747                          35,747
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF..........................         17,100                          17,100
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW..........................        137,087                         137,087
SUBTOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION............        191,434                         191,434
 
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY...................................     11,382,750       7,616,786      18,999,536
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES...............................         24,559                          24,559
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG...................................         60,845                          60,845
AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND................................      3,762,257                       3,762,257
IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND.......................................        715,000                         715,000
SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND......................................        600,000                         600,000
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY...................................      5,131,588      16,106,810      21,238,398
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS...........................        952,534       1,862,836       2,815,370
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES...............................         31,643                          31,643
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.............................          3,455                           3,455
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE..............................      9,090,013      13,312,681      22,402,694
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.............................         58,106                          58,106
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG....................................         19,900                          19,900
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE.........................      5,805,633        -100,000       5,705,633
SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............................     37,638,283      38,799,113      76,437,396
 
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS...............................      3,204,758                       3,204,758
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL....................................      3,204,758                       3,204,758
 
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE.................................          2,500                           2,500
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..............................         86,350                          86,350
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF....................        186,000                         186,000
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.................................         10,262                          10,262
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM..........................................        272,704                         272,704
COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND..............................      2,100,000      -1,100,000       1,000,000
UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE..........................              0         300,000         300,000
SUBTOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS..................................      2,657,816        -800,000       1,857,816
 
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050) OCO BUDGET REQUEST     50,949,561      37,950,842      88,900,403
 
 
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050)...................    604,180,202         -57,156     604,123,046
 
 
MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XIV--ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME (FUNCTION 600)..........         64,300                          64,300
 
MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS)
TITLE X--GENERAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY.............................     [5,000,000]                     [4,500,000]
TITLE XV--SPECIAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY............................     [3,500,000]                     [4,000,000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION

              NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
                        (In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   FY 2016       Senate        Senate
                                   Request       Change      Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   SUMMARY DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
                        ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
 
NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-           534,228,308   -37,741,201   496,487,107
 MILITARY, BASE BUDGET (051)..
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE             19,002,333      -266,797    18,735,536
 ACTIVITIES (053).............
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY              50,949,561    37,950,842    88,900,403
 OPERATIONS...................
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050).   604,180,202       -57,156   604,123,046
 
     OTHER DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS PROGRAMS OUTSIDE THE
   JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE OR ALREADY AUTHORIZED
 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051)
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT                47,000                      47,000
 PURCHASES....................
INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: DISPOSAL           6,000                       6,000
 OF DOD REAL PROPERTY.........
INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: LEASE OF          35,000                      35,000
 DOD REAL PROPERTY............
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF               88,000                      88,000
 DEFENSE-MILITARY (051).......
 
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053)
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES              104,000                     104,000
 REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM......
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY              104,000                     104,000
 DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053).....
 
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)
OTHER DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS..     7,545,000                   7,545,000
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED          7,545,000                   7,545,000
 ACTIVITIES (054).............
 
TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE               7,737,000                   7,737,000
 DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS
 (050)........................
 
             DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)
 
NATIONAL DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--          585,265,869       209,641   585,475,510
 MILITARY (051)...............
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE             19,106,333      -266,797    18,839,536
 ACTIVITIES (053).............
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES         7,545,000                   7,545,000
 (054)........................
TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY BUDGET      611,917,202       -57,156   611,860,046
 AUTHORITY IMPLICATION, 050...
 
     NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS, CURRENT LAW (CB0 BASELINE)
 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051)
CONCURRENT RECEIPT ACCRUAL         6,932,000                   6,932,000
 PAYMENTS TO THE MILITARY
 RETIREMENT FUND..............
REVOLVING, TRUST AND OTHER DOD     1,135,000                   1,135,000
 MANDATORY....................
OFFSETTING RECEIPTS...........    -1,593,000                  -1,593,000
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF            6,474,000                   6,474,000
 DEFENSE-MILITARY (051).......
 
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053)
ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL      1,168,000                   1,168,000
 ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS
 AND OTHER....................
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY            1,168,000                   1,168,000
 DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053).....
 
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)
RADIATION EXPOSURE                    59,000                      59,000
 COMPENSATION TRUST FUND......
PAYMENT TO CIA RETIREMENT FUND       514,000                     514,000
 AND OTHER....................
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED            573,000                     573,000
 ACTIVITIES (054).............
 
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE            8,215,000                   8,215,000
 MANDATORY PROGRAMS (050).....
 
      DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)
 
DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--          591,739,869       209,641   591,949,510
 MILITARY (051)...............
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE             20,274,333      -266,797    20,007,536
 ACTIVITIES (053).............
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES         8,118,000                   8,118,000
 (054)........................
TOTAL, BUDGET AUTHORITY          620,132,202       -57,156   620,075,046
 IMPLICATION (050)............
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT

TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT  (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   FY 2016 Request              Senate Change              Senate Authorized
 Line           Item        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Qty          Cost           Qty           Cost           Qty          Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        AIRCRAFT
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY
        FIXED WING
    2   UTILITY F/W                   0             879                                        0             879
         AIRCRAFT..........
    4   MQ-1 UAV...........          15         260,436                                       15         260,436
        ROTARY
    6   HELICOPTER, LIGHT            28         187,177                                       28         187,177
         UTILITY (LUH).....
    7   AH-64 APACHE BLOCK           64       1,168,461                                       64       1,168,461
         IIIA REMAN........
    8   AH-64 APACHE BLOCK            0         209,930                                        0         209,930
         IIIA REMAN (AP)...
   11   UH-60 BLACKHAWK M            94       1,435,945                                       94       1,435,945
         MODEL (MYP).......
   12   UH-60 BLACKHAWK M             0         127,079                                        0         127,079
         MODEL (MYP) (AP)..
   13   UH-60 BLACK HAWK A           40          46,641                                       40          46,641
         AND L MODELS......
   14   CH-47 HELICOPTER...          39       1,024,587                                       39       1,024,587
   15   CH-47 HELICOPTER              0          99,344                                        0          99,344
         (AP)..............
        MODIFICATION OF
         AIRCRAFT
   16   MQ-1 PAYLOAD (MIP).           0          97,543                                        0          97,543
   19   MULTI SENSOR ABN              0          95,725                                        0          95,725
         RECON (MIP).......
   20   AH-64 MODS.........           0         116,153                                        0         116,153
   21   CH-47 CARGO                   0          86,330                                        0          86,330
         HELICOPTER MODS
         (MYP).............
   22   GRCS SEMA MODS                0           4,019                                        0           4,019
         (MIP).............
   23   ARL SEMA MODS (MIP)           0          16,302                                        0          16,302
   24   EMARSS SEMA MODS              0          13,669                                        0          13,669
         (MIP).............
   25   UTILITY/CARGO                 0          16,166                                        0          16,166
         AIRPLANE MODS.....
   26   UTILITY HELICOPTER            0          13,793                                        0          13,793
         MODS..............
   28   NETWORK AND MISSION           0         112,807                                        0         112,807
         PLAN..............
   29   COMMS, NAV                    0          82,904                                        0          82,904
         SURVEILLANCE......
   30   GATM ROLLUP........           0          33,890                                        0          33,890
   31   RQ-7 UAV MODS......           0          81,444                                        0          81,444
        GROUND SUPPORT
         AVIONICS
   32   AIRCRAFT                      0          56,215                                        0          56,215
         SURVIVABILITY
         EQUIPMENT.........
   33   SURVIVABILITY CM...           0           8,917                                        0           8,917
   34   CMWS...............           0          78,348                      26,000            0         104,348
          Army UPL for AH-                                                  [26,000]
           64 ASE: urgent
           survivability
           requirement.....
        OTHER SUPPORT
   35   AVIONICS SUPPORT              0           6,937                                        0           6,937
         EQUIPMENT.........
   36   COMMON GROUND                 0          64,867                                        0          64,867
         EQUIPMENT.........
   37   AIRCREW INTEGRATED            0          44,085                                        0          44,085
         SYSTEMS...........
   38   AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL           0          94,545                                        0          94,545
   39   INDUSTRIAL                    0           1,207                                        0           1,207
         FACILITIES........
   40   LAUNCHER, 2.75                0           3,012                                        0           3,012
         ROCKET............
 
        TOTAL AIRCRAFT              280       5,689,357                      26,000          280       5,715,357
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
 
        MISSILE
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY
        SURFACE-TO-AIR
         MISSILE SYSTEM
    1   LOWER TIER AIR AND            0         115,075                                        0         115,075
         MISSILE DEFENSE
         (AMD).............
    2   MSE MISSILE........                     414,946                     200,000           80         614,946
          Army UPL for               80                                    [200,000]
           Patriot PAC 3
           for improved
           ballistic
           missile defense.
        AIR-TO-SURFACE
         MISSILE SYSTEM
    3   HELLFIRE SYS                113          27,975                                      113          27,975
         SUMMARY...........
    4   JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND           0          27,738                                        0          27,738
         MSLS (JAGM).......
        ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT
         MISSILE SYS
    5   JAVELIN (AAWS-M)            331          77,163                                      331          77,163
         SYSTEM SUMMARY....
    6   TOW 2 SYSTEM              1,704          87,525                                    1,704          87,525
         SUMMARY...........
    8   GUIDED MLRS ROCKET        1,668         251,060                                    1,668         251,060
         (GMLRS)...........
    9   MLRS REDUCED RANGE        3,121          17,428                                    3,121          17,428
         PRACTICE ROCKETS
         (RRPR)............
        MODIFICATIONS
   11   PATRIOT MODS.......           0         241,883                                        0         241,883
   12   ATACMS MODS........                      30,119                     -10,000            0          20,119
          Early to need....           0                                    [-10,000]
   13   GMLRS MOD..........           0          18,221                                        0          18,221
   14   STINGER MODS.......           0           2,216                                        0           2,216
   15   AVENGER MODS.......           0           6,171                                        0           6,171
   16   ITAS/TOW MODS......           0          19,576                                        0          19,576
   17   MLRS MODS..........           0          35,970                                        0          35,970
   18   HIMARS                        0           3,148                                        0           3,148
         MODIFICATIONS.....
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
   19   SPARES AND REPAIR             0          33,778                                        0          33,778
         PARTS.............
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
   20   AIR DEFENSE TARGETS           0           3,717                                        0           3,717
   21   ITEMS LESS THAN               0           1,544                                        0           1,544
         $5.0M (MISSILES)..
   22   PRODUCTION BASE               0           4,704                                        0           4,704
         SUPPORT...........
 
        TOTAL MISSILE             7,017       1,419,957                     190,000        7,017       1,609,957
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
 
        PROCUREMENT OF
         W&TCV, ARMY
        TRACKED COMBAT
         VEHICLES
    1   STRYKER VEHICLE....           0         181,245                                        0         181,245
        MODIFICATION OF
         TRACKED COMBAT
         VEHICLES
    2   STRYKER (MOD)......           0          74,085                                        0          74,085
    3   STRYKER UPGRADE....          62         305,743                                       62         305,743
    5   BRADLEY PROGRAM               0         225,042                                        0         225,042
         (MOD).............
    6   HOWITZER, MED SP FT           0          60,079                                        0          60,079
         155MM M109A6 (MOD)
    7   PALADIN INTEGRATED           30         273,850                                       30         273,850
         MANAGEMENT (PIM)..
    8   IMPROVED RECOVERY                       123,629                      72,000           31         195,629
         VEHICLE (M88A2
         HERCULES).........
          16 M88A2s to               31                                     [72,000]
           supports
           modernization of
           ABCTs and
           industrial base.
    9   ASSAULT BRIDGE                0           2,461                                        0           2,461
         (MOD).............
   10   ASSAULT BREACHER              0           2,975                                        0           2,975
         VEHICLE...........
   11   M88 FOV MODS.......           0          14,878                                        0          14,878
   12   JOINT ASSAULT                 4          33,455                                        4          33,455
         BRIDGE............
   13   M1 ABRAMS TANK                0         367,939                                        0         367,939
         (MOD).............
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
   15   PRODUCTION BASE               0           6,479                                        0           6,479
         SUPPORT (TCV-WTCV)
        WEAPONS & OTHER
         COMBAT VEHICLES
   16   MORTAR SYSTEMS.....           0           4,991                                        0           4,991
   17   XM320 GRENADE                 0          26,294                                        0          26,294
         LAUNCHER MODULE
         (GLM).............
   18   PRECISION SNIPER                          1,984                      -1,984            0               0
         RIFLE.............
          Early to need....           0                                     [-1,984]
   19   COMPACT SEMI-                             1,488                      -1,488            0               0
         AUTOMATIC SNIPER
         SYSTEM............
          Early to need....           0                                     [-1,488]
   20   CARBINE............           0          34,460                                        0          34,460
   21   COMMON REMOTELY                           8,367                       6,400            0          14,767
         OPERATED WEAPONS
         STATION...........
          Transferred funds           0                                      [6,400]
   22   HANDGUN............                       5,417                      -5,417            0               0
          RFP release                 0                                     [-5,417]
           delayed, early
           to need.........
        MOD OF WEAPONS AND
         OTHER COMBAT VEH
   23   MK-19 GRENADE                 0           2,777                                        0           2,777
         MACHINE GUN MODS..
   24   M777 MODS..........           0          10,070                                        0          10,070
   25   M4 CARBINE MODS....           0          27,566                                        0          27,566
   26   M2 50 CAL MACHINE             0          44,004                                        0          44,004
         GUN MODS..........
   27   M249 SAW MACHINE              0           1,190                                        0           1,190
         GUN MODS..........
   28   M240 MEDIUM MACHINE           0           1,424                                        0           1,424
         GUN MODS..........
   29   SNIPER RIFLES                             2,431                      -1,400            0           1,031
         MODIFICATIONS.....
          Early to need....           0                                     [-1,400]
   30   M119 MODIFICATIONS.           0          20,599                                        0          20,599
   32   MORTAR MODIFICATION           0           6,300                                        0           6,300
   33   MODIFICATIONS LESS            0           3,737                                        0           3,737
         THAN $5.0M (WOCV-
         WTCV).............
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
   34   ITEMS LESS THAN               0             391                       2,500            0           2,891
         $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV).
          Transfer funds...                                                  [2,500]
   35   PRODUCTION BASE               0           9,027                                        0           9,027
         SUPPORT (WOCV-
         WTCV).............
   36   INDUSTRIAL                    0             304                                        0             304
         PREPAREDNESS......
   37   SMALL ARMS                    0           2,392                                        0           2,392
         EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER
         ENH PROG).........
 
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT           127       1,887,073                      70,611          127       1,957,684
         OF W&TCV, ARMY....
 
        PROCUREMENT OF
         AMMUNITION, ARMY
        SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
         AMMUNITION
    1   CTG, 5.56MM, ALL              0          43,489                                        0          43,489
         TYPES.............
    2   CTG, 7.62MM, ALL              0          40,715                                        0          40,715
         TYPES.............
    3   CTG, HANDGUN, ALL             0           7,753                        -952            0           6,801
         TYPES.............
          Program funding                                                     [-952]
           ahead of need...
    4   CTG, .50 CAL, ALL             0          24,728                                        0          24,728
         TYPES.............
    5   CTG, 25MM, ALL                0           8,305                                        0           8,305
         TYPES.............
    6   CTG, 30MM, ALL                0          34,330                                        0          34,330
         TYPES.............
    7   CTG, 40MM, ALL                0          79,972                     -10,000            0          69,972
         TYPES.............
          Early to need....                                                [-10,000]
        MORTAR AMMUNITION
    8   60MM MORTAR, ALL              0          42,898                                        0          42,898
         TYPES.............
    9   81MM MORTAR, ALL              0          43,500                                        0          43,500
         TYPES.............
   10   120MM MORTAR, ALL             0          64,372                                        0          64,372
         TYPES.............
        TANK AMMUNITION
   11   CARTRIDGES, TANK,             0         105,541                                        0         105,541
         105MM AND 120MM,
         ALL TYPES.........
        ARTILLERY
         AMMUNITION
   12   ARTILLERY                     0          57,756                                        0          57,756
         CARTRIDGES, 75MM &
         105MM, ALL TYPES..
   13   ARTILLERY                     0          77,995                                        0          77,995
         PROJECTILE, 155MM,
         ALL TYPES.........
   14   PROJ 155MM EXTENDED           0          45,518                                        0          45,518
         RANGE M982........
   15   ARTILLERY                     0          78,024                                        0          78,024
         PROPELLANTS, FUZES
         AND PRIMERS, ALL..
        ROCKETS
   16   SHOULDER LAUNCHED             0           7,500                                        0           7,500
         MUNITIONS, ALL
         TYPES.............
   17   ROCKET, HYDRA 70,             0          33,653                                        0          33,653
         ALL TYPES.........
        OTHER AMMUNITION
   18   CAD/PAD, ALL TYPES.           0           5,639                                        0           5,639
   19   DEMOLITION                    0           9,751                                        0           9,751
         MUNITIONS, ALL
         TYPES.............
   20   GRENADES, ALL TYPES           0          19,993                                        0          19,993
   21   SIGNALS, ALL TYPES.           0           9,761                                        0           9,761
   22   SIMULATORS, ALL               0           9,749                                        0           9,749
         TYPES.............
        MISCELLANEOUS
   23   AMMO COMPONENTS,              0           3,521                                        0           3,521
         ALL TYPES.........
   24   NON-LETHAL                    0           1,700                                        0           1,700
         AMMUNITION, ALL
         TYPES.............
   25   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           6,181                                        0           6,181
         MILLION (AMMO)....
   26   AMMUNITION PECULIAR           0          17,811                                        0          17,811
         EQUIPMENT.........
   27   FIRST DESTINATION             0          14,695                                        0          14,695
         TRANSPORTATION
         (AMMO)............
        PRODUCTION BASE
         SUPPORT
   29   PROVISION OF                  0         221,703                                        0         221,703
         INDUSTRIAL
         FACILITIES........
   30   CONVENTIONAL                  0         113,250                                        0         113,250
         MUNITIONS
         DEMILITARIZATION..
   31   ARMS INITIATIVE....           0           3,575                                        0           3,575
 
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT             0       1,233,378                     -10,952            0       1,222,426
         OF AMMUNITION,
         ARMY..............
 
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,
         ARMY
        TACTICAL VEHICLES
    1   TACTICAL TRAILERS/            0          12,855                                        0          12,855
         DOLLY SETS........
    2   SEMITRAILERS,                 0              53                                        0              53
         FLATBED:..........
    4   JOINT LIGHT                 450         308,336                                      450         308,336
         TACTICAL VEHICLE..
    5   FAMILY OF MEDIUM            166          90,040                                      166          90,040
         TACTICAL VEH
         (FMTV)............
    6   FIRETRUCKS &                  0           8,444                                        0           8,444
         ASSOCIATED
         FIREFIGHTING EQUIP
    7   FAMILY OF HEAVY             273          27,549                                      273          27,549
         TACTICAL VEHICLES
         (FHTV)............
    8   PLS ESP............           0         127,102                                        0         127,102
   10   TACTICAL WHEELED              0          48,292                                        0          48,292
         VEHICLE PROTECTION
         KITS..............
   11   MODIFICATION OF IN            0         130,993                                        0         130,993
         SVC EQUIP.........
   12   MINE-RESISTANT                0          19,146                                        0          19,146
         AMBUSH-PROTECTED
         (MRAP) MODS.......
        NON-TACTICAL
         VEHICLES
   14   PASSENGER CARRYING            0           1,248                                        0           1,248
         VEHICLES..........
   15   NONTACTICAL                   0           9,614                                        0           9,614
         VEHICLES, OTHER...
        COMM--JOINT
         COMMUNICATIONS
   16   WIN-T--GROUND                 0         783,116                    -200,000            0         583,116
         FORCES TACTICAL
         NETWORK...........
          Delayed                                                         [-200,000]
           obligation of
           prior year funds
   17   SIGNAL                        0          49,898                                        0          49,898
         MODERNIZATION
         PROGRAM...........
   18   JOINT INCIDENT SITE           0           4,062                                        0           4,062
         COMMUNICATIONS
         CAPABILITY........
   19   JCSE EQUIPMENT                0           5,008                                        0           5,008
         (USREDCOM)........
        COMM--SATELLITE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   20   DEFENSE ENTERPRISE            0         196,306                                        0         196,306
         WIDEBAND SATCOM
         SYSTEMS...........
   21   TRANSPORTABLE                 0          44,998                     -15,000            0          29,998
         TACTICAL COMMAND
         COMMUNICATIONS....
          Early to need in                                                 [-15,000]
           FY16 due to one
           year delay......
   22   SHF TERM...........           0           7,629                                        0           7,629
   23   NAVSTAR GLOBAL                0          14,027                                        0          14,027
         POSITIONING SYSTEM
         (SPACE)...........
   24   SMART-T (SPACE)....           0          13,453                                        0          13,453
   25   GLOBAL BRDCST SVC--           0           6,265                                        0           6,265
         GBS...............
   26   MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP           0           1,042                                        0           1,042
         (TAC SAT).........
   27   ENROUTE MISSION               0           7,116                                        0           7,116
         COMMAND (EMC).....
        COMM--C3 SYSTEM
   28   ARMY GLOBAL CMD &             0          10,137                                        0          10,137
         CONTROL SYS
         (AGCCS)...........
        COMM--COMBAT
         COMMUNICATIONS
   29   JOINT TACTICAL                0          64,640                                        0          64,640
         RADIO SYSTEM......
   30   MID-TIER NETWORKING           0          27,762                                        0          27,762
         VEHICULAR RADIO
         (MNVR)............
   31   RADIO TERMINAL SET,           0           9,422                                        0           9,422
         MIDS LVT(2).......
   32   AMC CRITICAL ITEMS--          0          26,020                                        0          26,020
         OPA2..............
   33   TRACTOR DESK.......           0           4,073                                        0           4,073
   34   SPIDER APLA REMOTE            0           1,403                                        0           1,403
         CONTROL UNIT......
   35   SPIDER FAMILY OF              0           9,199                                        0           9,199
         NETWORKED
         MUNITIONS INCR....
   36   SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT           0             349                                        0             349
         PROGRAM COMM/
         ELECTRONICS.......
   37   TACTICAL                      0          25,597                                        0          25,597
         COMMUNICATIONS AND
         PROTECTIVE SYSTEM.
   38   UNIFIED COMMAND               0          21,854                                        0          21,854
         SUITE.............
   40   FAMILY OF MED COMM            0          24,388                                        0          24,388
         FOR COMBAT
         CASUALTY CARE.....
        COMM--INTELLIGENCE
         COMM
   42   CI AUTOMATION                 0           1,349                                        0           1,349
         ARCHITECTURE......
   43   ARMY CA/MISO GPF              0           3,695                                        0           3,695
         EQUIPMENT.........
        INFORMATION
         SECURITY
   45   INFORMATION SYSTEM            0          19,920                                        0          19,920
         SECURITY PROGRAM-
         ISSP..............
   46   COMMUNICATIONS                0          72,257                                        0          72,257
         SECURITY (COMSEC).
        COMM--LONG HAUL
         COMMUNICATIONS
   47   BASE SUPPORT                  0          16,082                                        0          16,082
         COMMUNICATIONS....
        COMM--BASE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   48   INFORMATION SYSTEMS           0          86,037                                        0          86,037
   50   EMERGENCY                     0           8,550                                        0           8,550
         MANAGEMENT
         MODERNIZATION
         PROGRAM...........
   51   INSTALLATION INFO             0          73,496                                        0          73,496
         INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
         PROGRAM...........
        ELECT EQUIP--TACT
         INT REL ACT
         (TIARA)
   54   JTT/CIBS-M.........           0             881                                        0             881
   55   PROPHET GROUND.....           0          63,650                     -15,000            0          48,650
          Unjustified                                                      [-15,000]
           program growth..
   57   DCGS-A (MIP).......           0         260,268                                        0         260,268
   58   JOINT TACTICAL                0           3,906                                        0           3,906
         GROUND STATION
         (JTAGS)...........
   59   TROJAN (MIP).......           0          13,929                                        0          13,929
   60   MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP           0           3,978                                        0           3,978
         (INTEL SPT) (MIP).
   61   CI HUMINT AUTO                0           7,542                                        0           7,542
         REPRTING AND
         COLL(CHARCS)......
   62   CLOSE ACCESS TARGET           0           8,010                                        0           8,010
         RECONNAISSANCE
         (CATR)............
   63   MACHINE FOREIGN               0           8,125                                        0           8,125
         LANGUAGE
         TRANSLATION SYSTEM-
         M.................
        ELECT EQUIP--
         ELECTRONIC WARFARE
         (EW)
   64   LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER           0          63,472                                        0          63,472
         MORTAR RADAR......
   65   EW PLANNING &                 0           2,556                                        0           2,556
         MANAGEMENT TOOLS
         (EWPMT)...........
   66   AIR VIGILANCE (AV).           0           8,224                                        0           8,224
   67   CREW...............           0           2,960                                        0           2,960
   68   FAMILY OF                     0           1,722                                        0           1,722
         PERSISTENT
         SURVEILLANCE
         CAPABILITIE.......
   69   COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/          0             447                                        0             447
         SECURITY
         COUNTERMEASURES...
   70   CI MODERNIZATION...           0             228                                        0             228
        ELECT EQUIP--
         TACTICAL SURV.
         (TAC SURV)
   71   SENTINEL MODS......           0          43,285                                        0          43,285
   72   NIGHT VISION                  0         124,216                                        0         124,216
         DEVICES...........
   74   SMALL TACTICAL                0          23,216                                        0          23,216
         OPTICAL RIFLE
         MOUNTED MLRF......
   76   INDIRECT FIRE                 0          60,679                                        0          60,679
         PROTECTION FAMILY
         OF SYSTEMS........
   77   FAMILY OF WEAPON              0          53,453                                        0          53,453
         SIGHTS (FWS)......
   78   ARTILLERY ACCURACY            0           3,338                                        0           3,338
         EQUIP.............
   79   PROFILER...........           0           4,057                                        0           4,057
   81   JOINT BATTLE                  0         133,339                                        0         133,339
         COMMAND--PLATFORM
         (JBC-P)...........
   82   JOINT EFFECTS                 0          47,212                                        0          47,212
         TARGETING SYSTEM
         (JETS)............
   83   MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP           0          22,314                                        0          22,314
         (LLDR)............
   84   COMPUTER                      0          12,131                                        0          12,131
         BALLISTICS: LHMBC
         XM32..............
   85   MORTAR FIRE CONTROL           0          10,075                                        0          10,075
         SYSTEM............
   86   COUNTERFIRE RADARS.           0         217,379                     -75,000            0         142,379
          Under execution                                                  [-75,000]
           of prior year
           funds...........
        ELECT EQUIP--
         TACTICAL C2
         SYSTEMS
   87   FIRE SUPPORT C2               0           1,190                                        0           1,190
         FAMILY............
   90   AIR & MSL DEFENSE             0          28,176                                        0          28,176
         PLANNING & CONTROL
         SYS...............
   91   IAMD BATTLE COMMAND           0          20,917                                        0          20,917
         SYSTEM............
   92   LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE           0           5,850                                        0           5,850
         SUPPORT (LCSS)....
   93   NETWORK MANAGEMENT            0          12,738                                        0          12,738
         INITIALIZATION AND
         SERVICE...........
   94   MANEUVER CONTROL              0         145,405                                        0         145,405
         SYSTEM (MCS)......
   95   GLOBAL COMBAT                 0         162,654                     -16,000            0         146,654
         SUPPORT SYSTEM-
         ARMY (GCSS-A).....
          Program growth...                                                [-16,000]
   96   INTEGRATED                    0           4,446                                        0           4,446
         PERSONNEL AND PAY
         SYSTEM-ARMY (IPP..
   98   RECONNAISSANCE AND            0          16,218                                        0          16,218
         SURVEYING
         INSTRUMENT SET....
   99   MOD OF IN-SVC                 0           1,138                                        0           1,138
         EQUIPMENT (ENFIRE)
        ELECT EQUIP--
         AUTOMATION
  100   ARMY TRAINING                 0          12,089                                        0          12,089
         MODERNIZATION.....
  101   AUTOMATED DATA                0         105,775                     -12,000            0          93,775
         PROCESSING EQUIP..
          Reduce IT                                                        [-12,000]
           procurement.....
  102   GENERAL FUND                  0          18,995                                        0          18,995
         ENTERPRISE
         BUSINESS SYSTEMS
         FAM...............
  103   HIGH PERF COMPUTING           0          62,319                                        0          62,319
         MOD PGM (HPCMP)...
  104   RESERVE COMPONENT             0          17,894                                        0          17,894
         AUTOMATION SYS
         (RCAS)............
        ELECT EQUIP--AUDIO
         VISUAL SYS (A/V)
  106   ITEMS LESS THAN $5M           0           4,242                                        0           4,242
         (SURVEYING
         EQUIPMENT)........
        ELECT EQUIP--
         SUPPORT
  107   PRODUCTION BASE               0             425                                        0             425
         SUPPORT (C-E).....
  108   BCT EMERGING                  0           7,438                                        0           7,438
         TECHNOLOGIES......
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
  108A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0           6,467                                        0           6,467
        CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
         EQUIPMENT
  109   PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS.           0             248                                        0             248
  110   FAMILY OF NON-                0           1,487                                        0           1,487
         LETHAL EQUIPMENT
         (FNLE)............
  112   CBRN DEFENSE.......           0          26,302                                        0          26,302
        BRIDGING EQUIPMENT
  113   TACTICAL BRIDGING..           0           9,822                                        0           9,822
  114   TACTICAL BRIDGE,              0          21,516                                        0          21,516
         FLOAT-RIBBON......
  115   BRIDGE SUPPLEMENTAL           0           4,959                                        0           4,959
         SET...............
  116   COMMON BRIDGE                 0          52,546                                        0          52,546
         TRANSPORTER (CBT)
         RECAP.............
        ENGINEER (NON-
         CONSTRUCTION)
         EQUIPMENT
  117   GRND STANDOFF MINE            0          58,682                                        0          58,682
         DETECTN SYSM
         (GSTAMIDS)........
  118   HUSKY MOUNTED                 0          13,565                                        0          13,565
         DETECTION SYSTEM
         (HMDS)............
  119   ROBOTIC COMBAT                0           2,136                                        0           2,136
         SUPPORT SYSTEM
         (RCSS)............
  120   EOD ROBOTICS                  0           6,960                                        0           6,960
         SYSTEMS
         RECAPITALIZATION..
  121   EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE            0          17,424                                        0          17,424
         DISPOSAL EQPMT
         (EOD EQPMT).......
  122   REMOTE DEMOLITION             0           8,284                                        0           8,284
         SYSTEMS...........
  123   RAIL)
        GENERATORS
  156   GENERATORS AND                0         166,356                                        0         166,356
         ASSOCIATED EQUIP..
  157   TACTICAL ELECTRIC             0          11,505                                        0          11,505
         POWER
         RECAPITALIZATION..
        MATERIAL HANDLING
         EQUIPMENT
  159   FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS           0          17,496                                        0          17,496
        TRAINING EQUIPMENT
  160   COMBAT TRAINING               0          74,916                                        0          74,916
         CENTERS SUPPORT...
  161   TRAINING DEVICES,             0         303,236                     -25,000            0         278,236
         NONSYSTEM.........
          Unjustified                                                      [-25,000]
           program growth..
  162   CLOSE COMBAT                  0          45,210                                        0          45,210
         TACTICAL TRAINER..
  163   AVIATION COMBINED             0          30,068                                        0          30,068
         ARMS TACTICAL
         TRAINER...........
  164   GAMING TECHNOLOGY             0           9,793                                        0           9,793
         IN SUPPORT OF ARMY
         TRAINING..........
        TEST MEASURE AND
         DIG EQUIPMENT
         (TMD)
  165   CALIBRATION SETS              0           4,650                                        0           4,650
         EQUIPMENT.........
  166   INTEGRATED FAMILY             0          34,487                                        0          34,487
         OF TEST EQUIPMENT
         (IFTE)............
  167   TEST EQUIPMENT                0          11,083                                        0          11,083
         MODERNIZATION
         (TEMOD)...........
        OTHER SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  169   RAPID EQUIPPING               0          17,937                                        0          17,937
         SOLDIER SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT.........
  170   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0          52,040                                        0          52,040
         SYSTEMS (OPA3)....
  171   BASE LEVEL COMMON             0           1,568                                        0           1,568
         EQUIPMENT.........
  172   MODIFICATION OF IN-           0          64,219                                        0          64,219
         SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA-
         3)................
  173   PRODUCTION BASE               0           1,525                                        0           1,525
         SUPPORT (OTH).....
  174   SPECIAL EQUIPMENT             0           3,268                                        0           3,268
         FOR USER TESTING..
  176   TRACTOR YARD.......           0           7,191                                        0           7,191
        OPA2
  177   INITIAL SPARES--C&E           0          48,511                                        0          48,511
 
        TOTAL OTHER                 889       5,899,028                    -358,000          889       5,541,028
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
 
        AIRCRAFT
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY
        COMBAT AIRCRAFT
    2   F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER)           0               0          12       1,150,000           12       1,150,000
         HORNET............
          Additional 12                                          12      [1,150,000]
           aircraft,
           unfunded
           requirement.....
    3   JOINT STRIKE                  4         897,542                     -24,500            4         873,042
         FIGHTER CV........
          Efficiencies and                                                 [-24,500]
           excess cost
           growth..........
    4   JOINT STRIKE                  0          48,630                                        0          48,630
         FIGHTER CV (AP)...
    5   JSF STOVL..........           9       1,483,414           6       1,024,900           15       2,508,314
          Efficiencies and                                                 [-25,100]
           excess cost
           growth..........
          Additional 6                                            6      [1,050,000]
           aircraft,
           unfunded
           requirement.....
    6   JSF STOVL (AP).....           0         203,060                                        0         203,060
    7   CH-53K (HEAVY LIFT)           0          41,300                                        0          41,300
    8   V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT).          19       1,436,355                                       19       1,436,355
    9   V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT)            0          43,853                                        0          43,853
         (AP)..............
   10   H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/         28         800,057                                       28         800,057
         AH-1Z)............
   11   H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/          0          56,168                                        0          56,168
         AH-1Z) (AP).......
   12   MH-60S (MYP).......           0          28,232                                        0          28,232
   14   MH-60R (MYP).......          29         969,991                                       29         969,991
   16   P-8A POSEIDON......          16       3,008,928                                       16       3,008,928
   17   P-8A POSEIDON (AP).           0         269,568                                        0         269,568
   18   E-2D ADV HAWKEYE...           5         857,654                                        5         857,654
   19   E-2D ADV HAWKEYE              0         195,336                                        0         195,336
         (AP)..............
        TRAINER AIRCRAFT
   20   JPATS..............           0           8,914                                        0           8,914
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   21   KC-130J............           2         192,214                                        2         192,214
   22   KC-130J (AP).......           0          24,451                                        0          24,451
   23   MQ-4 TRITON........           3         494,259                                        3         494,259
   24   MQ-4 TRITON (AP)...           0          54,577                                        0          54,577
   25   MQ-8 UAV...........           2         120,020                                        2         120,020
   26   STUASL0 UAV........           0           3,450                                        0           3,450
        MODIFICATION OF
         AIRCRAFT
   28   EA-6 SERIES........           0           9,799                                        0           9,799
   29   AEA SYSTEMS........           0          23,151                                        0          23,151
   30   AV-8 SERIES........           0          41,890                       3,300            0          45,190
          AV-8B Link 16                                                      [3,300]
           upgrades,
           unfunded
           requirement.....
   31   ADVERSARY..........           0           5,816                                        0           5,816
   32   F-18 SERIES........           0         978,756                     170,000            0       1,148,756
          Jamming                                                          [170,000]
           protection
           upgrades,
           unfunded
           requirement.....
   34   H-53 SERIES........           0          46,887                                        0          46,887
   35   SH-60 SERIES.......           0         107,728                                        0         107,728
   36   H-1 SERIES.........           0          42,315                                        0          42,315
   37   EP-3 SERIES........           0          41,784                                        0          41,784
   38   P-3 SERIES.........           0           3,067                                        0           3,067
   39   E-2 SERIES.........           0          20,741                                        0          20,741
   40   TRAINER A/C SERIES.           0          27,980                                        0          27,980
   41   C-2A...............           0           8,157                                        0           8,157
   42   C-130 SERIES.......           0          70,335                                        0          70,335
   43   FEWSG..............           0             633                                        0             633
   44   CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C           0           8,916                                        0           8,916
         SERIES............
   45   E-6 SERIES.........           0         185,253                                        0         185,253
   46   EXECUTIVE                     0          76,138                                        0          76,138
         HELICOPTERS SERIES
   47   SPECIAL PROJECT               0          23,702                                        0          23,702
         AIRCRAFT..........
   48   T-45 SERIES........           0         105,439                                        0         105,439
   49   POWER PLANT CHANGES           0           9,917                                        0           9,917
   50   JPATS SERIES.......           0          13,537                                        0          13,537
   51   COMMON ECM                    0         131,732                                        0         131,732
         EQUIPMENT.........
   52   COMMON AVIONICS               0         202,745                                        0         202,745
         CHANGES...........
   53   COMMON DEFENSIVE              0           3,062                                        0           3,062
         WEAPON SYSTEM.....
   54   ID SYSTEMS.........           0          48,206                                        0          48,206
   55   P-8 SERIES.........           0          28,492                                        0          28,492
   56   MAGTF EW FOR                  0           7,680                                        0           7,680
         AVIATION..........
   57   MQ-8 SERIES........           0          22,464                                        0          22,464
   58   RQ-7 SERIES........           0           3,773                                        0           3,773
   59   V-22 (TILT/ROTOR              0         121,208                      23,000            0         144,208
         ACFT) OSPREY......
          MV-22 Integrated                                                  [15,000]
           Aircraft
           Survivability...
          MV-22 Ballistic                                                    [8,000]
           Protection......
   60   F-35 STOVL SERIES..           0         256,106                                        0         256,106
   61   F-35 CV SERIES.....           0          68,527                                        0          68,527
   62   QRC................           0           6,885                                        0           6,885
        AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
         REPAIR PARTS
   63   SPARES AND REPAIR             0       1,563,515                                        0       1,563,515
         PARTS.............
        AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
         EQUIP & FACILITIES
   64   COMMON GROUND                 0         450,959                                        0         450,959
         EQUIPMENT.........
   65   AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL           0          24,010                                        0          24,010
         FACILITIES........
   66   WAR CONSUMABLES....           0          42,012                                        0          42,012
   67   OTHER PRODUCTION              0           2,455                                        0           2,455
         CHARGES...........
   68   SPECIAL SUPPORT               0          50,859                                        0          50,859
         EQUIPMENT.........
   69   FIRST DESTINATION             0           1,801                                        0           1,801
         TRANSPORTATION....
 
        TOTAL AIRCRAFT              117      16,126,405          18       2,346,700          135      18,473,105
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
 
        WEAPONS
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY
        MODIFICATION OF
         MISSILES
    1   TRIDENT II MODS....           0       1,099,064                                        0       1,099,064
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
    2   MISSILE INDUSTRIAL            0           7,748                                        0           7,748
         FACILITIES........
        STRATEGIC MISSILES
    3   TOMAHAWK...........         100         184,814          49          30,000          149         214,814
          Combined with 47                                       49         [30,000]
           FY15 OCO
           missiles,
           returns
           production to
           MSR.............
        TACTICAL MISSILES
    4   AMRAAM.............         167         192,873                      15,000          167         207,873
          Additional                                                        [15,000]
           captive air
           training
           missiles........
    5   SIDEWINDER.........         227          96,427                                      227          96,427
    6   JSOW...............           0          21,419                                        0          21,419
    7   STANDARD MISSILE...         113         435,352                                      113         435,352
    8   RAM................          90          80,826                                       90          80,826
   11   STAND OFF PRECISION          27           4,265                                       27           4,265
         GUIDED MUNITIONS
         (SOPGM)...........
   12   AERIAL TARGETS.....           0          40,792                                        0          40,792
   13   OTHER MISSILE                 0           3,335                                        0           3,335
         SUPPORT...........
        MODIFICATION OF
         MISSILES
   14   ESSM...............          30          44,440                                       30          44,440
   15   ESSM (AP)..........           0          54,462                                        0          54,462
   16   HARM MODS..........           0         122,298                                        0         122,298
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
         FACILITIES
   17   WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL            0           2,397                                        0           2,397
         FACILITIES........
   18   FLEET SATELLITE               0          39,932                                        0          39,932
         COMM FOLLOW-ON....
        ORDNANCE SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
   19   ORDNANCE SUPPORT              0          57,641                       3,668            0          61,309
         EQUIPMENT.........
          Classified                                                         [3,668]
           Program.........
        TORPEDOES AND
         RELATED EQUIP
   20   SSTD...............           0           7,380                                        0           7,380
   21   MK-48 TORPEDO......           8          65,611                                        8          65,611
   22   ASW TARGETS........           0           6,912                                        0           6,912
        MOD OF TORPEDOES
         AND RELATED EQUIP
   23   MK-54 TORPEDO MODS.           0         113,219                                        0         113,219
   24   MK-48 TORPEDO ADCAP           0          63,317                                        0          63,317
         MODS..............
   25   QUICKSTRIKE MINE...           0          13,254                                        0          13,254
        SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
   26   TORPEDO SUPPORT               0          67,701                                        0          67,701
         EQUIPMENT.........
   27   ASW RANGE SUPPORT..           0           3,699                                        0           3,699
        DESTINATION
         TRANSPORTATION
   28   FIRST DESTINATION             0           3,342                                        0           3,342
         TRANSPORTATION....
        GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS
   29   SMALL ARMS AND                0          11,937                                        0          11,937
         WEAPONS...........
        MODIFICATION OF
         GUNS AND GUN
         MOUNTS
   30   CIWS MODS..........           0          53,147                                        0          53,147
   31   COAST GUARD WEAPONS           0          19,022                                        0          19,022
   32   GUN MOUNT MODS.....           0          67,980                                        0          67,980
   33   AIRBORNE MINE                 0          19,823                                        0          19,823
         NEUTRALIZATION
         SYSTEMS...........
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
   35   SPARES AND REPAIR             0         149,725                                        0         149,725
         PARTS.............
 
        TOTAL WEAPONS               762       3,154,154          49          48,668          811       3,202,822
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
 
        PROCUREMENT OF
         AMMO, NAVY & MC
        NAVY AMMUNITION
    1   GENERAL PURPOSE               0         101,238                                        0         101,238
         BOMBS.............
    2   AIRBORNE ROCKETS,             0          67,289                                        0          67,289
         ALL TYPES.........
    3   MACHINE GUN                   0          20,340                                        0          20,340
         AMMUNITION........
    4   PRACTICE BOMBS.....           0          40,365                                        0          40,365
    5   CARTRIDGES & CART             0          49,377                                        0          49,377
         ACTUATED DEVICES..
    6   AIR EXPENDABLE                0          59,651                                        0          59,651
         COUNTERMEASURES...
    7   JATOS..............           0           2,806                                        0           2,806
    8   LRLAP 6" LONG RANGE           0          11,596                                        0          11,596
         ATTACK PROJECTILE.
    9   5 INCH/54 GUN                 0          35,994                                        0          35,994
         AMMUNITION........
   10   INTERMEDIATE                  0          36,715                                        0          36,715
         CALIBER GUN
         AMMUNITION........
   11   OTHER SHIP GUN                0          45,483                                        0          45,483
         AMMUNITION........
   12   SMALL ARMS &                  0          52,080                                        0          52,080
         LANDING PARTY AMMO
   13   PYROTECHNIC AND               0          10,809                                        0          10,809
         DEMOLITION........
   14   AMMUNITION LESS               0           4,469                                        0           4,469
         THAN $5 MILLION...
        MARINE CORPS
         AMMUNITION
   15   SMALL ARMS                    0          46,848                                        0          46,848
         AMMUNITION........
   16   LINEAR CHARGES, ALL           0             350                                        0             350
         TYPES.............
   17   40 MM, ALL TYPES...           0             500                                        0             500
   18   60MM, ALL TYPES....           0           1,849                                        0           1,849
   19   81MM, ALL TYPES....           0           1,000                                        0           1,000
   20   120MM, ALL TYPES...           0          13,867                                        0          13,867
   22   GRENADES, ALL TYPES           0           1,390                                        0           1,390
   23   ROCKETS, ALL TYPES.           0          14,967                                        0          14,967
   24   ARTILLERY, ALL                0          45,219                                        0          45,219
         TYPES.............
   26   FUZE, ALL TYPES....           0          29,335                                        0          29,335
   27   NON LETHALS........           0           3,868                                        0           3,868
   28   AMMO MODERNIZATION.           0          15,117                                        0          15,117
   29   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          11,219                                        0          11,219
         MILLION...........
 
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT             0         723,741                                        0         723,741
         OF AMMO, NAVY & MC
 
        SHIPBUILDING AND
         CONVERSION, NAVY
        OTHER WARSHIPS
    1   CARRIER REPLACEMENT           0       1,634,701                                        0       1,634,701
         PROGRAM...........
    2   CARRIER REPLACEMENT           0         874,658                                        0         874,658
         PROGRAM (AP)......
    3   VIRGINIA CLASS                2       3,346,370                                        2       3,346,370
         SUBMARINE.........
    4   VIRGINIA CLASS                0       1,993,740                     800,000            0       2,793,740
         SUBMARINE (AP)....
          Accelerate                                                       [800,000]
           shipbuilding
           funding.........
    5   CVN REFUELING                 1         678,274                                        1         678,274
         OVERHAULS.........
    6   CVN REFUELING                 0          14,951                                        0          14,951
         OVERHAULS (AP)....
    7   DDG 1000...........           0         433,404                                        0         433,404
    8   DDG-51.............           2       3,149,703                     400,000            2       3,549,703
          Incremental                                                      [400,000]
           funding for one
           DDG-51..........
   10   LITTORAL COMBAT               3       1,356,991                                        3       1,356,991
         SHIP..............
        AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS
   12   LPD-17.............           1         550,000                                        1         550,000
   13   AFLOAT FORWARD                0               0                      97,000            0          97,000
         STAGING BASE......
          Accelerate                                                        [97,000]
           shipbuilding
           funding.........
   15   LHA REPLACEMENT....           0         277,543                     199,000            0         476,543
          Accelerate LHA-8                                                 [199,000]
           advanced
           procurement.....
   XX   LX (R) AP..........           0               0                      51,000            0          51,000
          Accelerate LX (R)                                                 [51,000]
  XXX   LCU Replacement....           0               0           1          34,000            1          34,000
          Accelerate LCU                                                    [34,000]
           replacement.....
        AUXILIARIES, CRAFT
         AND PRIOR YR
         PROGRAM COST
   17   TAO FLEET OILER....           1         674,190                                        1         674,190
   19   MOORED TRAINING               0         138,200                                        0         138,200
         SHIP (AP).........
   20   OUTFITTING.........           0         697,207                                        0         697,207
   21   SHIP TO SHORE                 5         255,630                                        5         255,630
         CONNECTOR.........
   22   SERVICE CRAFT......           0          30,014                                        0          30,014
   23   LCAC SLEP..........           4          80,738                                        4          80,738
   24   YP CRAFT                      0          21,838                                        0          21,838
         MAINTENANCE/ROH/
         SLEP..............
   25   COMPLETION OF PY              0         389,305                                        0         389,305
         SHIPBUILDING
         PROGRAMS..........
   XX   T-ATS(X) Fleet Tug.           0               0           1          75,000            1          75,000
          Accelerate T-                                                     [75,000]
           ATS(X)..........
 
        TOTAL SHIPBUILDING           19      16,597,457           2       1,656,000           21      18,253,457
         AND CONVERSION,
         NAVY..............
 
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,
         NAVY
        SHIP PROPULSION
         EQUIPMENT
    1   LM-2500 GAS TURBINE           0           4,881                                        0           4,881
    2   ALLISON 501K GAS              0           5,814                                        0           5,814
         TURBINE...........
    3   HYBRID ELECTRIC               0          32,906                                        0          32,906
         DRIVE (HED).......
        GENERATORS
    4   SURFACE COMBATANT             0          36,860                                        0          36,860
         HM&E..............
        NAVIGATION
         EQUIPMENT
    5   OTHER NAVIGATION              0          87,481                                        0          87,481
         EQUIPMENT.........
        PERISCOPES
    6   SUB PERISCOPES &              0          63,109                                        0          63,109
         IMAGING EQUIP.....
        OTHER SHIPBOARD
         EQUIPMENT
    7   DDG MOD............           0         364,157                      60,000            0         424,157
          Restore                                                           [60,000]
           additional DDG
           BMD
           modernization
           (CNO UPL).......
    8   FIREFIGHTING                  0          16,089                                        0          16,089
         EQUIPMENT.........
    9   COMMAND AND CONTROL           0           2,255                                        0           2,255
         SWITCHBOARD.......
   10   LHA/LHD MIDLIFE....           0          28,571                                        0          28,571
   11   LCC 19/20 EXTENDED            0          12,313                                        0          12,313
         SERVICE LIFE
         PROGRAM...........
   12   POLLUTION CONTROL             0          16,609                                        0          16,609
         EQUIPMENT.........
   13   SUBMARINE SUPPORT             0          10,498                                        0          10,498
         EQUIPMENT.........
   14   VIRGINIA CLASS                0          35,747                                        0          35,747
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
   15   LCS CLASS SUPPORT             0          48,399                                        0          48,399
         EQUIPMENT.........
   16   SUBMARINE BATTERIES           0          23,072                                        0          23,072
   17   LPD CLASS SUPPORT             0          55,283                                        0          55,283
         EQUIPMENT.........
   18   STRATEGIC PLATFORM            0          18,563                                        0          18,563
         SUPPORT EQUIP.....
   19   DSSP EQUIPMENT.....           0           7,376                                        0           7,376
   21   LCAC...............           0          20,965                                        0          20,965
   22   UNDERWATER EOD                0          51,652                                        0          51,652
         PROGRAMS..........
   23   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0         102,498                                        0         102,498
         MILLION...........
   24   CHEMICAL WARFARE              0           3,027                                        0           3,027
         DETECTORS.........
   25   SUBMARINE LIFE                0           7,399                                        0           7,399
         SUPPORT SYSTEM....
        REACTOR PLANT
         EQUIPMENT
   27   REACTOR COMPONENTS.           0         296,095                                        0         296,095
        OCEAN ENGINEERING
   28   DIVING AND SALVAGE            0          15,982                                        0          15,982
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SMALL BOATS
   29   STANDARD BOATS.....           0          29,982                                        0          29,982
        TRAINING EQUIPMENT
   30   OTHER SHIPS                   0          66,538                                        0          66,538
         TRAINING EQUIPMENT
        PRODUCTION
         FACILITIES
         EQUIPMENT
   31   OPERATING FORCES              0          71,138                                        0          71,138
         IPE...............
        OTHER SHIP SUPPORT
   32   NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS           0         132,625                                        0         132,625
   33   LCS COMMON MISSION            0          23,500                                        0          23,500
         MODULES EQUIPMENT.
   34   LCS MCM MISSION               0          85,151                     -55,800            0          29,351
         MODULES...........
          Procurement in                                                   [-55,800]
           excess of need
           ahead of
           satisfactory
           testing.........
   35   LCS SUW MISSION               0          35,228                                        0          35,228
         MODULES...........
   36   REMOTE MINEHUNTING            0          87,627                     -65,600            0          22,027
         SYSTEM (RMS)......
          Procurement in                                                   [-65,600]
           excess of need
           ahead of
           satisfactory
           testing.........
        LOGISTIC SUPPORT
   37   LSD MIDLIFE........           0           2,774                                        0           2,774
        SHIP SONARS
   38   SPQ-9B RADAR.......           0          20,551                                        0          20,551
   39   AN/SQQ-89 SURF ASW            0         103,241                                        0         103,241
         COMBAT SYSTEM.....
   40   SSN ACOUSTICS......           0         214,835                      20,000            0         234,835
          Towed Array-                                                      [20,000]
           unfunded
           requirement.....
   41   UNDERSEA WARFARE              0           7,331                                        0           7,331
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
   42   SONAR SWITCHES AND            0          11,781                                        0          11,781
         TRANSDUCERS.......
        ASW ELECTRONIC
         EQUIPMENT
   44   SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC            0          21,119                                        0          21,119
         WARFARE SYSTEM....
   45   SSTD...............           0           8,396                                        0           8,396
   46   FIXED SURVEILLANCE            0         146,968                                        0         146,968
         SYSTEM............
   47   SURTASS............           0          12,953                                        0          12,953
   48   MARITIME PATROL AND           0          13,725                                        0          13,725
         RECONNSAISANCE
         FORCE.............
        ELECTRONIC WARFARE
         EQUIPMENT
   49   AN/SLQ-32..........           0         324,726                      28,000            0         352,726
          SEWIP Block II                                                    [28,000]
           unfunded
           requirement.....
        RECONNAISSANCE
         EQUIPMENT
   50   SHIPBOARD IW                  0         148,221                                        0         148,221
         EXPLOIT...........
   51   AUTOMATED                     0             152                                        0             152
         IDENTIFICATION
         SYSTEM (AIS)......
        SUBMARINE
         SURVEILLANCE
         EQUIPMENT
   52   SUBMARINE SUPPORT             0          79,954                                        0          79,954
         EQUIPMENT PROG....
        OTHER SHIP
         ELECTRONIC
         EQUIPMENT
   53   COOPERATIVE                   0          25,695                                        0          25,695
         ENGAGEMENT
         CAPABILITY........
   54   TRUSTED INFORMATION           0             284                                        0             284
         SYSTEM (TIS)......
   55   NAVAL TACTICAL                0          14,416                                        0          14,416
         COMMAND SUPPORT
         SYSTEM (NTCSS)....
   56   ATDLS..............           0          23,069                                        0          23,069
   57   NAVY COMMAND AND              0           4,054                                        0           4,054
         CONTROL SYSTEM
         (NCCS)............
   58   MINESWEEPING SYSTEM           0          21,014                                        0          21,014
         REPLACEMENT.......
   59   SHALLOW WATER MCM..           0          18,077                                        0          18,077
   60   NAVSTAR GPS                   0          12,359                                        0          12,359
         RECEIVERS (SPACE).
   61   AMERICAN FORCES               0           4,240                                        0           4,240
         RADIO AND TV
         SERVICE...........
   62   STRATEGIC PLATFORM            0          17,440                                        0          17,440
         SUPPORT EQUIP.....
        TRAINING EQUIPMENT
   63   OTHER TRAINING                0          41,314                                        0          41,314
         EQUIPMENT.........
        AVIATION ELECTRONIC
         EQUIPMENT
   64   MATCALS............           0          10,011                                        0          10,011
   65   SHIPBOARD AIR                 0           9,346                                        0           9,346
         TRAFFIC CONTROL...
   66   AUTOMATIC CARRIER             0          21,281                                        0          21,281
         LANDING SYSTEM....
   67   NATIONAL AIR SPACE            0          25,621                                        0          25,621
         SYSTEM............
   68   FLEET AIR TRAFFIC             0           8,249                                        0           8,249
         CONTROL SYSTEMS...
   69   LANDING SYSTEMS....           0          14,715                                        0          14,715
   70   ID SYSTEMS.........           0          29,676                                        0          29,676
   71   NAVAL MISSION                 0          13,737                                        0          13,737
         PLANNING SYSTEMS..
        OTHER SHORE
         ELECTRONIC
         EQUIPMENT
   72   DEPLOYABLE JOINT              0           1,314                                        0           1,314
         COMMAND & CONTROL.
   74   TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I           0          13,600                                        0          13,600
         SYSTEMS...........
   75   DCGS-N.............           0          31,809                                        0          31,809
   76   CANES..............           0         278,991                                        0         278,991
   77   RADIAC.............           0           8,294                                        0           8,294
   78   CANES-INTELL.......           0          28,695                                        0          28,695
   79   GPETE..............           0           6,962                                        0           6,962
   80   MASF...............           0             290                                        0             290
   81   INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM           0          14,419                                        0          14,419
         TEST FACILITY.....
   82   EMI CONTROL                   0           4,175                                        0           4,175
         INSTRUMENTATION...
   83   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          44,176                                        0          44,176
         MILLION...........
        SHIPBOARD
         COMMUNICATIONS
   84   SHIPBOARD TACTICAL            0           8,722                                        0           8,722
         COMMUNICATIONS....
   85   SHIP COMMUNICATIONS           0         108,477                                        0         108,477
         AUTOMATION........
   86   COMMUNICATIONS                0          16,613                                        0          16,613
         ITEMS UNDER $5M...
        SUBMARINE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   87   SUBMARINE BROADCAST           0          20,691                                        0          20,691
         SUPPORT...........
   88   SUBMARINE                     0          60,945                                        0          60,945
         COMMUNICATION
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SATELLITE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   89   SATELLITE                     0          30,892                                        0          30,892
         COMMUNICATIONS
         SYSTEMS...........
   90   NAVY MULTIBAND                0         118,113                                        0         118,113
         TERMINAL (NMT)....
        SHORE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   91   JCS COMMUNICATIONS            0           4,591                                        0           4,591
         EQUIPMENT.........
   92   ELECTRICAL POWER              0           1,403                                        0           1,403
         SYSTEMS...........
        CRYPTOGRAPHIC
         EQUIPMENT
   93   INFO SYSTEMS                  0         135,687                                        0         135,687
         SECURITY PROGRAM
         (ISSP)............
   94   MIO INTEL                     0             970                                        0             970
         EXPLOITATION TEAM.
        CRYPTOLOGIC
         EQUIPMENT
   95   CRYPTOLOGIC                   0          11,433                                        0          11,433
         COMMUNICATIONS
         EQUIP.............
        OTHER ELECTRONIC
         SUPPORT
   96   COAST GUARD                   0           2,529                                        0           2,529
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SONOBUOYS
   97   SONOBUOYS--ALL                0         168,763                                        0         168,763
         TYPES.............
        AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
   98   WEAPONS RANGE                 0          46,979                                        0          46,979
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  100   AIRCRAFT SUPPORT              0         123,884                                        0         123,884
         EQUIPMENT.........
  103   METEOROLOGICAL                0          15,090                                        0          15,090
         EQUIPMENT.........
  104   DCRS/DPL...........           0             638                                        0             638
  106   AIRBORNE MINE                 0          14,098                                        0          14,098
         COUNTERMEASURES...
  111   AVIATION SUPPORT              0          49,773                                        0          49,773
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SHIP GUN SYSTEM
         EQUIPMENT
  112   SHIP GUN SYSTEMS              0           5,300                                        0           5,300
         EQUIPMENT.........
        SHIP MISSILE
         SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT
  115   SHIP MISSILE                  0         298,738                                        0         298,738
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  120   TOMAHAWK SUPPORT              0          71,245                                        0          71,245
         EQUIPMENT.........
        FBM SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  123   STRATEGIC MISSILE             0         240,694                                        0         240,694
         SYSTEMS EQUIP.....
        ASW SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  124   SSN COMBAT CONTROL            0          96,040                                        0          96,040
         SYSTEMS...........
  125   ASW SUPPORT                   0          30,189                                        0          30,189
         EQUIPMENT.........
        OTHER ORDNANCE
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
  129   EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE            0          22,623                                        0          22,623
         DISPOSAL EQUIP....
  130   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           9,906                                        0           9,906
         MILLION...........
        OTHER EXPENDABLE
         ORDNANCE
  134   TRAINING DEVICE               0          99,707                                        0          99,707
         MODS..............
        CIVIL ENGINEERING
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
  135   PASSENGER CARRYING            0           2,252                                        0           2,252
         VEHICLES..........
  136   GENERAL PURPOSE               0           2,191                                        0           2,191
         TRUCKS............
  137   CONSTRUCTION &                0           2,164                                        0           2,164
         MAINTENANCE EQUIP.
  138   FIRE FIGHTING                 0          14,705                                        0          14,705
         EQUIPMENT.........
  139   TACTICAL VEHICLES..           0           2,497                                        0           2,497
  140   AMPHIBIOUS                    0          12,517                                        0          12,517
         EQUIPMENT.........
  141   POLLUTION CONTROL             0           3,018                                        0           3,018
         EQUIPMENT.........
  142   ITEMS UNDER $5                0          14,403                                        0          14,403
         MILLION...........
  143   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0           1,186                                        0           1,186
         VEHICLES..........
        SUPPLY SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  144   MATERIALS HANDLING            0          18,805                                        0          18,805
         EQUIPMENT.........
  145   OTHER SUPPLY                  0          10,469                                        0          10,469
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  146   FIRST DESTINATION             0           5,720                                        0           5,720
         TRANSPORTATION....
  147   SPECIAL PURPOSE               0         211,714                                        0         211,714
         SUPPLY SYSTEMS....
        TRAINING DEVICES
  148   TRAINING SUPPORT              0           7,468                                        0           7,468
         EQUIPMENT.........
        COMMAND SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  149   COMMAND SUPPORT               0          36,433                                        0          36,433
         EQUIPMENT.........
  150   EDUCATION SUPPORT             0           3,180                                        0           3,180
         EQUIPMENT.........
  151   MEDICAL SUPPORT               0           4,790                                        0           4,790
         EQUIPMENT.........
  153   NAVAL MIP SUPPORT             0           4,608                                        0           4,608
         EQUIPMENT.........
  154   OPERATING FORCES              0           5,655                                        0           5,655
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  155   C4ISR EQUIPMENT....           0           9,929                                        0           9,929
  156   ENVIRONMENTAL                 0          26,795                                        0          26,795
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
  157   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0          88,453                                        0          88,453
         EQUIPMENT.........
  159   ENTERPRISE                    0          99,094                                        0          99,094
         INFORMATION
         TECHNOLOGY........
        OTHER
  160   NEXT GENERATION               0          99,014                                        0          99,014
         ENTERPRISE SERVICE
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
  160A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0          21,439                                        0          21,439
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
  161   SPARES AND REPAIR             0         328,043                                        0         328,043
         PARTS.............
 
        TOTAL OTHER                   0       6,614,715                     -13,400            0       6,601,315
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
 
        PROCUREMENT, MARINE
         CORPS
        TRACKED COMBAT
         VEHICLES
    1   AAV7A1 PIP.........           0          26,744                                        0          26,744
    2   LAV PIP............           0          54,879                                        0          54,879
        ARTILLERY AND OTHER
         WEAPONS
    3   EXPEDITIONARY FIRE            0           2,652                                        0           2,652
         SUPPORT SYSTEM....
    4   155MM LIGHTWEIGHT             0           7,482                                        0           7,482
         TOWED HOWITZER....
    5   HIGH MOBILITY                 0          17,181                                        0          17,181
         ARTILLERY ROCKET
         SYSTEM............
    6   WEAPONS AND COMBAT            0           8,224                                        0           8,224
         VEHICLES UNDER $5
         MILLION...........
        OTHER SUPPORT
    7   MODIFICATION KITS..           0          14,467                                        0          14,467
    8   WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT           0             488                                        0             488
         PROGRAM...........
        GUIDED MISSILES
    9   GROUND BASED AIR              0           7,565                                        0           7,565
         DEFENSE...........
   10   JAVELIN............           0           1,091                                        0           1,091
   11   FOLLOW ON TO SMAW..           0           4,872                                        0           4,872
   12   ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS            0             668                                        0             668
         SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-
         H)................
        OTHER SUPPORT
   13   MODIFICATION KITS..           0          12,495                     140,000            0         152,495
          Additional                                                       [140,000]
           missiles........
        COMMAND AND CONTROL
         SYSTEMS
   14   UNIT OPERATIONS               0          13,109                                        0          13,109
         CENTER............
   15   COMMON AVIATION               0          35,147                                        0          35,147
         COMMAND AND
         CONTROL SYSTEM (C.
        REPAIR AND TEST
         EQUIPMENT
   16   REPAIR AND TEST               0          21,210                                        0          21,210
         EQUIPMENT.........
        OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
   17   COMBAT SUPPORT                0             792                                        0             792
         SYSTEM............
        COMMAND AND CONTROL
         SYSTEM (NON-TEL)
   19   ITEMS UNDER $5                0           3,642                                        0           3,642
         MILLION (COMM &
         ELEC).............
   20   AIR OPERATIONS C2             0           3,520                                        0           3,520
         SYSTEMS...........
        RADAR + EQUIPMENT
         (NON-TEL)
   21   RADAR SYSTEMS......           0          35,118                                        0          35,118
   22   GROUND/AIR TASK               3         130,661          -1         -32,115            2          98,546
         ORIENTED RADAR (G/
         ATOR).............
          Not meeting                                                      [-32,115]
           performance reqs
           reduce until
           technology is
           refined.........
   23   RQ-21 UAS..........           4          84,916                                        4          84,916
        INTELL/COMM
         EQUIPMENT (NON-
         TEL)
   24   FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM           0           9,136                                        0           9,136
   25   INTELLIGENCE                  0          29,936                                        0          29,936
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
   28   DCGS-MC............           0           1,947                                        0           1,947
        OTHER COMM/ELEC
         EQUIPMENT (NON-
         TEL)
   31   NIGHT VISION                  0           2,018                                        0           2,018
         EQUIPMENT.........
        OTHER SUPPORT (NON-
         TEL)
   32   NEXT GENERATION               0          67,295                                        0          67,295
         ENTERPRISE NETWORK
         (NGEN)............
   33   COMMON COMPUTER               0          43,101                                        0          43,101
         RESOURCES.........
   34   COMMAND POST                  0          29,255                                        0          29,255
         SYSTEMS...........
   35   RADIO SYSTEMS......           0          80,584                                        0          80,584
   36   COMM SWITCHING &              0          66,123                                        0          66,123
         CONTROL SYSTEMS...
   37   COMM & ELEC                   0          79,486                                        0          79,486
         INFRASTRUCTURE
         SUPPORT...........
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   37A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0           2,803                                        0           2,803
        ADMINISTRATIVE
         VEHICLES
   38   COMMERCIAL                    0           3,538                                        0           3,538
         PASSENGER VEHICLES
   39   COMMERCIAL CARGO              0          22,806                                        0          22,806
         VEHICLES..........
        TACTICAL VEHICLES
   41   MOTOR TRANSPORT               0           7,743                                        0           7,743
         MODIFICATIONS.....
   43   JOINT LIGHT                 109          79,429                                      109          79,429
         TACTICAL VEHICLE..
   44   FAMILY OF TACTICAL            0           3,157                                        0           3,157
         TRAILERS..........
        OTHER SUPPORT
   45   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           6,938                                        0           6,938
         MILLION...........
        ENGINEER AND OTHER
         EQUIPMENT
   46   ENVIRONMENTAL                 0              94                                        0              94
         CONTROL EQUIP
         ASSORT............
   47   BULK LIQUID                   0             896                                        0             896
         EQUIPMENT.........
   48   TACTICAL FUEL                 0             136                                        0             136
         SYSTEMS...........
   49   POWER EQUIPMENT               0          10,792                                        0          10,792
         ASSORTED..........
   50   AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT            0           3,235                                        0           3,235
         EQUIPMENT.........
   51   EOD SYSTEMS........           0           7,666                                        0           7,666
        MATERIALS HANDLING
         EQUIPMENT
   52   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0          33,145                                        0          33,145
         EQUIPMENT.........
   53   GARRISON MOBILE               0           1,419                                        0           1,419
         ENGINEER EQUIPMENT
         (GMEE)............
        GENERAL PROPERTY
   57   TRAINING DEVICES...           0          24,163                                        0          24,163
   58   CONTAINER FAMILY...           0             962                                        0             962
   59   FAMILY OF                     0           6,545                                        0           6,545
         CONSTRUCTION
         EQUIPMENT.........
   60   FAMILY OF                     0           7,533                                        0           7,533
         INTERNALLY
         TRANSPORTABLE VEH
         (ITV).............
        OTHER SUPPORT
   62   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           4,322                                        0           4,322
         MILLION...........
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
   63   SPARES AND REPAIR             0           8,292                                        0           8,292
         PARTS.............
 
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT,          116       1,131,418          -1         107,885          115       1,239,303
         MARINE CORPS......
 
        AIRCRAFT
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE
        TACTICAL FORCES
    1   F-35...............          44       5,260,212                     -99,100           44       5,161,112
          Efficiencies and                                                 [-99,100]
           excess cost
           growth..........
    2   F-35 (AP)..........           0         460,260                                        0         460,260
        TACTICAL AIRLIFT
    3   KC-46A TANKER......          12       2,350,601                     -24,000           12       2,326,601
          FY15 excess to                                                   [-24,000]
           need by $24
           million due to
           program delays..
        OTHER AIRLIFT
    4   C-130J.............          14         889,154                                       14         889,154
    5   C-130J (AP)........           0          50,000                                        0          50,000
    6   HC-130J............           5         463,934                                        5         463,934
    7   HC-130J (AP).......           0          30,000                                        0          30,000
    8   MC-130J............           8         828,472                                        8         828,472
    9   MC-130J (AP).......           0          60,000                                        0          60,000
        MISSION SUPPORT
         AIRCRAFT
   11   CIVIL AIR PATROL A/           6           2,617                                        6           2,617
         C.................
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   12   TARGET DRONES......          75         132,028                                       75         132,028
   14   RQ-4...............           0          37,800                                        0          37,800
   15   MQ-9...............          29         552,528          24         480,000           53       1,032,528
          Accelerating                                           24        [480,000]
           procurement
           schedule to meet
           CCDR demand.....
        STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
   17   B-2A...............           0          32,458                                        0          32,458
   18   B-1B...............           0         114,119                                        0         114,119
   19   B-52...............           0         148,987                                        0         148,987
   20   LARGE AIRCRAFT                0          84,335                                        0          84,335
         INFRARED
         COUNTERMEASURES...
        TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
   22   F-15...............           0         464,367                     249,304            0         713,671
          EPAWSS upgrade...                                                 [11,600]
          F-15C AESA radars                                       6         [48,000]
          F-15D AESA radars                                      24        [192,500]
          ADCP II upgrades.                                                 [10,000]
          F-15C MIDS JTRS                                                   [-6,387]
           transfer to
           RDT&E...........
          F-15E MIDS JTRS                                                   [-6,409]
           transfer to
           RDT&E...........
   23   F-16...............           0          17,134                                        0          17,134
   24   F-22A..............           0         126,152                                        0         126,152
   25   F-35 MODIFICATIONS.           0          70,167                                        0          70,167
   26   INCREMENT 3.2B.....           0          69,325                                        0          69,325
        AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
   28   C-5................           0           5,604                                        0           5,604
   30   C-17A..............           0          46,997                                        0          46,997
   31   C-21...............           0          10,162                                        0          10,162
   32   C-32A..............           0          44,464                                        0          44,464
   33   C-37A..............           0          10,861                                        0          10,861
        TRAINER AIRCRAFT
   34   GLIDER MODS........           0             134                                        0             134
   35   T-6................           0          17,968                                        0          17,968
   36   T-1................           0          23,706                                        0          23,706
   37   T-38...............           0          30,604                                        0          30,604
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   38   U-2 MODS...........           0          22,095                                        0          22,095
   39   KC-10A (ATCA)......           0           5,611                                        0           5,611
   40   C-12...............           0           1,980                                        0           1,980
   42   VC-25A MOD.........           0          98,231                                        0          98,231
   43   C-40...............           0          13,171                                        0          13,171
   44   C-130..............           0           7,048                     123,200            0         130,248
          C-130H Electronic                                                 [13,500]
           Prop Control
           System - UPL....
          C-130H In-flight                                                   [1,500]
           Prop Balancing
           System - UPL....
          C-130H T-56 3.5                                                   [33,200]
           Engine Mods.....
          Funds added to                                                    [75,000]
           comply with Sec
           134, FY15 NDAA..
   45   C-130J MODS........           0          29,713                                        0          29,713
   46   C-135..............           0          49,043                                        0          49,043
   47   COMPASS CALL MODS..           0          68,415                      28,700            0          97,115
          Modification for                                                  [28,700]
           restored EC-130H
   48   RC-135.............           0         156,165                                        0         156,165
   49   E-3................           0          13,178                                        0          13,178
   50   E-4................           0          23,937                                        0          23,937
   51   E-8................           0          18,001                                        0          18,001
   52   AIRBORNE WARNING              0         183,308                                        0         183,308
         AND CONTROL SYSTEM
   53   FAMILY OF BEYOND              0          44,163                                        0          44,163
         LINE-OF-SIGHT
         TERMINALS.........
   54   H-1................           0           6,291                                        0           6,291
   55   UH-1N REPLACEMENT..           0           2,456                                        0           2,456
   56   H-60...............           0          45,731                                        0          45,731
   57   RQ-4 MODS..........           0          50,022                                        0          50,022
   58   HC/MC-130                     0          21,660                                        0          21,660
         MODIFICATIONS.....
   59   OTHER AIRCRAFT.....           0         117,767                      -2,246            0         115,521
          C2ISR TDL                                                         [-2,246]
           transfer to
           COMSEC equipment
   60   MQ-1 MODS..........           0           3,173                                        0           3,173
   61   MQ-9 MODS..........           0         115,226                                        0         115,226
   63   CV-22 MODS.........           0          58,828                                        0          58,828
        AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
         REPAIR PARTS
   64   INITIAL SPARES/               0         656,242                                        0         656,242
         REPAIR PARTS......
        COMMON SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
   65   AIRCRAFT                      0          33,716                                        0          33,716
         REPLACEMENT
         SUPPORT EQUIP.....
        POST PRODUCTION
         SUPPORT
   67   B-2A...............           0          38,837                                        0          38,837
   68   B-52...............           0           5,911                                        0           5,911
   69   C-17A..............           0          30,108                                        0          30,108
   70   CV-22 POST                    0           3,353                                        0           3,353
         PRODUCTION SUPPORT
   71   C-135..............           0           4,490                                        0           4,490
   72   F-15...............           0           3,225                                        0           3,225
   73   F-16...............           0          14,969                                        0          14,969
   74   F-22A..............           0             971                                        0             971
   76   MQ-9...............           0           5,000                                        0           5,000
        INDUSTRIAL
         PREPAREDNESS
   77   INDUSTRIAL                    0          18,802                                        0          18,802
         RESPONSIVENESS....
        WAR CONSUMABLES
   78   WAR CONSUMABLES....           0         156,465                                        0         156,465
        OTHER PRODUCTION
         CHARGES
   79   OTHER PRODUCTION              0       1,052,814                      59,086            0       1,111,900
         CHARGES...........
          Transfer from                                                     [59,086]
           RDT&E for NATO
           AWACS...........
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   79A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0          42,503                                        0          42,503
 
        TOTAL AIRCRAFT              193      15,657,769          24         814,944          217      16,472,713
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        MISSILE
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE
        MISSILE REPLACEMENT
         EQUIPMENT--BALLIST
         IC
    1   MISSILE REPLACEMENT           0          94,040                                        0          94,040
         EQ-BALLISTIC......
        TACTICAL
    3   JOINT AIR-SURFACE           360         440,578                                      360         440,578
         STANDOFF MISSILE..
    4   SIDEWINDER (AIM-9X)         506         200,777                                      506         200,777
    5   AMRAAM.............         262         390,112                                      262         390,112
    6   PREDATOR HELLFIRE         3,756         423,016                                    3,756         423,016
         MISSILE...........
    7   SMALL DIAMETER BOMB       1,942         133,697                                    1,942         133,697
        INDUSTRIAL
         FACILITIES
    8   INDUSTR'L                     0             397                                        0             397
         PREPAREDNS/POL
         PREVENTION........
        CLASS IV
    9   MM III                        0          50,517                                        0          50,517
         MODIFICATIONS.....
   10   AGM-65D MAVERICK...           0           9,639                                        0           9,639
   11   AGM-88A HARM.......           0             197                                        0             197
   12   AIR LAUNCH CRUISE             0          25,019                                        0          25,019
         MISSILE (ALCM)....
        MISSILE SPARES AND
         REPAIR PARTS
   14   INITIAL SPARES/               0          48,523                                        0          48,523
         REPAIR PARTS......
        SPECIAL PROGRAMS
   28   SPECIAL UPDATE                0         276,562                                        0         276,562
         PROGRAMS..........
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   28A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0         893,971                                        0         893,971
 
        TOTAL MISSILE             6,826       2,987,045                                    6,826       2,987,045
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        SPACE PROCUREMENT,
         AIR FORCE
        SPACE PROGRAMS
    1   ADVANCED EHF.......           0         333,366                                        0         333,366
    2   WIDEBAND GAPFILLER            0          53,476                                        0          53,476
         SATELLITES(SPACE).
    3   GPS III SPACE                 1         199,218          -1        -199,218            0               0
         SEGMENT...........
          GPS III SV10                                           -1       [-199,218]
           early to need...
    4   SPACEBORNE EQUIP              0          18,362                                        0          18,362
         (COMSEC)..........
    5   GLOBAL POSITIONING            0          66,135                                        0          66,135
         (SPACE)...........
    6   DEF METEOROLOGICAL            0          89,351                     -89,351            0               0
         SAT PROG(SPACE)...
          Cut DMSP #20.....                                                [-89,351]
    7   EVOLVED EXPENDABLE            0         571,276                                        0         571,276
         LAUNCH CAPABILITY.
    8   EVOLVED EXPENDABLE            5         800,201                                        5         800,201
         LAUNCH VEH(SPACE).
    9   SBIR HIGH (SPACE)..           0         452,676                                        0         452,676
 
        TOTAL SPACE                   6       2,584,061          -1        -288,569            5       2,295,492
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        PROCUREMENT OF
         AMMUNITION, AIR
         FORCE
        ROCKETS
    1   ROCKETS............           0          23,788                                        0          23,788
        CARTRIDGES
    2   CARTRIDGES.........           0         131,102                      38,500            0         169,602
          Increase to match                                                 [38,500]
           size of A-10
           fleet...........
        BOMBS
    3   PRACTICE BOMBS.....           0          89,759                                        0          89,759
    4   GENERAL PURPOSE               0         637,181                                        0         637,181
         BOMBS.............
    5   MASSIVE ORDNANCE              0          39,690                                        0          39,690
         PENETRATOR (MOP)..
    6   JOINT DIRECT ATTACK       6,341         374,688                                    6,341         374,688
         MUNITION..........
        OTHER ITEMS
    7   CAD/PAD............           0          58,266                                        0          58,266
    8   EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE            0           5,612                                        0           5,612
         DISPOSAL (EOD)....
    9   SPARES AND REPAIR             0             103                                        0             103
         PARTS.............
   10   MODIFICATIONS......           0           1,102                                        0           1,102
   11   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           3,044                                        0           3,044
         MILLION...........
        FLARES
   12   FLARES.............           0         120,935                                        0         120,935
        FUZES
   13   FUZES..............           0         213,476                                        0         213,476
        SMALL ARMS
   14   SMALL ARMS.........           0          60,097                                        0          60,097
 
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT         6,341       1,758,843                      38,500        6,341       1,797,343
         OF AMMUNITION, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,
         AIR FORCE
        PASSENGER CARRYING
         VEHICLES
    1   PASSENGER CARRYING            0           8,834                                        0           8,834
         VEHICLES..........
        CARGO AND UTILITY
         VEHICLES
    2   MEDIUM TACTICAL               0          58,160                                        0          58,160
         VEHICLE...........
    3   CAP VEHICLES.......           0             977                                        0             977
    4   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          12,483                                        0          12,483
         MILLION...........
        SPECIAL PURPOSE
         VEHICLES
    5   SECURITY AND                  0           4,728                                        0           4,728
         TACTICAL VEHICLES.
    6   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           4,662                                        0           4,662
         MILLION...........
        FIRE FIGHTING
         EQUIPMENT
    7   FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH           0          10,419                                        0          10,419
         RESCUE VEHICLES...
        MATERIALS HANDLING
         EQUIPMENT
    8   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          23,320                                        0          23,320
         MILLION...........
        BASE MAINTENANCE
         SUPPORT
    9   RUNWAY SNOW REMOV &           0           6,215                                        0           6,215
         CLEANING EQUIP....
   10   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          87,781                                        0          87,781
         MILLION...........
        COMM SECURITY
         EQUIPMENT(COMSEC)
   11   COMSEC EQUIPMENT...           0         136,998                       2,246            0         139,244
          Transfer for Link                                                  [2,246]
           16 upgrades.....
   12   MODIFICATIONS                 0             677                                        0             677
         (COMSEC)..........
        INTELLIGENCE
         PROGRAMS
   13   INTELLIGENCE                  0           4,041                                        0           4,041
         TRAINING EQUIPMENT
   14   INTELLIGENCE COMM             0          22,573                                        0          22,573
         EQUIPMENT.........
   15   MISSION PLANNING              0          14,456                                        0          14,456
         SYSTEMS...........
        ELECTRONICS
         PROGRAMS
   16   AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL           0          31,823                                        0          31,823
         & LANDING SYS.....
   17   NATIONAL AIRSPACE             0           5,833                                        0           5,833
         SYSTEM............
   18   BATTLE CONTROL                0           1,687                                        0           1,687
         SYSTEM--FIXED.....
   19   THEATER AIR CONTROL           0          22,710                                        0          22,710
         SYS IMPROVEMENTS..
   20   WEATHER OBSERVATION           0          21,561                                        0          21,561
         FORECAST..........
   21   STRATEGIC COMMAND             0         286,980                                        0         286,980
         AND CONTROL.......
   22   CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN             0          36,186                                        0          36,186
         COMPLEX...........
   24   INTEGRATED STRAT              0           9,597                                        0           9,597
         PLAN & ANALY
         NETWORK (ISPAN)...
        SPCL COMM-
         ELECTRONICS
         PROJECTS
   25   GENERAL INFORMATION           0          27,403                                        0          27,403
         TECHNOLOGY........
   26   AF GLOBAL COMMAND &           0           7,212                                        0           7,212
         CONTROL SYS.......
   27   MOBILITY COMMAND              0          11,062                      19,900            0          30,962
         AND CONTROL.......
          Additional                                                        [19,900]
           battlefield air
           operations kits
           to meet need....
   28   AIR FORCE PHYSICAL            0         131,269                                        0         131,269
         SECURITY SYSTEM...
   29   COMBAT TRAINING               0          33,606                                        0          33,606
         RANGES............
   30   MINIMUM ESSENTIAL             0           5,232                                        0           5,232
         EMERGENCY COMM N..
   31   C3 COUNTERMEASURES.           0           7,453                                        0           7,453
   32   INTEGRATED                    0           3,976                                        0           3,976
         PERSONNEL AND PAY
         SYSTEM............
   33   GCSS-AF FOS........           0          25,515                                        0          25,515
   34   DEFENSE ENTERPRISE            0           9,255                                        0           9,255
         ACCOUNTING AND
         MGMT SYSTEM.......
   35   THEATER BATTLE MGT            0           7,523                                        0           7,523
         C2 SYSTEM.........
   36   AIR & SPACE                   0          12,043                                        0          12,043
         OPERATIONS CTR-WPN
         SYS...............
   37   AIR OPERATIONS                0          24,246                                        0          24,246
         CENTER (AOC) 10.2.
        AIR FORCE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   38   INFORMATION                   0          74,621                                        0          74,621
         TRANSPORT SYSTEMS.
   39   AFNET..............           0         103,748                     -17,000            0          86,748
          Restructure                                                      [-17,000]
           program.........
   41   JOINT                         0           5,199                                        0           5,199
         COMMUNICATIONS
         SUPPORT ELEMENT
         (JCSE)............
   42   USCENTCOM..........           0          15,780                                        0          15,780
        SPACE PROGRAMS
   43   FAMILY OF BEYOND              0          79,592                                        0          79,592
         LINE-OF-SIGHT
         TERMINALS.........
   44   SPACE BASED IR                0          90,190                                        0          90,190
         SENSOR PGM SPACE..
   45   NAVSTAR GPS SPACE..           0           2,029                                        0           2,029
   46   NUDET DETECTION SYS           0           5,095                                        0           5,095
         SPACE.............
   47   AF SATELLITE                  0          76,673                                        0          76,673
         CONTROL NETWORK
         SPACE.............
   48   SPACELIFT RANGE               0         113,275                                        0         113,275
         SYSTEM SPACE......
   49   MILSATCOM SPACE....           0          35,495                                        0          35,495
   50   SPACE MODS SPACE...           0          23,435                                        0          23,435
   51   COUNTERSPACE SYSTEM           0          43,065                                        0          43,065
        ORGANIZATION AND
         BASE
   52   TACTICAL C-E                  0          77,538                      36,000            0         113,538
         EQUIPMENT.........
          Increase JTAC                                                     [36,000]
           training and
           rehearsal
           simulators per
           AF unfunded
           priority list...
   54   RADIO EQUIPMENT....           0           8,400                                        0           8,400
   55   CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL              0           6,144                                        0           6,144
         EQUIPMENT.........
   56   BASE COMM                     0          77,010                                        0          77,010
         INFRASTRUCTURE....
        MODIFICATIONS
   57   COMM ELECT MODS....           0          71,800                                        0          71,800
        PERSONAL SAFETY &
         RESCUE EQUIP
   58   NIGHT VISION                  0           2,370                                        0           2,370
         GOGGLES...........
   59   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          79,623                                        0          79,623
         MILLION...........
        DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS
         HANDLING EQ
   60   MECHANIZED MATERIAL           0           7,249                                        0           7,249
         HANDLING EQUIP....
        BASE SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
   61   BASE PROCURED                 0           9,095                                        0           9,095
         EQUIPMENT.........
   62   ENGINEERING AND EOD           0          17,866                                        0          17,866
         EQUIPMENT.........
   64   MOBILITY EQUIPMENT.           0          61,850                                        0          61,850
   65   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0          30,477                                        0          30,477
         MILLION...........
        SPECIAL SUPPORT
         PROJECTS
   67   DARP RC135.........           0          25,072                                        0          25,072
   68   DCGS-AF............           0         183,021                                        0         183,021
   70   SPECIAL UPDATE                0         629,371                                        0         629,371
         PROGRAM...........
   71   DEFENSE SPACE                 0         100,663                                        0         100,663
         RECONNAISSANCE
         PROG..............
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   71A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0      15,038,333                                        0      15,038,333
        SPARES AND REPAIR
         PARTS
   73   SPARES AND REPAIR             0          59,863                                        0          59,863
         PARTS.............
 
        TOTAL OTHER                   0      18,272,438                      41,146            0      18,313,584
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        PROCUREMENT,
         DEFENSE-WIDE
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DCAA
    1   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           1,488                                        0           1,488
         MILLION...........
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DCMA
    2   MAJOR EQUIPMENT....           0           2,494                                        0           2,494
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DHRA
    3   PERSONNEL                     0           9,341                                        0           9,341
         ADMINISTRATION....
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DISA
    7   INFORMATION SYSTEMS           0           8,080                      10,000            0          18,080
         SECURITY..........
          Sharkseer                                                         [10,000]
           increase........
    8   TELEPORT PROGRAM...           0          62,789                                        0          62,789
    9   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           9,399                                        0           9,399
         MILLION...........
   10   NET CENTRIC                   0           1,819                                        0           1,819
         ENTERPRISE
         SERVICES (NCES)...
   11   DEFENSE INFORMATION           0         141,298                                        0         141,298
         SYSTEM NETWORK....
   12   CYBER SECURITY                0          12,732                                        0          12,732
         INITIATIVE........
   13   WHITE HOUSE                   0          64,098                                        0          64,098
         COMMUNICATION
         AGENCY............
   14   SENIOR LEADERSHIP             0         617,910                                        0         617,910
         ENTERPRISE........
   15   JOINT INFORMATION             0          84,400                                        0          84,400
         ENVIRONMENT.......
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DLA
   16   MAJOR EQUIPMENT....           0           5,644                                        0           5,644
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DMACT
   17   MAJOR EQUIPMENT....           4          11,208                                        4          11,208
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DODEA
   18   AUTOMATION/                   0           1,298                                        0           1,298
         EDUCATIONAL
         SUPPORT &
         LOGISTICS.........
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DSS
   20   MAJOR EQUIPMENT....           0           1,048                                        0           1,048
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DEFENSE THREAT
         REDUCTION AGENCY
   21   VEHICLES...........           0             100                                        0             100
   22   OTHER MAJOR                   0           5,474                                        0           5,474
         EQUIPMENT.........
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         MISSILE DEFENSE
         AGENCY
   23   THAAD..............          30         464,067                                       30         464,067
   24   AEGIS BMD..........          40         558,916           9         147,765           49         706,681
          Increase SM-3                                           9        [117,880]
           Block IB
           purchase........
          Increase SM-3                                           9          [2,565]
           Block IB
           canisters.......
          Undifferentiated                                                  [27,320]
           Block IB test
           and evaluation
           costs...........
   25   AEGIS BMD (AP).....           0         147,765                    -147,765            0               0
          Early to need....                                               [-147,765]
   26   BMDS AN/TPY-2                 0          78,634                                        0          78,634
         RADARS............
   27   AEGIS ASHORE PHASE            0          30,587                                        0          30,587
         III...............
   28   IRON DOME..........           1          55,000                     -13,900            1          41,100
          Request excess of                                                [-13,900]
           requirement.....
   XX   DAVIDS SLING.......           0               0                     150,000            0         150,000
          Increase for                                                     [150,000]
           David's Sling co-
           production......
  XXX   ARROW 3............           0               0                      15,000            0          15,000
          Increase for                                                      [15,000]
           Arrow 3 co-
           production......
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         NSA
   35   INFORMATION SYSTEMS           0          37,177                                        0          37,177
         SECURITY PROGRAM
         (ISSP)............
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         OSD
   36   MAJOR EQUIPMENT,             17          46,939                                       17          46,939
         OSD...............
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         TJS
   38   MAJOR EQUIPMENT,              0          13,027                                        0          13,027
         TJS...............
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         WHS
   40   MAJOR EQUIPMENT,              0          27,859                                        0          27,859
         WHS...............
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   40A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0         617,757                                        0         617,757
        AVIATION PROGRAMS
   41   MC-12..............           0          63,170                     -63,170            0               0
          SOCOM requested                                                  [-63,170]
           realignment.....
   42   ROTARY WING                   0         135,985                                        0         135,985
         UPGRADES AND
         SUSTAINMENT.......
   44   NON-STANDARD                  0          61,275                                        0          61,275
         AVIATION..........
   45   U-28...............           0               0                      63,170            0          63,170
          SOCOM requested                                                   [63,170]
           realignment.....
   47   RQ-11 UNMANNED                0          20,087                                        0          20,087
         AERIAL VEHICLE....
   48   CV-22 MODIFICATION.           0          18,832                                        0          18,832
   49   MQ-1 UNMANNED                 0           1,934                                        0           1,934
         AERIAL VEHICLE....
   50   MQ-9 UNMANNED                 0          11,726                      10,000            0          21,726
         AERIAL VEHICLE....
          MQ-9 capability                                                   [10,000]
           enhancements....
   51   STUASL0............           0           1,514                                        0           1,514
   52   PRECISION STRIKE              0         204,105                                        0         204,105
         PACKAGE...........
   53   AC/MC-130J.........           0          61,368                                        0          61,368
   54   C-130 MODIFICATIONS           0          66,861                     -35,449            0          31,412
          C-130 TF/TA                                                      [-35,449]
           adjustments.....
        SHIPBUILDING
   55   UNDERWATER SYSTEMS.           0          32,521                                        0          32,521
        AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
   56   ORDNANCE ITEMS SURFACE
         SYSTEMS...........
   59   OTHER ITEMS MEDIUM CAL
         AMMUNITION
    4   CTG, .50 CAL, ALL             0           4,000                                        0           4,000
         TYPES.............
        MORTAR AMMUNITION
    8   60MM MORTAR, ALL              0          11,700                                        0          11,700
         TYPES.............
    9   81MM MORTAR, ALL              0           4,000                                        0           4,000
         TYPES.............
   10   120MM MORTAR, ALL             0           7,000                                        0           7,000
         TYPES.............
        ARTILLERY
         AMMUNITION
   12   ARTILLERY                     0           5,000                                        0           5,000
         CARTRIDGES, 75MM &
         105MM, ALL TYPES..
   13   ARTILLERY                     0          10,000                                        0          10,000
         PROJECTILE, 155MM,
         ALL TYPES.........
   15   ARTILLERY                     0           2,000                                        0           2,000
         PROPELLANTS, FUZES
         AND PRIMERS, ALL..
        ROCKETS
   17   ROCKET, HYDRA 70,             0         136,340                                        0         136,340
         ALL TYPES.........
        OTHER AMMUNITION
   19   DEMOLITION                    0           4,000                                        0           4,000
         MUNITIONS, ALL
         TYPES.............
   21   SIGNALS, ALL TYPES.           0           8,000                                        0           8,000
 
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT             0         192,040                                        0         192,040
         OF AMMUNITION,
         ARMY..............
 
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,
         ARMY
        TACTICAL VEHICLES
    5   FAMILY OF MEDIUM          1,191         243,998                                    1,191         243,998
         TACTICAL VEH
         (FMTV)............
    9   HVY EXPANDED MOBILE           0         223,276                                        0         223,276
         TACTICAL TRUCK EXT
         SERV..............
   11   MODIFICATION OF IN            0         130,000                                        0         130,000
         SVC EQUIP.........
   12   MINE-RESISTANT                0         393,100                                        0         393,100
         AMBUSH-PROTECTED
         (MRAP) MODS.......
        COMM--SATELLITE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   21   TRANSPORTABLE                 0           5,724                                        0           5,724
         TACTICAL COMMAND
         COMMUNICATIONS....
        COMM--BASE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   51   INSTALLATION INFO             0          29,500                                        0          29,500
         INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
         PROGRAM...........
        ELECT EQUIP--TACT
         INT REL ACT
         (TIARA)
   57   DCGS-A (MIP).......           0          54,140                                        0          54,140
   59   TROJAN (MIP).......           0           6,542                                        0           6,542
   61   CI HUMINT AUTO                0           3,860                                        0           3,860
         REPRTING AND
         COLL(CHARCS)......
        ELECT EQUIP--
         ELECTRONIC WARFARE
         (EW)
   68   FAMILY OF                     0          14,847                                        0          14,847
         PERSISTENT
         SURVEILLANCE
         CAPABILITIE.......
   69   COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/          0          19,535                                        0          19,535
         SECURITY
         COUNTERMEASURES...
        ELECT EQUIP--
         TACTICAL SURV.
         (TAC SURV)
   84   COMPUTER                      0           2,601                                        0           2,601
         BALLISTICS: LHMBC
         XM32..............
        ELECT EQUIP--
         TACTICAL C2
         SYSTEMS
   87   FIRE SUPPORT C2               0              48                                        0              48
         FAMILY............
   94   MANEUVER CONTROL              0             252                                        0             252
         SYSTEM (MCS)......
        ELECT EQUIP--
         AUTOMATION
  101   AUTOMATED DATA                0             652                                        0             652
         PROCESSING EQUIP..
        CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
         EQUIPMENT
  111   BASE DEFENSE                  0           4,035                                        0           4,035
         SYSTEMS (BDS).....
        COMBAT SERVICE
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
  131   FORCE PROVIDER.....          12          53,800                                       12          53,800
  133   CARGO AERIAL DEL &            0             700                                        0             700
         PERSONNEL
         PARACHUTE SYSTEM..
        MATERIAL HANDLING
         EQUIPMENT
  159   FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS           0          10,486                                        0          10,486
        OTHER SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
  169   RAPID EQUIPPING               0           8,500                                        0           8,500
         SOLDIER SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT.........
 
        TOTAL OTHER               1,203       1,205,596                                    1,203       1,205,596
         PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
 
        JOINT IMPR
         EXPLOSIVE DEV
         DEFEAT FUND
        FORCE TRAINING
    3   TRAIN THE FORCE....           0           7,850                                        0           7,850
        JIEDDO DEVICE
         DEFEAT
    2   DEFEAT THE DEVICE..           0          77,600                                        0          77,600
        NETWORK ATTACK
    1   ATTACK THE NETWORK.           0         219,550                      -4,464            0         215,086
          Adjustment due to                                                 [-4,464]
           low execution in
           prior years.....
        STAFF AND
         INFRASTRUCTURE
    4   OPERATIONS.........           0         188,271                     -43,807            0         144,464
          Maintain prior                                                   [-43,807]
           year funding
           level...........
 
        TOTAL JOINT IMPR              0         493,271                     -48,271            0         445,000
         EXPLOSIVE DEV
         DEFEAT FUND.......
 
        AIRCRAFT
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   26   STUASL0 UAV........           3          55,000                                        3          55,000
        MODIFICATION OF
         AIRCRAFT
   30   AV-8 SERIES........           0          41,365                                        0          41,365
   32   F-18 SERIES........           0           8,000                                        0           8,000
   37   EP-3 SERIES........           0           6,300                                        0           6,300
   47   SPECIAL PROJECT               0          14,198                                        0          14,198
         AIRCRAFT..........
   51   COMMON ECM                    0          72,700                                        0          72,700
         EQUIPMENT.........
   52   COMMON AVIONICS               0          13,988                                        0          13,988
         CHANGES...........
   59   V-22 (TILT/ROTOR              0           4,900                                        0           4,900
         ACFT) OSPREY......
        AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
         EQUIP & FACILITIES
   65   AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL           0             943                                        0             943
         FACILITIES........
 
        TOTAL AIRCRAFT                3         217,394                                        3         217,394
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
 
        WEAPONS
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY
        TACTICAL MISSILES
   10   LASER MAVERICK.....           0           3,344                                        0           3,344
 
        TOTAL WEAPONS                 0           3,344                                        0           3,344
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
 
        PROCUREMENT OF
         AMMO, NAVY & MC
        NAVY AMMUNITION
    1   GENERAL PURPOSE               0           9,715                                        0           9,715
         BOMBS.............
    2   AIRBORNE ROCKETS,             0          11,108                                        0          11,108
         ALL TYPES.........
    3   MACHINE GUN                   0           3,603                                        0           3,603
         AMMUNITION........
    6   AIR EXPENDABLE                0          11,982                                        0          11,982
         COUNTERMEASURES...
   11   OTHER SHIP GUN                0           4,674                                        0           4,674
         AMMUNITION........
   12   SMALL ARMS &                  0           3,456                                        0           3,456
         LANDING PARTY AMMO
   13   PYROTECHNIC AND               0           1,989                                        0           1,989
         DEMOLITION........
   14   AMMUNITION LESS               0           4,674                                        0           4,674
         THAN $5 MILLION...
        MARINE CORPS
         AMMUNITION
   20   120MM, ALL TYPES...           0          10,719                                        0          10,719
   23   ROCKETS, ALL TYPES.           0           3,993                                        0           3,993
   24   ARTILLERY, ALL                0          67,200                                        0          67,200
         TYPES.............
   26   FUZE, ALL TYPES....           0           3,299                                        0           3,299
   25   DEMOLITION                    0             518                                        0             518
         MUNITIONS, ALL
         TYPES.............
 
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT             0         136,930                                        0         136,930
         OF AMMO, NAVY & MC
 
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,
         NAVY
        CIVIL ENGINEERING
         SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
  135   PASSENGER CARRYING            0             186                                        0             186
         VEHICLES..........
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
  160A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0          12,000                                        0          12,000
 
        TOTAL OTHER                   0          12,186                                        0          12,186
         PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
 
        PROCUREMENT, MARINE
         CORPS
        GUIDED MISSILES
   10   JAVELIN............           0           7,679                                        0           7,679
        OTHER SUPPORT
   13   MODIFICATION KITS..           0          10,311                                        0          10,311
        COMMAND AND CONTROL
         SYSTEMS
   14   UNIT OPERATIONS               0           8,221                                        0           8,221
         CENTER............
        OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
   18   MODIFICATION KITS..           0           3,600                                        0           3,600
        COMMAND AND CONTROL
         SYSTEM (NON-TEL)
   19   ITEMS UNDER $5                0           8,693                                        0           8,693
         MILLION (COMM &
         ELEC).............
        INTELL/COMM
         EQUIPMENT (NON-
         TEL)
   27   RQ-11 UAV..........           0           3,430                                        0           3,430
        MATERIALS HANDLING
         EQUIPMENT
   52   PHYSICAL SECURITY             0           7,000                                        0           7,000
         EQUIPMENT.........
 
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT,            0          48,934                                        0          48,934
         MARINE CORPS......
 
        AIRCRAFT
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   15   MQ-9...............           0          13,500                                        0          13,500
        OTHER AIRCRAFT
   44   C-130..............           0           1,410                                        0           1,410
   56   H-60...............           0          39,300                                        0          39,300
   58   HC/MC-130                     0           5,690                                        0           5,690
         MODIFICATIONS.....
   61   MQ-9 MODS..........           0          69,000                                        0          69,000
 
        TOTAL AIRCRAFT                0         128,900                                        0         128,900
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        MISSILE
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE
        TACTICAL
    6   PREDATOR HELLFIRE         1,811         280,902                                    1,811         280,902
         MISSILE...........
    7   SMALL DIAMETER BOMB          63           2,520                                       63           2,520
        CLASS IV
   10   AGM-65D MAVERICK...           0           5,720                                        0           5,720
 
        TOTAL MISSILE             1,874         289,142                                    1,874         289,142
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        PROCUREMENT OF
         AMMUNITION, AIR
         FORCE
        CARTRIDGES
    2   CARTRIDGES.........           0           8,371                                        0           8,371
        BOMBS
    4   GENERAL PURPOSE               0          17,031                                        0          17,031
         BOMBS.............
    6   JOINT DIRECT ATTACK       5,953         184,412                                    5,953         184,412
         MUNITION..........
        FLARES
   12   FLARES.............           0          11,064                                        0          11,064
        FUZES
   13   FUZES..............           0           7,996                                        0           7,996
 
        TOTAL PROCUREMENT         5,953         228,874                                    5,953         228,874
         OF AMMUNITION, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        OTHER PROCUREMENT,
         AIR FORCE
        SPCL COMM-
         ELECTRONICS
         PROJECTS
   25   GENERAL INFORMATION           0           3,953                                        0           3,953
         TECHNOLOGY........
   27   MOBILITY COMMAND              0           2,000                                        0           2,000
         AND CONTROL.......
        AIR FORCE
         COMMUNICATIONS
   42   USCENTCOM..........           0          10,000                                        0          10,000
        ORGANIZATION AND
         BASE
   52   TACTICAL C-E                  0           4,065                                        0           4,065
         EQUIPMENT.........
   56   BASE COMM                     0          15,400                                        0          15,400
         INFRASTRUCTURE....
        PERSONAL SAFETY &
         RESCUE EQUIP
   58   NIGHT VISION                  0           3,580                                        0           3,580
         GOGGLES...........
   59   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           3,407                                        0           3,407
         MILLION...........
        BASE SUPPORT
         EQUIPMENT
   62   ENGINEERING AND EOD           0          46,790                                        0          46,790
         EQUIPMENT.........
   64   MOBILITY EQUIPMENT.           0             400                                        0             400
   65   ITEMS LESS THAN $5            0           9,800                                        0           9,800
         MILLION...........
        SPECIAL SUPPORT
         PROJECTS
   71   DEFENSE SPACE                 0          28,070                                        0          28,070
         RECONNAISSANCE
         PROG..............
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   71A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0       3,732,499                                        0       3,732,499
 
        TOTAL OTHER                   0       3,859,964                                        0       3,859,964
         PROCUREMENT, AIR
         FORCE.............
 
        PROCUREMENT,
         DEFENSE-WIDE
        MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
         DISA
    8   TELEPORT PROGRAM...           0           1,940                                        0           1,940
        CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
   40A  CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS           0          35,482                                        0          35,482
        AVIATION PROGRAMS
   41   MC-12..............           0           5,000                                        0           5,000
        AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
   56   ORDNANCE ITEMS PERSONNEL/                  24,735                               24,735
                                 TRAINING TECHNOLOGY.
    27   0602786A               WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY....            35,795                               35,795
    28   0602787A               MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY.......            76,853                               76,853
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, APPLIED                   879,685                              879,685
                                 RESEARCH.
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEVELOPMENT
    29   0603001A               WARFIGHTER ADVANCED                  46,973                               46,973
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    30   0603002A               MEDICAL ADVANCED                     69,584                               69,584
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    31   0603003A               AVIATION ADVANCED                    89,736                               89,736
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    32   0603004A               WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS                57,663                               57,663
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
    33   0603005A               COMBAT VEHICLE AND                  113,071                              113,071
                                 AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    34   0603006A               SPACE APPLICATION                     5,554                                5,554
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
    35   0603007A               MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND              12,636                               12,636
                                 TRAINING ADVANCED
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    37   0603009A               TRACTOR HIKE.............             7,502                                7,502
    38   0603015A               NEXT GENERATION TRAINING             17,425                               17,425
                                 & SIMULATION SYSTEMS.
    39   0603020A               TRACTOR ROSE.............            11,912                               11,912
    40   0603125A               COMBATING TERRORISM--                27,520                               27,520
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
    41   0603130A               TRACTOR NAIL.............             2,381                                2,381
    42   0603131A               TRACTOR EGGS.............             2,431                                2,431
    43   0603270A               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                   26,874                               26,874
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    44   0603313A               MISSILE AND ROCKET                   49,449                               49,449
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
    45   0603322A               TRACTOR CAGE.............            10,999                               10,999
    46   0603461A               HIGH PERFORMANCE                    177,159           -10,000            167,159
                                 COMPUTING MODERNIZATION
                                 PROGRAM.
         .....................    Encourage use of                                   [-10,000]
                                   commercial technology.
    47   0603606A               LANDMINE WARFARE AND                 13,993                               13,993
                                 BARRIER ADVANCED
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    48   0603607A               JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS              5,105                                5,105
                                 PROGRAM.
    49   0603710A               NIGHT VISION ADVANCED                40,929                               40,929
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    50   0603728A               ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY                10,727                               10,727
                                 TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEMONSTRATIONS.
    51   0603734A               MILITARY ENGINEERING                 20,145                               20,145
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
    52   0603772A               ADVANCED TACTICAL                    38,163                               38,163
                                 COMPUTER SCIENCE AND
                                 SENSOR TECHNOLOGY.
    53   0603794A               C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY...            37,816                               37,816
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                  895,747           -10,000            885,747
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                 DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
    54   0603305A               ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE                  10,347                               10,347
                                 SYSTEMS INTEGRATION.
    55   0603308A               ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS                   25,061                               25,061
                                 INTEGRATION.
    56   0603619A               LANDMINE WARFARE AND                 49,636                               49,636
                                 BARRIER--ADV DEV.
    57   0603627A               SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND                 13,426                               13,426
                                 TARGET DEFEATING SYS-ADV
                                 DEV.
    58   0603639A               TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER              46,749                               46,749
                                 AMMUNITION.
    60   0603747A               SOLDIER SUPPORT AND                   6,258                                6,258
                                 SURVIVABILITY.
    61   0603766A               TACTICAL ELECTRONIC                  13,472                               13,472
                                 SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--ADV
                                 DEV.
    62   0603774A               NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS                  7,292                                7,292
                                 ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
    63   0603779A               ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY                 8,813                                8,813
                                 TECHNOLOGY--DEM/VAL.
    65   0603790A               NATO RESEARCH AND                     6,075                                6,075
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
    67   0603804A               LOGISTIAG AND ENGINEER               21,233                               21,233
                                 EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV.
    68   0603807A               MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV.            31,962                               31,962
    69   0603827A               SOLDIER SYSTEMS--ADVANCED            22,194                               22,194
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
    71   0604100A               ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES.             9,805                                9,805
    72   0604115A               TECHNOLOGY MATURATION                40,917                               40,917
                                 INITIATIVES.
    73   0604120A               ASSURED POSITIONING,                 30,058                               30,058
                                 NAVIGATION AND TIMING
                                 (PNT).
    74   0604319A               INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION            155,361                              155,361
                                 CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2-
                                 INTERCEPT (IFPC2).
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                  498,659                              498,659
                                 COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                 PROTOTYPES.
         .....................
         .....................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
                                 DEMONSTRATION
    76   0604201A               AIRCRAFT AVIONIAG........            12,939                               12,939
    78   0604270A               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                   18,843                               18,843
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
    79   0604280A               JOINT TACTICAL RADIO.....             9,861                                9,861
    80   0604290A               MID-TIER NETWORKING                   8,763                                8,763
                                 VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR).
    81   0604321A               ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS                   4,309                                4,309
                                 SYSTEM.
    82   0604328A               TRACTOR CAGE.............            15,138                               15,138
    83   0604601A               INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS.            74,128             2,500             76,628
         .....................    Transfer from WTCV.....                              [2,500]
    85   0604611A               JAVELIN..................             3,945                                3,945
    87   0604633A               AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL......            10,076                               10,076
    88   0604641A               TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND             40,374                               40,374
                                 VEHICLE (TUGV).
    89   0604710A               NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS--ENG            67,582                               67,582
                                 DEV.
    90   0604713A               COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING,             1,763                                1,763
                                 AND EQUIPMENT.
    91   0604715A               NON-SYSTEM TRAINING                  27,155                               27,155
                                 DEVICES--ENG DEV.
    92   0604741A               AIR DEFENSE COMMAND,                 24,569                               24,569
                                 CONTROL AND
                                 INTELLIGENCE--ENG DEV.
    93   0604742A               CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION              23,364                               23,364
                                 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
    94   0604746A               AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT              8,960                                8,960
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
    95   0604760A               DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE              9,138                                9,138
                                 SIMULATIONS (DIS)--ENG
                                 DEV.
    96   0604780A               COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL               21,622                               21,622
                                 TRAINER (CATT) CORE.
    97   0604798A               BRIGADE ANALYSIS,                    99,242                               99,242
                                 INTEGRATION AND
                                 EVALUATION.
    98   0604802A               WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS--              21,379                               21,379
                                 ENG DEV.
    99   0604804A               LOGISTIAG AND ENGINEER               48,339                               48,339
                                 EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
   100   0604805A               COMMAND, CONTROL,                     2,726                                2,726
                                 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS--
                                 ENG DEV.
   101   0604807A               MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL             45,412                               45,412
                                 BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE
                                 EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
   102   0604808A               LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER--           55,215                               55,215
                                 ENG DEV.
   104   0604818A               ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND &             163,643                              163,643
                                 CONTROL HARDWARE &
                                 SOFTWARE.
   105   0604820A               RADAR DEVELOPMENT........            12,309                               12,309
   106   0604822A               GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE              15,700                               15,700
                                 BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS).
   107   0604823A               FIREFINDER...............             6,243                                6,243
   108   0604827A               SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR             18,776                               18,776
                                 DEM/VAL.
   109   0604854A               ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--EMD...             1,953                                1,953
   110   0605013A               INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY               67,358                               67,358
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   111   0605018A               INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND            136,011           -50,000             86,011
                                 PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A).
         .....................    Restructure program....                            [-50,000]
   112   0605028A               ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE               230,210                              230,210
                                 VEHICLE (AMPV).
   113   0605030A               JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK               13,357                               13,357
                                 CENTER (JTNC).
   114   0605031A               JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK               18,055                               18,055
                                 (JTN).
   115   0605032A               TRACTOR TIRE.............             5,677                                5,677
   116   0605035A               COMMON INFRARED                      77,570            24,000            101,570
                                 COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM).
         .....................    Army UPL for AH-64 ASE                              [24,000]
                                   development.
   117   0605051A               AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY               18,112            60,000             78,112
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................    Army UPL for AH-64 ASE                              [60,000]
                                   development.
   118   0605350A               WIN-T INCREMENT 3--FULL              39,700                               39,700
                                 NETWORKING.
   119   0605380A               AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO             12,987            -6,832              6,155
                                 SYSTEM (JTRS).
         .....................    Only for SALT program..                             [-6,832]
   120   0605450A               JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND                  88,866                               88,866
                                 MISSILE (JAGM).
   121   0605456A               PAC-3/MSE MISSILE........             2,272                                2,272
   122   0605457A               ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND             214,099                              214,099
                                 MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD).
   123   0605625A               MANNED GROUND VEHICLE....            49,247                               49,247
   124   0605626A               AERIAL COMMON SENSOR.....                 2                                    2
   125   0605766A               NATIONAL CAPABILITIES                10,599                               10,599
                                 INTEGRATION (MIP).
   126   0605812A               JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL                 32,486                               32,486
                                 VEHICLE (JLTV)
                                 ENGINEERING AND
                                 MANUFACTURING
                                 DEVELOPMENT PH.
   127   0605830A               AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT               8,880                                8,880
                                 EQUIPMENT.
   128   0210609A               PALADIN INTEGRATED                  152,288                              152,288
                                 MANAGEMENT (PIM).
   129   0303032A               TROJAN--RH12.............             5,022                                5,022
   130   0304270A               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                   12,686                               12,686
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM                  2,068,950            29,668          2,098,618
                                 DEVELOPMENT &
                                 DEMONSTRATION.
         .....................
         .....................  RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
   131   0604256A               THREAT SIMULATOR                     20,035                               20,035
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   132   0604258A               TARGET SYSTEMS                       16,684                               16,684
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   133   0604759A               MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT.....            62,580                               62,580
   134   0605103A               RAND ARROYO CENTER.......            20,853                               20,853
   135   0605301A               ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL.....           205,145                              205,145
   136   0605326A               CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION             19,430                               19,430
                                 PROGRAM.
   138   0605601A               ARMY TEST RANGES AND                277,646                              277,646
                                 FACILITIES.
   139   0605602A               ARMY TECHNICAL TEST                  51,550                               51,550
                                 INSTRUMENTATION AND
                                 TARGETS.
   140   0605604A               SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY              33,246                               33,246
                                 ANALYSIS.
   141   0605606A               AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION...             4,760                                4,760
   142   0605702A               METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO             8,303                                8,303
                                 RDT&E ACTIVITIES.
   143   0605706A               MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS            20,403                               20,403
   144   0605709A               EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN              10,396                               10,396
                                 ITEMS.
   145   0605712A               SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL               49,337                               49,337
                                 TESTING.
   146   0605716A               ARMY EVALUATION CENTER...            52,694                               52,694
   147   0605718A               ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD               938                                  938
                                 COLLABORATION & INTEG.
   148   0605801A               PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES...            60,319                               60,319
   149   0605803A               TECHNICAL INFORMATION                28,478                               28,478
                                 ACTIVITIES.
   150   0605805A               MUNITIONS                            32,604            -8,000             24,604
                                 STANDARDIZATION,
                                 EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY.
         .....................    Under execution of                                  [-8,000]
                                   prior year funds.
   151   0605857A               ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY                 3,186                                3,186
                                 TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT.
   152   0605898A               MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D.......            48,955                               48,955
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, RDT&E                   1,027,542            -8,000          1,019,542
                                 MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
         .....................
         .....................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                 DEVELOPMENT
   154   0603778A               MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT             18,397                               18,397
                                 PROGRAM.
   155   0603813A               TRACTOR PULL.............             9,461                                9,461
   156   0607131A               WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS                 4,945                                4,945
                                 PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
                                 PROGRAMS.
   157   0607133A               TRACTOR SMOKE............             7,569                                7,569
   158   0607135A               APACHE PRODUCT                       69,862                               69,862
                                 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
   159   0607136A               BLACKHAWK PRODUCT                    66,653                               66,653
                                 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
   160   0607137A               CHINOOK PRODUCT                      37,407                               37,407
                                 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
   161   0607138A               FIXED WING PRODUCT                    1,151                                1,151
                                 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
   162   0607139A               IMPROVED TURBINE ENGINE              51,164                               51,164
                                 PROGRAM.
   163   0607140A               EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES                 2,481                                2,481
                                 FROM NIE.
   164   0607141A               LOGISTIAG AUTOMATION.....             1,673                                1,673
   166   0607665A               FAMILY OF BIOMETRIAG.....            13,237                               13,237
   167   0607865A               PATRIOT PRODUCT                     105,816                              105,816
                                 IMPROVEMENT.
   169   0202429A               AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT--             40,565                               40,565
                                 COCOM EXERCISE.
   171   0203728A               JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP                 35,719                               35,719
                                 OPERATION COORDINATION
                                 SYSTEM (JADOAG).
   172   0203735A               COMBAT VEHICLE                      257,167            40,000            297,167
                                 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
         .....................    Stryker modification                                [40,000]
                                   and improvement.
   173   0203740A               MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM..            15,445                               15,445
   175   0203752A               AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT               364                                  364
                                 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
   176   0203758A               DIGITIZATION.............             4,361                                4,361
   177   0203801A               MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE                   3,154                                3,154
                                 PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
                                 PROGRAM.
   178   0203802A               OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT                35,951                               35,951
                                 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
   179   0203808A               TRACTOR CARD.............            34,686                               34,686
   180   0205402A               INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE--            10,750                               10,750
                                 OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV.
   181   0205410A               MATERIALS HANDLING                      402                                  402
                                 EQUIPMENT.
   183   0205456A               LOWER TIER AIR AND                   64,159                               64,159
                                 MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD)
                                 SYSTEM.
   184   0205778A               GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH               17,527                               17,527
                                 ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS).
   185   0208053A               JOINT TACTICAL GROUND                20,515                               20,515
                                 SYSTEM.
   187   0303028A               SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE            12,368                               12,368
                                 ACTIVITIES.
   188   0303140A               INFORMATION SYSTEMS                  31,154                               31,154
                                 SECURITY PROGRAM.
   189   0303141A               GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT                12,274                               12,274
                                 SYSTEM.
   190   0303142A               SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT             9,355                                9,355
                                 (SPACE).
   191   0303150A               WWMCAG/GLOBAL COMMAND AND             7,053                                7,053
                                 CONTROL SYSTEM.
   193   0305179A               INTEGRATED BROADCAST                    750                                  750
                                 SERVICE (IBS).
   194   0305204A               TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL             13,225                               13,225
                                 VEHICLES.
   195   0305206A               AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE              22,870                               22,870
                                 SYSTEMS.
   196   0305208A               DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/           25,592                               25,592
                                 SURFACE SYSTEMS.
   199   0305233A               RQ-7 UAV.................             7,297                                7,297
   201   0310349A               WIN-T INCREMENT 2--                   3,800                                3,800
                                 INITIAL NETWORKING.
   202   0708045A               END ITEM INDUSTRIAL                  48,442                               48,442
                                 PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES.
         9999999999             CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......             4,536                                4,536
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL             1,129,297            40,000          1,169,297
                                 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................
         .....................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                   6,924,959            91,668          7,016,627
                                 DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                 EVAL, ARMY.
         .....................
         .....................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                 TEST & EVAL, NAVY
         .....................  BASIC RESEARCH
     1   0601103N               UNIVERSITY RESEARCH                 116,196                              116,196
                                 INITIATIVES.
     2   0601152N               IN-HOUSE LABORATORY                  19,126                               19,126
                                 INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
     3   0601153N               DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES           451,606            55,000            506,606
         .....................    Basic research program                              [55,000]
                                   increase.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH.           586,928            55,000            641,928
         .....................
         .....................  APPLIED RESEARCH
     4   0602114N               POWER PROJECTION APPLIED             68,723                               68,723
                                 RESEARCH.
     5   0602123N               FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED            154,963                              154,963
                                 RESEARCH.
     6   0602131M               MARINE CORPS LANDING                 49,001                               49,001
                                 FORCE TECHNOLOGY.
     7   0602235N               COMMON PICTURE APPLIED               42,551                               42,551
                                 RESEARCH.
     8   0602236N               WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT               45,056                               45,056
                                 APPLIED RESEARCH.
     9   0602271N               ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS             115,051                              115,051
                                 APPLIED RESEARCH.
    10   0602435N               OCEAN WARFIGHTING                    42,252                               42,252
                                 ENVIRONMENT APPLIED
                                 RESEARCH.
    11   0602651M               JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS              6,119                                6,119
                                 APPLIED RESEARCH.
    12   0602747N               UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED            123,750            18,600            142,350
                                 RESEARCH.
         .....................    Accelerate undersea                                 [18,600]
                                   warfare research.
    13   0602750N               FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES           179,686                              179,686
                                 APPLIED RESEARCH.
    14   0602782N               MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY               37,418                               37,418
                                 WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, APPLIED                   864,570            18,600            883,170
                                 RESEARCH.
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEVELOPMENT
    15   0603114N               POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED            37,093                               37,093
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    16   0603123N               FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED            38,044                               38,044
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    17   0603271N               ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS              34,899                               34,899
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
    18   0603640M               USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY            137,562                              137,562
                                 DEMONSTRATION (ATD).
    19   0603651M               JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS             12,745                               12,745
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
    20   0603673N               FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES           258,860           -10,000            248,860
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................    Capable manpower,                                  [-10,000]
                                   enablers, and sea
                                   basing.
    21   0603680N               MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY             57,074                               57,074
                                 PROGRAM.
    22   0603729N               WARFIGHTER PROTECTION                 4,807                                4,807
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
    23   0603747N               UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED            13,748                               13,748
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    24   0603758N               NAVY WARFIGHTING                     66,041                               66,041
                                 EXPERIMENTS AND
                                 DEMONSTRATIONS.
    25   0603782N               MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY                1,991                                1,991
                                 WARFARE ADVANCED
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                  662,864           -10,000            652,864
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                 DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
    26   0603207N               AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL                   41,832                               41,832
                                 APPLICATIONS.
    27   0603216N               AVIATION SURVIVABILITY...             5,404                                5,404
    28   0603237N               DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND              3,086                                3,086
                                 AND CONTROL.
    29   0603251N               AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.........            11,643                               11,643
    30   0603254N               ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT..             5,555                                5,555
    31   0603261N               TACTICAL AIRBORNE                     3,087                                3,087
                                 RECONNAISSANCE.
    32   0603382N               ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS               1,636                                1,636
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    33   0603502N               SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER           118,588                              118,588
                                 MINE COUNTERMEASURES.
    34   0603506N               SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO                 77,385                               77,385
                                 DEFENSE.
    35   0603512N               CARRIER SYSTEMS                       8,348                                8,348
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
    36   0603525N               PILOT FISH...............           123,246                              123,246
    37   0603527N               RETRACT LARCH............            28,819                               28,819
    38   0603536N               RETRACT JUNIPER..........           112,678                              112,678
    39   0603542N               RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL.....               710                                  710
    40   0603553N               SURFACE ASW..............             1,096                                1,096
    41   0603561N               ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM            87,160            11,000             98,160
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................    Accelerate unmanned                                 [11,000]
                                   underwater vehicle
                                   development.
    42   0603562N               SUBMARINE TACTICAL                   10,371                               10,371
                                 WARFARE SYSTEMS.
    43   0603563N               SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED                11,888                               11,888
                                 DESIGN.
    44   0603564N               SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN &             4,332                                4,332
                                 FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
    45   0603570N               ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER              482,040                              482,040
                                 SYSTEMS.
    46   0603573N               ADVANCED SURFACE                     25,904                               25,904
                                 MACHINERY SYSTEMS.
    47   0603576N               CHALK EAGLE..............           511,802                              511,802
    48   0603581N               LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP                118,416                              118,416
                                 (LAG).
    49   0603582N               COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION            35,901                               35,901
    50   0603595N               OHIO REPLACEMENT.........           971,393                              971,393
    51   0603596N               LAG MISSION MODULES......           206,149                              206,149
    52   0603597N               AUTOMATED TEST AND RE-                8,000                                8,000
                                 TEST (ATRT).
    53   0603609N               CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS...             7,678                                7,678
    54   0603611M               MARINE CORPS ASSAULT                219,082                              219,082
                                 VEHICLES.
    55   0603635M               MARINE CORPS GROUND                     623                                  623
                                 COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM.
    56   0603654N               JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE              18,260                               18,260
                                 ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
    57   0603658N               COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT...            76,247                               76,247
    58   0603713N               OCEAN ENGINEERING                     4,520                                4,520
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
    59   0603721N               ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.            20,711                               20,711
    60   0603724N               NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM......            47,761                               47,761
    61   0603725N               FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT...             5,226                                5,226
    62   0603734N               CHALK CORAL..............           182,771                              182,771
    63   0603739N               NAVY LOGISTIC                         3,866                                3,866
                                 PRODUCTIVITY.
    64   0603746N               RETRACT MAPLE............           360,065                              360,065
    65   0603748N               LINK PLUMERIA............           237,416                              237,416
    66   0603751N               RETRACT ELM..............            37,944                               37,944
    67   0603764N               LINK EVERGREEN...........            47,312                               47,312
    68   0603787N               SPECIAL PROCESSES........            17,408                               17,408
    69   0603790N               NATO RESEARCH AND                     9,359                                9,359
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
    70   0603795N               LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY...               887                                  887
    71   0603851M               JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS             29,448                               29,448
                                 TESTING.
    72   0603860N               JOINT PRECISION APPROACH             91,479                               91,479
                                 AND LANDING SYSTEMS--DEM/
                                 VAL.
    73   0603925N               DIRECTED ENERGY AND                  67,360                               67,360
                                 ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS.
    74   0604112N               GERALD R. FORD CLASS                 48,105            79,100            127,205
                                 NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER
                                 (CVN 78--80).
         .....................    Full ship shock trials                              [79,100]
                                   for CVN-78.
    75   0604122N               REMOTE MINEHUNTING SYSTEM            20,089                               20,089
                                 (RMS).
    76   0604272N               TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL             18,969                               18,969
                                 INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
                                 (TADIRCM).
    77   0604279N               ASE SELF-PROTECTION                   7,874                                7,874
                                 OPTIMIZATION.
    78   0604292N               MH-XX....................             5,298                                5,298
    79   0604454N               LX (R)...................            46,486            29,000             75,486
         .....................    Accelerate LX (R)......                             [29,000]
    80   0604653N               JOINT COUNTER RADIO                   3,817                                3,817
                                 CONTROLLED IED
                                 ELECTRONIC WARFARE
                                 (JCREW).
    81   0604659N               PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS              9,595                                9,595
                                 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
    82   0604707N               SPACE AND ELECTRONIC                 29,581                               29,581
                                 WARFARE (SEW)
                                 ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING
                                 SUPPORT.
    83   0604786N               OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE              285,849                              285,849
                                 WARFARE WEAPON
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
    84   0605812M               JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL                 36,656                               36,656
                                 VEHICLE (JLTV)
                                 ENGINEERING AND
                                 MANUFACTURING
                                 DEVELOPMENT PH.
    85   0303354N               ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT--             9,835                                9,835
                                 MIP.
    86   0304270N               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                      580                                  580
                                 DEVELOPMENT--MIP.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                5,024,626           119,100          5,143,726
                                 COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                 PROTOTYPES.
         .....................
         .....................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
                                 DEMONSTRATION
    87   0603208N               TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT.            21,708                               21,708
    88   0604212N               OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT...            11,101                               11,101
    89   0604214N               AV-8B AIRCRAFT--ENG DEV..            39,878                               39,878
    90   0604215N               STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT....            53,059                               53,059
    91   0604216N               MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER             21,358                               21,358
                                 UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT.
    92   0604218N               AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT                   4,515                                4,515
                                 ENGINEERING.
    93   0604221N               P-3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM             1,514                                1,514
    94   0604230N               WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM...             5,875                                5,875
    95   0604231N               TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM..            81,553                               81,553
    96   0604234N               ADVANCED HAWKEYE.........           272,149                              272,149
    97   0604245N               H-1 UPGRADES.............            27,235                               27,235
    98   0604261N               ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS..            35,763                               35,763
    99   0604262N               V-22A....................            87,918                               87,918
   100   0604264N               AIR CREW SYSTEMS                     12,679                               12,679
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   101   0604269N               EA-18....................            56,921                               56,921
   102   0604270N               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                   23,685                               23,685
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   103   0604273N               EXECUTIVE HELO                      507,093                              507,093
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   104   0604274N               NEXT GENERATION JAMMER              411,767                              411,767
                                 (NGJ).
   105   0604280N               JOINT TACTICAL RADIO                 25,071                               25,071
                                 SYSTEM--NAVY (JTRS-NAVY).
   106   0604307N               SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT            443,433                              443,433
                                 SYSTEM ENGINEERING.
   107   0604311N               LPD-17 CLASS SYSTEMS                    747                                  747
                                 INTEGRATION.
   108   0604329N               SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)            97,002                               97,002
   109   0604366N               STANDARD MISSILE                    129,649                              129,649
                                 IMPROVEMENTS.
   110   0604373N               AIRBORNE MCM.............            11,647                               11,647
   111   0604376M               MARINE AIR GROUND TASK                2,778                                2,778
                                 FORCE (MAGTF) ELECTRONIC
                                 WARFARE (EW) FOR
                                 AVIATION.
   112   0604378N               NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE                23,695                               23,695
                                 CONTROL--COUNTER AIR
                                 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
   113   0604404N               UNMANNED CARRIER LAUNCHED           134,708          -134,708                  0
                                 AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE
                                 AND STRIKE (UCLASS)
                                 SYSTEM.
         .....................    Excess FY15 funds buy                             [-134,708]
                                   down FY16 requirements.
   114   0604501N               ADVANCED ABOVE WATER                 43,914                               43,914
                                 SENSORS.
   115   0604503N               SSN-688 AND TRIDENT                 109,908                              109,908
                                 MODERNIZATION.
   116   0604504N               AIR CONTROL..............            57,928                               57,928
   117   0604512N               SHIPBOARD AVIATION                  120,217                              120,217
                                 SYSTEMS.
   118   0604522N               AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE             241,754                              241,754
                                 RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM.
   119   0604558N               NEW DESIGN SSN...........           122,556                              122,556
   120   0604562N               SUBMARINE TACTICAL                   48,213            12,000             60,213
                                 WARFARE SYSTEM.
         .....................    Accelerate submarine                                [12,000]
                                   combat and weapon
                                   system modernization.
   121   0604567N               SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/                49,712                               49,712
                                 LIVE FIRE T&E.
   122   0604574N               NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER                4,096                                4,096
                                 RESOURCES.
   123   0604580N               VIRGINIA PAYLOAD MODULE             167,719                              167,719
                                 (VPM).
   124   0604601N               MINE DEVELOPMENT.........            15,122                               15,122
   125   0604610N               LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO                  33,738                               33,738
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   126   0604654N               JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE               8,123                                8,123
                                 ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
   127   0604703N               PERSONNEL, TRAINING,                  7,686                                7,686
                                 SIMULATION, AND HUMAN
                                 FACTORS.
   128   0604727N               JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON                   405                                  405
                                 SYSTEMS.
   129   0604755N               SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT           153,836                              153,836
                                 & CONTROL).
   130   0604756N               SHIP SELF DEFENSE                    99,619                               99,619
                                 (ENGAGE: HARD KILL).
   131   0604757N               SHIP SELF DEFENSE                   116,798                              116,798
                                 (ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW).
   132   0604761N               INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING.             4,353                                4,353
   133   0604771N               MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT......             9,443                                9,443
   134   0604777N               NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM.....            32,469                               32,469
   135   0604800M               JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER                537,901           -12,500            525,401
                                 (JSF)--EMD.
         .....................    F-35B Block 4                                      [-12,500]
                                   development early to
                                   need.
   136   0604800N               JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER                504,736           -12,500            492,236
                                 (JSF)--EMD.
         .....................    F-35C Block 4                                      [-12,500]
                                   development early to
                                   need.
   137   0604810M               JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER                 59,265                               59,265
                                 FOLLOW ON DEVELOPMENT--
                                 MARINE CORPS.
   138   0604810N               JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER                 47,579                               47,579
                                 FOLLOW ON DEVELOPMENT--
                                 NAVY.
   139   0605013M               INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY                5,914                                5,914
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   140   0605013N               INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY               89,711                               89,711
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   141   0605212N               CH-53K RDTE..............           632,092                              632,092
   142   0605220N               SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR               7,778                                7,778
                                 (SSC).
   143   0605450N               JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND                  25,898                               25,898
                                 MISSILE (JAGM).
   144   0605500N               MULTI-MISSION MARITIME              247,929                              247,929
                                 AIRCRAFT (MMA).
   145   0204202N               DDG-1000.................           103,199                              103,199
   146   0304231N               TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM--               998                                  998
                                 MIP.
   147   0304785N               TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC                 17,785                               17,785
                                 SYSTEMS.
   148   0305124N               SPECIAL APPLICATIONS                 35,905                               35,905
                                 PROGRAM.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM                  6,308,800          -147,708          6,161,092
                                 DEVELOPMENT &
                                 DEMONSTRATION.
         .....................
         .....................  MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
   149   0604256N               THREAT SIMULATOR                     30,769                               30,769
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   150   0604258N               TARGET SYSTEMS                      112,606                              112,606
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   151   0604759N               MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT.....            61,234                               61,234
   152   0605126N               JOINT THEATER AIR AND                 6,995                                6,995
                                 MISSILE DEFENSE
                                 ORGANIZATION.
   153   0605152N               STUDIES AND ANALYSIS                  4,011                                4,011
                                 SUPPORT--NAVY.
   154   0605154N               CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES            48,563                               48,563
   155   0605285N               NEXT GENERATION FIGHTER..             5,000                                5,000
   157   0605804N               TECHNICAL INFORMATION                   925                                  925
                                 SERVICES.
   158   0605853N               MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL &              78,143                               78,143
                                 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
   159   0605856N               STRATEGIC TECHNICAL                   3,258                                3,258
                                 SUPPORT.
   160   0605861N               RDT&E SCIENCE AND                    76,948                               76,948
                                 TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT.
   161   0605863N               RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT             132,122                              132,122
                                 SUPPORT.
   162   0605864N               TEST AND EVALUATION                 351,912                              351,912
                                 SUPPORT.
   163   0605865N               OPERATIONAL TEST AND                 17,985                               17,985
                                 EVALUATION CAPABILITY.
   164   0605866N               NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC             5,316                                5,316
                                 WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT.
   165   0605867N               SEW SURVEILLANCE/                     6,519                                6,519
                                 RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT.
   166   0605873M               MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE            13,649                               13,649
                                 SUPPORT.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, MANAGEMENT                955,955                              955,955
                                 SUPPORT.
         .....................
         .....................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                 DEVELOPMENT
   174   0101221N               STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS             107,039                              107,039
                                 SYSTEM SUPPORT.
   175   0101224N               SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY             46,506                               46,506
                                 PROGRAM.
   176   0101226N               SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC                    3,900               800              4,700
                                 WARFARE DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................    Accelerate combat rapid                                [800]
                                   attack weapon.
   177   0101402N               NAVY STRATEGIC                       16,569                               16,569
                                 COMMUNICATIONS.
   178   0203761N               RAPID TECHNOLOGY                     18,632                               18,632
                                 TRANSITION (RTT).
   179   0204136N               F/A-18 SQUADRONS.........           133,265                              133,265
   181   0204163N               FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS             62,867                               62,867
                                 (TACTICAL).
   182   0204228N               SURFACE SUPPORT..........            36,045                               36,045
   183   0204229N               TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK                25,228                               25,228
                                 MISSION PLANNING CENTER
                                 (TMPC).
   184   0204311N               INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE              54,218                               54,218
                                 SYSTEM.
   185   0204413N               AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL                  11,335                               11,335
                                 SUPPORT UNITS
                                 (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT).
   186   0204460M               GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED             80,129                               80,129
                                 RADAR (G/ATOR).
   187   0204571N               CONSOLIDATED TRAINING                39,087                               39,087
                                 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
   188   0204574N               CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT                    1,915                                1,915
                                 SUPPORT.
   189   0204575N               ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW)              46,609                               46,609
                                 READINESS SUPPORT.
   190   0205601N               HARM IMPROVEMENT.........            52,708                               52,708
   191   0205604N               TACTICAL DATA LINKS......           149,997                              149,997
   192   0205620N               SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM            24,460                               24,460
                                 INTEGRATION.
   193   0205632N               MK-48 ADCAP..............            42,206             5,500             47,706
         .....................    Accelerate torpedo                                   [5,500]
                                   upgrades.
   194   0205633N               AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS....           117,759                              117,759
   195   0205675N               OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER           101,323                              101,323
                                 SYSTEMS.
   196   0206313M               MARINE CORPS                         67,763                               67,763
                                 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
   197   0206335M               COMMON AVIATION COMMAND              13,431                               13,431
                                 AND CONTROL SYSTEM
                                 (CAC2S).
   198   0206623M               MARINE CORPS GROUND                  56,769                               56,769
                                 COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS
                                 SYSTEMS.
   199   0206624M               MARINE CORPS COMBAT                  20,729                               20,729
                                 SERVICES SUPPORT.
   200   0206625M               USMC INTELLIGENCE/                   13,152                               13,152
                                 ELECTRONIC WARFARE
                                 SYSTEMS (MIP).
   201   0206629M               AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT                   48,535                               48,535
                                 VEHICLE.
   202   0207161N               TACTICAL AIM MISSILES....            76,016                               76,016
   203   0207163N               ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-           32,172                               32,172
                                 TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
   208   0303109N               SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS             53,239                               53,239
                                 (SPACE).
   209   0303138N               CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT                  21,677                               21,677
                                 NETWORK ENTERPRISE
                                 SERVICES (CANES).
   210   0303140N               INFORMATION SYSTEMS                  28,102                               28,102
                                 SECURITY PROGRAM.
   211   0303150M               WWMCAG/GLOBAL COMMAND AND               294                                  294
                                 CONTROL SYSTEM.
   213   0305160N               NAVY METEOROLOGICAL AND                 599                                  599
                                 OCEAN SENSORS-SPACE
                                 (METOC).
   214   0305192N               MILITARY INTELLIGENCE                 6,207                                6,207
                                 PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES.
   215   0305204N               TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL              8,550                                8,550
                                 VEHICLES.
   216   0305205N               UAS INTEGRATION AND                  41,831                               41,831
                                 INTEROPERABILITY.
   217   0305208M               DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/            1,105                                1,105
                                 SURFACE SYSTEMS.
   218   0305208N               DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/           33,149                               33,149
                                 SURFACE SYSTEMS.
   219   0305220N               RQ-4 UAV.................           227,188                              227,188
   220   0305231N               MQ-8 UAV.................            52,770                               52,770
   221   0305232M               RQ-11 UAV................               635                                  635
   222   0305233N               RQ-7 UAV.................               688                                  688
   223   0305234N               SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL              4,647                                4,647
                                 UAS (STUASL0).
   224   0305239M               RQ-21A...................             6,435                                6,435
   225   0305241N               MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR            49,145                               49,145
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   226   0305242M               UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS               9,246                                9,246
                                 (UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP).
   227   0305421N               RQ-4 MODERNIZATION.......           150,854                              150,854
   228   0308601N               MODELING AND SIMULATION               4,757                                4,757
                                 SUPPORT.
   229   0702207N               DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-              24,185                               24,185
                                 IF).
   231   0708730N               MARITIME TECHNOLOGY                   4,321                                4,321
                                 (MARITECH).
   231A  9999999999             CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......         1,252,185                            1,252,185
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL             3,482,173             6,300          3,488,473
                                 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................
         .....................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                  17,885,916            41,292         17,927,208
                                 DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                 EVAL, NAVY.
         .....................
         .....................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                 TEST & EVAL, AF
         .....................  BASIC RESEARCH
     1   0601102F               DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES           329,721            45,000            374,721
         .....................    Basic research program                              [45,000]
                                   increase.
     2   0601103F               UNIVERSITY RESEARCH                 141,754                              141,754
                                 INITIATIVES.
     3   0601108F               HIGH ENERGY LASER                    13,778                               13,778
                                 RESEARCH INITIATIVES.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH.           485,253            45,000            530,253
         .....................
         .....................  APPLIED RESEARCH
     4   0602102F               MATERIALS................           125,234           -10,000            115,234
         .....................    Nanostructured and                                 [-10,000]
                                   biological materials.
     5   0602201F               AEROSPACE VEHICLE                   123,438                              123,438
                                 TECHNOLOGIES.
     6   0602202F               HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS                 100,530                              100,530
                                 APPLIED RESEARCH.
     7   0602203F               AEROSPACE PROPULSION.....           182,326                              182,326
     8   0602204F               AEROSPACE SENSORS........           147,291                              147,291
     9   0602601F               SPACE TECHNOLOGY.........           116,122                              116,122
    10   0602602F               CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS...            99,851                               99,851
    11   0602605F               DIRECTED ENERGY                     115,604                              115,604
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    12   0602788F               DOMINANT INFORMATION                164,909                              164,909
                                 SCIENCES AND METHODS.
    13   0602890F               HIGH ENERGY LASER                    42,037                               42,037
                                 RESEARCH.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, APPLIED                 1,217,342           -10,000          1,207,342
                                 RESEARCH.
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEVELOPMENT
    14   0603112F               ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR               37,665                               37,665
                                 WEAPON SYSTEMS.
    15   0603199F               SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND              18,378                               18,378
                                 TECHNOLOGY (S&T).
    16   0603203F               ADVANCED AEROSPACE                   42,183                               42,183
                                 SENSORS.
    17   0603211F               AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/           100,733                              100,733
                                 DEMO.
    18   0603216F               AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND            168,821                              168,821
                                 POWER TECHNOLOGY.
    19   0603270F               ELECTRONIC COMBAT                    47,032                               47,032
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    20   0603401F               ADVANCED SPACECRAFT                  54,897                               54,897
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    21   0603444F               MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE              12,853                               12,853
                                 SYSTEM (MSSS).
    22   0603456F               HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS                  25,448                               25,448
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
    23   0603601F               CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS                 48,536                               48,536
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    24   0603605F               ADVANCED WEAPONS                     30,195                               30,195
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    25   0603680F               MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY             42,630                               42,630
                                 PROGRAM.
    26   0603788F               BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE                46,414                               46,414
                                 DEVELOPMENT AND
                                 DEMONSTRATION.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                  675,785                              675,785
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                 DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
    27   0603260F               INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED                 5,032                                5,032
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
    29   0603438F               SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY.             4,070                                4,070
    30   0603742F               COMBAT IDENTIFICATION                21,790                               21,790
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    31   0603790F               NATO RESEARCH AND                     4,736                                4,736
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
    33   0603830F               SPACE SECURITY AND                   30,771                               30,771
                                 DEFENSE PROGRAM.
    34   0603851F               INTERCONTINENTAL                     39,765                               39,765
                                 BALLISTIC MISSILE--DEM/
                                 VAL.
    36   0604015F               LONG RANGE STRIKE........         1,246,228          -460,000            786,228
         .....................    Delayed EMD contract                              [-460,000]
                                   award.
    37   0604317F               TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER......             3,512                                3,512
    38   0604327F               HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED               54,637                               54,637
                                 TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM
                                 (HDBTDS) PROGRAM.
    40   0604422F               WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON.            76,108                               76,108
    44   0604857F               OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE              6,457            13,500             19,957
                                 SPACE.
         .....................    Increase to match                                   [13,500]
                                   previous year funding
                                   level.
    45   0604858F               TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM..           246,514                              246,514
    46   0605230F               GROUND BASED STRATEGIC               75,166                               75,166
                                 DETERRENT.
    49   0207110F               NEXT GENERATION AIR                   8,830                                8,830
                                 DOMINANCE.
    50   0207455F               THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG-              14,939                               14,939
                                 RANGE RADAR (3DELRR).
    51   0305164F               NAVSTAR GLOBAL                      142,288                              142,288
                                 POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER
                                 EQUIPMENT) (SPACE).
    52   0306250F               CYBER OPERATIONS                     81,732            15,000             96,732
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................    Increase USCC Cyber                                 [15,000]
                                   Operations Technology
                                   Development.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                2,062,575          -431,500          1,631,075
                                 COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                 PROTOTYPES.
         .....................
         .....................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
                                 DEMONSTRATION
    55   0604270F               ELECTRONIC WARFARE                      929                                  929
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
    56   0604281F               TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS               60,256                               60,256
                                 ENTERPRISE.
    57   0604287F               PHYSICAL SECURITY                     5,973                                5,973
                                 EQUIPMENT.
    58   0604329F               SMALL DIAMETER BOMB                  32,624                               32,624
                                 (SDB)--EMD.
    59   0604421F               COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS.....            24,208                               24,208
    60   0604425F               SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS            32,374                               32,374
                                 SYSTEMS.
    61   0604426F               SPACE FENCE..............           243,909                              243,909
    62   0604429F               AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC                   8,358                                8,358
                                 ATTACK.
    63   0604441F               SPACE BASED INFRARED                292,235                              292,235
                                 SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD.
    64   0604602F               ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE                    40,154                               40,154
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
    65   0604604F               SUBMUNITIONS.............             2,506                                2,506
    66   0604617F               AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT.....            57,678                               57,678
    67   0604706F               LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS.....             8,187                                8,187
    68   0604735F               COMBAT TRAINING RANGES...            15,795                               15,795
    69   0604800F               F-35--EMD................           589,441           -25,000            564,441
         .....................    F-35A Block 4                                      [-25,000]
                                   development early to
                                   need.
    71   0604853F               EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH            84,438                               84,438
                                 VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)--
                                 EMD.
    72   0604932F               LONG RANGE STANDOFF                  36,643                               36,643
                                 WEAPON.
    73   0604933F               ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION..           142,551                              142,551
    74   0605213F               F-22 MODERNIZATION                  140,640                              140,640
                                 INCREMENT 3.2B.
    75   0605214F               GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS                 3,598                                3,598
                                 FUZE DEVELOPMENT.
    76   0605221F               KC-46....................           602,364          -200,000            402,364
         .....................    Schedule delay and                                [-200,000]
                                   availability of
                                   unobligated prior year
                                   funds.
    77   0605223F               ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING..            11,395                               11,395
    78   0605229F               AGAR HH-60                          156,085                              156,085
                                 RECAPITALIZATION.
    80   0605431F               ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM              228,230                              228,230
                                 (SPACE).
    81   0605432F               POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE)..            72,084                               72,084
    82   0605433F               WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM               56,343                               56,343
                                 (SPACE).
    83   0605458F               AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER               47,629                               47,629
                                 10.2 RDT&E.
    84   0605931F               B-2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT            271,961                              271,961
                                 SYSTEM.
    85   0101125F               NUCLEAR WEAPONS                     212,121                              212,121
                                 MODERNIZATION.
    86   0207171F               F-15 EPAWSS..............           186,481            29,500            215,981
         .....................    NRE for ADCPII upgrade.                             [28,000]
         .....................    Flight test support....                              [1,500]
    87   0207701F               FULL COMBAT MISSION                  18,082                               18,082
                                 TRAINING.
    88   0305176F               COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER                  993                                  993
                                 LOCATOR.
    89   0307581F               NEXTGEN JSTARS...........            44,343                               44,343
    91   0401319F               PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT               102,620                              102,620
                                 REPLACEMENT (PAR).
    92   0701212F               AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEMS...            14,563                               14,563
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM                  3,847,791          -195,500          3,652,291
                                 DEVELOPMENT &
                                 DEMONSTRATION.
         .....................
         .....................  MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
    93   0604256F               THREAT SIMULATOR                     23,844                               23,844
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
    94   0604759F               MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT.....            68,302                               68,302
    95   0605101F               RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE...            34,918                               34,918
    97   0605712F               INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST             10,476                               10,476
                                 & EVALUATION.
    98   0605807F               TEST AND EVALUATION                 673,908                              673,908
                                 SUPPORT.
    99   0605860F               ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH                21,858                               21,858
                                 PROGRAM (SPACE).
   100   0605864F               SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP).            28,228                               28,228
   101   0605976F               FACILITIES RESTORATION               40,518                               40,518
                                 AND MODERNIZATION--TEST
                                 AND EVALUATION SUPPORT.
   102   0605978F               FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT--             27,895                               27,895
                                 TEST AND EVALUATION
                                 SUPPORT.
   103   0606017F               REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND            16,507                               16,507
                                 MATURATION.
   104   0606116F               SPACE TEST AND TRAINING              18,997                               18,997
                                 RANGE DEVELOPMENT.
   106   0606392F               SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER            185,305                              185,305
                                 (SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE.
   107   0308602F               ENTEPRISE INFORMATION                 4,841                                4,841
                                 SERVICES (EIS).
   108   0702806F               ACQUISITION AND                      15,357                               15,357
                                 MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
   109   0804731F               GENERAL SKILL TRAINING...             1,315                                1,315
   111   1001004F               INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES.             2,315                                2,315
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, MANAGEMENT              1,174,584                            1,174,584
                                 SUPPORT.
         .....................
         .....................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                 DEVELOPMENT
   112   0603423F               GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM           350,232                              350,232
                                 III--OPERATIONAL CONTROL
                                 SEGMENT.
   113   0604233F               SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE            10,465                               10,465
                                 FLIGHT TRAINING.
   114   0604445F               WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE...            24,577                               24,577
   117   0605018F               AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL              69,694           -45,400             24,294
                                 AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS).
         .....................    Restructure program....                            [-45,400]
   118   0605024F               ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY               26,718                               26,718
                                 EXECUTIVE AGENCY.
   119   0605278F               HC/MC-130 RECAP RDT&E....            10,807                               10,807
   121   0101113F               B-52 SQUADRONS...........            74,520                               74,520
   122   0101122F               AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE                     451                                  451
                                 MISSILE (ALCM).
   123   0101126F               B-1B SQUADRONS...........             2,245                                2,245
   124   0101127F               B-2 SQUADRONS............           108,183                              108,183
   125   0101213F               MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS......           178,929                              178,929
   126   0101313F               STRAT WAR PLANNING                   28,481                               28,481
                                 SYSTEM--USSTRATCOM.
   127   0101314F               NIGHT FIST--USSTRATCOM...                87                                   87
   128   0101316F               WORLDWIDE JOINT STRATEGIC             5,315                                5,315
                                 COMMUNICATIONS.
   131   0105921F               SERVICE SUPPORT TO                    8,090                                8,090
                                 STRATCOM--SPACE
                                 ACTIVITIES.
   132   0205219F               MQ-9 UAV.................           123,439                              123,439
   134   0207131F               A-10 SQUADRONS...........                 0            16,200             16,200
         .....................    Sustain avionics                                    [16,200]
                                   software development.
   135   0207133F               F-16 SQUADRONS...........           148,297                              148,297
   136   0207134F               F-15E SQUADRONS..........           179,283            12,796            192,079
         .....................    Transfer from                                       [12,796]
                                   procurement.
   137   0207136F               MANNED DESTRUCTIVE                   14,860                               14,860
                                 SUPPRESSION.
   138   0207138F               F-22A SQUADRONS..........           262,552                              262,552
   139   0207142F               F-35 SQUADRONS...........           115,395                              115,395
   140   0207161F               TACTICAL AIM MISSILES....            43,360                               43,360
   141   0207163F               ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-           46,160                               46,160
                                 TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
   143   0207224F               COMBAT RESCUE AND                       412                                  412
                                 RECOVERY.
   144   0207227F               COMBAT RESCUE--PARARESCUE               657                                  657
   145   0207247F               AF TENCAP................            31,428                               31,428
   146   0207249F               PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS              1,105                                1,105
                                 PROCUREMENT.
   147   0207253F               COMPASS CALL.............            14,249                               14,249
   148   0207268F               AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT           103,942                              103,942
                                 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
   149   0207325F               JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE                 12,793                               12,793
                                 STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM).
   150   0207410F               AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS               21,193                               21,193
                                 CENTER (AOC).
   151   0207412F               CONTROL AND REPORTING                   559                                  559
                                 CENTER (CRC).
   152   0207417F               AIRBORNE WARNING AND                161,812                              161,812
                                 CONTROL SYSTEM (AWAAG).
   153   0207418F               TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL             6,001                                6,001
                                 SYSTEMS.
   155   0207431F               COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE               7,793                                7,793
                                 SYSTEM ACTIVITIES.
   156   0207444F               TACTICAL AIR CONTROL                 12,465                               12,465
                                 PARTY-MOD.
   157   0207448F               C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK.             1,681                                1,681
   159   0207452F               DCAPES...................            16,796                               16,796
   161   0207590F               SEEK EAGLE...............            21,564                               21,564
   162   0207601F               USAF MODELING AND                    24,994                               24,994
                                 SIMULATION.
   163   0207605F               WARGAMING AND SIMULATION              6,035                                6,035
                                 CENTERS.
   164   0207697F               DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND              4,358                                4,358
                                 EXERCISES.
   165   0208006F               MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS.            55,835                               55,835
   167   0208087F               AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE              12,874                               12,874
                                 OPERATIONS.
   168   0208088F               AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE               7,681                                7,681
                                 OPERATIONS.
   171   0301017F               GLOBAL SENSOR INTEGRATED              5,974                                5,974
                                 ON NETWORK (GSIN).
   177   0301400F               SPACE SUPERIORITY                    13,815                               13,815
                                 INTELLIGENCE.
   178   0302015F               E-4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE               80,360                               80,360
                                 OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC).
   179   0303001F               FAMILY OF ADVANCED BLOS               3,907                                3,907
                                 TERMINALS (FAB-T).
   180   0303131F               MINIMUM ESSENTIAL                    75,062                               75,062
                                 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
                                 NETWORK (MEECN).
   181   0303140F               INFORMATION SYSTEMS                  46,599                               46,599
                                 SECURITY PROGRAM.
   183   0303142F               GLOBAL FORCE MANAGEMENT--             2,470                                2,470
                                 DATA INITIATIVE.
   186   0304260F               AIRBORNE SIGINT                     112,775                              112,775
                                 ENTERPRISE.
   189   0305099F               GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC                    4,235                                4,235
                                 MANAGEMENT (GATM).
   192   0305110F               SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK             7,879                                7,879
                                 (SPACE).
   193   0305111F               WEATHER SERVICE..........            29,955                               29,955
   194   0305114F               AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL,                 21,485                               21,485
                                 APPROACH, AND LANDING
                                 SYSTEM (ATCALS).
   195   0305116F               AERIAL TARGETS...........             2,515                                2,515
   198   0305128F               SECURITY AND                            472                                  472
                                 INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES.
   199   0305145F               ARMS CONTROL                         12,137                               12,137
                                 IMPLEMENTATION.
   200   0305146F               DEFENSE JOINT                           361                                  361
                                 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
                                 ACTIVITIES.
   203   0305173F               SPACE AND MISSILE TEST                3,162                                3,162
                                 AND EVALUATION CENTER.
   204   0305174F               SPACE INNOVATION,                     1,543                                1,543
                                 INTEGRATION AND RAPID
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
   205   0305179F               INTEGRATED BROADCAST                  7,860                                7,860
                                 SERVICE (IBS).
   206   0305182F               SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM                6,902                                6,902
                                 (SPACE).
   207   0305202F               DRAGON U-2...............            34,471                               34,471
   209   0305206F               AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE              50,154                               50,154
                                 SYSTEMS.
   210   0305207F               MANNED RECONNAISSANCE                13,245                               13,245
                                 SYSTEMS.
   211   0305208F               DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/           22,784                               22,784
                                 SURFACE SYSTEMS.
   212   0305219F               MQ-1 PREDATOR A UAV......               716                                  716
   213   0305220F               RQ-4 UAV.................           208,053                              208,053
   214   0305221F               NETWORK-CENTRIC                      21,587                               21,587
                                 COLLABORATIVE TARGETING.
   215   0305236F               COMMON DATA LINK                     43,986                               43,986
                                 EXECUTIVE AGENT (CDL EA).
   216   0305238F               NATO AGS.................           197,486           -59,086            138,400
         .....................    Transfer from                                      [-59,086]
                                   procurement for NATO
                                   AWACS.
   217   0305240F               SUPPORT TO DCGS                      28,434                               28,434
                                 ENTERPRISE.
   218   0305265F               GPS III SPACE SEGMENT....           180,902                              180,902
   220   0305614F               JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM.....            81,911                               81,911
   221   0305881F               RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION..             3,149                                3,149
   222   0305913F               NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM               14,447                               14,447
                                 (SPACE).
   223   0305940F               SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS            20,077                               20,077
                                 OPERATIONS.
   225   0308699F               SHARED EARLY WARNING                    853                                  853
                                 (SEW).
   226   0401115F               C-130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON...            33,962                               33,962
   227   0401119F               C-5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS                42,864                               42,864
                                 (IF).
   228   0401130F               C-17 AIRCRAFT (IF).......            54,807                               54,807
   229   0401132F               C-130J PROGRAM...........            31,010                               31,010
   230   0401134F               LARGE AIRCRAFT IR                     6,802                                6,802
                                 COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM).
   231   0401219F               KC-10S...................             1,799                                1,799
   232   0401314F               OPERATIONAL SUPPORT                  48,453                               48,453
                                 AIRLIFT.
   233   0401318F               CV-22....................            36,576                               36,576
   235   0408011F               SPECIAL TACTIAG / COMBAT              7,963                                7,963
                                 CONTROL.
   236   0702207F               DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-               1,525                                1,525
                                 IF).
   237   0708610F               LOGISTIAG INFORMATION               112,676           -31,000             81,676
                                 TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT).
         .....................    Program growth.........                            [-31,000]
   238   0708611F               SUPPORT SYSTEMS                      12,657                               12,657
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   239   0804743F               OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING....             1,836                                1,836
   240   0808716F               OTHER PERSONNEL                         121                                  121
                                 ACTIVITIES.
   241   0901202F               JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY              5,911                                5,911
                                 AGENCY.
   242   0901218F               CIVILIAN COMPENSATION                 3,604                                3,604
                                 PROGRAM.
   243   0901220F               PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION.             4,598                                4,598
   244   0901226F               AIR FORCE STUDIES AND                 1,103                                1,103
                                 ANALYSIS AGENCY.
   246   0901538F               FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT                101,840                              101,840
                                 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   246A  9999999999             CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......        12,780,142           165,000         12,945,142
         .....................    Three program increases                            [165,000]
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL            17,010,339            58,510         17,068,849
                                 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................
         .....................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                  26,473,669          -533,490         25,940,179
                                 DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                 EVAL, AF.
         .....................
         .....................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                 TEST & EVAL, DW
         .....................  BASIC RESEARCH
     1   0601000BR              DTRA BASIC RESEARCH                  38,436                               38,436
                                 INITIATIVE.
     2   0601101E               DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES           333,119                              333,119
     3   0601110D8Z             BASIC RESEARCH                       42,022                               42,022
                                 INITIATIVES.
     4   0601117E               BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL            56,544                               56,544
                                 RESEARCH SCIENCE.
     5   0601120D8Z             NATIONAL DEFENSE                     49,453                               49,453
                                 EDUCATION PROGRAM.
     6   0601228D8Z             HISTORICALLY BLACK                   25,834                               25,834
                                 COLLEGES AND
                                 UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY
                                 INSTITUTIONS.
     7   0601384BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL              46,261                               46,261
                                 DEFENSE PROGRAM.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH.           591,669                              591,669
         .....................
         .....................  APPLIED RESEARCH
     8   0602000D8Z             JOINT MUNITIONS                      19,352                               19,352
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
     9   0602115E               BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY....           114,262                              114,262
    10   0602234D8Z             LINCOLN LABORATORY                   51,026                               51,026
                                 RESEARCH PROGRAM.
    11   0602251D8Z             APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE             48,226           -15,000             33,226
                                 ADVANCEMENT OF S&T
                                 PRIORITIES.
         .....................    General program                                    [-15,000]
                                   decrease.
    12   0602303E               INFORMATION &                       356,358                              356,358
                                 COMMUNICATIONS
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    14   0602383E               BIOLOGICAL WARFARE                   29,265                               29,265
                                 DEFENSE.
    15   0602384BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             208,111                              208,111
                                 DEFENSE PROGRAM.
    16   0602668D8Z             CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH..            13,727                               13,727
    18   0602702E               TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY......           314,582            -5,000            309,582
         .....................    Multi-azimuth defense                               [-5,000]
                                   fast intercept round
                                   engagement system.
    19   0602715E               MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL            220,115           -10,000            210,115
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
         .....................    Decrease in program                                [-10,000]
                                   growth.
    20   0602716E               ELECTRONIAG TECHNOLOGY...           174,798                              174,798
    21   0602718BR              WEAPONS OF MASS                     155,415                              155,415
                                 DESTRUCTION DEFEAT
                                 TECHNOLOGIES.
    22   0602751D8Z             SOFTWARE ENGINEERING                  8,824                                8,824
                                 INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED
                                 RESEARCH.
    23   1160401BB              SOF TECHNOLOGY                       37,517                               37,517
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, APPLIED                 1,751,578           -30,000          1,721,578
                                 RESEARCH.
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEVELOPMENT
    24   0603000D8Z             JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED             25,915                               25,915
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    26   0603122D8Z             COMBATING TERRORISM                  71,171                               71,171
                                 TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
    27   0603133D8Z             FOREIGN COMPARATIVE                  21,782                               21,782
                                 TESTING.
    28   0603160BR              COUNTERPROLIFERATION                290,654                              290,654
                                 INITIATIVES--PROLIFERATI
                                 ON PREVENTION AND DEFEAT.
    30   0603176C               ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND                12,139                               12,139
                                 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.
    31   0603177C               DISCRIMINATION SENSOR                28,200                               28,200
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    32   0603178C               WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY.......            45,389            30,000             75,389
         .....................    Fiber laser prototype                               [20,000]
                                   development.
         .....................    Divert attitude control                             [10,000]
                                   tech to support MOKV.
    33   0603179C               ADVANCED C4ISR...........             9,876                                9,876
    34   0603180C               ADVANCED RESEARCH........            17,364                               17,364
    35   0603225D8Z             JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS              18,802                               18,802
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
    36   0603264S               AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR              2,679                                2,679
                                 THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)--
                                 THEATER CAPABILITY.
    37   0603274C               SPECIAL PROGRAM--MDA                 64,708                               64,708
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    38   0603286E               ADVANCED AEROSPACE                  185,043                              185,043
                                 SYSTEMS.
    39   0603287E               SPACE PROGRAMS AND                  126,692                              126,692
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    40   0603288D8Z             ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS.....            14,645            -5,000              9,645
         .....................    General program                                     [-5,000]
                                   decrease.
    41   0603289D8Z             ADVANCED INNOVATIVE                  59,830                               59,830
                                 ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS.
    42   0603294C               COMMON KILL VEHICLE                  46,753            20,000             66,753
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
         .....................    Increase for Multiple                               [20,000]
                                   Object Kill Vehicle.
    43   0603384BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             140,094                              140,094
                                 DEFENSE PROGRAM--
                                 ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
    44   0603527D8Z             RETRACT LARCH............           118,666                              118,666
    45   0603618D8Z             JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED            43,966                               43,966
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    46   0603648D8Z             JOINT CAPABILITY                    141,540           -10,000            131,540
                                 TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEMONSTRATIONS.
         .....................    General program                                    [-10,000]
                                   decrease.
    47   0603662D8Z             NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS              6,980                                6,980
                                 CAPABILITIES.
    50   0603680D8Z             DEFENSE-WIDE                        157,056                              157,056
                                 MANUFACTURING SCIENCE
                                 AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
    51   0603699D8Z             EMERGING CAPABILITIES                33,515                               33,515
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
    52   0603712S               GENERIC LOGISTIAG R&D                16,543                               16,543
                                 TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEMONSTRATIONS.
    53   0603713S               DEPLOYMENT AND                       29,888                               29,888
                                 DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    54   0603716D8Z             STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL              65,836                               65,836
                                 RESEARCH PROGRAM.
    55   0603720S               MICROELECTRONIAG                     79,037                               79,037
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
                                 AND SUPPORT.
    56   0603727D8Z             JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM             9,626                                9,626
    57   0603739E               ADVANCED ELECTRONIAG                 79,021                               79,021
                                 TECHNOLOGIES.
    58   0603760E               COMMAND, CONTROL AND                201,335                              201,335
                                 COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
    59   0603766E               NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE             452,861           -20,000            432,861
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
         .....................    Decrease to reduce                                 [-20,000]
                                   inefficiency.
    60   0603767E               SENSOR TECHNOLOGY........           257,127                              257,127
    61   0603769SE              DISTRIBUTED LEARNING                 10,771                               10,771
                                 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
    62   0603781D8Z             SOFTWARE ENGINEERING                 15,202                               15,202
                                 INSTITUTE.
    63   0603826D8Z             QUICK REACTION SPECIAL               90,500           -20,000             70,500
                                 PROJECTS.
         .....................    Program decrease.......                            [-20,000]
    66   0603833D8Z             ENGINEERING SCIENCE &                18,377                               18,377
                                 TECHNOLOGY.
    67   0603941D8Z             TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE            82,589                               82,589
                                 & TECHNOLOGY.
    68   0604055D8Z             OPERATIONAL ENERGY                   37,420                               37,420
                                 CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT.
    69   0303310D8Z             CWMD SYSTEMS.............            42,488                               42,488
    70   1160402BB              SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY              57,741                               57,741
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                3,229,821            -5,000          3,224,821
                                 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................
         .....................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                 DEVELOPMENT AND
                                 PROTOTYPES
    71   0603161D8Z             NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL             31,710                               31,710
                                 PHYSICAL SECURITY
                                 EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P.
    73   0603600D8Z             WALKOFF..................            90,567                               90,567
    74   0603714D8Z             ADVANCED SENSORS                     15,900             4,000             19,900
                                 APPLICATION PROGRAM.
         .....................    Increase to match                                    [4,000]
                                   previous year funding
                                   level.
    75   0603851D8Z             ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY               52,758                               52,758
                                 TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION
                                 PROGRAM.
    76   0603881C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           228,021                              228,021
                                 TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT.
    77   0603882C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE         1,284,891                            1,284,891
                                 MIDCOURSE DEFENSE
                                 SEGMENT.
    78   0603884BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             172,754                              172,754
                                 DEFENSE PROGRAM--DEM/VAL.
    79   0603884C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           233,588                              233,588
                                 SENSORS.
    80   0603890C               BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS....           409,088                              409,088
    81   0603891C               SPECIAL PROGRAMS--MDA....           400,387                              400,387
    82   0603892C               AEGIS BMD................           843,355                              843,355
    83   0603893C               SPACE TRACKING &                     31,632                               31,632
                                 SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
    84   0603895C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE            23,289                               23,289
                                 SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS.
    85   0603896C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           450,085                              450,085
                                 COMMAND AND CONTROL,
                                 BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND
                                 COMMUNICATI.
    86   0603898C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE            49,570                               49,570
                                 JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT.
    87   0603904C               MISSILE DEFENSE                      49,211                               49,211
                                 INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS
                                 CENTER (MDIOC).
    88   0603906C               REGARDING TRENCH.........             9,583                                9,583
    89   0603907C               SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR               72,866                               72,866
                                 (SBX).
    90   0603913C               ISRAELI COOPERATIVE                 102,795           166,000            268,795
                                 PROGRAMS.
         .....................    Increase for Arrow/                                [166,000]
                                   David's Sling.
    91   0603914C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           274,323                              274,323
                                 TEST.
    92   0603915C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE           513,256                              513,256
                                 TARGETS.
    93   0603920D8Z             HUMANITARIAN DEMINING....            10,129                               10,129
    94   0603923D8Z             COALITION WARFARE........            10,350                               10,350
    95   0604016D8Z             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE                 1,518            10,000             11,518
                                 CORROSION PROGRAM.
         .....................    Program Increase.......                             [10,000]
    96   0604115C               TECHNOLOGY MATURATION                96,300                               96,300
                                 INITIATIVES.
    97   0604250D8Z             ADVANCED INNOVATIVE                 469,798                              469,798
                                 TECHNOLOGIES.
    98   0604400D8Z             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE                 3,129                                3,129
                                 (DOD) UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
                                 SYSTEM (UAS) COMMON
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   103   0604826J               JOINT C5 CAPABILITY                  25,200                               25,200
                                 DEVELOPMENT, INTEGRATION
                                 AND INTEROPERABILITY
                                 ASSESSMENTS.
   105   0604873C               LONG RANGE DISCRIMINATION           137,564                              137,564
                                 RADAR (LRDR).
   106   0604874C               IMPROVED HOMELAND DEFENSE           278,944            20,000            298,944
                                 INTERCEPTORS.
         .....................    Redesigned kill vehicle                             [20,000]
                                   development.
   107   0604876C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE            26,225                               26,225
                                 TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT
                                 TEST.
   108   0604878C               AEGIS BMD TEST...........            55,148                               55,148
   109   0604879C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE            86,764                               86,764
                                 SENSOR TEST.
   110   0604880C               LAND-BASED SM-3 (LBSM3)..            34,970                               34,970
   111   0604881C               AEGIS SM-3 BLOCK IIA CO-            172,645                              172,645
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   112   0604887C               BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE            64,618                               64,618
                                 MIDCOURSE SEGMENT TEST.
   114   0303191D8Z             JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC                 2,660                                2,660
                                 TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM.
   115   0305103C               CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE               963                                  963
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                6,816,554           200,000          7,016,554
                                 COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                 PROTOTYPES.
         .....................
         .....................  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
                                 DEMONSTRATION
   116   0604161D8Z             NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL              8,800                                8,800
                                 PHYSICAL SECURITY
                                 EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD.
   117   0604165D8Z             PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE                 78,817            10,000             88,817
                                 CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................    CPGS development and                                [10,000]
                                   flight test.
   118   0604384BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             303,647                              303,647
                                 DEFENSE PROGRAM--EMD.
   119   0604764K               ADVANCED IT SERVICES                 23,424                               23,424
                                 JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE
                                 (AITS-JPO).
   120   0604771D8Z             JOINT TACTICAL                       14,285                               14,285
                                 INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION
                                 SYSTEM (JTIDS).
   121   0605000BR              WEAPONS OF MASS                       7,156                                7,156
                                 DESTRUCTION DEFEAT
                                 CAPABILITIES.
   122   0605013BL              INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY               12,542                               12,542
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   123   0605021SE              HOMELAND PERSONNEL                      191                                  191
                                 SECURITY INITIATIVE.
   124   0605022D8Z             DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY                 3,273                                3,273
                                 PROGRAM.
   125   0605027D8Z             OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT                5,962                                5,962
                                 INITIATIVES.
   126   0605070S               DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS               13,412                               13,412
                                 DEVELOPMENT AND
                                 DEMONSTRATION.
   127   0605075D8Z             DCMO POLICY AND                       2,223                                2,223
                                 INTEGRATION.
   128   0605080S               DEFENSE AGENCY INTIATIVES            31,660                               31,660
                                 (DAI)--FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
   129   0605090S               DEFENSE RETIRED AND                  13,085                               13,085
                                 ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM
                                 (DRAS).
   130   0605210D8Z             DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC               7,209                                7,209
                                 PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES.
   131   0303141K               GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT                15,158           -10,000              5,158
                                 SYSTEM.
         .....................    Early to need..........                            [-10,000]
   132   0305304D8Z             DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY                 4,414                                4,414
                                 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
                                 (EEIM).
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM                    545,258                 0            545,258
                                 DEVELOPMENT &
                                 DEMONSTRATION.
         .....................
         .....................  MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
   133   0604774D8Z             DEFENSE READINESS                     5,581                                5,581
                                 REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS).
   134   0604875D8Z             JOINT SYSTEMS                         3,081                                3,081
                                 ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT.
   135   0604940D8Z             CENTRAL TEST AND                    229,125                              229,125
                                 EVALUATION INVESTMENT
                                 DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP).
   136   0604942D8Z             ASSESSMENTS AND                      28,674                               28,674
                                 EVALUATIONS.
   138   0605100D8Z             JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT            45,235                               45,235
                                 TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC).
   139   0605104D8Z             TECHNICAL STUDIES,                   24,936                               24,936
                                 SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS.
   141   0605126J               JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND             35,471                               35,471
                                 MISSILE DEFENSE
                                 ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO).
   144   0605142D8Z             SYSTEMS ENGINEERING......            37,655            -5,000             32,655
         .....................    Reducing reporting and                              [-5,000]
                                   inefficiencies.
   145   0605151D8Z             STUDIES AND ANALYSIS                  3,015                                3,015
                                 SUPPORT--OSD.
   146   0605161D8Z             NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL              5,287                                5,287
                                 SECURITY.
   147   0605170D8Z             SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND               5,289                                5,289
                                 INFORMATION INTEGRATION.
   148   0605200D8Z             GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD                2,120                                2,120
                                 (INTELLIGENCE).
   149   0605384BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL             102,264                              102,264
                                 DEFENSE PROGRAM.
   158   0605790D8Z             SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION             2,169                                2,169
                                 RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL
                                 BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY
                                 TRANSFER.
   159   0605798D8Z             DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY                   13,960                               13,960
                                 ANALYSIS.
   160   0605801KA              DEFENSE TECHNICAL                    51,775                               51,775
                                 INFORMATION CENTER
                                 (DTIC).
   161   0605803SE              R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD                 9,533                                9,533
                                 ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND
                                 EVALUATION.
   162   0605804D8Z             DEVELOPMENT TEST AND                 17,371                               17,371
                                 EVALUATION.
   163   0605898E               MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D.......            71,571                               71,571
   164   0606100D8Z             BUDGET AND PROGRAM                    4,123                                4,123
                                 ASSESSMENTS.
   165   0203345D8Z             DEFENSE OPERATIONS                    1,946                                1,946
                                 SECURITY INITIATIVE
                                 (DOSI).
   166   0204571J               JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL                7,673                                7,673
                                 SUPPORT.
   169   0303166J               SUPPORT TO INFORMATION               10,413                               10,413
                                 OPERATIONS (IO)
                                 CAPABILITIES.
   170   0303260D8Z             DEFENSE MILITARY                        971                                  971
                                 DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE
                                 (DMDPO).
   171   0305193D8Z             CYBER INTELLIGENCE.......             6,579                                6,579
   173   0804767D8Z             COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT            43,811                               43,811
                                 AND TRAINING
                                 TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2)--
                                 MHA.
   174   0901598C               MANAGEMENT HQ--MDA.......            35,871                               35,871
   176   0903230D8W             WHS--MISSION OPERATIONS               1,072                                1,072
                                 SUPPORT - IT.
   176A  9999999999             CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......            49,500                               49,500
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, MANAGEMENT                856,071            -5,000            851,071
                                 SUPPORT.
         .....................
         .....................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
                                 DEVELOPMENT
   178   0604130V               ENTERPRISE SECURITY                   7,929                                7,929
                                 SYSTEM (ESS).
   179   0605127T               REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL                1,750                                1,750
                                 OUTREACH (RIO) AND
                                 PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
                                 INFORMATION MANA.
   180   0605147T               OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN                   294                                  294
                                 ASSISTANCE SHARED
                                 INFORMATION SYSTEM
                                 (OHASIS).
   181   0607210D8Z             INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS             22,576                               22,576
                                 AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT.
   182   0607310D8Z             CWMD SYSTEMS: OPERATIONAL             1,901                                1,901
                                 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
   183   0607327T               GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY               8,474                                8,474
                                 COOPERATION MANAGEMENT
                                 INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-
                                 TSCMIS).
   184   0607384BP              CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL              33,561                               33,561
                                 DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL
                                 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT).
   186   0208043J               PLANNING AND DECISION AID             3,061                                3,061
                                 SYSTEM (PDAS).
   187   0208045K               C4I INTEROPERABILITY.....            64,921                               64,921
   189   0301144K               JOINT/ALLIED COALITION                3,645                                3,645
                                 INFORMATION SHARING.
   193   0302016K               NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND               963                                  963
                                 SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT.
   194   0302019K               DEFENSE INFO                         10,186                               10,186
                                 INFRASTRUCTURE
                                 ENGINEERING AND
                                 INTEGRATION.
   195   0303126K               LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS--           36,883                               36,883
                                 DAG.
   196   0303131K               MINIMUM ESSENTIAL                    13,735                               13,735
                                 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
                                 NETWORK (MEECN).
   197   0303135G               PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE             6,101                                6,101
                                 (PKI).
   198   0303136G               KEY MANAGEMENT                       43,867                               43,867
                                 INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI).
   199   0303140D8Z             INFORMATION SYSTEMS                   8,957                                8,957
                                 SECURITY PROGRAM.
   200   0303140G               INFORMATION SYSTEMS                 146,890                              146,890
                                 SECURITY PROGRAM.
   201   0303150K               GLOBAL COMMAND AND                   21,503                               21,503
                                 CONTROL SYSTEM.
   202   0303153K               DEFENSE SPECTRUM                     20,342                               20,342
                                 ORGANIZATION.
   203   0303170K               NET-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE                  444                                  444
                                 SERVICES (NCES).
   205   0303610K               TELEPORT PROGRAM.........             1,736                                1,736
   206   0304210BB              SPECIAL APPLICATIONS FOR             65,060                               65,060
                                 CONTINGENCIES.
   210   0305103K               CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE             2,976                                2,976
   215   0305186D8Z             POLICY R&D PROGRAMS......             4,182                                4,182
   216   0305199D8Z             NET CENTRICITY...........            18,130                               18,130
   218   0305208BB              DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/            5,302                                5,302
                                 SURFACE SYSTEMS.
   221   0305208K               DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/            3,239                                3,239
                                 SURFACE SYSTEMS.
   225   0305327V               INSIDER THREAT...........            11,733                               11,733
   226   0305387D8Z             HOMELAND DEFENSE                      2,119                                2,119
                                 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
                                 PROGRAM.
   234   0708011S               INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS..            24,605                               24,605
   235   0708012S               LOGISTIAG SUPPORT                     1,770                                1,770
                                 ACTIVITIES.
   236   0902298J               MANAGEMENT HQ--OJAG......             2,978                                2,978
   237   1105219BB              MQ-9 UAV.................            18,151             5,000             23,151
         .....................    MQ-9 capability                                      [5,000]
                                   enhancements.
   238   1105232BB              RQ-11 UAV................               758                                  758
   240   1160403BB              AVIATION SYSTEMS.........           173,934            17,207            191,141
         .....................    ISR payload technology                               [2,000]
                                   improvements.
         .....................    C-130 TF/TA Program                                 [15,207]
                                   Adjustment.
   241   1160405BB              INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS                  6,866                                6,866
                                 DEVELOPMENT.
   242   1160408BB              OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS.            63,008                               63,008
   243   1160431BB              WARRIOR SYSTEMS..........            25,342                               25,342
   244   1160432BB              SPECIAL PROGRAMS.........             3,401                                3,401
   245   1160480BB              SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES....             3,212                                3,212
   246   1160483BB              MARITIME SYSTEMS.........            63,597                               63,597
   247   1160489BB              GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE             3,933                                3,933
                                 ACTIVITIES.
   248   1160490BB              OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS             10,623                               10,623
                                 INTELLIGENCE.
   248A  9999999999             CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......         3,564,272                            3,564,272
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL             4,538,910            22,207          4,561,117
                                 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
         .....................
         .....................  UNDISTRIBUTED
    xx   xxxxx                  DEFENSE WIDE CYBER                        0           200,000            200,000
                                 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT.
         .....................    Assess all major weapon                            [200,000]
                                   systems for cyber
                                   vulnerability.
   xxx   xxxxxx                 UCAS-D DEVELOPMENT AND                    0           725,000            725,000
                                 FOLLOW ON PROTOTYPING.
         .....................    Supports continued                                 [725,000]
                                   efforts on UCAS-D and
                                   follow on prototyping.
     x   xxxxx                  TECHNOLOGY OFFSET                         0           400,000            400,000
                                 INITIATIVE.
         .....................    Supports innovative                                [400,000]
                                   technology development.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED..                 0         1,325,000          1,325,000
         .....................
         .....................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                  18,329,861         1,507,207         19,837,068
                                 DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                 EVAL, DW.
         .....................
         .....................  OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL,
                                 DEFENSE
         .....................  MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
     1   0605118OTE             OPERATIONAL TEST AND                 76,838                               76,838
                                 EVALUATION.
     2   0605131OTE             LIVE FIRE TEST AND                   46,882                               46,882
                                 EVALUATION.
     3   0605814OTE             OPERATIONAL TEST                     46,838                               46,838
                                 ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES.
         .....................  SUBTOTAL, MANAGEMENT                170,558                              170,558
                                 SUPPORT.
         .....................
         .....................  TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST &            170,558                              170,558
                                 EVAL, DEFENSE.
         .....................
         .....................  TOTAL RDT&E..............        69,784,963         1,106,677         70,891,640
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS  (In Thousands of
                                                    Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Senate
  Line      Program  Element                Item            FY 2016  Request   Senate  Change      Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         ......................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                  TEST & EVAL, ARMY
         ......................  ADVANCED COMPONENT
                                  DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
   60    0603747A                SOLDIER SUPPORT AND                   1,500                               1,500
                                  SURVIVABILITY.
         ......................  SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED                    1,500                               1,500
                                  COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
                                  PROTOTYPES.
         ......................
         ......................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                       1,500                               1,500
                                  DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                  EVAL, ARMY.
         ......................
         ......................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                  TEST & EVAL, NAVY
         ......................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                  DEVELOPMENT
  231A   9999999999              CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......            35,747                              35,747
         ......................  SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL                35,747                              35,747
                                  SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
         ......................
         ......................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                      35,747                              35,747
                                  DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                  EVAL, NAVY.
         ......................
         ......................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                  TEST & EVAL, AF
         ......................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
                                  DEVELOPMENT
  133    0205671F                JOINT COUNTER RCIED                     300                                 300
                                  ELECTRONIC WARFARE.
  246A   9999999999              CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......            16,800                              16,800
         ......................  SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL                17,100                              17,100
                                  SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
         ......................
         ......................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                      17,100                              17,100
                                  DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                  EVAL, AF.
         ......................
         ......................  RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
                                  TEST & EVAL, DW
         ......................  OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
                                  DEVELOPMENT
  248A   9999999999              CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......           137,087                             137,087
         ......................  SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL               137,087                             137,087
                                  SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
         ......................
         ......................  TOTAL RESEARCH,                     137,087                             137,087
                                  DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
                                  EVAL, DW.
         ......................
         ......................  TOTAL RDT&E..............           191,434                             191,434
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   FY 2016                           Senate
  Line                           Item                              Request      Senate  Change     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    MANEUVER UNITS......................................       1,094,429      -1,094,429                  0
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-1,094,429]
  020    MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................          68,873                             68,873
  030    ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE..............................         508,008                            508,008
  040    THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................         763,300        -763,300                  0
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                       [-763,300]
  050    LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................       1,054,322      -1,054,322                  0
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-1,054,322]
  060    AVIATION ASSETS.....................................       1,546,129      -1,546,129                  0
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-1,546,129]
  070    FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................       3,158,606      -3,158,606                  0
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-3,158,606]
  080    LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS.......................         438,909                            438,909
  090    LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................       1,214,116          77,200          1,291,316
           Readiness funding increase........................                         [77,200]
  100    BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............................       7,616,008          10,500          7,626,508
           Readiness funding increase........................                         [10,500]
  110    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.       2,617,169          34,000          2,651,169
           Kwajalein facilities restoration..................                         [34,000]
  120    MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS.............         421,269                            421,269
  130    COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................         164,743                            164,743
  170    COMBATANT COMMANDS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT...........         448,633         -12,357            436,276
           Streamlining of Army Combatant Commands Direct                            [-12,357]
            Mission Support..................................
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................      21,114,514      -7,507,443         13,607,071
 
         MOBILIZATION
  180    STRATEGIC MOBILITY..................................         401,638                            401,638
  190    ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS...........................         261,683                            261,683
  200    INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.............................           6,532                              6,532
         SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION..............................         669,853                            669,853
 
         TRAINING AND RECRUITING
  210    OFFICER ACQUISITION.................................         131,536                            131,536
  220    RECRUIT TRAINING....................................          47,843                             47,843
  230    ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING...........................          42,565                             42,565
  240    SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS..............         490,378                            490,378
  250    SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING..........................         981,000          33,200          1,014,200
           Readiness funding increase........................                         [33,200]
  260    FLIGHT TRAINING.....................................         940,872                            940,872
  270    PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION..................         230,324                            230,324
  280    TRAINING SUPPORT....................................         603,519                            603,519
  290    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................         491,922                            491,922
  300    EXAMINING...........................................         194,079                            194,079
  310    OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION....................         227,951                            227,951
  320    CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING.....................         161,048                            161,048
  330    JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS...............         170,118                            170,118
         SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING...................       4,713,155          33,200          4,746,355
 
         ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
  350    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................         485,778                            485,778
  360    CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES...........................         813,881                            813,881
  370    LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.........................         714,781                            714,781
  380    AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT...............................         322,127                            322,127
  390    ADMINISTRATION......................................         384,813                            384,813
  400    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................       1,781,350                          1,781,350
  410    MANPOWER MANAGEMENT.................................         292,532                            292,532
  420    OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT.............................         375,122                            375,122
  430    OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT...............................       1,119,848          -4,500          1,115,348
           Army outreach reduction...........................                         [-4,500]
  440    ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES..............................         225,358                            225,358
  450    REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT..............................         239,755                            239,755
  460    FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS............         223,319                            223,319
  470    INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS.................         469,865                            469,865
  480    MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS......................          40,521                             40,521
  480A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................       1,120,974          25,500          1,146,474
           Additional SOUTHCOM ISR and intel support.........                         [20,000]
           Readiness increase................................                          [5,500]
   xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0        -238,451           -238,451
           Streamlining of Army Management Headquarters......                       [-238,451]
         SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................       8,610,024        -217,451          8,392,573
 
         UNDISTRIBUTED
   xx    UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT...........               0        -281,500           -281,500
           Foreign currency adjustment.......................                       [-281,500]
  xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0        -260,100           -260,100
           Bulk fuel savings.................................                       [-260,100]
         SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0        -541,600           -541,600
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY.................      35,107,546      -8,233,294         26,874,252
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
         OPERATING FORCES
  020    MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................          16,612                             16,612
  030    ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE..............................         486,531                            486,531
  040    THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................         105,446                            105,446
  050    LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................         516,791                            516,791
  060    AVIATION ASSETS.....................................          87,587                             87,587
  070    FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................         348,601                            348,601
  080    LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS.......................          81,350                             81,350
  090    LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................          59,574          32,400             91,974
           Readiness funding increase........................                         [32,400]
  100    BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............................         570,852                            570,852
  110    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         245,686                            245,686
  120    MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS.............          40,962                             40,962
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       2,559,992          32,400          2,592,392
 
         ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
  130    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................          10,665                             10,665
  140    ADMINISTRATION......................................          18,390                             18,390
  150    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................          14,976                             14,976
  160    MANPOWER MANAGEMENT.................................           8,841                              8,841
  170    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................          52,928                             52,928
   xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0          -6,011             -6,011
           Streamlining of Army Reserve Management                                    [-6,011]
            Headquarters.....................................
         SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................         105,800          -6,011             99,790
 
         UNDISTRIBUTED
  xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0          -7,600             -7,600
           Bulk fuel savings.................................                         [-7,600]
         SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0          -7,600             -7,600
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.............       2,665,792          18,789          2,684,581
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    MANEUVER UNITS......................................         709,433                            709,433
  020    MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................         167,324                            167,324
  030    ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE..............................         741,327                            741,327
  040    THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................          88,775           7,700             96,475
           ARNG border security enhancement..................                          [7,700]
  050    LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................          32,130                             32,130
  060    AVIATION ASSETS.....................................         943,609          52,600            996,209
           Readiness funding increase........................                         [39,600]
           ARNG border security enhancement..................                         [13,000]
  070    FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................         703,137                            703,137
  080    LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS.......................          84,066                             84,066
  090    LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................         166,848          22,500            189,348
           Readiness funding increase........................                         [22,500]
  100    BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............................       1,022,970                          1,022,970
  110    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         673,680                            673,680
  120    MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS.............         954,574                            954,574
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       6,287,873          82,800          6,370,673
 
         ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
  130    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................           6,570                              6,570
  140    ADMINISTRATION......................................          59,629            -250             59,379
           Reduction to National Guard Heritage Paintings....                           [-250]
  150    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................          68,452                             68,452
  160    MANPOWER MANAGEMENT.................................           8,841                              8,841
  170    OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT.............................         283,670         -11,500            272,170
           Reduction to Army Marketing Program...............                        [-11,500]
  180    REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT..............................           2,942                              2,942
   xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0         -26,631            -26,631
           Streamlining of Army National Guard Management                            [-26,631]
            Headquarters.....................................
         SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................         430,104         -38,381            391,723
 
         UNDISTRIBUTED
  xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0         -25,300            -25,300
           Bulk fuel savings.................................                        [-25,300]
         SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0         -25,300            -25,300
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG.................       6,717,977          19,119          6,737,096
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS.................       4,940,365      -4,940,365                  0
             Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.....                     [-4,940,365]
  020    FLEET AIR TRAINING..................................       1,830,611                          1,830,611
  030    AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES......          37,225                             37,225
  040    AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT...................         103,456                            103,456
  050    AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................................         376,844          13,900            390,744
           Readiness funding increase........................                         [13,900]
  060    AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE..........................         897,536        -897,536                  0
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                       [-897,536]
  070    AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................          33,201                             33,201
  080    AVIATION LOGISTICS..................................         544,056           5,300            549,356
           Readiness funding increase........................                          [5,300]
  090    MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS...................       4,287,658      -4,287,658                  0
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-4,287,658]
  100    SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING..................         787,446                            787,446
  110    SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE..............................       5,960,951      -5,960,951                  0
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-5,960,951]
  120    SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT.......................       1,554,863                          1,554,863
  130    COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS...............................         704,415                            704,415
  140    ELECTRONIC WARFARE..................................          96,916                             96,916
  150    SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE......................         192,198                            192,198
  160    WARFARE TACTICS.....................................         453,942                            453,942
  170    OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY............         351,871                            351,871
  180    COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES...............................       1,186,847                          1,186,847
  190    EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE...............................         123,948                            123,948
  200    DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................           2,443                              2,443
  210    COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................          98,914                             98,914
  220    COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT.........          73,110          -5,483             67,628
           Streamlining of Navy Combatant Commanders Direct                           [-5,483]
            Mission Support..................................
  230    CRUISE MISSILE......................................         110,734                            110,734
  240    FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE.............................       1,206,736                          1,206,736
  250    IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT..................         141,664                            141,664
  260    WEAPONS MAINTENANCE.................................         523,122                            523,122
  270    OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT........................         371,872                            371,872
  280    ENTERPRISE INFORMATION..............................         896,061                            896,061
  290    SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION..........       2,220,423                          2,220,423
  300    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................       4,472,468          14,000          4,486,468
           Funding increase for Behavioral Counseling........                         [14,000]
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................      34,581,896     -16,058,793         18,523,103
 
         MOBILIZATION
  310    SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE.......................         422,846                            422,846
  320    AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS..................           6,464             500              6,964
           Readiness funding increase........................                            [500]
  330    SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS......................         361,764                            361,764
  340    EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS...............          69,530                             69,530
  350    INDUSTRIAL READINESS................................           2,237                              2,237
  360    COAST GUARD SUPPORT.................................          21,823                             21,823
         SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION..............................         884,664             500            885,164
 
         TRAINING AND RECRUITING
  370    OFFICER ACQUISITION.................................         149,375                            149,375
  380    RECRUIT TRAINING....................................           9,035                              9,035
  390    RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.....................         156,290                            156,290
  400    SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING..........................         653,728                            653,728
  410    FLIGHT TRAINING.....................................           8,171                              8,171
  420    PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION..................         168,471                            168,471
  430    TRAINING SUPPORT....................................         196,048                            196,048
  440    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................         234,233                            234,233
  450    OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION....................         137,855                            137,855
  460    CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING.....................          77,257                             77,257
  470    JUNIOR ROTC.........................................          47,653                             47,653
         SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING...................       1,838,116                          1,838,116
 
         ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
  480    ADMINISTRATION......................................         923,771                            923,771
  490    EXTERNAL RELATIONS..................................          13,967                             13,967
  500    CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT..........         120,812                            120,812
  510    MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT..........         350,983                            350,983
  520    OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT.............................         265,948                            265,948
  530    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................         335,482                            335,482
  550    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................         197,724                            197,724
  570    PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN....................         274,936                            274,936
  580    ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT..................       1,122,178                          1,122,178
  590    HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT.............          48,587                             48,587
  600    COMBAT/WEAPONS SYSTEMS..............................          25,599                             25,599
  610    SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS................          72,768                             72,768
  620    NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE.........................         577,803                            577,803
  680    INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND AGENCIES.............           4,768                              4,768
  680A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................         560,754                            560,754
   xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0        -209,823           -209,823
           Streamlining of Navy Management Headquarters......                       [-209,823]
         SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................       4,896,080        -209,823          4,686,257
 
         UNDISTRIBUTED
   xx    UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT...........               0         -59,900            -59,900
           Foreign currency adjustment.......................                        [-59,900]
  xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0        -482,300           -482,300
           Bulk fuel savings.................................                       [-482,300]
         SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0        -542,200           -542,200
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY.................      42,200,756     -16,810,316         25,390,440
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    OPERATIONAL FORCES..................................         931,079        -931,079                  0
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                       [-931,079]
  020    FIELD LOGISTICS.....................................         931,757        -931,757                  0
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                       [-931,757]
  030    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................         227,583                            227,583
  040    MARITIME PREPOSITIONING.............................          86,259                             86,259
  050    SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION............         746,237                            746,237
  060    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................       2,057,362           1,200          2,058,562
           Readiness funding increase for Criminal                                     [1,200]
            Investigative Equipment..........................
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       4,980,277      -1,861,636          3,118,641
 
         TRAINING AND RECRUITING
  070    RECRUIT TRAINING....................................          16,460                             16,460
  080    OFFICER ACQUISITION.................................             977                                977
  090    SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING..........................          97,325                             97,325
  100    PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION..................          40,786                             40,786
  110    TRAINING SUPPORT....................................         347,476                            347,476
  120    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................         164,806                            164,806
  130    OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION....................          39,963                             39,963
  140    JUNIOR ROTC.........................................          23,397                             23,397
         SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING...................         731,190                            731,190
 
         ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
  150    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................          37,386                             37,386
  160    ADMINISTRATION......................................         358,395                            358,395
  180    ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT..................          76,105                             76,105
  180A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................          45,429                             45,429
   xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0         -32,588            -32,588
           Streamlining of Marine Corps Management                                   [-32,588]
            Headquarters.....................................
         SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................         517,315         -32,588            484,727
 
         UNDISTRIBUTED
   xx    UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT...........               0         -19,800            -19,800
           Foreign currency adjustment.......................                        [-19,800]
  xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0         -17,000            -17,000
           Bulk fuel savings.................................                        [-17,000]
         SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0         -36,800            -36,800
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS.........       6,228,782      -1,931,024          4,297,758
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS.................         563,722                            563,722
  020    INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE............................           6,218                              6,218
  030    AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE..........................          82,712                             82,712
  040    AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................             326                                326
  050    AVIATION LOGISTICS..................................          13,436                             13,436
  070    SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING..................             557                                557
  090    COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS...............................          14,499                             14,499
  100    COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES...............................         117,601                            117,601
  120    ENTERPRISE INFORMATION..............................          29,382                             29,382
  130    SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION..........          48,513                             48,513
  140    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................         102,858                            102,858
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................         979,824                            979,824
 
         ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
  150    ADMINISTRATION......................................           1,505                              1,505
  160    MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT..........          13,782                             13,782
  170    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................           3,437                              3,437
  180    ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT..................           3,210                              3,210
   xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0          -1,386             -1,386
           Streamlining of Navy Reserve Management                                    [-1,386]
            Headquarters.....................................
         SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................          21,934          -1,386             20,548
 
         UNDISTRIBUTED
  xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0         -39,700            -39,700
           Bulk fuel savings.................................                        [-39,700]
         SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0         -39,700            -39,700
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.............       1,001,758         -41,086            960,672
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    OPERATING FORCES....................................          97,631                             97,631
  020    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................          18,254                             18,254
  030    SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION..........          28,653                             28,653
  040    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................         111,923                            111,923
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................         256,461                            256,461
 
         ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
  050    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................             924                                924
  060    ADMINISTRATION......................................          10,866                             10,866
  070    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................           8,785                              8,785
   xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0          -1,473             -1,473
           Streamlining of Marine Corps Reserve Management                            [-1,473]
            Headquarters.....................................
         SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................          20,575          -1,473             19,102
 
         UNDISTRIBUTED
  xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0          -1,000             -1,000
           Bulk fuel savings.................................                         [-1,000]
         SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0          -1,000             -1,000
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE...........         277,036          -2,473            274,563
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES...............................       3,336,868      -3,336,868                  0
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-3,336,868]
  020    COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES...........................       1,897,315      -1,897,315                  0
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-1,897,315]
  030    AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)......       1,797,549         -40,300          1,757,249
           Cancel transition of A-10 to F-15E training.......                        [-78,000]
           Readiness increase................................                         [37,700]
  040    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................       6,537,127      -6,537,127                  0
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-6,537,127]
  050    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.       1,997,712                          1,997,712
  060    BASE SUPPORT........................................       2,841,948                          2,841,948
  070    GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING........................         930,341                            930,341
  080    OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS.......................         924,845                            924,845
  100    LAUNCH FACILITIES...................................         271,177                            271,177
  110    SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS...............................         382,824                            382,824
  120    COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT.........         900,965         -15,380            885,586
           Streamlining of Air Force Combatant Commanders                            [-15,380]
            Direct Mission Support...........................
  130    COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................         205,078         -41,000            164,078
           Cutting Joint Enabling Capabilities Command.......                        [-41,000]
  xxx    CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................         907,496          16,800            924,296
           Increase One Program..............................                         [20,000]
           Unjustified increase..............................                         [-3,200]
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................      22,931,245     -11,851,190         11,080,055
 
         MOBILIZATION
  140    AIRLIFT OPERATIONS..................................       2,229,196                          2,229,196
  150    MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS...........................         148,318                            148,318
  160    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................       1,617,571      -1,617,571                  0
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                     [-1,617,571]
  170    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         259,956                            259,956
  180    BASE SUPPORT........................................         708,799                            708,799
         SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION..............................       4,963,840      -1,617,571          3,346,269
 
         TRAINING AND RECRUITING
  190    OFFICER ACQUISITION.................................          92,191                             92,191
  200    RECRUIT TRAINING....................................          21,871                             21,871
  210    RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC)..............          77,527                             77,527
  220    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         228,500                            228,500
  230    BASE SUPPORT........................................         772,870                            772,870
  240    SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING..........................         359,304          43,100            402,404
           Readiness increase for RPA training...............                         [43,100]
  250    FLIGHT TRAINING.....................................         710,553                            710,553
  260    PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION..................         228,252                            228,252
  270    TRAINING SUPPORT....................................          76,464                             76,464
  280    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................         375,513                            375,513
  290    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................          79,690                             79,690
  300    EXAMINING...........................................           3,803                              3,803
  310    OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION....................         180,807                            180,807
  320    CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING.....................         167,478                            167,478
  330    JUNIOR ROTC.........................................          59,263                             59,263
         SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING...................       3,434,086          43,100          3,477,186
 
         ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
  340    LOGISTICS OPERATIONS................................       1,141,491                          1,141,491
  350    TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES........................         862,022         -10,000            852,022
           Acquisition Management Adjustment.................                        [-10,000]
  360    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................          61,745                             61,745
  370    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         298,759                            298,759
  380    BASE SUPPORT........................................       1,108,220         -12,000          1,096,220
           Reduce IT procurement.............................                        [-12,000]
  390    ADMINISTRATION......................................         689,797         -20,700            669,097
           DEAMS reduction-Funding ahead of need.............                        [-20,700]
  400    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................         498,053                            498,053
  410    OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES........................         900,253                            900,253
  420    CIVIL AIR PATROL....................................          25,411                             25,411
  450    INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT...............................          89,148                             89,148
  450A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................       1,187,859          -4,900          1,182,959
           Unjustified increase..............................                         [-4,900]
   xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0        -276,203           -276,203
           Streamlining of Air Force Management Headquarters.                       [-276,203]
         SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................       6,862,758        -323,803          6,538,955
 
         UNDISTRIBUTED
   xx    Restore EC-130 Compass Call.........................               0          27,300             27,300
           Costs associated with preventing divestiture of EC-                        [27,300]
            130..............................................
    x    Restore A-10........................................               0         235,300            235,300
           Costs associated with preventing divestiture of A-                        [235,300]
            10 fleet.........................................
  xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0        -618,300           -618,300
           Bulk fuel savings.................................                       [-618,300]
         UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT...........               0        -137,800           -137,800
           Foreign currency adjustment.......................                       [-137,800]
         SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0        -493,500           -493,500
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............      38,191,929     -14,242,964         23,948,965
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES...............................       1,779,378                          1,779,378
  020    MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS..........................         226,243                            226,243
  030    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................         487,036                            487,036
  040    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         109,342                            109,342
  050    BASE SUPPORT........................................         373,707                            373,707
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       2,975,706                          2,975,706
 
         ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
  060    ADMINISTRATION......................................          53,921                             53,921
  070    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................          14,359                             14,359
  080    MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC)..............          13,665                             13,665
  090    OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP)................           6,606                              6,606
   xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0          -2,116             -2,116
           Costs associated with preventing divestiture of A-                          [2,500]
            10 fleet.........................................
           Streamlining of Air Force Reserve Management                               [-4,616]
            Headquarters.....................................
         SUBTOTAL, ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES          88,551          -2,116             86,435
 
         UNDISTRIBUTED
 xxxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0        -101,100           -101,100
           Bulk fuel savings.................................                       [-101,100]
         SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0        -101,100           -101,100
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE...........       3,064,257        -103,216          2,961,041
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS.................................       3,526,471                          3,526,471
  020    MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS..........................         740,779           2,600            743,379
           ARNG border security enhancement..................                          [2,600]
  030    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................       1,763,859                          1,763,859
  040    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.         288,786                            288,786
  050    BASE SUPPORT........................................         582,037                            582,037
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       6,901,932           2,600          6,904,532
 
         ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES
  060    ADMINISTRATION......................................          23,626                             23,626
  070    RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING..........................          30,652                             30,652
   xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0          -3,015             -3,015
           Streamlining of Air National Guard Management                              [-3,015]
            Headquarters.....................................
  xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0          42,200             42,200
           Costs associated with preventing divestiture of A-                         [42,200]
            10 fleet.........................................
         SUBTOTAL, ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES          54,278          39,185             93,463
 
         UNDISTRIBUTED
 xxxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0        -162,600           -162,600
           Bulk fuel savings.................................                       [-162,600]
         SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0        -162,600           -162,600
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG..................       6,956,210        -120,815          6,835,395
 
         OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF...............................         485,888          20,000            505,888
           Middle East Assurance Initiative..................                         [20,000]
  020    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE..................         534,795          -4,000            530,795
           DOD Rewards reduction-funding ahead of need.......                         [-4,000]
  030    SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES.........       4,862,368                          4,862,368
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       5,883,051          16,000          5,899,051
 
         TRAINING AND RECRUITING
  040    DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY......................         142,659                            142,659
  050    NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY.........................          78,416                             78,416
  060    SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND RECRUITING..         354,372                            354,372
         SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING...................         575,447                            575,447
 
         ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
  070    CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS.............................         160,320                            160,320
  090    DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY.......................         570,177                            570,177
  100    DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY..................       1,374,536                          1,374,536
  110    DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY....................         642,551                            642,551
  120    DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY..................       1,282,755          10,000          1,292,755
           Sharkseer increase................................                         [10,000]
  140    DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY.......................          26,073                             26,073
  150    DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY............................         366,429                            366,429
  160    DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY..............................         192,625                            192,625
  180    DEFENSE PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING AGENCY.................         115,372                            115,372
  190    DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY.................         524,723          -7,000            517,723
           Reduction to Combating Terrorism Fellowship.......                         [-7,000]
  200    DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE............................         508,396                            508,396
  230    DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION..........          33,577                             33,577
  240    DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY.....................         415,696                            415,696
  260    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY............       2,753,771          30,250          2,784,021
           Impact Aid........................................                         [30,000]
           School lunches for territories....................                            [250]
  270    MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY..............................         432,068                            432,068
  290    OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT.......................         110,612         -53,100             57,512
           Guam outside the fence infastructure..............                        [-20,000]
           Defense industry adjustment.......................                        [-33,100]
  300    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE..................       1,388,285          -9,500          1,378,785
           BRAC 2017 Planning and Support....................                        [-10,500]
           OSD fleet architecture study......................                          [1,000]
  310    SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE                   83,263                             83,263
          ACTIVITIES.........................................
  320    WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES....................         621,688                            621,688
  320A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................      14,379,428                         14,379,428
   xx    UNDISTRIBUTED.......................................               0        -897,552           -897,552
           Streamlining of Department of Defense Management                         [-897,552]
            Headquarters.....................................
         SUBTOTAL, ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES      25,982,345        -926,902         25,055,443
 
         UNDISTRIBUTED
   xx    UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT...........               0         -51,900            -51,900
           Foreign currency adjustment.......................                        [-51,900]
  xxx    UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS.....................               0         -36,000            -36,000
           Bulk fuel savings.................................                        [-36,000]
         SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.............................               0         -87,900            -87,900
 
         TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE.......      32,440,843        -998,802         31,442,041
 
         MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
         US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF
  010    US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE...          14,078                             14,078
         SUBTOTAL, US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF.          14,078                             14,078
 
         OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID
  010    OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID.......         100,266                            100,266
         SUBTOTAL, OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC         100,266                            100,266
          AID................................................
 
         COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT
  010    FORMER SOVIET UNION (FSU) THREAT REDUCTION..........         358,496                            358,496
         SUBTOTAL, COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT......         358,496                            358,496
 
         DOD ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND
  010    ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD................................          84,140                             84,140
         SUBTOTAL, DOD ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND          84,140                             84,140
 
         ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY
  040    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY.....................         234,829                            234,829
         SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY...........         234,829                            234,829
 
         ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY
  050    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY.....................         292,453                            292,453
         SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY...........         292,453                            292,453
 
         ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE
  060    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE................         368,131                            368,131
         SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE......         368,131                            368,131
 
         ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE
  070    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE..................           8,232                              8,232
         SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE........           8,232                              8,232
 
         ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES
  080    ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES.......         203,717                            203,717
         SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED            203,717                            203,717
          SITES..............................................
 
         TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS..................       1,664,342                          1,664,342
 
         TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.....................     176,517,228     -42,446,082        134,071,146
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS  (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   FY 2016                           Senate
  Line                           Item                              Request      Senate  Change     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    MANEUVER UNITS......................................         257,900       1,094,429          1,352,329
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [1,094,429]
  040    THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................       1,110,836         763,300          1,874,136
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                        [763,300]
  050    LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................         261,943       1,054,322          1,316,265
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [1,054,322]
  060    AVIATION ASSETS.....................................          22,160       1,546,129          1,568,289
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [1,546,129]
  070    FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................       1,119,201       3,158,606          4,277,807
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [3,158,606]
  080    LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS.......................         117,881                            117,881
  100    BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............................          50,000                             50,000
  140    ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES...............................       4,500,666                          4,500,666
  150    COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM...............          10,000                             10,000
  160    RESET...............................................       1,834,777                          1,834,777
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       9,285,364       7,616,786         16,902,150
 
         MOBILIZATION
  190    ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS...........................          40,000                             40,000
         SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION..............................          40,000                             40,000
 
         ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
  350    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................         529,891                            529,891
  380    AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT...............................           5,033                              5,033
  420    OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT.............................         100,480                            100,480
  450    REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT..............................         154,350                            154,350
  480A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................       1,267,632                          1,267,632
         SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................       2,057,386                          2,057,386
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY.................      11,382,750       7,616,786         18,999,536
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
         OPERATING FORCES
  030    ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE..............................           2,442                              2,442
  050    LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................             813                                813
  070    FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................             779                                779
  100    BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............................          20,525                             20,525
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................          24,559                             24,559
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.............          24,559                             24,559
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    MANEUVER UNITS......................................           1,984                              1,984
  030    ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE..............................           4,671                              4,671
  060    AVIATION ASSETS.....................................          15,980                             15,980
  070    FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT..................          12,867                             12,867
  100    BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............................          23,134                             23,134
  120    MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS.............           1,426                              1,426
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................          60,062                             60,062
 
         ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
  150    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................             783                                783
         SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................             783                                783
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG.................          60,845                             60,845
 
         AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND
         MINISTRY OF DEFENSE
  010    SUSTAINMENT.........................................       2,214,899                          2,214,899
  030    EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................         182,751                            182,751
  040    TRAINING AND OPERATIONS.............................         281,555                            281,555
         SUBTOTAL, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE.......................       2,679,205                          2,679,205
 
         MINISTRY OF INTERIOR
  060    SUSTAINMENT.........................................         901,137                            901,137
  080    EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................         116,573                            116,573
  090    TRAINING AND OPERATIONS.............................          65,342                             65,342
         SUBTOTAL, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR......................       1,083,052                          1,083,052
 
         TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND..............       3,762,257                          3,762,257
 
         IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
         IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
  010    IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND...........................         715,000                            715,000
         SUBTOTAL, IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND.................         715,000                            715,000
 
         TOTAL IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND.....................         715,000                            715,000
 
         SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
         SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
  010    SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND..........................         600,000                            600,000
         SUBTOTAL, SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND................         600,000                            600,000
 
         TOTAL SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND....................         600,000                            600,000
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS.................         358,417       4,943,665          5,302,082
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [4,940,365]
           Readiness funding increase........................                          [3,300]
  030    AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES......             110                                110
  040    AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT...................           4,513                              4,513
  050    AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................................         126,501                            126,501
  060    AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE..........................          75,897         914,536            990,433
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                        [897,536]
           Readiness funding increase........................                         [17,000]
  070    AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................           2,770                              2,770
  080    AVIATION LOGISTICS..................................          34,101                             34,101
  090    MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS...................       1,184,878       4,287,658          5,472,536
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [4,287,658]
  100    SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING..................          16,663                             16,663
  110    SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE..............................       1,922,829       5,960,951          7,883,780
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [5,960,951]
  130    COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS...............................          33,577                             33,577
  160    WARFARE TACTICS.....................................          26,454                             26,454
  170    OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY............          22,305                             22,305
  180    COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES...............................         513,969                            513,969
  190    EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE...............................          10,007                             10,007
  250    IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT..................          60,865                             60,865
  260    WEAPONS MAINTENANCE.................................         275,231                            275,231
  290    SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION..........           7,819                              7,819
  300    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................          61,422                             61,422
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       4,738,328      16,106,810         20,845,138
 
         MOBILIZATION
  340    EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS...............           5,307                              5,307
  360    COAST GUARD SUPPORT.................................         160,002                            160,002
         SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION..............................         165,309                            165,309
 
         TRAINING AND RECRUITING
  400    SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING..........................          44,845                             44,845
         SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING...................          44,845                             44,845
 
         ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
  480    ADMINISTRATION......................................           2,513                              2,513
  490    EXTERNAL RELATIONS..................................             500                                500
  510    MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT..........           5,309                              5,309
  520    OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT.............................           1,469                              1,469
  550    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................         156,671                            156,671
  580    ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT..................           8,834                              8,834
  620    NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE.........................           1,490                              1,490
  680A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................           6,320                              6,320
         SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................         183,106                            183,106
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY.................       5,131,588      16,106,810         21,238,398
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    OPERATIONAL FORCES..................................         353,133         931,079          1,284,212
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                        [931,079]
  020    FIELD LOGISTICS.....................................         259,676         931,757          1,191,433
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                        [931,757]
  030    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................         240,000                            240,000
  060    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................          16,026                             16,026
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................         868,835       1,862,836          2,731,671
 
         TRAINING AND RECRUITING
  110    TRAINING SUPPORT....................................          37,862                             37,862
         SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING...................          37,862                             37,862
 
         ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
  150    SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION..........................          43,767                             43,767
  180A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................           2,070                              2,070
         SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................          45,837                             45,837
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS.........         952,534       1,862,836          2,815,370
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS.................           4,033                              4,033
  020    INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE............................              60                                 60
  030    AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE..........................          20,300                             20,300
  100    COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES...............................           7,250                              7,250
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................          31,643                             31,643
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.............          31,643                             31,643
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    OPERATING FORCES....................................           2,500                              2,500
  040    BASE OPERATING SUPPORT..............................             955                                955
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................           3,455                              3,455
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE...........           3,455                              3,455
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES...............................       1,505,738       3,333,368          4,839,106
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [3,336,868]
           Retain Current A-10 Fleet.........................                         [-1,400]
           Unjustified Increase..............................                         [-2,100]
  020    COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES...........................         914,973       1,887,615          2,802,588
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [1,897,315]
           Unjustified Increase..............................                        [-14,000]
           Readiness funding increase........................                          [4,300]
  030    AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)......          31,978                             31,978
  040    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................       1,192,765       6,537,127          7,729,892
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [6,537,127]
  050    FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION.          85,625                             85,625
  060    BASE SUPPORT........................................         917,269                            917,269
  070    GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING........................          30,219                             30,219
  080    OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS.......................         174,734                            174,734
  100    LAUNCH FACILITIES...................................             869                                869
  110    SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS...............................           5,008                              5,008
  120    COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT.........         100,190                            100,190
  xxx    CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................          22,893                             22,893
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       4,982,261      11,758,110         16,740,371
 
         MOBILIZATION
  140    AIRLIFT OPERATIONS..................................       2,995,703                          2,995,703
  150    MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS...........................         108,163                            108,163
  160    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................         511,059       1,617,571          2,128,630
           Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA.......                      [1,617,571]
  180    BASE SUPPORT........................................           4,642                              4,642
         SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION..............................       3,619,567       1,617,571          5,237,138
 
         TRAINING AND RECRUITING
  190    OFFICER ACQUISITION.................................              92                                 92
  240    SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING..........................          11,986                             11,986
         SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING...................          12,078                             12,078
 
         ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
  340    LOGISTICS OPERATIONS................................          86,716                             86,716
  380    BASE SUPPORT........................................           3,836                              3,836
  400    SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS..........................         165,348                            165,348
  410    OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES........................         204,683         -63,000            141,683
           Reduction to the Office of Security Cooperation in                        [-63,000]
            Iraq.............................................
  450    INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT...............................              61                                 61
  450A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................          15,463                             15,463
         SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................         476,107         -63,000            413,107
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............       9,090,013      13,312,681         22,402,694
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
         OPERATING FORCES
  030    DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................................          51,086                             51,086
  050    BASE SUPPORT........................................           7,020                              7,020
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................          58,106                             58,106
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE...........          58,106                             58,106
 
         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
         OPERATING FORCES
  020    MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS..........................          19,900                             19,900
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................          19,900                             19,900
 
         TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG..................          19,900                             19,900
 
         OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
         OPERATING FORCES
  010    JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF...............................           9,900                              9,900
  030    SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES.........       2,345,835                          2,345,835
         SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES..........................       2,355,735                          2,355,735
 
         ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
  090    DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY.......................          18,474                             18,474
  120    DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY..................          29,579                             29,579
  140    DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY.......................         110,000                            110,000
  160    DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY..............................           5,960                              5,960
  190    DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY.................       1,677,000        -100,000          1,577,000
           Reduction from Coalition Support Funds............                       [-100,000]
  260    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY............          73,000                             73,000
  300    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE..................         106,709                            106,709
  320    WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES....................           2,102                              2,102
  320A   CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS.................................       1,427,074                          1,427,074
         SUBTOTAL, ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.       3,449,898        -100,000          3,349,898
 
         TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE.......       5,805,633        -100,000          5,705,633
 
         TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.....................      37,638,283      38,799,113         76,437,396
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL

TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL.
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Item                           FY 2016  Request     Senate  Change    Senate  Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS...................        130,491,227          -1,254,500         129,236,727
    Military Personnel Underexecution...............                              [-987,200]
    Additional support for the National Guard's                                     [21,700]
     Operation Phalanx..............................
    Reduction for anticipated cost of TRICARE                                      [-85,000]
     consolidation..................................
    TRICARE program improvement initiatives.........                                [15,000]
    Financial literacy improvement..................                                [85,000]
    Reduction from Foreign Currency Gains, Army.....                               [-65,200]
    Reduction from Foreign Currency Gains, Navy.....                               [-81,400]
    Reduction from Foreign Currency Gains, Marine                                  [-27,000]
     Corps..........................................
    Reduction from Foreign Currency Gains, Air Force                              [-130,400]
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS.........        130,491,227          -1,254,500         129,236,727
 
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS.          6,243,449                               6,243,449
SUBTOTAL, MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND               6,243,449                   0           6,243,449
 CONTRIBUTIONS......................................
 
TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL...........................        136,734,676          -1,254,500         135,480,176
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Item                           FY 2016  Request     Senate  Change    Senate  Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS...................          3,204,758                   0           3,204,758
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS.........          3,204,758                   0           3,204,758
 
TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL...........................          3,204,758                   0           3,204,758
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS  (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   FY 2016                           Senate
    Line                           Item                            Request      Senate  Change     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
       020   SUPPLY MANAGEMENT--ARMY.........................          50,432                             50,432
             SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............          50,432                             50,432
 
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
       010   SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS..........................          62,898                             62,898
             SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE.......          62,898                             62,898
 
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
       030   DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA)..................          45,084                             45,084
             SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE....          45,084                             45,084
 
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA
       020   WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA......................       1,154,154                          1,154,154
             SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA............       1,154,154                          1,154,154
 
             TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND......................       1,312,568                          1,312,568
 
             NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND
       040   POST DELIVERY AND OUTFITTING....................          15,456                             15,456
       060   LG MED SPD RO/RO MAINTENANCE....................         124,493                            124,493
       070   DOD MOBILIZATION ALTERATIONS....................           8,243                              8,243
       080   TAH MAINTENANCE.................................          27,784                             27,784
       090   RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT........................          25,197                             25,197
       100   READY RESERVE FORCE.............................         272,991                            272,991
             SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND.........         474,164                            474,164
 
             TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND.............         474,164                            474,164
 
             CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
        01   CHEM DEMILITARIZATION--O&M......................         139,098                            139,098
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE...............         139,098                            139,098
 
             RDT&E
        02   CHEM DEMILITARIZATION--RDT&E....................         579,342                            579,342
             SUBTOTAL, RDT&E.................................         579,342                            579,342
 
             PROCUREMENT
        03   CHEM DEMILITARIZATION--PROC.....................           2,281                              2,281
             SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT...........................           2,281                              2,281
 
             TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION.......         720,721                            720,721
 
             DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
             DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES
       010   DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES,           739,009          22,000            761,009
              DEFENSE........................................
               SOUTHCOM Operational support..................                         [30,000]
               Transfer to Demand Reduction Program..........                         [-8,000]
             SUBTOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG             739,009          22,000            761,009
              ACTIVITIES.....................................
 
             DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM
       020   DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM...................         111,589           8,000            119,589
               Expanded drug testing.........................                          [8,000]
             SUBTOTAL, DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM.........         111,589           8,000            119,589
 
             TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES,           850,598          30,000            880,598
              DEF............................................
 
             OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
             OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
       010   OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.................         310,459                            310,459
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............         310,459                            310,459
 
             RDT&E
       020   OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.................           4,700          -2,600              2,100
               Funding ahead of need.........................                         [-2,600]
             SUBTOTAL, RDT&E.................................           4,700          -2,600              2,100
 
             PROCUREMENT
       030   OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.................           1,000          -1,000                  0
               Funding ahead of need.........................                         [-1,000]
             SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT...........................           1,000          -1,000                  0
 
             TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL...........         316,159          -3,600            312,559
 
             DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
       010   IN-HOUSE CARE...................................       9,082,298                          9,082,298
       020   PRIVATE SECTOR CARE.............................      14,892,683                         14,892,683
       030   CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT.....................       2,415,658         -10,290          2,405,368
               Reduction of funds related to Combating                               [-10,290]
                Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB) project.
       040   INFORMATION MANAGEMENT..........................       1,677,827                          1,677,827
       050   MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES...........................         327,967                            327,967
       060   EDUCATION AND TRAINING..........................         750,614                            750,614
       070   BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS..................       1,742,893                          1,742,893
        xx   UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT.......               0         -36,400            -36,400
               Foreign currency adjustment...................                        [-36,400]
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE...............      30,889,940         -46,690         30,843,250
 
             RDT&E
       090   R&D RESEARCH....................................          10,996                             10,996
       100   R&D EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT......................          59,473          -3,150             56,323
               Reduction of funds related to Combating                                [-3,150]
                Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB) project.
       110   R&D ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT........................         231,356          -3,100            228,256
               Reduction of funds related to Combating                                [-3,100]
                Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB) project.
       120   R&D DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION....................         103,443                            103,443
       130   R&D ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT.....................         515,910                            515,910
       140   R&D MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT......................          41,567                             41,567
       150   R&D CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT....................          17,356                             17,356
             SUBTOTAL, RDT&E.................................         980,101          -6,250            973,851
 
             PROCUREMENT
       160   PROC INITIAL OUTFITTING.........................          33,392                             33,392
       170   PROC REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION................         330,504                            330,504
       180   PROC THEATER MEDICAL INFORMATION PROGRAM........           1,494                              1,494
       190   PROC IEHR.......................................           7,897                              7,897
             SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT...........................         373,287                            373,287
 
             TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM....................      32,243,328         -52,940         32,190,388
 
             TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS......................      35,917,538         -26,540         35,890,998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS  (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   FY 2016                           Senate
    Line                           Item                            Request      Senate  Change     Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
       020   TRANSPORTATION OF FALLEN HEROES.................           2,500                              2,500
             SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE.......           2,500                              2,500
 
             WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
       030   DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA)..................          86,350                             86,350
             SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE....          86,350                             86,350
 
             TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND......................          88,850                             88,850
 
             DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
             DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES
       010   DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES,           186,000                            186,000
              DEFENSE........................................
             SUBTOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG             186,000                            186,000
              ACTIVITIES.....................................
 
             TOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES,          186,000                            186,000
              DEF............................................
 
             OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
             OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
       010   OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.................          10,262                             10,262
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.............          10,262                             10,262
 
             TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL..........          10,262                             10,262
 
             DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
             OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
       010   IN-HOUSE CARE...................................          65,149                             65,149
       020   PRIVATE SECTOR CARE.............................         192,210                            192,210
       030   CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT.....................           9,460                              9,460
       060   EDUCATION AND TRAINING..........................           5,885                              5,885
             SUBTOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE...............         272,704                            272,704
 
             TOTAL, DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM...................         272,704                            272,704
 
             COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND
             COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND
       090   COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND..............       2,100,000      -1,100,000          1,000,000
               Request excess to need........................                     [-1,100,000]
             SUBTOTAL, COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND....       2,100,000      -1,100,000          1,000,000
 
             TOTAL, COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND.......       2,100,000      -1,100,000          1,000,000
 
             UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE
             UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE
       xxx   UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE..........               0         300,000            300,000
               Provides assistance to Ukraine................                        [300,000]
             SUBTOTAL, UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE               0         300,000            300,000
 
             TOTAL, UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE...               0         300,000            300,000
 
             TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATION.......................       2,657,816        -800,000          1,857,816
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Budget                            Senate
        Account               State/ Country            Installation              Project Title             Request      Senate  Change     Authorized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
MILCON, ARMY
MILCON, ARMY             ALASKA                   Fort Greely              Physical Readiness Training           7,800                             7,800
                                                                            Facility.
MILCON, ARMY             CALIFORNIA               Concord                  Pier.......................          98,000                            98,000
MILCON, ARMY             COLORADO                 Fort Carson, Colorado    Rotary Wing Taxiway........           5,800                             5,800
MILCON, ARMY             GEORGIA                  Fort Gordon              Command and Control                  90,000                            90,000
                                                                            Facility.
MILCON, ARMY             GERMANY                  Grafenwoehr              Vehicle Maintenance Shop...          51,000                            51,000
MILCON, ARMY             GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA     Guantanamo Bay           Unaccompanied Personnel                   0            76,000          76,000
                                                                            Housing.
MILCON, ARMY             MARYLAND                 Fort Meade               Access Control Point-Reece                0            19,500          19,500
                                                                            Road.
MILCON, ARMY             MARYLAND                 Fort Meade               Access Control Point-Mapes                0            15,000          15,000
                                                                            Road.
MILCON, ARMY             NEW YORK                 Fort Drum, New York      NCO Academy Complex........          19,000                            19,000
MILCON, ARMY             NEW YORK                 U.S. Military Academy    Waste Water Treatment Plant          70,000                            70,000
MILCON, ARMY             OKLAHOMA                 Fort Sill                Reception Barracks Complex           56,000                            56,000
                                                                            Ph2.
MILCON, ARMY             OKLAHOMA                 Fort Sill                Training Support Facility..          13,400                            13,400
MILCON, ARMY             TEXAS                    Corpus Christi           Powertrain Facility                  85,000                            85,000
                                                                            (Infrastructure/Metal).
MILCON, ARMY             TEXAS                    Joint Base San Antonio   Homeland Defense Operations          43,000           -43,000               0
                                                                            Center.
MILCON, ARMY             VIRGINIA                 Fort Lee                 Training Support Facility..          33,000                            33,000
MILCON, ARMY             VIRGINIA                 Joint Base Myer-         Instruction Building.......          37,000           -37,000               0
                                                   Henderson
MILCON, ARMY             WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Host Nation Support........          36,000                            36,000
                                                   Locations
MILCON, ARMY             WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Minor Construction.........          25,000                            25,000
                                                   Locations
MILCON, ARMY             WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Planning and Design........          73,245                            73,245
                                                   Locations
MILCON, ARMY             WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Prior Year Unobligated                    0           -52,000         -52,000
                                                   Locations                Amounts.
      SUBTOTAL, MILCON, ARMY                                                                                   743,245           -21,500         721,745
                         .......................  .......................
MIL CON, NAVY
MIL CON, NAVY            ARIZONA                  Yuma                     Aircraft Maint. Facilities           50,635                            50,635
                                                                            & Apron (So. CALA).
MIL CON, NAVY            BAHRAIN ISLAND           SW Asia                  Mina Salman Pier                     37,700                            37,700
                                                                            Replacement.
MIL CON, NAVY            BAHRAIN ISLAND           SW Asia                  Ship Maintenance Support             52,091                            52,091
                                                                            Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Camp Pendleton,          Raw Water Pipeline                   44,540           -44,540               0
                                                   California               Pendleton to Fallbrook.
MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Camp Pendleton,          Pendleton Ops Center.......               0            25,000          25,000
                                                   California
MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Coronado                 Coastal Campus Utilities...           4,856                             4,856
MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Lemoore                  F-35C Hangar Modernization           56,497                            56,497
                                                                            and Addition.
MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Lemoore                  F-35C Training Facilities..           8,187                             8,187
MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Lemoore                  RTO and Mission Debrief               7,146                             7,146
                                                                            Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Miramar                  KC-130J Enlisted Air Crew                 0            11,200          11,200
                                                                            Trainer.
MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Point Mugu               E-2C/D Hangar Additions and          19,453                            19,453
                                                                            Renovations.
MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Point Mugu               Triton Avionics and Fuel              2,974                             2,974
                                                                            Systems Trainer.
MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               San Diego                LCS Support Facility.......          37,366                            37,366
MIL CON, NAVY            CALIFORNIA               Twentynine Palms,        Microgrid Expansion........           9,160                             9,160
                                                   California
MIL CON, NAVY            FLORIDA                  Jacksonville             Fleet Support Facility                8,455                             8,455
                                                                            Addition.
MIL CON, NAVY            FLORIDA                  Jacksonville             Triton Mission Control                8,296                             8,296
                                                                            Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY            FLORIDA                  Mayport                  LCS Mission Module                   16,159                            16,159
                                                                            Readiness Center.
MIL CON, NAVY            FLORIDA                  Pensacola                A-School Unaccopanied                18,347                            18,347
                                                                            Housing (Corry Station).
MIL CON, NAVY            FLORIDA                  Whiting Field            T-6B JPATS Training                  10,421                            10,421
                                                                            Operations Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY            GEORGIA                  Albany                   Ground Source Heat Pumps...           7,851                             7,851
MIL CON, NAVY            GEORGIA                  Kings Bay                Industrial Control System             8,099                             8,099
                                                                            Infrastructure.
MIL CON, NAVY            GEORGIA                  Townsend                 Townsend Bombing Range               48,279            -5,000          43,279
                                                                            Expansion Phase 2.
MIL CON, NAVY            GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas    Live-Fire Training Range            125,677                           125,677
                                                                            Complex (NW Field).
MIL CON, NAVY            GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas    Municipal Solid Waste                10,777                            10,777
                                                                            Landfill Closure.
MIL CON, NAVY            GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas    Sanitary Sewer System                45,314                            45,314
                                                                            Recapitalization.
MIL CON, NAVY            HAWAII                   Barking Sands            PMRF Power Grid                      30,623                            30,623
                                                                            Consolidation.
MIL CON, NAVY            HAWAII                   Joint Base Pearl Harbor- UEM Interconnect Sta C to             6,335                             6,335
                                                   Hickam                   Hickam.
MIL CON, NAVY            HAWAII                   Joint Base Pearl Harbor- Welding School Shop                   8,546                             8,546
                                                   Hickam                   Consolidation.
MIL CON, NAVY            HAWAII                   Kaneohe Bay              Airfield Lighting                    26,097                            26,097
                                                                            Modernization.
MIL CON, NAVY            HAWAII                   Kaneohe Bay              Bachelor Enlisted Quarters.          68,092                            68,092
MIL CON, NAVY            HAWAII                   Kaneohe Bay              P-8A Detachment Support              12,429                            12,429
                                                                            Facilities.
MIL CON, NAVY            HAWAII                   MCB Hawaii               LHD Pad Conversions MV22                  0            12,800          12,800
                                                                            Landing Pads.
MIL CON, NAVY            ITALY                    Sigonella                P-8A Hangar and Fleet                62,302                            62,302
                                                                            Support Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY            ITALY                    Sigonella                Triton Hangar and Operation          40,641                            40,641
                                                                            Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY            JAPAN                    Camp Butler              Military Working Dog                 11,697                            11,697
                                                                            Facilities (Camp Hansen).
MIL CON, NAVY            JAPAN                    Iwakuni                  E-2D Operational Trainer              8,716                             8,716
                                                                            Complex.
MIL CON, NAVY            JAPAN                    Iwakuni                  Security Modifications--              9,207                             9,207
                                                                            CVW5/MAG12 HQ.
MIL CON, NAVY            JAPAN                    Kadena AB                Aircraft Maint. Shelters &           23,310                            23,310
                                                                            Apron.
MIL CON, NAVY            JAPAN                    Yokosuka                 Child Development Center...          13,846                            13,846
MIL CON, NAVY            MARYLAND                 Patuxent River           Unaccompanied Housing......          40,935                            40,935
MIL CON, NAVY            NORTH CAROLINA           Camp Lejeune             Range Safety Improvements..               0            19,400          19,400
MIL CON, NAVY            NORTH CAROLINA           Camp Lejeune, North      Simulator Integration/Range          54,849                            54,849
                                                   Carolina                 Control Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY            NORTH CAROLINA           Cherry Point Marine      Air Field Security                        0            23,300          23,300
                                                   Corps Air Station        Improvements.
MIL CON, NAVY            NORTH CAROLINA           Cherry Point Marine      KC130J Enlsited Air Crew              4,769                             4,769
                                                   Corps Air Station        Trainer Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY            NORTH CAROLINA           Cherry Point Marine      Unmanned Aircraft System             29,657                            29,657
                                                   Corps Air Station        Facilities.
MIL CON, NAVY            NORTH CAROLINA           New River                Operational Trainer                   3,312                             3,312
                                                                            Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY            NORTH CAROLINA           New River                Radar Air Traffic Control             4,918                             4,918
                                                                            Facility Addition.
MIL CON, NAVY            POLAND                   RedziKowo Base           AEGIS Ashore Missile                 51,270                            51,270
                                                                            Defense Complex.
MIL CON, NAVY            SOUTH CAROLINA           Parris Island            Range Safety Improvements &          27,075                            27,075
                                                                            Modernization.
MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Dam Neck                 Maritime Surveillance                23,066                            23,066
                                                                            System Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Norfolk                  Communications Center......          75,289                            75,289
MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Norfolk                  Electrical Repairs to Piers          44,254                            44,254
                                                                            2,6,7, and 11.
MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Norfolk                  MH60 Helicopter Training              7,134                             7,134
                                                                            Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Portsmouth               Waterfront Utilities.......          45,513                            45,513
MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Quantico                 ATFP Gate..................           5,840                             5,840
MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Quantico                 Electrical Distribution               8,418                             8,418
                                                                            Upgrade.
MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Quantico                 Embassy Security Guard BEQ           43,941                            43,941
                                                                            & Ops Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY            VIRGINIA                 Quantico                 TBS Fire Station                          0            17,200          17,200
                                                                            Replacement.
MIL CON, NAVY            WASHINGTON               Bangor                   WRA Land/Water Interface...          34,177                            34,177
MIL CON, NAVY            WASHINGTON               Bremerton                Dry Dock 6 Modernization &           22,680                            22,680
                                                                            Utility Improve..
MIL CON, NAVY            WASHINGTON               Indian Island            Shore Power to Ammunition             4,472                             4,472
                                                                            Pier.
MIL CON, NAVY            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    MCON Design Funds..........          91,649                            91,649
                                                   Locations
MIL CON, NAVY            WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Unspecified Minor                    22,590                            22,590
                                                   Locations                Construction.
      SUBTOTAL, MIL CON, NAVY                                                                                1,605,929            59,360       1,665,289
                         .......................  .......................
MILCON, AIR FORCE
MILCON, AIR FORCE        ALASKA                   Eielson AFB              F-35A Flight Sim/Alter               37,000                            37,000
                                                                            Squad Ops/AMU Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        ALASKA                   Eielson AFB              Rpr Central Heat & Power             34,400                            34,400
                                                                            Plant Boiler Ph3.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        ARIZONA                  Davis-Monthan AFB        HC-130J AGE Covered Storage           4,700                             4,700
MILCON, AIR FORCE        ARIZONA                  Davis-Monthan AFB        HC-130J Wash Rack..........          12,200                            12,200
MILCON, AIR FORCE        ARIZONA                  Luke AFB                 Communications Facility....               0            21,000          21,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE        ARIZONA                  Luke AFB                 F-35A ADAL Fuel Offload               5,000                             5,000
                                                                            Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        ARIZONA                  Luke AFB                 F-35A Aircraft Maintenance           13,200                            13,200
                                                                            Hangar/Sq 3.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        ARIZONA                  Luke AFB                 F-35A Bomb Build-Up                   5,500                             5,500
                                                                            Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        ARIZONA                  Luke AFB                 F-35A Sq Ops/AMU/Hangar/Sq           33,000                            33,000
                                                                            4.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        COLORADO                 U.S. Air Force Academy   Front Gates Force                    10,000                            10,000
                                                                            Protection Enhancements.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        FLORIDA                  Cape Canaveral Afs       Range Communications                 21,000                            21,000
                                                                            Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        FLORIDA                  Eglin AFB                F-35A Consolidated HQ                 8,700                             8,700
                                                                            Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        FLORIDA                  Hurlburt Field           ADAL 39 Information                  14,200                            14,200
                                                                            Operations Squad Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        GREENLAND                Thule AB                 Thule Consolidation Ph 1...          41,965                            41,965
MILCON, AIR FORCE        GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas    APR--Dispersed Maint Spares          19,000                            19,000
                                                                            & SE Storage Fac.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas    APR--Installation Control            22,200                            22,200
                                                                            Center.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas    APR--South Ramp Utilities             7,100                             7,100
                                                                            Phase 2.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        GUAM                     Joint Region Marianas    PRTC Roads.................           2,500                             2,500
MILCON, AIR FORCE        HAWAII                   Joint Base Pearl Harbor- F-22 Fighter Alert Facility          46,000                            46,000
                                                   Hickam
MILCON, AIR FORCE        JAPAN                    Yokota AB                C-130J Flight Simulator               8,461                             8,461
                                                                            Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        KANSAS                   McConnell AFB            Air Traffic Control Tower..               0            11,200          11,200
MILCON, AIR FORCE        KANSAS                   McConnell AFB            KC-46A ADAL Deicing Pads...           4,300                             4,300
MILCON, AIR FORCE        LOUISIANA                Barksdale AFB            Consolidated Communications               0            20,000          20,000
                                                                            Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        MARYLAND                 Fort Meade               CYBERCOM Joint Operations            86,000                            86,000
                                                                            Center, Increment 3.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        MISSOURI                 Whiteman AFB             Consolidated Stealth Ops &           29,500                            29,500
                                                                            Nuclear Alert Fac.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        MONTANA                  Malmstrom AFB            Tactical Response Force              19,700                            19,700
                                                                            Alert Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEBRASKA                 Offutt AFB               Dormitory (144 RM).........          21,000                            21,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEVADA                   Nellis AFB               F-35A Airfield Pavements...          31,000                            31,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEVADA                   Nellis AFB               F-35A Live Ordnance Loading          34,500                            34,500
                                                                            Area.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEVADA                   Nellis AFB               F-35A Munitions Maintenance           3,450                             3,450
                                                                            Facilities.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEW MEXICO               Cannon AFB               Construct AT/FP Gate--                7,800                             7,800
                                                                            Portales.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEW MEXICO               Holloman AFB             Marshalling Area ARM/DE-ARM           3,000                             3,000
                                                                            Pad D.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEW MEXICO               Holloman AFB             Fixed Ground Control.......               0             3,200           3,200
MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEW MEXICO               Kirtland AFB             Space Vehicles Component             12,800                            12,800
                                                                            Development Lab.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        NEW YORK                 Fort Drum, New York      ASOS Expansion.............               0             6,000           6,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE        NIGER                    Agadez                   Construct Airfield and Base          50,000                            50,000
                                                                            Camp.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        NORTH CAROLINA           Seymour Johnson AFB      Air Traffic Control Tower/           17,100                            17,100
                                                                            Base Ops Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        OKLAHOMA                 Altus AFB                Dormitory (120 RM).........          18,000                            18,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE        OKLAHOMA                 Altus AFB                KC-46A FTU ADAL Fuel Cell            10,400                            10,400
                                                                            Maint Hangar.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        OKLAHOMA                 Tinker AFB               Air Traffic Control Tower..          12,900                            12,900
MILCON, AIR FORCE        OKLAHOMA                 Tinker AFB               KC-46A Depot Maintenance             37,000                            37,000
                                                                            Dock.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        OMAN                     Al Musannah AB           Airlift Apron..............          25,000                            25,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE        SOUTH DAKOTA             Ellsworth AFB            Dormitory (168 RM).........          23,000                            23,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE        TEXAS                    Joint Base San Antonio   BMT Classrooms/Dining                35,000                            35,000
                                                                            Facility 3.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        TEXAS                    Joint Base San Antonio   BMT Recruit Dormitory 5....          71,000                            71,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE        UNITED KINGDOM           Croughton RAF            Consolidated SATCOM/Tech             36,424                            36,424
                                                                            Control Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        UNITED KINGDOM           Croughton RAF            JIAC Consolidation--Ph 2...          94,191                            94,191
MILCON, AIR FORCE        UTAH                     Hill AFB                 F-35A Flight Simulator                5,900                             5,900
                                                                            Addition Phase 2.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        UTAH                     Hill AFB                 F-35A Hangar 40/42                   21,000                            21,000
                                                                            Additions and AMU.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        UTAH                     Hill AFB                 Hayman Igloos..............          11,500                            11,500
MILCON, AIR FORCE        WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED     Classified Location      Long Range Strike Bomber...          77,130                            77,130
MILCON, AIR FORCE        WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED     Classified Location      Munitions Storage..........           3,000                             3,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Prior Year Unobligated                    0           -50,000         -50,000
                                                   Locations                Amounts.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide        Planning and Design........          89,164                            89,164
                                                   Locations
MILCON, AIR FORCE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide        Unspecified Minor Military           22,900                            22,900
                                                   Locations                Construction.
MILCON, AIR FORCE        WYOMING                  F. E. Warren AFB         Weapon Storage Facility....          95,000                            95,000
      SUBTOTAL, MILCON, AIR FORCE                                                                            1,354,785            11,400       1,366,185
                         .......................  .......................
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        ALABAMA                  Fort Rucker              Fort Rucker ES/PS                    46,787                            46,787
                                                                            Consolidation/Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        ALABAMA                  Maxwell AFB              Maxwell ES/MS Replacement/           32,968                            32,968
                                                                            Renovation.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        ARIZONA                  Fort Huachuca            JITC Buildings 52101/52111            3,884                             3,884
                                                                            Renovations.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        CALIFORNIA               Camp Pendleton,          SOF Combat Service Support           10,181                            10,181
                                                   California               Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        CALIFORNIA               Camp Pendleton,          SOF Performance Resiliency           10,371                            10,371
                                                   California               Center-West.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        CALIFORNIA               Coronado                 SOF Logistics Support Unit           47,218                            47,218
                                                                            One Ops Fac. #2.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        CALIFORNIA               Fresno Yosemite IAP ANG  Replace Fuel Storage and             10,700                            10,700
                                                                            Distrib. Facilities.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        COLORADO                 Fort Carson, Colorado    SOF Language Training                 8,243                             8,243
                                                                            Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        CONUS CLASSIFIED         Classified Location      Operations Support Facility          20,065                            20,065
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        DELAWARE                 Dover AFB                Construct Hydrant Fuel               21,600                            21,600
                                                                            System.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        DJIBOUTI                 Camp Lemonier, Djibouti  Construct Fuel Storage &             43,700                            43,700
                                                                            Distrib. Facilities.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        FLORIDA                  Hurlburt Field           SOF Fuel Cell Maintenance            17,989                            17,989
                                                                            Hangar.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        FLORIDA                  MacDill AFB              SOF Operational Support              39,142                            39,142
                                                                            Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        GEORGIA                  Moody AFB                Replace Pumphouse and Truck          10,900                            10,900
                                                                            Fillstands.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        GERMANY                  Garmisch                 Garmisch E/MS-Addition/              14,676                            14,676
                                                                            Modernization.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        GERMANY                  Grafenwoehr              Grafenwoehr Elementary               38,138                            38,138
                                                                            School Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        GERMANY                  Rhine Ordnance Barracks  Medical Center Replacement           85,034                            85,034
                                                                            Incr 5.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        GERMANY                  Spangdahlem AB           Construct Fuel Pipeline....           5,500                             5,500
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        GERMANY                  Spangdahlem AB           Medical/Dental Clinic                34,071                            34,071
                                                                            Addition.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        GERMANY                  Stuttgart-Patch          Patch Elementary School              49,413                            49,413
                                                   Barracks                 Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        HAWAII                   Kaneohe Bay              Medical/Dental Clinic               122,071                           122,071
                                                                            Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        HAWAII                   Schofield Barracks       Behavioral Health/Dental            123,838                           123,838
                                                                            Clinic Addition.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        JAPAN                    Kadena AB                Airfield Pavements.........          37,485                            37,485
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        KENTUCKY                 Fort Campbell, Kentucky  SOF Company HQ/Classrooms..          12,553                            12,553
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        KENTUCKY                 Fort Knox                Fort Knox HS Renovation/MS           23,279                            23,279
                                                                            Addition.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        MARYLAND                 Fort Meade               NSAW Campus Feeders Phase 2          33,745                            33,745
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        MARYLAND                 Fort Meade               NSAW Recapitalize Building           34,897                            34,897
                                                                            #2 Incr 1.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NEVADA                   Nellis AFB               Replace Hydrant Fuel System          39,900                            39,900
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NEW MEXICO               Cannon AFB               Construct Pumphouse and              20,400                            20,400
                                                                            Fuel Storage.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NEW MEXICO               Cannon AFB               SOF Squadron Operations              11,565                            11,565
                                                                            Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NEW MEXICO               Cannon AFB               SOF ST Operational Training          13,146                            13,146
                                                                            Facilities.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NEW YORK                 West Point               West Point Elementary                55,778                            55,778
                                                                            School Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NORTH CAROLINA           Camp Lejeune, North      SOF Combat Service Support           14,036                            14,036
                                                   Carolina                 Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NORTH CAROLINA           Camp Lejeune, North      SOF Marine Battalion                 54,970                            54,970
                                                   Carolina                 Company/Team Facilities.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NORTH CAROLINA           Fort Bragg               Butner Elementary School             32,944                            32,944
                                                                            Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NORTH CAROLINA           Fort Bragg               SOF 21 STS Operations                16,863                            16,863
                                                                            Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NORTH CAROLINA           Fort Bragg               SOF Battalion Operations             38,549                            38,549
                                                                            Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NORTH CAROLINA           Fort Bragg               SOF Indoor Range...........           8,303                             8,303
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NORTH CAROLINA           Fort Bragg               SOF Intelligence Training            28,265                            28,265
                                                                            Center.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        NORTH CAROLINA           Fort Bragg               SOF Special Tactics                  43,887                            43,887
                                                                            Facility (PH 2).
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        OHIO                     Wright-Patterson AFB     Satellite Pharmacy                    6,623                             6,623
                                                                            Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        OREGON                   Klamath Falls IAP        Replace Fuel Facilities....           2,500                             2,500
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        PENNSYLVANIA             Philadelphia             Replace Headquarters.......          49,700           -49,700               0
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        POLAND                   RedziKowo Base           Aegis Ashore Missile                169,153                           169,153
                                                                            Defense System Complex.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        SOUTH CAROLINA           Fort Jackson             Pierce Terrace Elementary            26,157                            26,157
                                                                            School Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        SPAIN                    Rota                     Rota ES and HS Additions...          13,737                            13,737
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        TEXAS                    Fort Bliss               Hospital Replacement Incr 7         239,884                           239,884
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        TEXAS                    Joint Base San Antonio   Ambulatory Care Center               61,776                            61,776
                                                                            Phase 4.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        VIRGINIA                 Fort Belvoir             Construct Visitor Control             5,000                             5,000
                                                                            Center.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        VIRGINIA                 Fort Belvoir             Replace Ground Vehicle                4,500                             4,500
                                                                            Fueling Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        VIRGINIA                 Joint Base Langley-      Replace Fuel Pier and                28,000                            28,000
                                                   Eustis                   Distribution Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        VIRGINIA                 Joint Expeditionary      SOF Applied Instruction              23,916                            23,916
                                                   Base Little Creek--      Facility.
                                                   Story
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Contingency Construction...          10,000                            10,000
                                                   Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    ECIP Design................          10,000                            10,000
                                                   Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Energy Conservation                 150,000                           150,000
                                                   Locations                Investment Program.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Exercise Related Minor                8,687                             8,687
                                                   Locations                Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Planning and Design........         118,632                           118,632
                                                   Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Unspecified Minor                    23,676                            23,676
                                                   Locations                Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Prior year savings,                       0          -120,000        -120,000
                                                   Locations                including rescoped medical
                                                                            facility at Fort Knox.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide        Planning & Design..........          31,772                            31,772
                                                   Locations
      SUBTOTAL, MIL CON, DEF-WIDE                                                                            2,300,767          -169,700       2,131,067
                         .......................  .......................
MILCON, ARNG
MILCON, ARNG             ALABAMA                  Camp Foley               Vehicle Maintenance Shop...               0             4,500           4,500
MILCON, ARNG             CONNECTICUT              Camp Hartell             Ready Building (CST-WMD)...          11,000                            11,000
MILCON, ARNG             DELAWARE                 Dagsboro                 National Guard Vehicle               10,800                            10,800
                                                                            Maintenance Shop.
MILCON, ARNG             FLORIDA                  Palm Coast               National Guard Readiness             18,000                            18,000
                                                                            Center.
MILCON, ARNG             GEORGIA                  Fort Stewart             Tactical Aerial Unmanned                  0             6,800           6,800
                                                                            Systems.
MILCON, ARNG             ILLINOIS                 Sparta                   Basic 10M-25M Firing Range            1,900                             1,900
                                                                            (Zero).
MILCON, ARNG             KANSAS                   Salina                   Automated Combat Pistol/MP            2,400                             2,400
                                                                            Firearms Qual Cour.
MILCON, ARNG             KANSAS                   Salina                   Modified Record Fire Range.           4,300                             4,300
MILCON, ARNG             MARYLAND                 Easton                   National Guard Readiness             13,800                            13,800
                                                                            Center.
MILCON, ARNG             MISSISSIPPI              Gulfport                 Aviation Classification and               0            40,000          40,000
                                                                            Repair.
MILCON, ARNG             NEVADA                   Reno                     National Guard Vehicle                8,000                             8,000
                                                                            Maintenance Shop Add/A.
MILCON, ARNG             OHIO                     Camp Ravenna             Modified Record Fire Range.           3,300                             3,300
MILCON, ARNG             OREGON                   Salem                    National Guard/Reserve               16,500                            16,500
                                                                            Center Bldg Add/Alt (J.
MILCON, ARNG             PENNSYLVANIA             Fort Indiantown Gap      Training Aids Center.......          16,000                            16,000
MILCON, ARNG             VERMONT                  North Hyde Park          National Guard Vehicle                7,900                             7,900
                                                                            Maintenance Shop Addit.
MILCON, ARNG             VIRGINIA                 Richmond                 National Guard/Reserve               29,000                            29,000
                                                                            Center Building (JFHQ).
MILCON, ARNG             WASHINGTON               Yakima                   Enlisted Barracks,                   19,000                            19,000
                                                                            Transient Training.
MILCON, ARNG             WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Planning and Design........          20,337                            20,337
                                                   Locations
MILCON, ARNG             WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Unspecified Minor                    15,000                            15,000
                                                   Locations                Construction.
      SUBTOTAL, MILCON, ARNG                                                                                   197,237            51,300         248,537
                         .......................  .......................
MILCON, ANG
MILCON, ANG              ALABAMA                  Dannelly Field           TFI--Replace Squadron                 7,600                             7,600
                                                                            Operations Facility.
MILCON, ANG              CALIFORNIA               Moffett Field            Replace Vehicle Maintenance           6,500                             6,500
                                                                            Facility.
MILCON, ANG              COLORADO                 Buckley Air Force Base   ASE Maintenance and Storage           5,100                             5,100
                                                                            Facility.
MILCON, ANG              CONNECTICUT              Bradley                  Ops and Deployment Facility               0             6,300           6,300
MILCON, ANG              FLORIDA                  Cape Canaveral Afs       Space Control Facility.....               0             6,100           6,100
MILCON, ANG              GEORGIA                  Savannah/Hilton Head     C-130 Squadron Operations             9,000                             9,000
                                                   IAP                      Facility.
MILCON, ANG              HAWAII                   Joint Base Pearl Harbor- F-22 Composite Repair                     0             9,700           9,700
                                                   Hickam                   Facility.
MILCON, ANG              IOWA                     Des Moines Map           Air Operations Grp/CYBER              6,700                             6,700
                                                                            Beddown-Reno Blg 430.
MILCON, ANG              KANSAS                   Smokey Hill ANG Range    Range Training Support                2,900                             2,900
                                                                            Facilities.
MILCON, ANG              LOUISIANA                New Orleans              Replace Squadron Operations          10,000                            10,000
                                                                            Facility.
MILCON, ANG              MAINE                    Bangor IAP               Add to and Alter Fire Crash/          7,200                             7,200
                                                                            Rescue Station.
MILCON, ANG              NEW HAMPSHIRE            Pease International      Bidg Mo KC-46 Fuselage                    0             1,500           1,500
                                                   Trade Port               Trainer.
MILCON, ANG              NEW HAMPSHIRE            Pease International      KC-46A ADAL Flight                    2,800                             2,800
                                                   Trade Port               Simulator Bldg 156.
MILCON, ANG              NEW JERSEY               Atlantic City IAP        Fuel Cell and Corrosion              10,200                            10,200
                                                                            Control Hangar.
MILCON, ANG              NEW YORK                 Niagara Falls IAP        Remotely Piloted Aircraft             7,700                             7,700
                                                                            Beddown Bldg 912.
MILCON, ANG              NORTH CAROLINA           Charlotte/Douglas IAP    Replace C-130 Squadron                9,000                             9,000
                                                                            Operations Facility.
MILCON, ANG              NORTH DAKOTA             Hector IAP               Intel Targeting Facilities.           7,300                             7,300
MILCON, ANG              OKLAHOMA                 Will Rogers World        Medium Altitude Manned ISR            7,600                             7,600
                                                   Airport                  Beddown.
MILCON, ANG              OREGON                   Klamath Falls IAP        Replace Fire Crash/Rescue             7,200                             7,200
                                                                            Station.
MILCON, ANG              WEST VIRGINIA            Yeager Airport           Force Protection--Relocate            3,900                             3,900
                                                                            Coonskin Road.
MILCON, ANG              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide        Planning and Design........           5,104                             5,104
                                                   Locations
MILCON, ANG              WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide        Unspecified Minor                     7,734                             7,734
                                                   Locations                Construction.
      SUBTOTAL, MILCON, ANG                                                                                    123,538            23,600         147,138
                         .......................  .......................
MILCON, ARMY R
MILCON, ARMY R           CALIFORNIA               Miramar                  Army Reserve Center........          24,000                            24,000
MILCON, ARMY R           FLORIDA                  MacDill AFB              AR Center/AS Facility......          55,000                            55,000
MILCON, ARMY R           MISSISSIPPI              Starkville               Army Reserve Center........           9,300                             9,300
MILCON, ARMY R           NEW YORK                 Orangeburg               Organizational Maintenance            4,200                             4,200
                                                                            Shop.
MILCON, ARMY R           PENNSYLVANIA             Conneaut Lake            DAR Highway Improvement....           5,000                             5,000
MILCON, ARMY R           PUERTO RICO              Fort Buchanan            Access Control Point.......               0            10,200          10,200
MILCON, ARMY R           VIRGINIA                 Fort AP Hill             Equipment Concentration....               0            24,000          24,000
MILCON, ARMY R           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Planning and Design........           9,318                             9,318
                                                   Locations
MILCON, ARMY R           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Unspecified Minor                     6,777                             6,777
                                                   Locations                Construction.
      SUBTOTAL, MILCON, ARMY R                                                                                 113,595            34,200         147,795
                         .......................  .......................
MIL CON, NAVY RES
MIL CON, NAVY RES        NEVADA                   Fallon                   NAVOPSPTCEN Fallon.........          11,480                            11,480
MIL CON, NAVY RES        NEW YORK                 Brooklyn                 Reserve Center Storage                2,479                             2,479
                                                                            Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY RES        VIRGINIA                 Dam Neck                 Reserve Training Center              18,443                            18,443
                                                                            Complex.
MIL CON, NAVY RES        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    MCNR Planning & Design.....           2,208                             2,208
                                                   Locations
MIL CON, NAVY RES        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    MCNR Unspecified Minor                1,468                             1,468
                                                   Locations                Construction.
      SUBTOTAL, MIL CON, NAVY RES                                                                               36,078                            36,078
                         .......................  .......................
MILCON, AF RES
MILCON, AF RES           CALIFORNIA               March AFB                Satellite Fire Station.....           4,600                             4,600
MILCON, AF RES           FLORIDA                  Patrick AFB              Aircrew Life Support                  3,400                             3,400
                                                                            Facility.
MILCON, AF RES           GEORGIA                  Dobbins                  Fire Station/Security                     0            10,400          10,400
                                                                            Complex.
MILCON, AF RES           OHIO                     Youngstown               Indoor Firing Range........           9,400                             9,400
MILCON, AF RES           TEXAS                    Joint Base San Antonio   Consolidate 433 Medical               9,900                             9,900
                                                                            Facility.
MILCON, AF RES           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide        Planning and Design........          13,400                            13,400
                                                   Locations
MILCON, AF RES           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Various Worldwide        Unspecified Minor Military            6,121                             6,121
                                                   Locations                Construction.
      SUBTOTAL, MILCON, AF RES                                                                                  46,821            10,400          57,221
                         .......................  .......................
NATO SEC INV PRGM
NATO SEC INV PRGM        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    NATO Security            NATO Security Investment            120,000                           120,000
                                                   Investment Program       Program.
      SUBTOTAL, NATO SEC INV PRGM                                                                              120,000                           120,000
                         .......................  .......................
      TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION                                                                            6,641,995              -940       6,641,055
                         .......................  .......................
FAMILY HOUSING
FAM HSG CON, ARMY
FAM HSG CON, ARMY        FLORIDA                  Camp Rudder              Family Housing Replacement            8,000                             8,000
                                                                            Construction.
FAM HSG CON, ARMY        GERMANY                  Wiesbaden Army Airfield  Family Housing Improvements           3,500                             3,500
FAM HSG CON, ARMY        ILLINOIS                 Rock Island              Family Housing Replacement           20,000                            20,000
                                                                            Construction.
FAM HSG CON, ARMY        KOREA                    Camp Walker              Family Housing New                   61,000                            61,000
                                                                            Construction.
FAM HSG CON, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Family Housing P & D.......           7,195                             7,195
                                                   Locations
      SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG CON, ARMY                                                                               99,695                            99,695
                         .......................  .......................
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Furnishings................          25,552                            25,552
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Leased Housing.............         144,879                           144,879
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Maintenance of Real                  75,197                            75,197
                                                   Locations                Property Facilities.
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Management Account.........          48,515                            48,515
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Military Housing                     22,000                            22,000
                                                   Locations                Privitization Initiative.
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Miscellaneous..............             840                               840
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Services...................          10,928                            10,928
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Utilities..................          65,600                            65,600
                                                   Locations
      SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG O&M, ARMY                                                                              393,511                           393,511
                         .......................  .......................
FAM HSG CON, N/MC
FAM HSG CON, N/MC        VIRGINIA                 Wallops Island           Construct Housing Welcome               438                               438
                                                                            Center.
FAM HSG CON, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Design.....................           4,588                             4,588
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG CON, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Improvements...............          11,515                            11,515
                                                   Locations
      SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG CON, N/MC                                                                               16,541                            16,541
                         .......................  .......................
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Furnishings Account........          17,534                            17,534
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Leasing....................          64,108                            64,108
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Maintenance of Real                  99,323                            99,323
                                                   Locations                Property.
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Management Account.........          56,189                            56,189
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Miscellaneous Account......             373                               373
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Privatization Support Costs          28,668                            28,668
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Services Account...........          19,149                            19,149
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC        WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Utilities Account..........          67,692                            67,692
                                                   Locations
      SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG O&M, N/MC                                                                              353,036                           353,036
 
FAM HSG CON, AF
FAM HSG CON, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Improvements...............         150,649                           150,649
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG CON, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Planning and Design........           9,849                             9,849
                                                   Locations
      SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG CON, AF                                                                                160,498                           160,498
 
FAM HSG O&M, AF
FAM HSG O&M, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Furnishings Account........          38,746                            38,746
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Housing Privatization......          41,554                            41,554
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Leasing....................          28,867                            28,867
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Maintenance................         114,129                           114,129
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Management Account.........          52,153                            52,153
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Miscellaneous Account......           2,032                             2,032
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Services Account...........          12,940                            12,940
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Utilities Account..........          40,811                            40,811
                                                   Locations
      SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG O&M, AF                                                                                331,232                           331,232
                         .......................  .......................
FAM HSG O&M, DW
FAM HSG O&M, DW          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Furnishings Account........           4,203                             4,203
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Leasing....................          51,952                            51,952
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Maintenance of Real                   1,448                             1,448
                                                   Locations                Property.
FAM HSG O&M, DW          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Management Account.........             388                               388
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Services Account...........              31                                31
                                                   Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW          WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    Utilities Account..........             646                               646
                                                   Locations
      SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG O&M, DW                                                                                 58,668                            58,668
                         .......................  .......................
      TOTAL FAMILY HOUSING                                                                                   1,413,181                         1,413,181
                         .......................  .......................
DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
DOD BRAC--ARMY
DOD BRAC--ARMY           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Base Realignment &       Base Realignment and                 29,691                            29,691
                                                   Closure, Army            Closure.
      SUBTOTAL, DOD BRAC--ARMY                                                                                  29,691                            29,691
                         .......................  .......................
DOD BRAC--NAVY
DOD BRAC--NAVY           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Base Realignment &       Base Realignment & Closure.         118,906                           118,906
                                                   Closure, Navy
DOD BRAC--NAVY           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    DON-100: Planing, Design              7,787                             7,787
                                                   Locations                and Management.
DOD BRAC--NAVY           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    DON-101: Various Locations.          20,871                            20,871
                                                   Locations
DOD BRAC--NAVY           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    DON-138: NAS Brunswick, ME.             803                               803
                                                   Locations
DOD BRAC--NAVY           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    DON-157: MCSA Kansas City,               41                                41
                                                   Locations                MO.
DOD BRAC--NAVY           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    DON-172: NWS Seal Beach,              4,872                             4,872
                                                   Locations                Concord, CA.
DOD BRAC--NAVY           WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    DON-84: JRB Willow Grove &            3,808                             3,808
                                                   Locations                Cambria Reg AP.
      SUBTOTAL, DOD BRAC--NAVY                                                                                 157,088                           157,088
                         .......................  .......................
DOD BRAC--AIR FORCE
DOD BRAC--AIR FORCE      WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED    Unspecified Worldwide    DoD BRAC Activities--Air             64,555                            64,555
                                                   Locations                Force.
      SUBTOTAL, DOD BRAC--AIR FORCE                                                                             64,555                            64,555
                         .......................  .......................
      TOTAL DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE                                                               251,334                           251,334
                         .......................  .......................
      TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC                                                  8,306,510              -940       8,305,570
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL
 SECURITY PROGRAMS
 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Senate
                          Program                           FY 2016  Request   Senate  Change      Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Summary By Appropriation
  Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies
  Appropriation Summary:
    Energy Programs
      Nuclear Energy......................................           135,161                             135,161
 
    Atomic Energy Defense Activities
      National nuclear security administration:
        Weapons activities................................         8,846,948         180,000           9,026,948
        Defense nuclear nonproliferation..................         1,940,302           5,000           1,945,302
        Naval reactors....................................         1,375,496               0           1,375,496
        Federal salaries and expenses.....................           402,654               0             402,654
      Total, National nuclear security administration.....        12,565,400         185,000          12,750,400
 
      Environmental and other defense activities:
        Defense environmental cleanup.....................         5,527,347        -451,797           5,075,550
        Other defense activities..........................           774,425               0             774,425
      Total, Environmental & other defense activities.....         6,301,772        -451,797           5,849,975
    Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities...............        18,867,172        -266,797          18,600,375
Total, Discretionary Funding..............................        19,002,333        -266,797          18,735,536
 
 
Nuclear Energy
  Idaho sitewide safeguards and security..................           126,161                             126,161
  Used nuclear fuel disposition...........................             9,000                               9,000
Total, Nuclear Energy.....................................           135,161               0             135,161
 
Weapons Activities
  Directed stockpile work
    Life extension programs
      B61 Life extension program..........................           643,300                             643,300
      W76 Life extension program..........................           244,019                             244,019
      W88 Alt 370.........................................           220,176                             220,176
      W80-4 Life extension program........................           195,037                             195,037
    Total, Life extension programs........................         1,302,532               0           1,302,532
 
    Stockpile systems
      B61 Stockpile systems...............................            52,247                              52,247
      W76 Stockpile systems...............................            50,921                              50,921
      W78 Stockpile systems...............................            64,092                              64,092
      W80 Stockpile systems...............................            68,005                              68,005
      B83 Stockpile systems...............................            42,177                              42,177
      W87 Stockpile systems...............................            89,299                              89,299
      W88 Stockpile systems...............................           115,685                             115,685
    Total, Stockpile systems..............................           482,426               0             482,426
 
    Weapons dismantlement and disposition
      Operations and maintenance..........................            48,049                              48,049
 
    Stockpile services
      Production support..................................           447,527                             447,527
      Research and development support....................            34,159                              34,159
      R&D certification and safety........................           192,613                             192,613
      Management, technology, and production..............           264,994                             264,994
    Total, Stockpile services.............................           939,293               0             939,293
 
    Nuclear material commodities
      Uranium sustainment.................................            32,916                              32,916
      Plutonium sustainment...............................           174,698                             174,698
      Tritium sustainment.................................           107,345                             107,345
      Domestic uranium enrichment.........................           100,000                             100,000
    Total, Nuclear material commodities...................           414,959               0             414,959
  Total, Directed stockpile work..........................         3,187,259               0           3,187,259
 
  Research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E)
    Science
      Advanced certification..............................            50,714                              50,714
      Primary assessment technologies.....................            98,500                              98,500
      Dynamic materials properties........................           109,000                             109,000
      Advanced radiography................................            47,000                              47,000
      Secondary assessment technologies...................            84,400                              84,400
    Total, Science........................................           389,614               0             389,614
 
    Engineering
      Enhanced surety.....................................            50,821                              50,821
      Weapon systems engineering assessment technology....            17,371                              17,371
      Nuclear survivability...............................            24,461                              24,461
      Enhanced surveillance...............................            38,724          10,000              48,724
        Program increase..................................                           [10,000]
    Total, Engineering ...................................           131,377          10,000             141,377
 
    Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield
      Ignition............................................            73,334                              73,334
      Support of other stockpile programs.................            22,843                              22,843
      Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support....            58,587                              58,587
      Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion............             4,963                               4,963
      Joint program in high energy density laboratory                  8,900                               8,900
       plasmas............................................
      Facility operations and target production...........           333,823                             333,823
      Undistributed.......................................                 0                                   0
    Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield.....           502,450               0             502,450
 
    Advanced simulation and computing.....................           623,006                             623,006
 
    Response Capabilities Program.........................                 0          20,000              20,000
      Supports flexible design capability for national                               [20,000]
       labs...............................................
 
    Nonnuclear Readiness Campaign.........................                 0                                   0
 
    Advanced manufacturing
      Additive manufacturing..............................                 0                                   0
      Component manufacturing development.................           112,256                             112,256
      Processing technology development...................            17,800                              17,800
    Total, Advanced manufacturing.........................           130,056               0             130,056
  Total, RDT&E............................................         1,776,503          30,000           1,806,503
 
  Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF)
    Operating
      Program readiness...................................            75,185                              75,185
      Material recycle and recovery.......................           173,859                             173,859
      Containers..........................................                 0                                   0
      Storage.............................................            40,920                              40,920
      Maintenance and repair of facilities................                 0                                   0
      Recapitalization....................................           104,327                             104,327
    Total, Operating......................................           394,291               0             394,291
 
    Construction:
      Albuquerque Complex upgrades project................                 0                                   0
      15-D-613 Emergency Operations Center, Y-12..........                 0                                   0
      15-D-612 Emergency Operations Center, LLNL..........                 0                                   0
      15-D-611 Emergency Operations Center, SNL...........                 0                                   0
      15-D-301 HE Science & Engineering Facility, PX......                 0                                   0
      15-D-302, TA-55 Reinvestment project, Phase 3, LANL.            18,195                              18,195
      12-D-301 TRU waste facilities, LANL.................                 0                                   0
      11-D-801 TA-55 Reinvestment project Phase 2, LANL...             3,903                               3,903
      07-D-220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility            11,533                              11,533
       upgrade project, LANL..............................
      07-D-220-04 Transuranic liquid waste facility, LANL.            40,949                              40,949
      06-D-141 PED/Construction, Uranium Capabilities                430,000                             430,000
       Replacement Project Y-12...........................
      04-D-125 Chemistry and metallurgy replacement                  155,610                             155,610
       project, LANL......................................
    Total, Construction...................................           660,190               0             660,190
  Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities.......         1,054,481               0           1,054,481
 
  Secure transportation asset
    Operations and equipment..............................           146,272                             146,272
    Program direction.....................................           105,338                             105,338
  Total, Secure transportation asset......................           251,610               0             251,610
 
  Nuclear counterterrorism incident response..............                 0                                   0
 
  Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Programs......                 0                                   0
 
  Infrastructure and safety
    Operations of facilities
      Kansas City Plant...................................           100,250                             100,250
      Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory..............            70,671                              70,671
      Los Alamos National Laboratory......................           196,460                             196,460
      Nevada National Security Site.......................            89,000                              89,000
      Pantex..............................................            58,021                              58,021
      Sandia National Laboratory..........................           115,300                             115,300
      Savannah River Site.................................            80,463                              80,463
      Y-12 National security complex......................           120,625                             120,625
    Total, Operations of facilities.......................           830,790               0             830,790
 
    Safety operations.....................................           107,701                             107,701
    Maintenance...........................................           227,000                             227,000
    Recapitalization......................................           257,724         150,000             407,724
      Increase to support deferred maintenance............                          [150,000]
    Construction:
      16-D-621 Substation replacement at TA-3, LANL.......            25,000                              25,000
      15-D-613 Emergency Operations Center, Y-12..........            17,919                              17,919
    Total, Construction...................................            42,919               0              42,919
  Total, Infrastructure and safety........................         1,466,134         150,000           1,616,134
 
  Site stewardship
    Environmental projects and operations.................                 0                                   0
    Nuclear materials integration.........................            17,510                              17,510
    Minority serving institution partnerships program.....            19,085                              19,085
  Total, Site stewardship.................................            36,595               0              36,595
 
  Defense nuclear security
    Operations and maintenance............................           619,891                             619,891
    Construction:
      14-D-710 Device assembly facility argus installation            13,000                              13,000
       project, NV........................................
  Total, Defense nuclear security.........................           632,891               0             632,891
 
  Information technology and cybersecurity................           157,588                             157,588
 
  Legacy contractor pensions..............................           283,887                             283,887
 
  Domestic uranium enrichment.............................                 0                                   0
Total, Weapons Activities.................................         8,846,948         180,000           9,026,948
 
 
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
  Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
    Global threat reduction initiative....................                 0                                   0
 
    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D
      Global material security............................           426,751                             426,751
      Material management and minimization................           311,584                             311,584
      Nonproliferation and arms control...................           126,703                             126,703
      Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D................           419,333                             419,333
 
      Nonproliferation Construction:
        99-D-143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication                  345,000                             345,000
         Facility, SRS....................................
        Analysis of Alternatives..........................                 0           5,000               5,000
          Assess alternatives to MOX......................                            [5,000]
      Total, Nonproliferation construction................           345,000           5,000             350,000
 
 
    Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs......         1,629,371           5,000           1,634,371
 
  Legacy contractor pensions..............................            94,617                              94,617
  Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program..           234,390                             234,390
  Use of prior-year balances..............................           -18,076                             -18,076
  Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .............         1,940,302           5,000           1,945,302
 
  Rescission..............................................                 0                                   0
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation...................         1,940,302           5,000           1,945,302
 
 
Naval Reactors
  Naval reactors operations and infrastructure............           445,196                             445,196
  Naval reactors development..............................           444,400                             444,400
  Ohio replacement reactor systems development............           186,800                             186,800
  S8G Prototype refueling.................................           133,000                             133,000
  Program direction.......................................            45,000                              45,000
  Construction:
    15-D-904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3.............               900                                 900
    15-D-903 KL Fire System Upgrade.......................               600                                 600
    15-D-902 KS Engineroom team trainer facility..........             3,100                               3,100
    14-D-902 KL Materials characterization laboratory                 30,000                              30,000
     expansion, KAPL......................................
    14-D-901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project,            86,000                              86,000
     NRF..................................................
    10-D-903, Security upgrades, KAPL.....................               500                                 500
  Total, Construction.....................................           121,100               0             121,100
Total, Naval Reactors.....................................         1,375,496               0           1,375,496
 
 
Federal Salaries And Expenses
  Program direction.......................................           402,654                             402,654
Total, Office Of The Administrator........................           402,654               0             402,654
 
 
Defense Environmental Cleanup
  Closure sites:
    Closure sites administration..........................             4,889                               4,889
 
  Hanford site:
    River corridor and other cleanup operations:
      River corridor and other cleanup operations.........           196,957                             196,957
 
    Central plateau remediation:
      Central plateau remediation.........................           555,163                             555,163
      Richland community and regulatory support...........            14,701                              14,701
    Construction:
      15-D-401 Containerized sludge removal annex, RL.....            77,016                              77,016
  Total, Hanford site.....................................           843,837               0             843,837
 
  Idaho National Laboratory:
    Idaho cleanup and waste disposition...................           357,783                             357,783
    Idaho community and regulatory support................             3,000                               3,000
  Total, Idaho National Laboratory........................           360,783               0             360,783
 
  NNSA sites
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory................             1,366                               1,366
    Nevada................................................            62,385                              62,385
    Sandia National Laboratories..........................             2,500                               2,500
    Los Alamos National Laboratory........................           188,625          20,000             208,625
      Accelerate cleanup of transuranic waste.............                           [20,000]
    Construction:
      15-D-406 Hexavalent chromium D & D (Vl-Lanl-0030)...                 0
  Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites..................           254,876          20,000             274,876
 
  Oak Ridge Reservation:
    OR Nuclear facility D & D
      OR Nuclear facility D & D...........................            75,958                              75,958
      Construction:
        14-D-403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility...             6,800                               6,800
    Total, OR Nuclear facility D & D......................            82,758               0              82,758
 
    U233 Disposition Program..............................            26,895                              26,895
 
    OR cleanup and disposition:
      OR cleanup and disposition..........................            60,500                              60,500
      Construction:
        15-D-405--Sludge Buildout.........................                 0                                   0
    Total, OR cleanup and disposition.....................            60,500               0              60,500
 
  OR reservation community and regulatory support.........             4,400                               4,400
  Solid waste stabilization and disposition
         Oak Ridge technology development.................             2,800                               2,800
  Total, Oak Ridge Reservation............................           177,353               0             177,353
 
  Office of River Protection:
    Waste treatment and immobilization plant
      01-D-416 A-D/ORP-0060 / Major construction..........           595,000                             595,000
      01-D-16E Pretreatment facility......................            95,000                              95,000
    Total, Waste treatment and immobilization plant.......           690,000               0             690,000
 
    Tank farm activities
      Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition.           649,000                             649,000
      Construction:
        15-D-409 Low Activity Waste Pretreatment System,              75,000                              75,000
         Hanford..........................................
    Total, Tank farm activities...........................           724,000               0             724,000
  Total, Office of River protection.......................         1,414,000               0           1,414,000
 
  Savannah River sites:
    Savannah River risk management operations.............           386,652                             386,652
    SR community and regulatory support...................            11,249                              11,249
 
    Radioactive liquid tank waste:
      Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and                581,878                             581,878
       disposition........................................
      Construction:
        15-D-402--Saltstone Disposal Unit #6..............            34,642                              34,642
        05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah            194,000                             194,000
         River............................................
      Total, Construction.................................           228,642               0             228,642
    Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste..................           810,520               0             810,520
  Total, Savannah River site..............................         1,208,421               0           1,208,421
 
  Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
    Waste isolation pilot plant...........................           212,600                             212,600
        Construction:
          15-D-411 Safety significant confinement                     23,218                              23,218
           ventilation system, WIPP.......................
          15-D-412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP....................             7,500                               7,500
        Total, Construction...............................            30,718               0              30,718
      Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant..................           243,318               0             243,318
 
  Program direction.......................................           281,951                             281,951
  Program support.........................................            14,979                              14,979
 
  Safeguards and Security:
    Oak Ridge Reservation.................................            17,228                              17,228
    Paducah...............................................             8,216                               8,216
    Portsmouth............................................             8,492                               8,492
    Richland/Hanford Site.................................            67,601                              67,601
    Savannah River Site...................................           128,345                             128,345
    Waste Isolation Pilot Project.........................             4,860                               4,860
    West Valley...........................................             1,891                               1,891
  Technology development..................................            14,510                              14,510
  Use of prior-year balances..............................                 0                                   0
Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup...................         5,055,550          20,000           5,075,550
 
  Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution................           471,797        -471,797                   0
    Requires industry match authorization that will not be                         [-471,797]
     forthcoming..........................................
 
Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup......................         5,527,347        -451,797           5,075,550
 
 
Other Defense Activities
  Specialized security activities.........................           221,855                             221,855
 
  Environment, health, safety and security
    Environment, health, safety and security..............           120,693                             120,693
    Program direction.....................................            63,105                              63,105
  Total, Environment, Health, safety and security.........           183,798               0             183,798
 
  Enterprise assessments
    Enterprise assessments................................            24,068                              24,068
    Program direction.....................................            49,466                              49,466
  Total, Enterprise assessments...........................            73,534               0              73,534
 
  Office of Legacy Management
    Legacy management.....................................           154,080                             154,080
    Program direction.....................................            13,100                              13,100
  Total, Office of Legacy Management......................           167,180               0             167,180
 
  Defense-related activities
  Defense related administrative support
    Chief financial officer...............................            35,758                              35,758
    Chief information officer.............................            83,800                              83,800
    Management............................................             3,000                               3,000
  Total, Defense related administrative support...........           122,558               0             122,558
 
  Office of hearings and appeals..........................             5,500                               5,500
Subtotal, Other defense activities........................           774,425               0             774,425
Total, Other Defense Activities...........................           774,425               0             774,425
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 4701)

                        LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

                      Departmental Recommendations

    On April 28, 2015, Senator McCain, with concurrence by 
Senator Reed, introduced by request the Administration's 
proposed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2016. This bill--S.1118--was introduced for the purpose of 
placing the Administration's proposals before Congress and the 
public without expressing the views of Senators McCain or Reed 
on the substance of those proposals. In accordance with past 
practice, the committee reported an original bill rather than 
acting on S.1118.

                            Committee Action

    The committee vote to report the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 passed by roll call 
vote, 22-4, as follows: In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, 
Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, 
Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz, McCaskill, Manchin, 
Shaheen, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Kaine, King, and Heinrich. 
Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, Gillibrand, and Hirono.
    The other 16 roll call votes on motions and amendments to 
the bill which were considered during the course of the full 
committee markup are as follows:
    1. MOTION: To conduct full committee markup of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 in closed 
session because of classified and proprietary information 
expected to be discussed.
    VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 17-9
    In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, 
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Reed, 
Nelson, Manchin, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and King
    Opposed: Senators Ayotte, Ernst, Lee, Cruz, McCaskill, 
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, and Heinrich
    2. MOTION: To include a provision for the Chief of the 
National Guard Bureau to take into account the actual number of 
members of the Army National Guard in each State when 
allocating full-time operational support duty personnel.
    VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 19-7
    In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, 
Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Tillis, Lee, Graham, Cruz, 
McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Kaine, and 
King
    Opposed: Senators Ernst, Sullivan, Reed, Nelson, Donnelly, 
Hirono, and Heinrich
    3. MOTION: To include a provision that would require the 
Department of Defense: to provide current and evidence-based 
standards of care regarding contraception methods and 
counseling to all health care providers employed by the 
Department; to ensure service women have access to 
comprehensive contraception counseling prior to deployment and 
throughout their military careers; and to require the Secretary 
of Defense to establish a uniform, standard curriculum to be 
used in family planning education programs for all members of 
the Armed Forces
    VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14-12
    In favor: Senators Ayotte, Fischer, Reed, Nelson, 
McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, 
Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Cotton, 
Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, and Cruz
    4. MOTION: Motion to strike a provision that would modify 
the waiver and exception of section 1608 of the fiscal year 
2015 National Defense Authorization Act and replace with a 
provision that would add a special rule to section 1608 of the 
fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act.
    VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 15-11
    In Favor: Senators McCain, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 
Ernst, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz, McCaskill, Manchin, 
Shaheen, Gillibrand, and Blumenthal
    Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Tillis, Reed, 
Nelson, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
    5. MOTION: To strike the provision in the chairman's mark 
that would require the Secretary of Defense to certify certain 
matters before transferring to a foreign country detainees held 
at Guantanamo Bay.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12-14
    In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, 
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, 
and Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, 
and Cruz
    6. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the 
transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to countries on 
which the State Department has issued a threat warning.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13-13
    In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Ayotte, 
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, 
and Cruz
    Opposed: Senators Wicker, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, 
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, 
and Heinrich
    7. MOTION: To include a provision to prohibit the 
construction of domestic detention facilities or to transfer 
detainees held at Guantanamo to the United States until the 
Secretary of Defense submits a plan and Congress approves the 
plan.
    VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 19-7
    In favor: Senators McCain, Wicker, Rounds, Tillis, 
Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, 
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, 
and Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Ayotte, Fischer, 
Cotton, Ernst, and Cruz
    8. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the 
expenditure of funds in fiscal years 2016 through 2020 to 
dismantle a nuclear weapon of the United States, unless that 
nuclear weapon was retired before September 30, 2008, or is 
being dismantled pursuant to a nuclear arms reduction treaty.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13-13
    In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, 
Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, 
and Cruz
    Opposed: Senators Tillis, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, 
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, 
and Heinrich
    9. MOTION: To strike a provision that would amend Section 
10106 of title 10, United States Code, by specifying the Army 
National Guard as the primary combat reserve of the Army.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13-13
    In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, 
Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz, Gillibrand, 
and Donnelly
    Opposed: Senators Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Reed, Nelson, 
McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, 
and Heinrich
    10. MOTION: A provision to eliminate the 4 year, 7.5% per 
year reduction to HQ and administrative support costs and 
replace with a 1 year 3.75% reduction and request for a plan 
for what, if anything, should be done in the out years.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10-16
    In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 
Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, 
Cruz, McCaskill, and Manchin
    11. MOTION: To exempt certain service members from impact 
of changes proposed to the calculation of the basic allowance 
for housing.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 9-17
    In favor: Senators Ayotte, Rounds, Cruz, Shaheen, 
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Kaine, and Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, 
Fischer, Cotton, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Reed, 
Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Hirono, and King.
    12. MOTION: To include a provision that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to certify that Congress has received the 
written MOU between the United States and any country to which 
a detainee at Guantanamo is transferred and to include a 
provision to require the Secretary of Defense to report on 
previous MOUs between the United States and countries to which 
Guantanamo detainees have been transferred.
    VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 17-9
    In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, 
Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, 
Graham, Cruz, McCaskill, Gillibrand, and Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, Manchin, Shaheen, 
Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and King.
    13. MOTION: To strike a provision requiring a GAO 
assessment of the potential costs and benefits for privatizing 
the Department of Defense commissaries and a provision 
requiring a Department of Defense plan on privatization of the 
Defense Commissary System and to replace them with a modified 
provision that would require a GAO assessment of the potential 
costs and benefits from privatizing Department of Defense 
commissaries.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 11-15
    In favor: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Rounds, Sullivan, 
Graham, Nelson, Gillibrand, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and 
Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, 
Ernst, Tillis, Lee, Cruz, Reed, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, 
Blumenthal, and King
    14. MOTION: To limit the obligation of $38 billion of 
overseas contingency operation funding unless the discretionary 
caps are increased for defense and non-defense in equal 
amounts, or an equal amount of emergency funding is provided to 
non-defense spending.
    VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12-14
    In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, 
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, 
and Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, 
and Cruz
    15. MOTION: To transfer up to $38 billion of overseas 
contingency operation funding to base budget if an act is 
passed that increases spending for defense and non-defense in a 
proportionally equal manner.
    VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 23-3
    In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, 
Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Reed, Nelson, 
McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, 
Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators Sessions, Lee, and Cruz
    16. MOTION: A sense of the Senate that sequestration is a 
harmful way to budget and that sequestration relief should 
increase spending for defense and non-defense in equal amounts, 
and that increase should be offset by changes in mandatory and 
discretionary spending, and revenues.
    VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 16-10
    In favor: Senators Ayotte, Rounds, Tillis, Graham, Reed, 
Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, 
Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
    Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, 
Fischer, Cotton, Ernst, Sullivan, Lee, and Cruz

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget 
Office cost estimate on this legislation because it was not 
available at the time the report was filed. It will be included 
in material presented during Senate floor debate on the 
legislation.

                           Regulatory Impact

    Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the 
bill be included in the report on the bill. The committee finds 
that there is no regulatory impact in the case of the National 
Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2016.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of 
the Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law 
made by certain portions of the bill have not been shown in 
this section of the report because, in the opinion of the 
committee, it is necessary to dispense with showing such 
changes in order to expedite the business of the Senate and 
reduce the expenditure of funds.

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                              ----------                              

                      ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. REED

    This bill includes many provisions which improve our 
national security and provide the necessary training, equipment 
and support our men and women in uniform deserve. However, I 
was ultimately unable to vote for this bill because it 
continues an unsustainable approach to our national security 
and economic future that must be addressed.
    Our national defense decisions should be based on actual 
needs, not on arbitrary spending caps or budget gimmicks.
    The President's Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for the 
defense was $38 billion above the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA) 
spending caps.
    The President requested this $38 billion be authorized and 
appropriated as part of the annual base budget. The requested 
also contained $50.9 billion for overseas contingency 
operations (OCO) pursuant to the Office of Management and 
Budget's standards for additional funding. For some time now, 
the President, Secretary Carter, Secretary Hagel, Secretary 
Panetta, and Secretary Gates have implored Congress to end the 
damaging effects of the Budget Control Act's harmful sequester 
and spending caps.
    However, the Chairman's mark, following the lead of the 
Senate Republican's Budget Resolution, does not clearly address 
the BCA's destructive impacts. Instead, it turns to a gimmick. 
This mark transfers $39.3 billion from the base budget to the 
OCO budget, for a total of $90.2 billion in OCO, but a base 
budget conveniently below BCA levels in order to avoid 
triggering automatic reductions through sequestration.
    This transfer from base to OCO raises several concerns:
    First, adding funds to OCO does not solve, and actually 
complicates, the Department of Defense's (DOD) budgetary 
problems. Defense budgeting needs to be based on our long-term 
military strategy, which requires DOD to focus at least five 
years into the future. A one year plus up to OCO does not 
provide DOD with the certainty and stability it needs when 
building its five year budget. As General Dempsey, Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs, testified, ``we need to fix the base budget . 
. . we won't have the certainty we need'' if there is a year-
by-year OCO fix. Defense Secretary Carter added that raising 
OCO does not allow the Defense Department to plan ``efficiently 
or strategically.'' This instability undermines the morale of 
our troops and their families--who want to know their futures 
are planned for more than one year at a time--and the 
confidence of our defense industry partners we rely on to 
provide the best technologies available to our troops.
    Second, the transfer does not provide additional funds for 
the many domestic agencies which are also critical to our 
national security. We cannot defend our homeland without the 
FBI, funded through the Department of Justice, or TSA, ICE and 
the Coast Guard, funded through the Department of Homeland 
Security. Furthermore, without adequate support for the State 
Department, danger to our troops increases. As retired Marine 
Corps General Mattis said, ``If you don't fund the State 
Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.'' In 
addition, failing to provide BCA cap relief to non-DOD 
departments and agencies would also shortchange veterans who 
receive employment services, transition assistance, and 
housing/homeless support.
    Third, moving funding from the base budget to OCO has no 
impact on reducing the deficit. OCO and emergency funding are 
outside budget caps for a reason--they provide for ongoing 
military operations or to respond to other unforeseen events 
like natural disasters. To transfer funds into these accounts 
to skirt the law is not fiscally responsible or honest 
accounting.
    During the markup, I offered an amendment to address these 
concerns. My amendment would have fully authorized the 
President's Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request, but prohibit the 
obligation or expenditure of the $39.3 billion moved to OCO by 
the Chairman's mark until BCA caps are raised or eliminated for 
all agencies, defense and non-defense, or similar emergency 
funding is also provided for domestic agencies. Unfortunately, 
my amendment failed on a 14-12 vote.
    I commend the leadership of Chairman McCain for completing 
the markup of this bill. I stand ready to work with my 
colleagues to find a bipartisan solution to the BCA caps and 
sequestration which are risking harm to all agencies and 
functions of our government. Our men and women in uniform and 
those they protect deserve a resolution to this problem.

                                                         Jack Reed.

                     ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. INHOFE

    I voted in favor of the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by the Senate Armed Services 
Committee. This year's National Defense Authorization Act 
contains many provisions that will maintain our military's 
capabilities, restore its readiness, and support our military 
families. While I have long advocated for an end to 
sequestration to our national security, the president has not 
shown a willingness to come to the table with realistic plans 
to stop his disarming of America. The committee instead moved 
forward with providing necessary funding by utilizing the 
overseas contingency operations (OCO) account in order to meet 
our military's basic readiness needs. While the use of OCO in 
this manner does not provide a long-term solution to the 
ongoing defense spending shortfalls, given the growing 
worldwide threats, it far outweighs the damage that would have 
been done to our nation's security next year under current 
budget caps.
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
    The committee included a provision that again prevents Base 
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) next year. I support this 
provision. The United States has reduced force size and 
capability to unacceptable levels. Our naval fleet is at a 
historically low level of ships; our Air Force is the smallest 
in its history; and our Army may shrink to a force not seen 
since before World War II. We must have the infrastructure to 
support growing and rebuilding our military to the size and 
capability required to provide for this nation's security. 
Additionally, the defense community should not bear the near-
term costs of a BRAC round in this tough economic climate for 
savings that will not be realized for another 20 years.
Commissaries
    I disagree with legislation contained in this bill that 
directs the Department of Defense to privatize military 
commissaries on a minimum of five major bases and sets into 
motion the potential for all commissaries to be privatized. 
This will be done without an assessment, and it ignores 
recommendations made by the Military Compensation and 
Retirement Modernization Commission in January. The commissary 
benefit is the most utilized service the military offers its 
members, and 95 percent of service members and their families 
use the commissaries for the purchase of household goods in 
order to achieve needed savings in their family budgets. Before 
making any changes to military commissaries, Congress must 
understand the potential impact of these changes, to include 
privatization, on the overall system and our military. The FY15 
NDAA required the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of 
the management, food, and pricing options for the commissary 
system utilizing an independent organization experienced in 
grocery retail analysis. The committee expects to receive a 
report in September 2015. The statute, however, did not require 
an analysis to determine whether privatization would be a 
viable option for commissary operations. Congress should 
consider the information from the Department of Defense report 
due in September, the recommendations of the Military 
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, the 
recommendations being prepared by the Department of Defense on 
the commission's recommendations, and the results of an 
analysis on privatization before making any changes to the 
commissary system. To do otherwise, would break faith with our 
service members and their families.
Guantanamo Bay
    My greatest disappointment in the bill is the inclusion of 
language that would allow the closure of the detention center 
at Guantanamo Bay (GTMO), Cuba, and the eventual transfer of 
GTMO detainees to the United States. Members from many states 
have voiced concern with housing these terrorists in their 
states, especially now that ISIL has demonstrated the ability 
to call up sleeper cells to attack locations here in our 
country. Furthermore, I disagree with those who think that 
closing the detention facility at GTMO will end the propaganda 
campaign being waged by our enemies. The propaganda war will 
simply shift to whatever facility these terrorists are brought 
to in the U.S., allowing them to engage in a whole new 
propaganda campaign against `GTMO North.' The terrorists 
created GTMO's image, not actions at GTMO. The attacks leading 
up to, including on and after 9/11, were not the result of 
holding detainees at GTMO. Moving these terrorists held at GTMO 
to the United States will not stop future terrorist attacks 
against our homeland. We are at war; these are war criminals 
and need to be handled accordingly. The President continues to 
want to deal with this threat through law enforcement. Law 
enforcement alone is not enough to protect us. Furthermore, the 
risk of a terrorist's release in the U.S., or elsewhere, and 
the security risk to those living near the location selected to 
house these terrorists is too great in my opinion.
Military Force Structure
    Finally, I am disappointed we did not prioritize sustaining 
the size of our military force structure, particularly our 
Army. The threats we face are outpacing our ability to deter 
and confront them as a result of the massive cuts associated 
with sequestration. I believe we are sacrificing too much 
capability at a time when we should be maintaining our current 
structure and capabilities in these uncertain times. We have 
been wrong in the past when it comes to assumptions regarding 
the size of our forces and the capabilities required to protect 
this country. Despite the increased funding in this bill due to 
OCO, we are on the road to repeat the same mistakes that will 
take years to fix.

                                                   James M. Inhofe.

                     ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MS. AYOTTE

    The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) voted 
overwhelmingly to approve its version of the fiscal year (FY) 
2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), building once 
again on its well-deserved reputation of bipartisan support for 
our men and women in uniform. While this bill and associated 
report are not perfect, they include several praiseworthy 
components, including provisions related to the A-10 and the 
service of military families. Despite these positive provisions 
in the bill, I remain deeply concerned about the impact of the 
Budget Control Act's discretionary defense spending caps on our 
nation's ability to defend itself and its interests.
A-10
    I am pleased that the SASC, the House Armed Services 
Committee, and the full House of Representatives have again 
rejected the Air Force's dangerous and misguided proposal to 
prematurely divest the A-10.
    The bill passed by SASC on a strong and bipartisan basis 
would prohibit the Air Force from retiring, preparing to 
retire, or placing in storage or on backup aircraft inventory 
status any A-10 aircraft before December 31, 2016. The 
legislation would prohibit any significant reductions in A-10 
unit manning levels before that date. The legislation would 
also require the Secretary of the Air Force to commission an 
independent assessment of the required capabilities or mission 
platform to eventually replace the A-10 and its uniquely 
effective close air support (CAS) capabilities.
    Soldiers, special operators, and Joint Terminal Attack 
Controllers (JTACs) consistently say that the A-10 is the Air 
Force's best CAS aircraft and that it provides CAS capabilities 
that no other current aircraft can. They also say that if the 
Air Force were permitted to prematurely divest the A-10 before 
an equally capable replacement reaches full operational 
capability, the quality of CAS available to our ground forces 
will decline and Americans will be killed and injured 
unnecessarily. That is why I have fought, and will continue to 
fight, to oppose the premature divestment of the A-10.
    If there were any lingering doubt about the continued 
lethality, survivability, effectiveness, or relevance of the A-
10, one only need to look to Iraq and Syria where the A-10 is 
taking the fight to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 
(ISIL).
    With A-10s fighting ISIL in the Middle East, assuring 
allies in Europe, and deterring aggression on the Korean 
peninsula, now is not the time to divest the Air Force's most 
combat-effective and cost-efficient CAS aircraft.
    If the Air Force decides to ignore the clear and consistent 
will of the overwhelming majority of soldiers, special 
operators, and JTACs, I will continue to stand with them in 
opposition to the Air Force's plans to prematurely divest the 
A-10.
    Instead of engaging in an annual battle over the future of 
the A-10, I welcome the opportunity to work with the Air Force 
to begin to identify the required capabilities and mission 
platform that could eventually replace the A-10. Once an 
equally capable platform reaches full operational capability, I 
will be among the first to support the retirement of the A-10.
Military Families Serve Too
    Americans who step forward to defend our country deserve 
great credit for their uniquely honorable, difficult, and 
important service to our country. We are safe and free because 
of the bravery and sacrifice of service members and veterans. 
However, as we honor our troops and veterans, we also must not 
forget that military families serve too--often making serious 
career and personal sacrifices on behalf of our country and 
their loved ones in uniform.
    On March 3, 2015, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
General Martin Dempsey testified that ``Those who defend this 
Nation and the families who support them remain our most 
valuable national treasure and our competitive advantage.''
    As General Dempsey's statement suggests, when honoring our 
service members, we must also not forget the family members who 
make their service possible.
    Anyone who has served in the military, been married to a 
service member, or even attended a military retirement ceremony 
understands that a successful military career depends greatly 
on the support and sacrifice of military families. A career in 
the military often involves frequent moves and long separations 
that present unique and tremendous challenges for military 
families.
    The service and sacrifice of military families not only 
deserve recognition and respect, but military families are also 
a critical component of military readiness. It is difficult for 
a mother, father, husband, or wife serving in the military to 
focus on training and their mission if they are worried about 
the well-being of their spouse or children.
    Perhaps that is why, on March 10, 2015, the Commandant of 
the United States Marine Corps, General Joseph Dunford, 
testified that ``A key element in our overall readiness is 
family readiness. The family members of our Marines are very 
much a part of the Marine Corps family. Their sacrifices and 
support are not taken for granted.''
    However, current laws and regulations fail to fully reflect 
the sacrifices of military families or their importance to 
military readiness. Under current laws and regulations, the 
military members who sit as juries in courts martial are 
sometimes confronted with the undesirable dilemma of either 
supporting justice or a military family--but not both.
    In rare and tragic cases, a military family that has 
sacrificed in support of their service member suffers when the 
service member commits misconduct after reaching retirement 
eligibility. In some of these cases, the jury must choose 
either to impose a just sentence that will take the retirement 
benefits a family was counting on, or give an unjustly weak 
sentence to spare the innocent family. When the jury chooses 
justice for the service member, the innocent family is often 
left with nothing.
    For these reasons, I am proud that that the version of the 
National Defense Authorization Act passed by SASC includes the 
amendment I introduced, along with Senator Gillibrand, which 
would make transitional benefits available to innocent, 
retirement-eligible military family members in instances when 
the service member forfeits those benefits due to a court 
martial.
    I am also pleased that the bill passed by the committee 
includes my Sense of Congress language that recognizes the 
valuable service of military families and emphasizes the view 
of the committee that military juries should not have to choose 
between a fair sentence and protecting military families.
    I am pleased that the committee recognized the principle 
that innocent military families who serve and sacrifice 
alongside their service member should receive transitional 
benefits. That same rationale suggests that a military family 
that sacrifices for years alongside a service member should not 
be deprived of the retirement benefits they helped earn and 
have come to rely on.
    That is why I also introduced an amendment with Senator 
Gillibrand that would have provided access to the portion of 
retirement benefits a family member would have received in a 
divorce settlement had the service member not forfeited them.
    I look forward to working in a bipartisan manner with my 
colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives, as well 
as with the Department of Defense, to ensure that our laws and 
military regulations fully reflect the fact that military 
families serve too.
Defense Sequestration: A Serious Threat to Our National Security
    The protection of American national security interests 
require that the United States maintain sufficient military 
strength to assure our allies, deter our adversaries, and when 
necessary, decisively defeat our enemies.
    Sound national security strategy is based on a clear-eyed 
assessment of our interests, the threats to those interests, 
and the means required to protect those interests from the most 
likely and most dangerous threats.
    Unfortunately, the gap is growing between the military we 
need and the military we have.
    Any objective analysis of global events demonstrates that 
the world is becoming more dangerous. From ISIS's terror in 
Iraq and Syria, to Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapons 
capability, to Putin's aggression in Ukraine, to China's 
bullying of its neighbors in the east and south China Seas, now 
is not the time to cut American military strength.
    As Director of National Intelligence James Clapper 
testified February 26, 2015, ``. . . in my 50-plus years in the 
intelligence business, I don't know of a time that has been 
more beset by challenges and crises around the world. I worry a 
lot about the safety and security of this country for a lot of 
reasons.''
    In light of these growing threats and with American troops 
in harm's way, one would expect the U.S. to be building its 
military capabilities and capacities. Instead, Congress and the 
administration have not made the tough decisions necessary to 
eliminate the defense sequestration budget caps.
    While there is no question that the Department of Defense 
must work harder to serve as a better steward of our tax 
dollars, Americans should have no doubt that defense 
sequestration represents a dangerous and irresponsible policy 
that will leave our troops ill-prepared, our allies in doubt, 
our enemies emboldened, and our citizens less safe.
    As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin 
Dempsey testified on March 3, 2015, ``. . . with threats 
proliferating, resources declining, and sequestration just 
months away, our ability to assure our allies is in question 
and our advantages over our adversaries are shrinking.''
    As someone who voted against the Budget Control Act and has 
worked to end defense sequestration, I will continue to work in 
a bipartisan manner to end defense sequestration once and for 
all to ensure the federal government fulfills its preeminent 
responsibility of protecting the American people.
                                                      Kelly Ayotte.

                     ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. TILLIS

    Mr. Chairman and Senator Reed, I have the privilege of 
representing America's Global Response Force, the XVIII ABN 
Corps and the 82nd ABN Division. As Senator Reed knows from his 
long service in the Division, the 82nd is the most decorated 
combat unit in the armed forces--it is America's Guard of 
Honor. General Colin Powell famously said, ``There is nothing 
that gets a bad guy's attention quicker than knowing the 82nd 
ABN is flying straight for his nose.'' But to put it bluntly, 
the Air Force wants to take the ``air'' out of ``airborne''. In 
2012 the Air Force decided to de-activate the Reserve Air Wing 
at Pope Army Airfield at Fort Bragg and eliminate on-site daily 
support for training for XVIII ABN Corps, 82nd ABN and USASOC.
The 440th Air Wing at Pope Field consists of 8-12 C-130 Hs
    Last year this committee required the Air Force to produce 
a report on the C-130 fleet during which time the Air Force was 
required to maintain its wings at Pope and Little Rock for one 
year--the report came out in April, the committee expected it 
last December. The Congress was to be given time to respond.
    Unfortunately the Air Force began dismantling the Wing at 
Pope long before the report was produced and in direct 
opposition to this Committee's instructions.
    When asked about this, the Air Force said, ``Congress said 
nothing about us taking away pilots and maintainers, we are 
leaving the Aircraft''.
    The Chairman's mark is full of behaviors like this: 
including Air Force refusal to heed the recommendations of the 
National Commission on the Air Force and the SECAF's refusal to 
cut the size of AF headquarters.
    I have repeatedly asked the Air Force for documentation as 
to the impact on Airborne and Special Operations training the 
departure of dedicated Air Force Wings will have. The Air Force 
and the Army Staff have consistently produced statistics about 
planes needed to ``deploy'' Fort Bragg troops which because of 
the volume have to come from across the country. It has not 
produced figures as to the effect of the removal of the Pope 
planes on the day to day training of Airborne and Special 
Operations forces.
    The USAF Reserve said that planes at Pope were a 
``luxury''. When I asked if the commanders of XVIII ABN Corps 
and 82nd ABN had been consulted, I was told that the Air Force 
does not consult with Army three stars.
    The Chief of Staff of the Air Force said that the Air Force 
needed to maintain C-130s at Minneapolis, Youngstown and 
Pittsburgh for important missions. With all due respect is 
there any mission at Pittsburgh, Youngstown and Minneapolis 
that is as important as supporting Airborne and Special 
Operations units.
    In the last three months, senior commanders at Fort Bragg 
have taken the extraordinary step of delivering public remarks 
noting that Airborne and Special Operations leadership were not 
consulted about the Air Force decision and that the loss of on-
site planes will severely hamper their ability to train and 
meet requirements of emergency contingencies.
    The Pope planes provide between 25-40% of all Airborne and 
SOF daily training missions.
    Last year they dropped 50% of the 82nd ABN's chutes. The 
440th AW provides 100% of 18 ASOG (Air Force) training--Air 
Force Special Operations Group
    Even as a cost savings device the transfer of 8-12 planes 
out of Pope makes no sense, as planes will have to be flown in 
(often on a voluntarily basis if they are Reserve units) from 
around the country and those units will have to go on TDY 
orders, etc. This also does not provide for the moving to the 
left effects of weather grounding planes that would have to fly 
into Pope from as far away as Washington State. As the XVIII 
ABN Corps Commander said, the downstream effects will be 
problematic.
Joint Airborne/Air Transportability Training (JA/ATT)
    From FY 2010 through FY 14 the 440th AW provided 507 
JAATT's (Missions/Contract's) with 668 C-130 Tails used. Of the 
507 Missions, 128 were ``Add-on'' missions that the 440th by 
virtue of being here was able to help support. We were able to 
fill local priority shortfalls 29 times during this time frame. 
The 440th on average, flies 89% of all of its JAATT's for 
locally assigned units on Fort Bragg. Over the five year time 
span, the 440th has a 95% mission effective rate due to the 
ability to generate spare aircraft to support the missions. The 
unfunded spares were utilized for local missions 146 times 
creating a 28.80% spare utilization rate helping allow 42,635 
Paratroopers to be air dropped for locally assigned units on 
Fort Bragg.
Air Force's Own Air Mobility Command Talking Points noted
    ``The loss of 440AW does remove the 4 tails a week 
available for opportune training Ft Bragg has utilized outside 
of the JA/ATT process . . . As MAF fleets get smaller & re-
balanced between the Active & Reserve, JA/ATT planning/
scheduling will have to become more efficient IOT maximize 
effectiveness of the USAF airlift platforms made available . . 
. this is a fundamental change that has to occur even if the C-
130s at Pope AAF were never part of the FY15 President's 
Budget.''
    The Air Force's own scheduling system can't handle the 
requirements at Fort Bragg if the Pope planes go away.
    This amendment is simple. It stops the movement of C-130 H 
units from one facility of the Department of Defense for one 
year until certification is provided by the Secretary of the 
Air Force, after certification by the senior commanders of the 
United States Airborne and Special Operations Forces certify 
that the departure of such aircraft does not impact the 
training requirements of their units.
    There are new commanders at Fort Bragg. This gives them the 
time to evaluate the impact of the movement of C-130s in and 
out of Fort Bragg.
    If the actual combat commanders certify that this should 
happen--and I am not talking about Pentagon bureaucrats and the 
Army Staff--then we should all be satisfied with their 
judgement.

                                                     Thom Tillis.

                                  [all]
```