1 

" ! SENATE 115TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

115–125 

Calendar No. 165 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1519]

ON

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 FOR 

MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF 

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JULY 10, 2017.—Ordered to be printed 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

26–141 

" ! SENATE 115TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2017

115–125 

Calendar No. 165 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 

R E P O R T 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1519]

ON

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 FOR 

MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF 

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JULY 10, 2017.—Ordered to be printed 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOM TILLIS, North Carolina 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DAVID PERDUE, Georgia 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

CHRISTIAN BROSE, Staff Director 

ELIZABETH L. KING, Minority Staff Director 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL ....................................................................................... 1 

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW ..................................................................................... 2 

SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS AND BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION ................................................................................... 3 

BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT (SEC. 4) ................................................ 3 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS ................. 5 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT ................................................................................... 5 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 5 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101) .............................................. 5 

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 5 

Transfer of excess High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles to 

foreign countries (sec. 111) ................................................................... 5 

Limitation on availability of funds for Army Air-Land Mobile Tactical 

Communications and Data Network, including Warfighter Information Network—Tactical (WIN–T) (sec. 112) ......................................... 6 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 7 

Multiyear procurement authority for Virginia-class submarine program (sec. 121) ....................................................................................... 7 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (sec. 122) ................................................ 7 

Multiyear procurement authority for V–22 joint aircraft program (sec. 

123) ......................................................................................................... 8 

Design and construction of amphibious ship replacement designated 

LX(R) or amphibious transport dock designated LPD–30 (sec. 124) . 8 

Modification of cost limitation baseline for CVN–78 class aircraft 

carrier program (sec. 125) ..................................................................... 9 

Extension of limitation on use of sole-source shipbuilding contracts 

for certain vessels (sec. 126) ................................................................. 9 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 10 

Inventory requirement for Air Force fighter aircraft (sec. 131) ............ 10 

Comptroller General review of total force integration initiatives for 

reserve component rescue squadrons (Sec. 132) ................................. 11 

Subtitle E—Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters ........................ 11 

F–35 economic order quantity contracting authority (sec. 141) ............ 11 

Authority for Explosive Ordnance Disposal units to acquire new or 

emerging technologies and capabilities (sec. 142) ............................... 12 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 12 

Army ........................................................................................................... 12 

AH–64 Apache Block IIIA Remanufacture ...................................... 12 

AH–64 Apache Block IIIB New Build .............................................. 12 

Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) .................................... 12 

Common Infrared Countermeasure (CIRCM) .................................. 12 

Indirect Fire Protection Capability ................................................... 12 

Joint Air-to-Ground Missile ............................................................... 13 

Bradley program ................................................................................ 13 

Abrams Upgrade Program ................................................................. 13 

Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System ................ 13 

High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) ............ 13 

Warfighter Information Network—Tactical ..................................... 13 

Distributed Common Ground System—Army (Military Intelligence Program) ............................................................................. 14 

Night Vision Test Equipment ........................................................... 14 

Data Processing equipment ............................................................... 14 

Warfighter Information Network Tactical (WIN–T) Increment 2 

Spares .............................................................................................. 14 

Army Unfunded Requirements List ................................................. 14 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 15 

V–22 .................................................................................................... 15 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

IV 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Navy—Continued 

Carrier replacement program ........................................................... 15 

Virginia-class submarine advance procurement .............................. 15 

DDG–1000 ........................................................................................... 16 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers .......................................................... 16 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyer advance procurement ...................... 17 

Littoral Combat Ship ......................................................................... 17 

Amphibious ship replacement LX(R) or amphibious transport 

dock designated LPD–30 ................................................................ 17 

Outfitting ............................................................................................ 18 

Ship to Shore Connector .................................................................... 18 

Expeditionary Sea Base ..................................................................... 18 

Cable ship ........................................................................................... 18 

Hybrid Electric Drive ......................................................................... 18 

LCS support equipment ..................................................................... 18 

LCS mine countermeasures mission modules ................................. 19 

Navy Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) ..................................... 19 

Navy eProcurement System (Navy ePS) .......................................... 19 

Classified project ................................................................................ 19 

Navy Unfunded Requirements List .................................................. 19 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 20 

Acquisition of Air Force light attack/observation aircraft fleet ...... 20 

B–1B Squadrons ................................................................................. 20 

C–130 propulsion upgrades ............................................................... 21 

Budget request realignment .............................................................. 21 

Air Force Unfunded Requirements List ........................................... 21 

Defense Wide ............................................................................................. 22 

Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow Upper Tier Israeli cooperative missile defense programs ....................................................... 22 

Silent Knight Terrain Following Terrain Avoidance Radar ........... 22 

Degraded Visual Environment .......................................................... 22 

Shallow Water Combat Submersible ................................................ 23 

Defense-wide Unfunded Requirements List .................................... 23 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 23 

Air Force Low Density/High Demand assets .......................................... 23 

Aircrew Restraint ...................................................................................... 24 

Amphibious assault ship acceleration ..................................................... 24 

Apache and Black Hawk Drive Train and Transmission Weapon System Components Rapid Deployment .................................................... 24 

Arctic Search and Rescue ......................................................................... 25 

Army Force Structure—Retaining a Full BCT ....................................... 25 

Army M4 Modular Rail System Assessment ........................................... 26 

Army Position Navigation and Timing-GPS (A–PNT) Distribution 

and Anti-Jam Capability ....................................................................... 26 

AWACS Upgrade to Block 40/50 .............................................................. 27 

C–130H modernization ............................................................................. 27 

Columbia-class submarines ...................................................................... 28 

Composite technology in submarine construction .................................. 28 

Domestic supply of submarine missile launcher tubes .......................... 29 

Eagle Passive Active Warning and Survivability System (EPAWSS) .. 29 

Expedited testing, development and fielding for Paladin Integrated 

Management ........................................................................................... 30 

F–16 Block 40/50 Mission Training Centers ........................................... 30 

Future air-to-ground missile capability ................................................... 30 

Health and Usage Monitoring Systems ................................................... 30 

HH–60 Combat Rescue Helicopter Program ........................................... 31 

HMMWV Rollover Mitigation ................................................................... 31 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

V 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) .................. 32 

Light Utility Helicopter Industrial Base ................................................. 33 

Light-weight polymer technologies for ammunition and small arms ... 33 

Maintaining strategic deterrence ............................................................. 34 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Inventory Review 34 

Missile Warning Systems ......................................................................... 35 

Navy Air-to-Ground Rocket Program ...................................................... 35 

Navy large surface combatants ................................................................ 36 

Primary aircraft assigned to Air National Guard rescue squadrons .... 36 

SUSV Replacement Rapid Acquisition Strategy ..................................... 36 

Total force integration initiatives for rescue squadrons in the reserve 

component of the U.S. Armed Forces ................................................... 37 

Unmanned U–2 ......................................................................................... 38 

USAF UH–1N Replacement ..................................................................... 38 

USNS Navajo ............................................................................................. 39 

USS Los Alamos ........................................................................................ 39 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION .......... 39 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 39 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201) .............................................. 39 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 40 

Mechanisms for expedited access to technical talent and expertise 

at academic institutions to support Department of Defense missions (sec. 211) ....................................................................................... 40 

Codification and enhancement of authorities to provide funds for 

defense laboratories for research and development of technologies 

for military missions (sec. 212) ............................................................. 40 

Modification of laboratory quality enhancement program (sec. 213) .... 41 

Prizes for advanced technology achievements (sec. 214) ....................... 41 

Expansion of definition of competitive procedures to include competitive selection for award of research and development proposals 

(sec. 215) ................................................................................................. 42 

Inclusion of modeling and simulation in test and evaluation activities 

for purposes of planning and budget certification (sec. 216) .............. 42 

Differentiation of research and development activities from service 

activities (sec. 217) ................................................................................. 43 

Designation of additional Department of Defense science and technology reinvention laboratories (sec. 218) ........................................... 45 

Department of Defense directed energy weapon system prototyping 

and demonstration program (sec. 219) ................................................. 45 

Authority for the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to promote innovation in the Department of Defense (sec. 

220) ......................................................................................................... 46 

Limitation on availability of funds for F–35 Joint Strike Fighter 

Follow-On Modernization (sec. 221) ..................................................... 47 

Improvement of update process for populating mission data files 

used in advanced combat aircraft (sec. 222) ........................................ 47 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters ......................................................... 47 

Competitive acquisition plan for low probability of detection data 

link networks (sec. 231) ......................................................................... 47 

Clarification of selection dates for pilot program for the enhancement 

of the research, development, test, and evaluation centers of the 

Department of Defense (sec. 232) ......................................................... 48 

Requirement for a plan to build a prototype for a new ground combat 

vehicle for the Army (sec. 233) ............................................................. 48 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VI 

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

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters—Continued 

Plan for successfully fielding the Integrated Air and Missile Defense 

Battle Command System (sec. 234) ...................................................... 50 

Sense of the Congress on hypersonic weapons (sec. 235) ....................... 50 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 50 

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Unfunded Requirements 

List .......................................................................................................... 50 

Army ........................................................................................................... 51 

Defense research sciences .................................................................. 51 

University and industry research centers ........................................ 51 

Army basic research ........................................................................... 52 

Strategic materials ............................................................................. 52 

Aviation technology ............................................................................ 52 

Command, control, communications technology .............................. 53 

Army applied research ....................................................................... 53 

Aviation advanced technology ........................................................... 53 

High performance computing modernization program ................... 53 

Military engineering advanced technology ...................................... 54 

Army advanced technology development ......................................... 54 

Army armored systems modernization advanced development of 

advanced fuel cell prototypes ......................................................... 54 

Suite of Vehicle Protection Systems—Active Protection System 

(APS) ................................................................................................ 54 

Army Contract Writing System ........................................................ 55 

Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense (AIAMD) ....................... 55 

Accelerated development of the Hercules recovery vehicle ............ 55 

Combat Vehicle Improvement Programs ......................................... 55 

Missile/Air Defense Product Improvement Program ....................... 56 

Distributed Common Ground/Surface System ................................. 56 

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical Increment 2-Initial 

Networking (WIN–T Inc. 2) ........................................................... 56 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 56 

University research initiatives .......................................................... 56 

Ocean warfighting environmental applied research ....................... 56 

Undersea warfare applied research .................................................. 57 

Innovative naval prototypes applied research ................................. 57 

United States Marine Corps advanced technology demonstration 58 

Future naval capabilities advanced technology developments ....... 58 

Mine and expeditionary warfare advanced technology ................... 58 

Innovative naval prototypes advanced technology developments .. 59 

Surface and shallow water mine countermeasures ......................... 59 

Aircraft carrier preliminary design .................................................. 59 

Littoral Combat Ship ......................................................................... 60 

Marine Corps Rapid Capabilities Office ........................................... 60 

Extra large unmanned undersea vehicles ........................................ 60 

Air Crew Systems Development ....................................................... 61 

F–35 System Design and Demonstration—Marine Corps .............. 61 

F–35 System Design and Demonstration—Navy ............................ 62 

Navy eProcurement (Navy ePS) ........................................................ 62 

Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System (NSIPS) .................. 62 

DDG–1000 ........................................................................................... 63 

Management, technical, and international support ........................ 63 

Classified project ................................................................................ 63 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VII 

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

Budget Items—Continued 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 63 

Hypersonic wind tunnels ................................................................... 63 

Human effectiveness applied research ............................................. 63 

Aerospace propulsion ......................................................................... 64 

Electronic combat technology ............................................................ 64 

Commercial Space Situational Awareness (SSA) Consortia/ 

Testbed ............................................................................................ 64 

Air Force Contracting Information Technology System .................. 65 

F–35 System Design and Demonstration—Air Force ..................... 65 

Restructure of Air and Space Operations Center—Weapons System upgrade program ..................................................................... 66 

Advanced weapons systems testing capabilities .............................. 67 

Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System (AF–IPPS) ......... 67 

Minuteman III Squadrons ................................................................. 67 

Pulsed solid rocket motor technology ............................................... 67 

Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network ........... 68 

C–130J ................................................................................................ 68 

Defense Wide ............................................................................................. 68 

National defense education program ................................................ 68 

Manufacturing Engineering Education Program ............................ 69 

Support for minority women in science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics fields at historically black colleges and universities ........................................................................................... 69 

Tactical technology ............................................................................. 70 

Electronics technology ....................................................................... 70 

Analytic assessments ......................................................................... 70 

Enhancement of Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

to Department of Defense .............................................................. 70 

Sustaining Investment in Manufacturing USA Institutes ............. 71 

SERDP and ESTCP increases ........................................................... 72 

Microelectronics technology development and support ................... 73 

Operational energy capability improvement .................................... 73 

Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Program .................................. 73 

Corrosion control and prevention funding increase ........................ 74 

Defense technology offset .................................................................. 74 

Ground-Launched Intermediate-Range Missile ............................... 74 

Government-unique Tracking and Reporting Tool .......................... 75 

Defense-Wide Electronic Procurement Capabilities ........................ 75 

Software developmental testing ........................................................ 75 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles .................................................... 75 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 76 

Active electronically scanned array radar improvements ...................... 76 

Advanced airlift airship technology ......................................................... 76 

Aircraft battery cost-savings technology improvements ........................ 77 

Botulinum Toxin Type A countermeasures ............................................. 78 

Briefings on autonomy, robotics, and artificial intelligence .................. 78 

Clarification of definition of small business for purposes of prototype 

project authority .................................................................................... 78 

Common data environment for modeling and simulation ...................... 79 

Comptroller General review of Next Generation Air Dominance .......... 79 

Executive agent for printed circuit board technology ............................. 80 

Facility leasing authority for Department of Defense science and 

technology laboratories and test and evaluation centers ................... 80 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VIII 

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

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Human simulation .................................................................................... 81 

Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) ............................................. 81 

Improving aerospace materials performance .......................................... 82 

Joint directed energy test center ............................................................. 82 

Live, Virtual, and Constructive Training ................................................ 83 

Low cost unmanned aerospace systems development ............................ 83 

Machine learning for national security ................................................... 84 

Management innovation at Department of Defense labs and test 

ranges ..................................................................................................... 84 

Marine Corps nano-sized vertical takeoff and landing small unmanned aircraft ..................................................................................... 85 

Maritime barriers ...................................................................................... 85 

Minerva special interest area on information operations ...................... 86 

Next Generation Jammer ......................................................................... 86 

Radiation detection technology ................................................................ 87 

Report on defense manufacturing and technology supply chain ........... 87 

Review of policies on use of directed energy weapon systems ............... 87 

Small engine technologies ......................................................................... 88 

Streamlined acquisition practices to support innovation at Department of Defense laboratories ................................................................ 88 

Ultra Low Power Deployable Radar ........................................................ 88 

University science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs with the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps V ................. 89 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 91 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 91 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301) .............................................. 91 

Subtitle B—Logistics and Sustainment .......................................................... 91 

Sentinel Landscapes Partnership (sec. 311) ........................................... 91 

Increased percentage of sustainment funds authorized for realignment to restoration and modernization at each installation (sec. 

312) ......................................................................................................... 91 

Subtitle C—Reports .......................................................................................... 91 

Plan for modernized, dedicated Department of the Navy adversary 

air training enterprise (sec. 321) .......................................................... 91 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 92 

Defense Siting Clearinghouse (sec. 331) .................................................. 92 

Temporary installation reutilization authority for arsenals, depots, 

and plants (sec. 332) .............................................................................. 92 

Pilot program for operation and maintenance budget presentation 

(sec. 333) ................................................................................................. 92 

Servicewomen’s commemorative partnerships (sec. 334) ....................... 93 

Authority for agreements to reimburse states for costs of suppressing 

wildfires on State lands caused by Department of Defense activities 

under leases and other grants of access to state lands (sec. 335) ..... 93 

Repurposing and reuse of surplus Army firearms (sec. 336) ................. 93 

Department of the Navy marksmanship awards (sec. 337) ................... 93 

Subtitle E—Energy and Environment ............................................................ 93 

Authority to carry out environmental restoration activities at National Guard and Reserve locations (sec. 341) .................................... 93 

Special considerations for energy performance goals (sec. 342) ............ 94 

Centers for Disease Control study on health implications of perand polyfluoroalkyl substances contamination in drinking water 

(sec. 343) ................................................................................................. 94 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

IX 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

Subtitle E—Energy and Environment—Continued 

Environmental oversight and remediation at Red Hill Bulk Fuel 

Storage Facility (sec. 344) ..................................................................... 94 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 94 

Army support reduction ............................................................................ 94 

Navy information technology reduction ................................................... 94 

Naval History and Heritage Command reduction .................................. 95 

Air and Space Operations Center—Weapons System ............................ 95 

Air National Guard advertising reduction .............................................. 95 

Defense Acquisition University ................................................................ 95 

STARBASE increase ................................................................................. 96 

Funding for impact aid ............................................................................. 96 

Defense environmental international cooperation program .................. 96 

Studies on aircraft inventories for the Air Force .................................... 96 

CDC study increase ................................................................................... 97 

Bulk fuel savings ....................................................................................... 97 

Foreign currency fluctuations .................................................................. 97 

Operation and Maintenance Unfunded Requirements List ................... 98 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 98 

Availability and Readiness of Special Operations Forces to Support 

Geographic Combatant Commander Requirements ............................ 98 

Basic Expeditionary Airmen Skills Training and Base Camp Integration Lab .................................................................................................. 99 

Cyber-secure microgrids and energy resilience for installations ........... 100 

Cybersecurity risk to Department of Defense facilities ......................... 100 

Defense Media Activity IP Streaming ..................................................... 101 

Defense threat assessment and master plan for climate ....................... 101 

Defense-wide Working Capital Fund cash management practices ....... 103 

Department of Defense and Department of Energy collaboration to 

improve energy resilience ...................................................................... 103 

Eastern Gulf Test and Training Range ................................................... 104 

Encouraging the use of the Innovative Readiness Training program .. 105 

Energy assurance on military installations ............................................ 106 

Energy efficient military shelters ............................................................ 106 

Energy savings performance contracts and combined heat and power 106 

Energy savings performance contracts assessment ................................ 107 

Fabric and membrane technology ............................................................ 107 

Foreign language training ........................................................................ 108 

Implementation of Defense Science Board Task Force on energy systems for forward/remote operating bases ............................................ 108 

Implementation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances cleanup .......... 109 

Increasing contracting efficiency through commercial off-the-shelf solutions for personal protective equipment ........................................... 110 

Individual soldier equipment acquisition strategy ................................. 110 

Item unique identification implementation and verification ................. 111 

KC–46A aerial refueling tanker emergent requirements ...................... 111 

Lithium-ion powered devices .................................................................... 111 

Marine Corps cold-weather and high altitude training ......................... 112 

Master plan and investment strategy for the modernization of public 

shipyards under jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy ............ 113 

Military training for operations in densely populated urban terrain ... 114 

Navy dry dock capacity ............................................................................. 114 

Organic depot capacity and interoperability ........................................... 114 

Paint training programs ........................................................................... 115 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

X 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Processes for translating strategy into force structure and readiness 

decisions ................................................................................................. 115 

Report on F–35 Joint Strike Fighter sustainment affordability and 

transparency .......................................................................................... 116 

Report on required training capabilities of the Fallon Range Training 

Complex .................................................................................................. 117 

Report on small arms industrial base ..................................................... 117 

Review of corrosion control and prevention in the Department of 

Defense ................................................................................................... 118 

Review of minimum capital investment for certain depots ................... 118 

Review of training for commanders that consult and interact with 

federally recognized tribes .................................................................... 119 

Ship and submarine depot maintenance ................................................. 119 

Technology roadmap and comprehensive water strategy ...................... 120 

Textile decisions ........................................................................................ 121 

Third-party financed energy projects ....................................................... 122 

Use of proximate airfields to support undergraduate pilot training 

installations ............................................................................................ 122 

Wargame for operations in the Arctic ..................................................... 122 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS ............................... 125 

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 125 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) ................................................ 125 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 125 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) ........................................ 125 

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

(sec. 412) ................................................................................................. 125 

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413) ............ 126 

Fiscal year 2018 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 

(sec. 414) ................................................................................................. 126 

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support (sec. 415) ................................................ 126 

Number of members of the National Guard on full-time duty in 

support of the reserves within the National Guard Bureau (sec. 

416) ......................................................................................................... 127 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 127 

Military personnel (sec. 421) .................................................................... 127 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 127 

Military personnel funding changes ........................................................ 127 

Military Personnel Unfunded Priorities List .......................................... 127 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY ..................................................... 129 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy .............................................................. 129 

Clarification of baselines for authorized numbers of general and flag 

officers on active duty and in joint duty assignments (sec. 501) ....... 129 

Authority of promotion boards to recommend officers of particular 

merit be placed at the top of the promotion list (sec. 502) ................. 129 

Clarification to exception for removal of officers from list of officers 

recommended for promotion after 18 months without appointment 

(sec. 503) ................................................................................................. 129 

Flexibility in promotion of officers to positions of Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps and Deputy Judge 

Advocate General of the Navy (sec. 504) ............................................. 129 

Repeal of requirement for specification of number of officers who 

may be recommended for early retirement by a Selective Early 

Retirement Board (sec. 505) .................................................................. 130 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XI 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY—Continued 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy—Continued 

Extension of service-in-grade waiver authority for voluntary retirement of certain general and flag officers for purposes of enhanced 

flexibility in officer personnel management (sec. 506) ....................... 130 

Inclusion of Principal Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics among officers subject to repeal of statutory specification of general officer 

grade (sec. 507) ...................................................................................... 130 

Clarification of effect of repeal of statutory specification of general 

or flag officer grade for various positions in the Armed Forces 

(sec. 508) ................................................................................................. 130 

Grandfathering of retired grade of Assistant Judge Advocates General of the Navy as of repeal of statutory specification of general 

and flag officers grades in the Armed Forces (sec. 509) ..................... 131 

Service credit for cyberspace experience or advanced education upon 

original appointment as a commissioned officer (sec. 510) ................ 131 

Authority for officers to opt-out of promotion board consideration 

(sec. 510A) .............................................................................................. 131 

Reauthorization of authority to order retired members to active duty 

in high-demand, low-density assignments (sec. 510B) ....................... 131 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management .............................................. 132 

Consolidation of authorities to order members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces to perform duty (sec. 511) ........................ 132 

Establishment of Office of Complex Investigations within the National Guard Bureau (sec. 512) ............................................................. 132 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities ........................................................ 133 

Report on policies for regular and reserve officer career management 

(sec. 516) ................................................................................................. 133 

Responsibility of Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces for standards 

and qualifications for military specialties within the Armed Forces 

(sec. 517) ................................................................................................. 135 

Confidential review of characterization of terms of discharge of members of the Armed Forces who are survivors of sexual assault 

(sec. 518) ................................................................................................. 135 

Improvements to certain authorities and procedures of discharge review boards (sec. 519) ............................................................................ 135 

Public availability of information related to disposition of claims regarding discharge or release of members of the Armed Forces when 

claims involve sexual assault (sec. 520) ............................................... 136 

Subtitle D—Military Justice Matters ............................................................. 136 

Revision to Manual for Courts-Martial with respect to dissemination 

of visual depictions of private areas or sexually explicit conduct 

without the consent of the person depicted (sec. 521) ........................ 136 

Technical and conforming amendments in connection with reform 

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 522) ............................. 136 

Priority of review by Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces of 

decisions of Courts of Criminal Appeals on petitions for enforcement of victims’ rights (sec. 523) .......................................................... 136 

Assistance of defense counsel in additional post-trial matters for 

accused convicted by court-martial (sec. 524) ...................................... 136 

Enumeration of additional limitations on acceptance of plea agreements by military judges of general or special courts-martial (sec. 

525) ......................................................................................................... 137 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XII 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY—Continued 

Subtitle D—Military Justice Matters—Continued 

Additional proceedings by Courts of Criminal Appeals by order of 

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (sec. 526) ...... 137 

Clarification of applicability and effective dates for statute of limitations amendments in connection with Uniform Code of Military 

Justice reform (sec. 527) ........................................................................ 137 

Modification of year of initial review by Military Justice Review 

Panel of Uniform Code of Military Justice reform amendments 

(sec. 528) ................................................................................................. 137 

Clarification of applicability of certain provisions of law to civilian 

judges of the United States Court of Military Commission Review 

(sec. 529) ................................................................................................. 137 

Enhancement of effective prosecution and defense in courts-martial 

and related matters (sec. 530) .............................................................. 138 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces jurisdiction to review interlocutory appeals of decisions on certain petitions for writs of mandamus (sec. 531) ..................................................................................... 138 

Punitive article on wrongful broadcast or distribution of intimate 

visual images or visual images of sexually explicit conduct under 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 532) .................................. 138 

Subtitle E—Member Education, Training, Transition, and Resilience ........ 138 

Ready, Relevant Learning initiative of the Navy (sec. 541) .................. 138 

Element in preseparation counseling for members of the Armed 

Forces on assistance and support services for caregivers of certain 

veterans through the Department of Veterans Affairs (sec. 542) ...... 139 

Discharge in the Selected Reserve of the commissioned service obligation of military service academy graduates who participate in professional athletics (sec. 543) .................................................................. 139 

Pilot programs on appointment in the excepted service in the Department of Defense of physically disqualified former cadets and midshipmen (sec. 544) ................................................................................. 140 

Limitation on availability of funds for attendance of Air Force enlisted personnel at Air Force officer professional military education 

in-residence courses (sec. 545) .............................................................. 140 

Pilot program on integration of Department of Defense and nonFederal efforts for civilian employment of members of the Armed 

Forces following transition from Active Duty to civilian life (sec. 

546) ......................................................................................................... 141 

Two-year extension of suicide prevention and resilience program for 

the National Guard and Reserves (sec. 547) ....................................... 141 

Sexual assault prevention and response training for all individuals 

enlisted in the Armed Forces under a delayed entry program (sec. 

548) ......................................................................................................... 141 

Use of assistance under Department of Defense Tuition Assistance 

Program for non-traditional education to develop cybersecurity and 

computer coding skills (sec. 549) .......................................................... 141 

Subtitle F—Defense Dependents’ Education and Military Family Readiness Matters .................................................................................................. 142 

Part I—Defense Dependents’ Education Matters ................................... 142 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 551) ............. 142 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies 

that benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and 

Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 552) .................. 142 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIII 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY—Continued 

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

Part I—Defense Dependents’ Education Matters—Continued 

One-year extension of authorities relating to the transition and 

support of military dependent students to local educational 

agencies (sec. 553) .......................................................................... 142 

Part II—Military Family Readiness Matters .......................................... 143 

Housing treatment for certain members of the Armed Forces, 

and their spouses and other dependents, undergoing a permanent change of station within the United States (sec. 556) ........ 143 

Direct hire authority for Department of Defense for childcare 

services providers for Department child development centers 

(sec. 557) .......................................................................................... 143 

Report on expanding and contracting for childcare services of 

the Department of Defense (sec. 558) ........................................... 143 

Report on review of General Schedule pay grades of childcare 

services providers of the Department of Defense (sec. 559) ........ 144 

Pilot program on public-private partnerships for telework facilities on military installations outside the United States (sec. 

560) .................................................................................................. 144 

Report on mechanisms to facilitate the obtaining by military 

spouses of professional licenses or credentials in other States 

(sec. 561) .......................................................................................... 144 

Additional military childcare matters (sec. 562) ............................. 145 

Subtitle G—Decorations and Awards ............................................................. 145 

Authority of Secretary of the Army to award the Personnel Protection 

Equipment award of the Army to former members of the Army 

(sec. 571) ................................................................................................. 145 

Authorization for award of Distinguished Service Cross to Specialist 

Frank M. Crary for acts of valor in Vietnam (sec. 572) ..................... 145 

Subtitle H—Other Matters .............................................................................. 145 

Modification of submittal date of Comptroller General of the United 

States report on integrity of the Department of Defense whistleblower program (sec. 581) ..................................................................... 145 

Report to Congress on accompanied and unaccompanied tours of 

duty in remote locations with high family support costs (sec. 582) .. 145 

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

Addressing challenges in remotely piloted aircraft community ............ 146 

DANTES program for members of the Armed Forces applying for 

tuition assistance ................................................................................... 147 

Department of Defense collaboration with educational institutions 

on cybersecurity education and training .............................................. 147 

Department of Defense review of overseas assignment policy for civilian and contractor personnel in support of Department of Defense 

operations ............................................................................................... 147 

Encouraging more flexibility in changes of station ................................ 148 

Ensuring military borrowers receive appropriate benefits .................... 148 

Greater discretion to garrisons for Family, Morale, Wellness, and 

Recreation programs .............................................................................. 149 

Leadership training ................................................................................... 149 

Quality of instruction in schools of the Department of Defense Education Activity ........................................................................................ 150 

Report on credentialing program utilization ........................................... 150 

Report on joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs suicide prevention ......................................................................... 150 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIV 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Report on measures to prevent retaliation against survivors of sexual 

assault and harassment in the performance evaluation process ....... 151 

Review of United States Marine Corps recruit training policies .......... 151 

ROTC Cyber Institute ............................................................................... 152 

Service-specific history courses as a core curriculum requirement of 

the military service academies ............................................................. 153 

Shortfall of United States Air Force aircraft maintenance personnel .. 153 

Transition Assistance Program challenges for the National Guard 

and Reserves .......................................................................................... 154 

Transition Assistance Program information for unit commanders ....... 154 

Use of Post-9/11 GI Bill for technical schools and institutes ................. 154 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS ... 155 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 155 

Fiscal year 2018 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) ..................... 155 

Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in rates of 

Basic Allowance for Housing under certain circumstances (sec. 

602) ......................................................................................................... 155 

Adjustment to Basic Allowance for Housing at with dependents rate 

of certain members of the uniformed services (sec. 603) .................... 155 

Modification of authority of President to determine alternative pay 

adjustment in annual basic pay of members of the uniformed services (sec. 604) .......................................................................................... 156 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 156 

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

reserve forces (sec. 611) ......................................................................... 156 

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

health care professionals (sec. 612) ...................................................... 156 

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

officers (sec. 613) .................................................................................... 156 

One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated 

special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614) .............. 157 

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

37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615) ................................................ 157 

Aviation bonus matters (sec. 616) ............................................................ 157 

Special aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities for enlisted 

members who pilot remotely piloted aircraft (sec. 617) ...................... 158 

Technical and clerical amendments relating to 2008 consolidation 

of certain special pay authorities (sec. 618) ......................................... 158 

Subtitle C—Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits .................. 158 

Part I—Amendments in Connection With Retired Pay Reform ............ 158 

Adjustment to the Survivor Benefit Plan for members electing 

lump sum payments of retired pay under the modernized retirement system for members of the uniformed services (sec. 

631) .................................................................................................. 158 

Technical correction regarding election to participate in modernized retirement system for non-regular component members 

experiencing a break in service (sec. 632) .................................... 158 

Part II—Other Matters ............................................................................. 159 

Authority for the Secretaries of the military departments to provide for care of remains of those who die on Active Duty 

and are interred in a foreign cemetery (sec. 636) ........................ 159 

Technical corrections for use of member’s current pay grade and 

years of service in a division of property involving disposable 

retired pay (sec. 637) ...................................................................... 159 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XV 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY—Continued 

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

Part II—Other Matters—Continued 

Permanent extension and cost-of-living adjustments of Special 

Survivor Indemnity Allowances under the survivor benefit plan 

(sec. 638) .......................................................................................... 159 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 159 

Construction of domestic source requirement for footwear furnished 

to enlisted members of the Armed Forces on initial entry into 

the Armed Forces (sec. 651) .................................................................. 159 

Inclusion of Department of Agriculture in Transition Assistance Program (sec. 652) ....................................................................................... 160 

Review and update of regulations governing debt collectors interactions with unit commanders (sec. 653) ............................................. 160 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 160 

Report on base pay of senior enlisted members performing special 

advisory duties ....................................................................................... 160 

United States Air Force civilian pay budgeting process ............................... 160 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS ......................................................... 163 

Subtitle A—Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits ................................... 163 

TRICARE Advantage demonstration program (sec. 701) ....................... 163 

Continued access to medical care at facilities of the uniformed services for certain members of the reserve components (sec. 702) ......... 164 

Modification of eligibility for TRICARE Reserve Select and TRICARE 

Retired Reserve of certain members of the reserve components 

(sec. 703) ................................................................................................. 164 

Expedited evaluation and treatment for prenatal surgery under the 

TRICARE program (sec. 704) ............................................................... 164 

Specification that individuals under the age of 21 are eligible for 

hospice care services under the TRICARE program (sec. 705) .......... 164 

Modifications of cost-sharing requirements for the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program and treatment of certain pharmaceutical 

agents (sec. 706) ..................................................................................... 164 

Consolidation of cost-sharing requirements under TRICARE Select 

and TRICARE Prime (sec. 707) ............................................................ 165 

TRICARE technical amendments (sec. 708) ............................................ 165 

Contraception coverage parity under the TRICARE program (sec. 

709) ......................................................................................................... 165 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration ....................................................... 166 

Modification of priority for evaluation and treatment of individuals 

at military treatment facilities (sec. 721) ............................................ 166 

Selection of directors of military treatment facilities and tours of 

duty of such directors (sec. 722) ........................................................... 166 

Clarification of administration of military medical treatment facilities 

(sec. 723) ................................................................................................. 166 

Modification of execution of TRICARE contracting responsibilities 

(sec. 724) ................................................................................................. 166 

Pilot program on establishment of integrated health care delivery 

systems (sec. 725) .................................................................................. 167 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters ......................................................... 167 

Extension of authority for Joint Department of Defense-Department 

of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility .................................................... 167 

Demonstration Fund (sec. 731) ................................................................ 167 

Additional emergency uses for medical products to reduce deaths 

and severity of injuries caused by agents of war (sec. 732) ............... 167 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVI 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS—Continued 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters—Continued 

Prohibition on conduct of certain medical research and development 

projects (sec. 733) ................................................................................... 168 

Modification of determination of average wait times at urgent care 

clinics and pharmacies at military medical treatment facilities 

under pilot program (sec. 734) .............................................................. 168 

Report on plan to improve pediatric care and related services for 

children of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 735) .......................... 168 

Inclusion of gambling disorder in health assessments and related 

research efforts of the Department of Defense (sec. 736) ................... 168 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 169 

Aircraft medical kits on rotary aircraft responding to mass casualty 

incidents ................................................................................................. 169 

Assessment of ability of Department of Defense to use modeling 

and simulation capabilities to address medical training requirements ...................................................................................................... 169 

Comptroller General report on Department of Defense measures to 

maintain critical wartime medical readiness skills and core competencies of health care providers ........................................................ 169 

Comptroller General review of the Department of Defense’s recruitment and retention programs for military dentists ............................ 170 

Comptroller General review of workforce mix within the military 

health system ......................................................................................... 171 

Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense electronic 

health record interoperability ............................................................... 171 

Epidemiological study on the association between certain cancers 

and military aircraft operations ........................................................... 172 

Impact of medical care referrals on servicemembers assigned to remote and isolated military installations in the United States .......... 172 

Improper medical claims payments ......................................................... 172 

Licensed mental health counselors .......................................................... 173 

Licensing of federally owned medical inventions ................................... 173 

Military dental research ........................................................................... 173 

Novel drug therapies for PTSD ................................................................ 173 

Report on action to address mental health of remotely piloted aircraft 

community .............................................................................................. 174 

Traumatic brain injury research .............................................................. 174 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS ......................................................................................... 175 

Implementation of acquisition reforms ........................................................... 175 

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management .......................................... 176 

Repeal of temporary suspension of public-private competitions for 

conversion of Department of Defense functions to performance by 

contractors (sec. 801) ............................................................................. 176 

Technical and conforming amendments related to program management provisions (sec. 802) ..................................................................... 177 

Should-cost management (sec. 803) ......................................................... 177 

Clarification of purpose of Defense acquisition (sec. 804) ...................... 177 

Defense policy advisory committee on technology (sec. 805) ................. 178 

Report on extension of development, acquisition, and sustainment 

authorities of the military departments to the United States Special Operations Command (sec. 806) .................................................... 178 

Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations ............................................................................................. 179 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVII 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations—Continued 

Waiver authority for purposes of expanding competition (sec. 811) ..... 179 

Increased simplified acquisition threshold applicable to Department 

of Defense procurements (sec. 812) ...................................................... 179 

Increased threshold for cost or pricing data and truth in negotiations 

requirements (sec. 813) ......................................................................... 179 

Contract authority for advanced development of initial or additional 

prototype units (sec. 814) ...................................................................... 179 

Treatment of independent research and development costs on certain 

contracts (sec. 815) ................................................................................ 180 

Non-traditional contractor definition (sec. 816) ...................................... 180 

Repeal of domestic source restriction related to wearable electronics 

(sec. 817) ................................................................................................. 180 

Use of outcome-based and performance-based requirements for services contracts (sec. 818) ......................................................................... 180 

Pilot program for longer term multiyear service contracts (sec. 819) ... 181 

Identification of commercial services (sec. 820) ...................................... 181 

Government Accountability Office bid protest reforms (sec. 821) ......... 181 

Enhanced post-award debriefing rights (sec. 822) .................................. 182 

Limitation on unilateral definitization (sec. 823) ................................... 182 

Restriction on use of reverse auctions and lowest price technically 

acceptable contracting methods for safety equipment (sec. 824) ....... 182 

Use of lowest price technically acceptable source selection process 

(sec. 825) ................................................................................................. 183 

Middle tier of acquisition for rapid prototype and rapid fielding (sec. 

826) ......................................................................................................... 183 

Elimination of cost underruns as factor in calculation of penalties 

for cost overruns (sec. 827) ................................................................... 183 

Contract closeout authority (sec. 828) ..................................................... 183 

Service contracts of the Department of Defense (sec. 829) .................... 183 

Department of Defense contractor workplace safety and accountability (sec. 830) ..................................................................................... 183 

Department of Defense promotion of contractor compliance with existing law (sec. 831) ............................................................................... 184 

Subtitle C—Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs ... 184 

Revisions to definition of major defense acquisition program (sec. 

835) ......................................................................................................... 184 

Prohibition on use of lowest price technically acceptable source selection process for major defense acquisition programs (sec. 836) ......... 184 

Subtitle D—Provisions Relating to Acquisition Workforce ........................... 185 

Training in commercial items procurement (sec. 841) ........................... 186 

Modification of definition of acquisition workforce to include personnel engaged in the acquisition or development of cybersecurity 

systems (sec. 842) .................................................................................. 186 

Training and support for programs pursuing agile acquisition methods (sec. 843) .......................................................................................... 186 

Credits to Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (sec. 844) ............................................................................. 186 

Subtitle E—Provisions Related to Commercial Items ................................... 186 

Modification to definition of commercial items (sec. 851) ...................... 186 

Revision to definition of commercial item (sec. 852) .............................. 187 

Commercial item determinations (sec. 853) ............................................ 187 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVIII 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle E—Provisions Related to Commercial Items—Continued 

Preference for acquisition of commercial items (sec. 854) ..................... 187 

Inapplicable laws and regulations (sec. 855) .......................................... 187 

Subtitle F—Industrial Base Matters .............................................................. 188 

Review regarding applicability of foreign ownership, control, or influence requirements of national security industrial program to national technology and industrial base companies (sec. 861) ............... 188 

Pilot program on strengthening manufacturing in defense industrial 

base (sec. 862) ........................................................................................ 188 

Sunset of certain provisions relating to the industrial base (sec. 863) . 188 

Subtitle G—International Contracting Matters ............................................. 189 

Procurement exception relating to agreements with foreign governments (sec. 865) ..................................................................................... 189 

Applicability of cost and pricing data certification requirements (sec. 

866) ......................................................................................................... 189 

Enhancing program licensing (sec. 867) .................................................. 189 

Subtitle H—Other Transactions ...................................................................... 189 

Use of Other Transaction Authority ........................................................ 189 

Other transaction authority (sec. 871) .................................................... 191 

Education and training for transactions other than contracts and 

grants (sec. 872) ..................................................................................... 191 

Preference for use of other transactions and experimental authority 

(sec. 873) ................................................................................................. 191 

Methods for entering into research agreements (sec. 874) .................... 192 

Subtitle I—Development and Acquisition of Software Intensive and Digital Products and Services ............................................................................ 192 

Digitizing the Department of Defense business, enterprise, and 

warfighting capabilities ......................................................................... 192 

Rights in technical data (sec. 881) ........................................................... 193 

Defense Innovation Board analysis of software acquisition regulations 

(sec. 882) ................................................................................................. 193 

Pilot to tailor software-intensive major programs to use agile methods (sec. 883) .......................................................................................... 194 

Review and realignment of defense business systems to emphasize 

agile methods (sec. 884) ........................................................................ 194 

Software development pilot using agile best practices (sec. 885) .......... 194 

Use of open source software (sec. 886) .................................................... 195 

Subtitle J—Other Matters ............................................................................... 196 

Improved transparency and oversight over Department of Defense 

research, development, test, and evaluation efforts and procurement activities related to medical research (sec. 891) ........................ 196 

Rights in technical data related to medical research (sec. 892) ............ 196 

Oversight, audit, and certification from the Defense Contract Audit 

Agency for procurement activities related to medical research (sec. 

893) ......................................................................................................... 196 

Requirements for Defense Contract Audit Agency report (sec. 894) ..... 196 

Prototype projects to digitize defense acquisition regulations, policies, 

and guidance, and empower user tailoring of acquisition process 

(sec. 895) ................................................................................................. 196 

Pilot program for adoption of acquisition strategy for Defense Base 

Act insurance (sec. 896) ......................................................................... 197 

Phase III awards (sec. 897) ...................................................................... 197 

Pilot program for streamlined technology transition from the SBIR 

and STTR programs of the Department of Defense (sec. 898) ........... 197 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIX 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle J—Other Matters—Continued 

Annual report on limitation of subcontractor intellectual property 

rights (sec. 899) ...................................................................................... 197 

Extension from 20 to 30 years of maximum total period for Department of Defense contracts for storage, handling, or distribution 

of liquid fuels and natural gas (sec. 899A) .......................................... 198 

Exception for Department of Defense contracts from requirement 

that business operations conducted under government contracts 

accept and dispense $1 coins (sec. 899B) ............................................. 198 

Investing in rural small businesses (sec. 899C) ..................................... 198 

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

Assess requirements in certain categories of business systems for 

consolidation to pursue cost-effective solutions ................................... 198 

Avoidance of specification of contractor facility locations in solicitations and contract requirements ........................................................... 199 

Commercial off-the-shelf power supplies ................................................. 199 

Comptroller General evaluation of Contractor Business Systems Improvement Program ............................................................................... 200 

Cybersecurity in modernizing the Department of Defense healthcare 

management system .............................................................................. 201 

Cybersecurity Regulation—Small Business Compliance Assistance .... 201 

Defense Acquisition University research collaboration with academia 202 

Defense Innovation Unit Experimental ................................................... 202 

Department of Defense exemptions from certain regulations ............... 203 

Exchanges with industry before receipt of proposals ............................. 203 

Impact of Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract vehicles on small businesses and innovation .......................................... 204 

Increase in licensing fees and the negative competitive impact on 

the services sector .................................................................................. 204 

Integrity of patented intellectual property in reverse engineering programs ...................................................................................................... 204 

Notice of cost-free federal procurement technical assistance in connection with registration of small business concerns in procurement systems ......................................................................................... 205 

Ongoing improvement to the management of the National Technology 

and Industrial Base ............................................................................... 205 

Procurement Technical Assistance Center transitional cost share ....... 206 

Program Management Report .................................................................. 206 

Report on Monopolistic Practices ............................................................. 206 

Strategic Capabilities Office Support ...................................................... 207 

Supporting the Development and Commercialization of National Security Technologies ................................................................................ 207 

Use of Commercial Services ..................................................................... 207 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 209 

Subtitle A—Office of the Secretary of Defense and Related Matters .......... 209 

Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense (sec. 901) .... 209 

Realignment of responsibilities, duties, and powers of Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense (sec. 902) .......................... 210 

Clarification of the authority of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition and Sustainment with respect to service acquisition 

programs for which the service acquisition executive is the milestone decision authority (sec. 903) ....................................................... 213 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XX 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT—Continued 

Subtitle A—Office of the Secretary of Defense and Related Matters— 

Continued 

Executive schedule matters relating to Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition and Sustainment (sec. 904) ......................................... 213 

Technical amendment (sec. 905) .............................................................. 213 

Redesignation of Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness as Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Health 

(sec. 906) ................................................................................................. 213 

Qualifications for appointment and additional duties and powers of 

certain officials within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller) (sec. 907) ......................................................................... 214 

Five-year period of relief from Active Duty as a commissioned officer 

of a regular component of the Armed Forces for appointment to 

Under Secretary of Defense positions (sec. 908) ................................. 214 

Redesignation of Principal Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense as 

Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense and related matters (sec. 

909) ......................................................................................................... 214 

Reduction of number and elimination of specific designations of Assistant Secretaries of Defense (sec. 910) .............................................. 214 

Limitation of maximum number of Deputy Assistant Secretaries of 

Defense (sec. 911) .................................................................................. 215 

Modification of definition of OSD personnel for purposes of limitation 

on number of Office of Secretary of Defense personnel (sec. 912) ..... 215 

Subtitle B—Organization of Other Department of Defense Offices and 

Elements ........................................................................................................ 215 

Reduction in authorized number of Assistant Secretaries of the military departments (sec. 921) .................................................................. 215 

Qualifications for appointment of Assistant Secretaries of the military departments for financial management (sec. 922) ...................... 215 

Subtitle C—Organization and Management of the Department of 

Defense Generally .................................................................................. 215 

Reduction in limitation of number of Department of Defense SES 

positions (sec. 931) ................................................................................. 215 

Manner of carrying out reductions in major Department of Defense 

headquarters activities (sec. 932) ......................................................... 216 

Certifications on cost savings achieved by reductions in major Department of Defense headquarters activities (sec. 933) ...................... 216 

Direct hire authority for the Department of Defense for personnel 

to assist in business transformation and management innovation 

(sec. 934) ................................................................................................. 216 

Data analytics capability for support of enhanced oversight and management of the Defense Agencies and Department of Defense Field 

Activities (sec. 935) ................................................................................ 217 

Enhanced use of data analytics to improve acquisition program outcomes (sec. 936) ...................................................................................... 217 

Pilot programs on data integration strategies for the Department 

of Defense (sec. 937) .............................................................................. 217 

Background and security investigations for Department of Defense 

personnel (sec. 938) ............................................................................... 218 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 220 

Transfer of lead of Guam Oversight Council from the Deputy Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of the Navy (sec. 951) .................. 220 

Corrosion control and prevention executive matters (sec. 952) ............. 220 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXI 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT—Continued 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 220 

Comptroller General of the United States report on Department of 

Defense oversight of the defense agencies and Department of Defense field activities ............................................................................... 220 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Arctic ............................ 221 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 223 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 223 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) .................................................... 223 

Calculations for payments into Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund using single level percentage of basic pay determined on Armed Force-wide rather than Armed Forces-wide basis 

(sec. 1002) ............................................................................................... 223 

Certifications on audit readiness of the Department of Defense and 

the military departments, Defense Agencies, and other organizations and elements of the Department of Defense (sec. 1003) ........... 223 

Failure to obtain audit opinion on fiscal year full financial statements 

of the Department of Defense (sec. 1004) ............................................ 224 

Improper payment matters (sec. 1005) .................................................... 224 

Financial operations dashboard for the Department of Defense (sec. 

1006) ....................................................................................................... 225 

Comptroller General of the United States recommendations on audit 

capabilities and infrastructure and related matters (sec. 1007) ........ 226 

Subtitle B—Counterdrug Activities ................................................................ 226 

Extension and modification of authority to support a unified 

counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 

1011) ....................................................................................................... 226 

Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 226 

Policy of the United States on minimum number of battle force 

ships (sec. 1016) ..................................................................................... 226 

Operational readiness of Littoral Combat Ships on extended deployment (sec. 1017) ..................................................................................... 227 

Authority to purchase used vessels to recapitalize the Ready Reserve 

Force and the Military Sealift Command surge fleet (sec. 1018) ...... 227 

Surveying ships (sec. 1019) ...................................................................... 228 

Pilot program on funding for national defense sealift vessels (sec. 

1020) ....................................................................................................... 228 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism ......................................................................... 229 

Extension of prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of 

individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba, to the United States (sec. 1031) ........................................ 229 

Extension on prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify 

facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred from 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1032) ... 229 

Extension on prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release 

to certain countries of individuals detained at United States Naval 

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1033) ....................................... 230 

Extension of prohibition on use of funds for realignment of forces 

at or closure of United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 

Cuba (sec. 1034) ..................................................................................... 230 

Authority to transfer individuals detained at United States Naval 

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

for emergency or critical medical treatment (sec. 1035) ..................... 230 

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations ............................... 230 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXII 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued 

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations—Continued 

Matters relating to the submittal of future-years defense programs 

(sec. 1041) ............................................................................................... 230 

Department of Defense integration of information operations and 

cyber-enabled information operations (sec. 1042) ............................... 231 

Prohibition on lobbying activities with respect to the Department 

of Defense by certain officers of the Armed Forces and civilian 

employees of the Department within two years of separation from 

military service or employment with the Department (sec. 1043) .... 231 

Definition of ‘‘unmanned aerial vehicle’’ for the purposes of title 

10, United States Code (sec. 1044) ....................................................... 231 

Technical amendment relating to management of military technicians 

(sec. 1045) ............................................................................................... 231 

Extension of prohibition on use of funds for retirement of legacy 

maritime mine countermeasures platforms (sec. 1046) ...................... 232 

Sense of Congress on the basing of KC–46A aircraft outside the 

continental United States (sec. 1047) .................................................. 232 

Authorization to procure up to six polar-class icebreakers (sec. 1048) . 232 

Subtitle F—Studies and Reports ..................................................................... 232 

Assessment of global force posture (sec. 1061) ....................................... 232 

Army modernization strategy (sec. 1062) ................................................ 233 

Report on Army plan to improve operational unit readiness by reducing the number of non-deployable soldiers assigned to operation 

units (sec. 1063) ..................................................................................... 234 

Efforts to combat physiological episodes on certain Navy aircraft 

(sec. 1064) ............................................................................................... 235 

Studies on aircraft inventories for the Air Force (sec. 1065) ................. 236 

Plan and recommendations for interagency vetting of foreign investments with potential impacts on national defense and national 

security (sec. 1066) ................................................................................ 237 

Report on authorities for the employment, use, and status of National 

Guard and Reserve technicians (sec. 1067) ......................................... 237 

Conforming repeals and technical amendments in connection with 

reports of the Department of Defense whose submittal to Congress 

has previously been terminated by law (sec. 1068) ............................ 238 

Annual reports on approval of employment or compensation of retired 

general or flag Officers by foreign governments for Emoluments 

Clause purposes (sec. 1069) .................................................................. 238 

Annual report on civilian casualties in connection with United States 

military operations (sec. 1070) .............................................................. 238 

Report on large-scale, joint exercises involving the air and land domains (Sec. 1071) ................................................................................... 238 

Department of Defense review of Navy capabilities in the Arctic 

region (sec. 1072) ................................................................................... 238 

Business case analysis on establishment of active duty association 

and additional primary aircraft authorizations for the 168th Air 

Refueling Wing (sec. 1073) .................................................................... 238 

Report on Navy capacity to increase production of anti-submarine 

warfare and search and rescue rotary wing aircraft in light of 

increase in the size of the surface fleet to 355 ships. (Sec. 1074) ...... 239 

Subtitle G—Other Matters .............................................................................. 239 

Protection against misuse of Naval Special Warfare Command insignia (sec. 1081) ........................................................................................ 239 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXIII 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued 

Subtitle G—Other Matters—Continued 

Collaborations between the Armed Forces and certain non-Federal 

entities on support of Armed Forces missions abroad (sec. 1082) ..... 239 

Federal charter for Spirit of America (sec. 1083) ................................... 240 

Reconsideration of claims for disability compensation for veterans 

who were the subjects of mustard gas or lewisite experiments 

during World War II (sec. 1084) ........................................................... 240 

Prize competition to identify root cause of physiological episodes on 

Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force training and operational aircraft (sec. 1085) ...................................................................................... 240 

Exception to the interdepartmental waiver doctrine for cleanup of 

vehicle crashes (sec. 1086) .................................................................... 240 

Transfer of surplus firearms to Corporation for the Promotion of 

Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety (sec. 1087) ................................... 241 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 241 

355 ship build-up review .......................................................................... 241 

Arctic domain awareness .......................................................................... 241 

Assessment of Navy capabilities to support U.S. Coast Guard and 

partner nations’ international maritime law enforcement activities . 242 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict ............................................................................................ 242 

Audit progress ........................................................................................... 243 

Budget Control Act Repeal ....................................................................... 243 

Comptroller General of the United States review of the U.S. Navy’s 

approach to nuclear-powered aircraft carrier dismantlement and 

disposal ................................................................................................... 243 

DUI prevention and rideshares ................................................................ 245 

Efficient use of non-tactical government owned transportation ............ 245 

Encouraging Air Force Rescue Unit Associations ................................... 245 

Management of Special Access Programs ............................................... 246 

National Guard Counterdrug Program ................................................... 246 

National Guard role in enhanced border security .................................. 247 

Navy strategic laydown and dispersal plan ............................................ 248 

Northern Triangle human rights training .............................................. 248 

Plan on actions to address vulnerabilities arising from unencrypted 

aircraft transponders on military aircraft ........................................... 248 

Report on infrastructure required to protect national security interests of the United States in the Arctic region ..................................... 249 

Report on initiatives for mitigating military pilot shortfalls ................. 249 

Trafficking of commodities ....................................................................... 250 

Unmanned maritime systems test and training range .......................... 251 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS ................................................. 253 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Matters ................................................. 253 

Pilot program on enhanced personnel management system for cybersecurity and legal professionals in the Department of Defense (sec. 

1101) ....................................................................................................... 253 

Inclusion of Strategic Capabilities Office and Defense Innovation 

Unit Experimental of the Department of Defense in personnel 

management authority to attract experts in science and engineering (sec. 1102) ........................................................................................ 253 

Permanent authority for demonstration projects relating to acquisition personnel management policies and procedures (sec. 1103) ....... 253 

Establishment of senior scientific technical managers at Major Range 

and Test Facility Base facilities and Defense Test Resource Management Center (sec. 1104) ................................................................... 254 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXIV 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Matters—Continued 

Extension of temporary direct hire authority for domestic defense 

industrial base facilities, the major range and test facilities base 

(sec. 1105) ............................................................................................... 254 

Direct hire authority for financial management experts in the Department of Defense workforce (sec. 1106) .......................................... 254 

Authority for wavier of requirement for a baccalaureate degree for 

positions in the Department of Defense on cybersecurity and computer programming (sec. 1107) ............................................................. 254 

Subtitle B—Government-Wide Matters .......................................................... 255 

Elimination of the foreign exemption provision in regard to overtime 

for Federal civilian employees temporarily assigned to a foreign 

area (sec. 1111) ...................................................................................... 255 

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

employees working overseas (sec. 1112) .............................................. 255 

One-year extension of temporary authority to grant allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel on official duty in a combat 

zone (sec. 1113) ...................................................................................... 255 

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

Direct hiring authorities ........................................................................... 255 

Implementation of direct hiring authorities for military spouses ......... 255 

Industry fellowships for civilian contracting officers ............................. 256 

Waiver of Long-Term Temporary Duty travel per diem rates .............. 256 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS .......................... 257 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training .............................................................. 257 

Support of special operations for irregular warfare (sec. 1201) ............ 257 

Modification of authority on support of special operations to combat 

terrorism (sec. 1202) .............................................................................. 257 

Modifications of certain authority in connection with reform of defense security cooperation programs and activities (sec. 1203) ......... 257 

Global Security Contingency Fund matters (sec. 1204) ......................... 258 

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (sec. 1205) ................ 258 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan ........................ 258 

Extension of Commanders’ Emergency Response Program and related 

authorities (sec. 1211) ........................................................................... 258 

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

(sec. 1212) ............................................................................................... 258 

Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement of certain 

coalition nations for support provided to United States military 

operations (sec. 1213) ............................................................................ 258 

Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced 

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

1214) ....................................................................................................... 259 

Extension of semiannual report on enhancing security and stability 

in Afghanistan (sec. 1215) ..................................................................... 259 

Sense of Congress regarding the Afghan special immigrant visa program (sec. 1216) ..................................................................................... 259 

Special immigrant visas for Afghan allies (sec. 1217) ............................ 259 

Subtitle C—Matters Relating to Syria, Iraq, and Iran ................................. 260 

Modification of authority to provide assistance to counter the Islamic 

State of Iraq and Syria (sec. 1231) ....................................................... 260 

Modification of authority to provide assistance to the vetted Syrian 

opposition (sec. 1232) ............................................................................. 260 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXV 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS—Continued 

Subtitle C—Matters Relating to Syria, Iraq, and Iran—Continued 

Extension and modification of authority to support operations and 

activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1233) ... 261 

Modification and additional elements in annual report on the military power of Iran (sec. 1234) ............................................................... 261 

Subtitle D—Matters Relating to the Russian Federation ............................. 262 

Extension of limitation on military cooperation between the United 

States and the Russian Federation (sec. 1241) ................................... 262 

Extension of limitation on availability of funds relating to sovereignty 

of the Russian Federation over Crimea (sec. 1242) ............................ 262 

Extension of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (sec. 1243) ........... 262 

Extension of authority on training for Eastern European national 

security forces in the course of multilateral exercises (sec. 1244) ..... 263 

Security assistance for Baltic nations for joint program for resiliency 

and deterrence against aggression (sec. 1245) .................................... 263 

Annual report on military and security developments involving the 

Russian Federation (sec. 1246) ............................................................. 264 

Annual report on attempts of the Russian Federation to provide 

disinformation and propaganda to members of the Armed Forces 

by social media. (sec. 1247) ................................................................... 264 

Support of European Deterrence Initiative to deter Russian aggression (sec. 1248) ....................................................................................... 264 

Sense of Congress on the European Deterrence Initiative (sec. 1249) . 264 

Enhancement of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (sec. 1250) .... 265 

Sense of Congress on importance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Intelligence Fusion Center (sec. 1251) .................................. 265 

Subtitle E—Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region .............................. 265 

Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative (sec. 1261) ............................................. 265 

Expansion of military-to-military engagement with the government 

of Burma (sec. 1262) .............................................................................. 266 

Agreement supplemental to Compact of Free Association with Palau 

(sec. 1263) ............................................................................................... 266 

Workforce issues for relocation of Marines to Guam (sec. 1264) ........... 267 

United States policy with respect to freedom of navigation operations 

and overflight beyond the territorial seas (sec. 1265) ........................ 267 

Sense of Congress on the importance of the rule of law in the South 

China Sea (sec. 1266) ............................................................................ 268 

Sense of Congress on the importance of the relationship between 

the United States and Japan (sec. 1267) ............................................. 268 

Sense of Congress on the importance of the United States alliance 

with the Republic of Korea (sec. 1268) ................................................. 268 

Sense of Congress on extended deterrence for the Korean Peninsula 

and Japan (sec. 1269) ............................................................................ 269 

Defense partnership between the United States and Taiwan (sec. 

1270) ....................................................................................................... 269 

Naval port of call exchanges between the United States and Taiwan 

(sec. 1270A) ............................................................................................ 269 

Program to enhance Taiwan’s undersea warfare capabilities (sec. 

1270B) ..................................................................................................... 269 

Invitation of Taiwan military forces to participate in joint military 

exercises (Sec. 1270C) ............................................................................ 270 

Report on military exchanges between senior officers and officials 

of the United States and Taiwan (Sec. 1270D) ................................... 270 

Subtitle F—Reports .......................................................................................... 270 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXVI 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS—Continued 

Subtitle F—Reports—Continued 

Submittal of Department of Defense Supplemental and Cost of War 

Execution Reports on a quarterly basis (sec. 1271) ............................ 270 

Consolidation of reports on United States Armed Forces, civilian 

employees, and contractors deployed in support of Operation Inherent Resolve and Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (sec. 1272) ................ 271 

Subtitle G—Others Matters ............................................................................ 271 

Modification of availability of funds in Special Defense Acquisition 

Fund for precision guided munitions (sec. 1281) ................................ 271 

Use of funds in the United States for certain United States-Israel 

anti-tunnel cooperation activities (sec. 1282) ...................................... 271 

Foreign military sales letters of request for pricing and availability 

(sec. 1283) ............................................................................................... 272 

Sense of Congress reaffirming strategic partnerships and allies (sec. 

1284) ....................................................................................................... 272 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 272 

Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative .................................................... 272 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 272 

Enhanced assistance and cooperation for Afghanistan by the Government of India .......................................................................................... 272 

Importance of soft power tools in the Asia-Pacific region ...................... 273 

Institutionalizing Advise and Assist Lessons Learned .......................... 273 

NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence ........................ 274 

Report on the military capabilities of Hezbollah .................................... 275 

Security strategy for Great Lakes region of Africa ................................ 275 

Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative .......................................... 276 

Southeast Asia terrorism .......................................................................... 277 

Transformation of the Kosovo Security Forces to the Kosovo Armed 

Forces ...................................................................................................... 277 

U.S.-India defense cooperation ................................................................. 277 

Ukrainian wounded warriors ................................................................... 279 

United States commitment to the NATO alliance .................................. 280 

Venezuelan military cooperation .............................................................. 280 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ....................................... 283 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 1301) .......... 283 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) ................................................................ 283 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ........................................................... 285 

Subtitle A—Military Programs ........................................................................ 285 

Working capital funds (sec. 1401) ............................................................ 285 

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1402) ....... 285 

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

1403) ....................................................................................................... 285 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404) ..................................................... 285 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1405) ........................................................ 285 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile ......................................................... 285 

Authority to dispose of certain materials from and to acquire additional materials for the National Defense Stockpile (sec. 1411) ........ 285 

Subtitle C—Chemical Demilitarization Matters ............................................ 286 

Acquisition reporting on major chemical demilitarization programs 

of the Department of Defense (sec. 1421) ............................................ 286 

Subtitle D—Armed Forces Retirement Home ................................................ 286 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home 

(sec. 1431) ............................................................................................... 286 

Armed Forces Retirement Home matters (sec. 1432) ............................. 286 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXVII 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS—Continued 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 286 

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

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

1441) ....................................................................................................... 286 

Enhancement of database of emergency response capabilities of the 

Department of Defense (sec. 1442) ....................................................... 286 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 287 

Agro-terrorism ........................................................................................... 287 

Assessment of designating a Joint Chemical-Biological Defense Logistics Distribution Center ......................................................................... 287 

Domestic production of Scandium ............................................................ 287 

Fiscal stability of the National Defense Stockpile .................................. 288 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ................................................... 289 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional Appropriations .............................. 289 

Purpose (sec. 1501) .................................................................................... 289 

Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502) .......................................... 289 

Procurement (sec. 1503) ............................................................................ 289 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1504) ....................... 289 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1505) .................................................. 289 

Military personnel (sec. 1506) .................................................................. 289 

Working capital funds (sec. 1507) ............................................................ 289 

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

1508) ....................................................................................................... 290 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509) ..................................................... 290 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1510) ........................................................ 290 

Subtitle B—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 290 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521) ............................... 290 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1522) ...................................................... 290 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 290 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1531) ........................................ 290 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 291 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency ..................................................... 291 

Transfer of European Reassurance Initiative ......................................... 291 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE 

MATTERS ............................................................................................................. 293 

Subtitle A—Space Activities ............................................................................ 293 

Air Force Space Command (sec. 1601) .................................................... 293 

Air Force space contractor responsibility watch list (sec. 1602) ............ 293 

Presidential National Voice Conferencing system (sec. 1603) ............... 294 

Limitation on use of funds for Delta IV launch vehicle (sec. 1604) ...... 295 

Policy of the United States with respect to classification of space 

as a combat domain (sec. 1605) ............................................................ 295 

Launch support and infrastructure modernization (sec. 1606) ............. 296 

Subtitle B—Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities ......... 296 

Extension of authority to engage in commercial activities as security 

for intelligence collection activities (sec. 1611) .................................... 296 

Subtitle C—Cyber Warfare, Cybersecurity, and Related Matters ............... 296 

Policy of the United States on cyberspace, cybersecurity, and cyber 

warfare (sec. 1621) ................................................................................. 296 

Cyber posture review (sec. 1622) ............................................................. 297 

Modification and clarification of requirements and authorities relating to establishment of unified combatant command for cyber operations (sec. 1623) .................................................................................... 297 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXVIII 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE 

MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle C—Cyber Warfare, Cybersecurity, and Related Matters—Continued 

Annual assessment of cyber resiliency of nuclear command and control system (sec. 1624) ........................................................................... 298 

Strategic Cybersecurity Program (sec. 1625) .......................................... 298 

Evaluation of agile acquisition of cyber tools and applications (sec. 

1626) ....................................................................................................... 299 

Report on cost implications of terminating dual-hat arrangement for 

Commander of United States Cyber Command (sec. 1627) ............... 300 

Modification of Information Assurance Scholarship Program (sec. 

1628) ....................................................................................................... 300 

Measuring compliance of components of Department of Defense with 

cybersecurity requirements for securing industrial control systems 

(sec. 1629) ............................................................................................... 301 

Exercise on assessing cybersecurity support to election systems of 

States (sec. 1630) ................................................................................... 301 

Report on various approaches to cyber deterrence (sec. 1630A) ........... 301 

Prohibition on use of software platforms developed by Kaspersky 

Lab (sec. 1630B) ..................................................................................... 302 

Subtitle D—Nuclear Forces ............................................................................. 302 

Collection, storage, and sharing of data relating to nuclear security 

enterprise (sec. 1631) ............................................................................. 302 

Establishment of procedures for implementation of Nuclear Enterprise Review (sec. 1632) ........................................................................ 302 

Procurement authority for certain parts of intercontinental ballistic 

missiles (sec. 1633) ................................................................................ 302 

Execution and programmatic oversight of nuclear command, control, 

and communications programs (sec. 1634) .......................................... 303 

Measures in response to noncompliance of the Russian Federation 

with its obligations under the INF Treaty (sec. 1635) ........................ 304 

Certification that the Nuclear Posture Review addresses deterrent 

effect and operation of United States nuclear forces in current 

and future security environment (sec. 1636) ....................................... 305 

Plan to manage Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment 

System and multi-domain sensors (sec. 1637) ..................................... 305 

Certification requirement with respect to strategic radiation hardened trusted foundry (sec. 1638) .......................................................... 305 

Requirements for Nuclear Posture Review (sec. 1639) .......................... 306 

Sense of Congress on Nuclear Posture Review (sec. 1640) .................... 306 

Subtitle E—Missile Defense Programs ........................................................... 306 

Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and Israeli Cooperative 

Missile Defense Program co-development and co-production (sec. 

1651) ....................................................................................................... 306 

Development of persistent space-based sensor architecture (sec. 

1652) ....................................................................................................... 307 

Ground-based interceptor capacity and Fort Greely missile field infrastructure requirements (sec. 1653) .................................................. 308 

Sense of the Senate on the state of United States missile defense 

(sec. 1654) ............................................................................................... 309 

Sense of the Senate and report on ground-based mid-course defense 

testing (sec. 1655) .................................................................................. 309 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 310 

Airborne boost phase laser missile defense demonstration ................... 310 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXIX 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE 

MATTERS—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

AN/TPY-2 detection and cueing capability .............................................. 310 

Assistance of U.S. Special Operations Command to U.S. Forces-Korea 

for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction ..................................... 311 

Cobra Dane radar system improvements ................................................ 311 

Commercial Geospatial-Intelligence Imagery ......................................... 312 

Comptroller General review of very low frequency/low frequency terminals ..................................................................................................... 312 

Conventional Prompt Strike ..................................................................... 313 

Counter unmanned aerial systems capabilities ...................................... 313 

Expand capacity and capabilities of the ICCAE with focus on data 

sciences, machine learning, artificial intelligence, modeling & war 

gaming, and intelligence integration ................................................... 314 

Fill rate of billets for United States Cyber Command ........................... 314 

Importance and use of United States Federal Aviation Administration licensed spaceports ......................................................................... 315 

Increased procurement of low-cost ballistic missile targets .................. 316 

Intelligence support to U.S. Strategic Command ................................... 316 

Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interoperability ..... 316 

Positioning, Navigation, and Timing alternate sources ......................... 317 

Replacement of National Airborne Operations Center aircraft ............. 317 

Report on Electromagnetic Pulse Attack Commission findings and 

recommendations ................................................................................... 317 

Reusable Launch Vehicles ........................................................................ 318 

Sea-based X-Band Radar .......................................................................... 318 

Simultaneous strategic missile system flight tests ................................ 318 

Space Launch Automated Flight Safety and Termination Systems ..... 319 

Staffing for nuclear command, control, and communications acquisition .......................................................................................................... 319 

Training for cyber mission forces ............................................................. 319 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ................... 321 

Summary and explanation of funding tables .......................................... 321 

Short title (sec. 2001) ................................................................................ 321 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified 

by law (sec. 2002) ................................................................................... 322 

Effective date (sec. 2003) .......................................................................... 322 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................. 323 

Summary .................................................................................................... 323 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2101) ....................................................................................................... 323 

Family housing (sec. 2102) ....................................................................... 323 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103) ................................. 323 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2014 project 

(sec. 2104) ............................................................................................... 324 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2015 project 

(sec. 2105) ............................................................................................... 324 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2014 project (sec. 

2106) ....................................................................................................... 324 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 projects (sec. 

2107) ....................................................................................................... 324 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 325 

Summary .................................................................................................... 325 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2201) ....................................................................................................... 325 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXX 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION—Continued 

Family housing (sec. 2202) ....................................................................... 325 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) .................. 325 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) ................................. 326 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 projects (sec. 

2205) ....................................................................................................... 326 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 projects (sec. 

2206) ....................................................................................................... 326 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ................................ 327 

Summary .................................................................................................... 327 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2301) ....................................................................................................... 327 

Family housing (sec. 2302) ....................................................................... 327 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) .................. 327 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) .......................... 327 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2017 projects 

(sec. 2305) ............................................................................................... 328 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 projects (sec. 

2306) ....................................................................................................... 328 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION .............. 329 

Summary .................................................................................................... 329 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2401) ................................................................................. 329 

Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) .............................. 329 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403) ............. 329 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2017 project 

(sec. 2404) ............................................................................................... 329 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 projects (sec. 

2405) ....................................................................................................... 330 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 projects (sec. 

2406) ....................................................................................................... 330 

TITLE XXV—INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS .................................................... 331 

Summary .................................................................................................... 331 

Subtitle A—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program ............................................................................................................... 331 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2501) ....................................................................................................... 331 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) ............................... 331 

Subtitle B—Host Country In-Kind Contributions ......................................... 331 

Republic of Korea funded construction projects (sec. 2511) ................... 331 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2017 projects 

(sec. 2512) ............................................................................................... 331 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES ........................ 333 

Summary .................................................................................................... 333 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations ... 333 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2601) ................................................................................. 333 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2602) ............................................................................................... 333 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction 

and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) ............................................. 333 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2604) ................................................................................. 334 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2605) ................................................................................. 334 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXXI 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES—Continued 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorization of Appropriations— 

Continued 

Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 

2606) ....................................................................................................... 334 

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 334 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2015 project 

(sec. 2611) ............................................................................................... 334 

Extension of authorizations for certain fiscal year 2014 projects (sec. 

2612) ....................................................................................................... 334 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 projects (sec. 

2613) ....................................................................................................... 334 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES ............ 335 

Summary and explanation of tables ........................................................ 335 

Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account (sec. 2701) ..................................................................................... 335 

Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and closure 

(BRAC) round (sec. 2702) ...................................................................... 335 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................................................................................... 337 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ......................................................................................................... 337 

Authority to use expiring funds for certain military construction 

projects (sec. 2801) ................................................................................. 337 

Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas outside 

the United States (sec. 2802) ................................................................ 337 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 337 

Authority to use energy cost savings for energy resilience, mission 

assurance, and weather damage repair and prevention measures 

(sec. 2811) ............................................................................................... 337 

Modification of unspecified minor military construction project authority to cover correction of deficiencies that are threats to installation resilience (sec. 2812) ................................................................... 337 

Land exchange valuation of property with reduced development that 

limits encroachment on military installations (sec. 2813) .................. 337 

Treatment of storm water collection systems as utility systems (sec. 

2814) ....................................................................................................... 338 

Access to military installations by transportation network companies 

(sec. 2815) ............................................................................................... 338 

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 338 

Land conveyance, Natick Soldier Systems Center, Massachusetts 

(sec. 2821) ............................................................................................... 338 

Land conveyance, Army and Air Force exchange service property, 

Dallas, Texas (sec. 2822) ....................................................................... 338 

Land conveyances, certain former peacekeeper ICBM facilities in Wyoming (sec. 2823) ................................................................................... 338 

Land exchange, Naval Industrial Ordnance Reserve Plant, Sunnyvale, California (sec. 2824) .................................................................... 338 

Land exchange, Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas (sec. 2825) .. 339 

Subtitle D—Project Management and Oversight Reforms ............................ 339 

Project management oversight reforms ................................................... 339 

Notification requirement for certain cost overruns and schedule 

delays (sec. 2831) ................................................................................... 339 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXXII 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued 

Subtitle D—Project Management and Oversight Reforms—Continued 

Limited authority for private sector supervision of military construction projects in event of extensive overruns or project delays (sec. 

2832) ....................................................................................................... 339 

Annual report on cost overruns and schedule delays (sec. 2833) .......... 340 

Report on design errors and omissions related to Fort Bliss hospital 

replacement project (sec. 2834) ............................................................. 340 

Report on cost increase and delay related to USSTRATCOM command and control facility project at Offutt Air Force Base (sec. 

2835) ....................................................................................................... 340 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 340 

Annual Department of Defense energy management reports (sec. 

2841) ....................................................................................................... 340 

Aggregation of energy efficiency and energy resilience projects in 

life cycle costs (sec. 2842) ...................................................................... 341 

Authority of the Secretary of the Air Force to accept lessee improvements at Air Force Plant 42 (sec. 2843) .............................................. 341 

Prohibition on use of funds for Kwajalein project (sec. 2844) ............... 341 

Energy resilience (sec. 2845) .................................................................... 341 

Consideration of energy security and energy resilience in awarding 

energy and fuel contracts for military installations (sec. 2846) ......... 342 

Requirement to address energy resilience in exercising utility system 

conveyance authority (sec. 2847) .......................................................... 342 

In-kind lease payments; prioritization of utility services that promote 

energy resilience (sec. 2848) ................................................................. 342 

Disclosure of beneficial ownership by foreign persons of high security 

space leased by the Department of Defense (sec. 2849) ..................... 342 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 342 

Bachelor Enlisted Quarters conditions .................................................... 342 

Joint Test and Training Operations Center ............................................ 343 

Life cycle construction materials ............................................................. 343 

Lincoln Laboratory .................................................................................... 343 

Major range and test facility bases .......................................................... 344 

Review of DOD utility privatization ........................................................ 344 

Unified Facilities Criteria for elevator design ........................................ 345 

Window fall prevention ............................................................................. 345 

TITLE XXIX—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................................... 347 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2901) ....................................................................................................... 347 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2902) ....................................................................................................... 347 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 2903) ............................................ 347 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2015 projects (sec. 

2904) ....................................................................................................... 347 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................... 349 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................. 349 

Overview ............................................................................................................ 349 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 350 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) .......................... 350 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) ............................................ 350 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXXIII 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS—Continued 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations—Continued 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) ......................................................... 350 

Nuclear energy (sec. 3104) ........................................................................ 350 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 350 

Assessment and development of prototype nuclear weapons of foreign 

countries (sec. 3111) .............................................................................. 350 

Use of funds for construction and project support activities relating 

to MOX facility (sec. 3112) .................................................................... 351 

Repeal, consolidation, and modification of reporting requirements 

(sec. 3113) ............................................................................................... 351 

National Nuclear Security Administration personnel system (sec. 

3114) ....................................................................................................... 351 

Annual reports on unfunded priorities of National Nuclear Security 

Administration (sec. 3115) .................................................................... 351 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 352 

National Nuclear Security Administration research and development 

certification and safety .......................................................................... 352 

Enhanced capabilities for subcritical experiments ................................. 352 

National Nuclear Security Administration enhanced surety ................ 352 

Stockpile Responsiveness Program .......................................................... 352 

Inertial confinement facility operations .................................................. 353 

National Nuclear Security Administration additive manufacturing ..... 353 

National Nuclear Security Administration component manufacturing 

development ........................................................................................... 353 

National Nuclear Security Administration deferred maintenance ....... 353 

Defense Nuclear Security deferred maintenance .................................... 353 

International nuclear security program .................................................. 354 

Nonproliferation and arms control ........................................................... 354 

Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication facility ..................................................... 354 

Naval Reactors deferred maintenance ..................................................... 355 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 355 

Common financial reporting ..................................................................... 355 

Competition in contracting ....................................................................... 355 

Comptroller General review of high explosives capability ..................... 356 

Comptroller General review of Kansas City Plant capabilities ............. 356 

Comptroller General review of plutonium oxide feedstock production 

capacity ................................................................................................... 357 

National Nuclear Security Administration arms control research and 

development plan ................................................................................... 358 

National Nuclear Security Administration plutonium strategy ............ 358 

Pantex material staging facility ............................................................... 359 

Requirement for update on progress on interoperable warhead ........... 359 

Requirements for managing schedules for analyses of alternatives 

for projects of the National Nuclear Security Administration ........... 360 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant planning ....................................................... 360 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............. 363 

Authorization (sec. 3201) .......................................................................... 363 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION ................................................. 365 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501) ....................................................... 365 

DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES ....................................................................... 367 

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001) ......................... 369 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT .............................................................................. 377 

Procurement (sec. 4101) ............................................................................ 378 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXXIV 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT—Continued 

Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4102) ............... 427 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION ..... 439 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201) ....................... 440 

Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas contingency 

operations (sec. 4202) ............................................................................ 481 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................... 485 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301) .................................................. 486 

Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations (sec. 

4302) ....................................................................................................... 507 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL .............................................................. 517 

Military personnel (sec. 4401) .................................................................. 518 

Military personnel for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4402) ..... 519 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS .......................................................... 520 

Other authorizations (sec. 4501) .............................................................. 520 

Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4502) . 524 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ....................................................... 527 

Military construction (sec. 4601) .............................................................. 527 

Military construction for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4602) . 547 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................. 549 

Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 4701) ............. 550 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 566 

Departmental Recommendations ............................................................. 566 

Committee Action ...................................................................................... 566 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................ 567 

Regulatory Impact ..................................................................................... 568 

Changes in Existing Laws ........................................................................ 568 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS ............................................................................................. 569 

Additional Views of Mr. Rounds .............................................................. 569 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Calendar No. 165 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 115–125 

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 FOR MILITARY 

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH 

FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

JULY 10, 2017.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. MCCAIN, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 1519] 

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original 

bill (S. 1519) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for 

military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, 

to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and 

for other purposes, and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL 

This bill would: 

(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) research, development, test and evaluation, (c) operation and 

maintenance and the revolving and management funds of the 

Department of Defense for fiscal year 2018; 

(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each military 

active duty component of the Armed Forces for fiscal year 

2018; 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected 

Reserve of each of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

for fiscal year 2018; 

(4) impose certain reporting requirements; 

(5) impose certain limitations with regard to specific procurement and research, development, test and evaluation actions 

and manpower strengths; provide certain additional legislative 

authority, and make certain changes to existing law; 

(6) authorize appropriations for military construction programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2018; and 

(7) authorize appropriations for national security programs 

of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2018. 

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW 

One of Congress’ most important constitutional responsibilities is 

providing for the common defense. To fulfill this fundamental duty, 

Congress has for the last 55 consecutive years passed the National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes funding and 

provides authorities for the U.S. military. 

The Senate Armed Services Committee takes seriously its obligation to our men and women in uniform and their families, as well 

as the civilians and contractors who support our Armed Forces. 

Their service represents the best of our country, and this committee and the Congress honor their sacrifice. 

The committee markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 contributes to a total of $640 billion for 

national defense, which exceeds the President’s budget request and 

the spending cap of the Budget Control Act (BCA). The committee 

believes this authorization is necessary to help the U.S. military restore readiness, rebuild capacity, and modernize the force for future challenges. The committee markup also builds on the important work of previous legislation to ensure our military is prepared 

to fulfill the missions of today and rise to the challenges of tomorrow. 

The committee markup: • Authorizes critical funding for the Department of Defense 

(DOD) to rebuild a ready and capable force by increasing maritime capacity, procuring combat aircraft and munitions, and 

reducing the shortfall in end strength. • Ensures the long-term viability of the All-Volunteer Force 

by improving the quality of life of the men and women of the 

total force (Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserves), their 

families, and DOD civilian personnel through fair pay and policies as well as continued reform of the military health system. 

• Continues a comprehensive overhaul of the acquisition system to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the 

equipment they need to succeed and drives innovation by allocating funds for advanced technology development and nextgeneration capabilities to ensure America’s military dominance. • Advances our ability to protect our allies, partners, and 

friends. 

• Enhances the capability of the U.S. Armed Forces and the 

security forces of allied and partner nations to defeat ISIS, al 

Qaeda, and other violent extremist organizations. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

• Improves the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to counter 

threats in the information domain, including space, cyber, and 

electronic warfare. • Reduces the threats from nuclear weapons and materials 

by strengthening nonproliferation programs, modernizing our 

nuclear deterrent, and ensuring the safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear stockpile, delivery systems, and infrastructure. • Terminates troubled or redundant programs and activities, 

identifies efficiencies, and reduces unnecessary defense expenditures to make the best use of taxpayer dollars. • Promotes aggressive and thorough oversight of the Department’s programs and activities to ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations and proper stewardship of taxpayer 

dollars. 

SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION 

The administration’s budget request for national defense discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee 

on Armed Services for fiscal year 2018 was $659.8 billion. Of this 

amount, $574.7 billion was requested for base Department of Defense (DOD) programs, $20.5 billion was requested for national security programs in the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), and $64.6 billion 

was requested for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). 

The committee recommends an overall discretionary authorization of $692.1 billion in fiscal year 2018, including $610.9 billion for 

base DOD programs, $21.0 billion for national security programs in 

the DOE and the DNFSB, and $60.2 billion for OCO. 

The two tables preceding the detailed program adjustments in 

Division D of this bill summarize the direct discretionary authorizations in the committee recommendation and the equivalent 

budget authority levels for fiscal year 2018 defense programs. The 

first table summarizes the committee’s recommended discretionary 

authorizations by appropriation account for fiscal year 2018 and 

compares these amounts to the request. 

The second table summarizes the total budget authority implication for national defense by including national defense funding for 

items that are not in the jurisdiction of the defense committees or 

are already authorized. 

BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT (SEC. 4) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the budgetary effects of this Act be determined in accordance with 

the procedures established in the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 

2010 (title I of Public Law 111–139). 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(5) 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for procurement activities at the levels identified in 

section 4101 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Army Programs 

Transfer of excess High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles to foreign countries (sec. 111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) designated for transfer as Excess Defense Articles (EDA) must be 

modernized and refurbished to like-new conditions by U.S. workers 

prior to transfer, so as not to create conditions that distort current 

and future costs to the U.S. Government. 

The committee is aware of the existing requirement of section 

2321j(b)(1)(E) of title 22, United States Code, that the transfer of 

EDAs to U.S. allies and partner nations will not harm the U.S. industrial base. The committee is concerned that the current state of 

practice for proposed EDA transfers of HMMWVs does not comply 

with the title 22, United States Code, requirement and threatens 

the long-term viability and affordability of the Army fleet of 

wheeled vehicles, specifically Light Tactical Wheeled Vehicles. 

According to the Army’s ‘‘Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Strategy,’’ the 

HMMWV will remain the Army’s primary light tactical wheeled vehicle for the foreseeable future. Even after the planned procurement of the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, the HMMWV is projected 

to comprise nearly two-thirds of the light tactical wheeled vehicle 

fleet until at least 2050. To carry out planned sustainment and 

modernization of the HMMWV fleet over this period, the Army relies upon the original equipment manufacturer and commercial 

supply chain and Army Organic Industrial Base (AOIB) facilities, 

including Red River Army Depot, Texas and Rock Island Arsenal, 

Illinois. 

U.S. Government procurement accounts for less than one-quarter 

of current HMMWV production. As such, per unit costs to the 

Army for the repair, refurbishment, modernization, and new production of HMMWVs depend directly upon vehicle sales to foreign 

entities. These foreign sales drive demand signals for the commercial supply chain across 43 states, help meet core workload requireVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

ments for the AOIB, and are essential for the Army to retain a capable and affordable HMMWV fleet in the future. 

The committee strongly supports the transfer of excess 

HMMWVs to meet the operational needs of U.S. allies and partners 

and recognizes the potential for circumstances requiring exceptional urgency. Accordingly, the provision would include authority 

for the Secretary of Defense to waive the requirements of this section if doing so is in the national security interests of the United 

States, provided that such a waiver is received at least 30 days in 

advance of any planned transfer and complies with the requirements of section 060403 of volume 3, chapter 6, of the Department 

of Defense Financial Management Regulation. 

Limitation on availability of funds for Army Air-Land Mobile Tactical Communications and Data Network, including Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN– 

T) (sec. 112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to report to Congress how the Army intends 

to implement the recommendations of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) for the Army’s Air-Land Mobile Tactical Communications and Data Network to include the 

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN–T) program. In accordance with section 237 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) CAPE conducted a 

comprehensive assessment of WIN–T to determine the technological feasibility, achievability, suitability, and survivability of a 

tactical communications and data network. This report is to be submitted with the budget request for Fiscal Year 2019. The provision 

would also prohibit the Secretary of the Army from obligating any 

funds available in Other Procurement, Army for the WIN–T, Increment 2 (Inc 2) program subject to the submission of the Army’s report. 

The committee is aware that the Army’s WIN–T is intended to 

be the foundation to the Army’s tactical network modernization 

strategy and a critical component of the suite of tactical mission 

command systems being fielded now. The Army assesses this program as essential to warfighter communications capabilities and 

will continue to deliver incremental increases in command and control superiority over time. WIN–T is to introduce a mobile, selfforming/self-healing network using satellite and terrestrial on-themove capabilities and high-bandwidth radio systems to keep mobile 

forces connected, communicating, and synchronized. It has had two 

increments. WIN–T Increment 1 (Inc 1) provides networking ‘‘at 

the halt.’’ WIN–T Inc 2 is intended to provide the Army with onthe-move networking capability. The WIN–T Inc 2 network retains 

capabilities delivered by WIN–T Inc 1. WIN–T Inc 2 employs satellite communications while on-the-move to extend the network in 

maneuver brigade down to the company level for the first time. The 

program is in full rate production. Total WIN–T procurement costs 

to date are over $5.0 billion. The current program is intended to 

spend an additional $9.0 billion. The total procurement cost is estimated to be over $14.0 billion. However, total sunk and projected 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

costs for the entire network, as estimated by the CAPE study, are 

in excess of $66.0 billion. 

The committee has observed many problems with the network in 

general and WIN–T in particular. This is especially so in regard to 

Inc 2. Many problems have occurred in integrating the ‘‘upper tactical network’’ with the ‘‘lower tactical network.’’ These problems 

disrupt connectivity between brigade combat teams and battalions 

with companies. Integrating WIN–T hardware with armored vehicles has yet to be conclusively determined. It is unclear if the Army 

has fully defined the requirements for tactical close combat forces 

at company level. The committee understands that the Army is reassessing its total requirement and determining a new course of action in light of the above noted problems. 

The committee is concerned about the continued suitability, effectiveness, security, and survivability of Army Air-Land Mobile Tactical Communications and Data Network and WIN–T given demonstrated threat capabilities of peer adversaries in electronic warfare attack, electronic reconnaissance, and massed fire strikes. 

The committee continues to encourage the Army to repair identified problems and to more carefully redefine its requirements for 

the network and WIN–T program. The committee further encourages the Army to leverage its new acquisition authorities to seek 

non-developmental technologies to repair and improve the network. 

This effort is key given investments to date. 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs 

Multiyear procurement authority for Virginia class submarine program (sec. 121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to procure up to 13 Virginia-class submarines under one or more multiyear contracts subject to section 

2306b of title 10, United States Code. The Secretary would also be 

authorized to enter into one or more contracts for advance procurement associated with such vessels and equipment beginning in fiscal year 2018. These authorities would be subject to the availability 

of appropriations or funds. 

The committee notes this would be the fourth multiyear contract 

for the Virginia-class program. The Navy estimates that the previous three multiyear procurement contracts (fiscal years 2003– 

2008, 2009–2013, and 2014–2018) achieved savings of greater than 

10 percent, as compared to annual procurements. For the fourth 

contract for fiscal years 2019–2023, the Navy is estimating savings 

of 14 percent, or in excess of $5.0 billion, for the multiyear procurement of 10 ships as compared to annual procurement contracts. 

The committee believes that should additional funds become 

available for Virginia-class submarines, above what is planned in 

the fiscal year 2018 future years defense program, the Navy should 

obtain the benefits and savings of this authority for up to 13 submarines. 

Arleigh Burke class destroyers (sec. 122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to procure up to 15 Arleigh Burke-class 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

Flight III guided missile destroyers under one or more multiyear 

contracts subject to section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, 

beginning no earlier than the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2018. 

This authority would be subject to the availability of appropriations 

or funds. The committee also recommends modifying the authority 

to procure an additional Arleigh Burke-class destroyer provided in 

section 125(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). 

The committee notes this would be the fourth multiyear contract 

for the Arleigh Burke-class program. The Navy estimates that each 

of the previous three multiyear procurement contracts (fiscal years 

1998–2001, 2002–2005, and 2013–2017) achieved savings of greater 

than $1.0 billion, as compared to annual procurements. For the 

fourth contract for fiscal years 2018–2022, the Navy is estimating 

savings of 9.3 percent, or in excess of $1.8 billion, for the multiyear 

procurement of 10 ships as compared to annual procurement contracts. 

The committee believes that should additional funds become 

available for Arleigh Burke-class Flight III guided missile destroyers, above what is planned in the fiscal year 2018 future years defense program, the Navy should obtain the benefits and savings of 

this authority for up to 15 ships. 

In authorizing procurement of an additional Arleigh Burke-class 

destroyer in section 125(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), the committee’s intent was and continues to be use of a fixed-price contract with a 

fair and reasonable cost as determined by the Navy service acquisition executive, which is consistent with the contracts for Arleigh 

Burke-class destroyers awarded in fiscal years 2011–2017 and 

planned for fiscal year 2018. 

Multiyear procurement authority for V–22 joint aircraft program (sec. 123) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Department of Defense authority to enter into multiyear procurement for the V–22 aircraft for up to five years. 

Design and construction of amphibious ship replacement 

designated LX(R) or amphibious transport dock designated LPD–30 (sec. 124) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to enter into and incrementally fund a contract for design and construction of the amphibious ship replacement designated LX(R) or the amphibious transport dock designated LPD–30. 

The committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief 

of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps 

support the LX(R) as a derivative of the San Antonio-class (LPD– 

17) hull form. The committee further notes the latest ‘‘Navy Force 

Structure Assessment,’’ which was published in December 2016, increased the requirement for amphibious ships from 34 to 38. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

Modification of cost limitation baseline for CVN–78 class aircraft carrier program (sec. 125) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a $12.0 billion cost limitation for procurement of aircraft carriers 

after CVN–79. 

The committee notes the contract award and delivery dates of 

CVN–80 are approximately 3 years after those of CVN–79 and the 

ship authorizations are 5 years apart. The committee also notes the 

Secretary of the Navy certified to the congressional defense committees on April 22, 2016, that CVN–80 will repeat the design of 

CVN–79. 

The committee understands the budget request’s CVN–80 cost 

estimate assumed between 2.0 and 2.5 percent in annual economic 

inflation from CVN–79 to CVN–80. The committee also understands the Navy’s aircraft carrier program office is estimating a 9 

percent reduction in production man hours from CVN–79 to CVN– 

80. 

The committee views the increase of $1.6 billion in the procure- ment cost from CVN–79 ($11.4 billion) to CVN–80 ($13.0 billion) as 

unjustified. The committee believes $12.0 billion is an achievable 

procurement end cost for CVN–80, based on 5 years between ship 

authorizations, inflation, man hour reductions, and other factors. 

The committee further believes the Navy should aggressively 

challenge economic inflation assumptions to drive down costs in 

each cost category. The committee notes the plans and ordnance 

cost elements for CVN–80 are less than CVN–79 after accounting 

for inflation. In contrast, the other cost, basic construction, change 

orders, and propulsion equipment cost elements are estimated to 

increase 14.4 percent, 19.8 percent, 27.1 percent, and 30.8 percent 

from CVN–79 to CVN–80, respectively. 

The committee also believes the cost growth between CVN–79 

and CVN–80, which the Navy largely attributes to inflation, should 

be at least partially offset by savings through ‘‘design for affordability’’ initiatives, Ford-class learning curve, CVN–80 repeating 

the design of CVN–79, man hour reductions, and increased competition. 

Extension of limitation on use of sole-source shipbuilding 

contracts for certain vessels (sec. 126) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend to include fiscal year 2018 the prohibition on funds from being used to 

enter into, or prepare to enter into, sole source contracts for one or 

more Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSV) or Expeditionary Fast 

Transports (EPF), unless the Secretary of the Navy submits to the 

congressional defense committees a certification and a report. 

The committee notes that since 2011 the Navy requirement for 

EPFs has been 10 ships, which was most recently validated in December 2016. In 2013, this requirement was met with the procurement of the tenth EPF, and the Navy planned to shut down the 

production line. 

Without an authorization or request in the President’s budget request, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015 (Public Law 113–235) included procurement of an eleventh EPF at a cost of $200.0 million. Again, without an authorizaVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

tion or request in the President’s budget, a twelfth EPF was added 

at a cost of $225.0 million into the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–113). Both of 

these EPFs were awarded to a single shipbuilder, with no competition, using a sole source contract. 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs 

Inventory requirement for Air Force fighter aircraft (sec. 

131) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 8062 of title 10, United States Code, by adding a new subsection requiring the Secretary of the Air Force to maintain a minimum total active inventory of 1,970 fighter aircraft, within which 

the Secretary would also have to maintain a minimum of 1,145 

fighter aircraft as primary mission aircraft inventory (combatcoded). 

The provision would also provide additional limitations on fighter 

retirements by requiring the Secretary of the Air Force to certify 

to the congressional defense committees that: 

(1) The retirement of such fighter aircraft will not increase 

the operational risk of meeting the National Defense Strategy; 

and 

(2) The retirement of such aircraft will not reduce the total 

fighter force structure below 1,970 fighter aircraft or primary 

mission aircraft inventory below 1,145 and would require a report setting forth the following: 

(a) The rationale for the retirement of existing fighter 

aircraft and an operational analysis of replacement fighter 

aircraft that demonstrates performance of the designated 

mission at an equal or greater level of effectiveness as the 

retiring aircraft; 

(b) An assessment of the implications for the Air Force, 

the Air National Guard, and the Air Force Reserve of the 

force mix ratio of fighter aircraft; and 

(c) Such other matters relating to the retirement of 

fighter aircraft as the Secretary considers appropriate. 

Lastly, the provision would also require a notification at least 90 

days prior to the date on which a fighter aircraft is retired that includes the following: 

(1) A list of each fighter aircraft proposed for retirement, including for each such aircraft: 

(a) The mission design series type; 

(b) The variant; and 

(c) The assigned unit and military installation where 

such aircraft is based, and how such unit and installation 

is affected. 

(2) For each military installation and unit affected by the 

proposed retirement, changes, if any, to the designed operational capability (DOC) statement of the unit as a result of a 

proposed retirement. 

(3) Any anticipated changes in manpower authorizations as 

a result of a proposed retirement listed under (2) above. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

The provision would also provide for exceptions to the reporting 

requirements for individual fighter aircraft if the Secretary determines, on a case-by-case basis, they are nonoperational because of 

mishaps, other damage, or being uneconomical to repair. 

The committee understands the Air Force previously determined 

through extensive analysis that a force structure of 1,200 primary 

mission aircraft and 2,000 total aircraft is required to execute the 

National Defense Strategy with increased operational risk. On 

March 29, 2017, in response to a question on the Air Force’s actual 

total fighter aircraft requirement, Lieutenant General Jerry Harris, 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans, Programs, and Requirements, testified, ‘‘. . . we think the 1,900 number is a bare minimum at the floor. We think it’s probably closer to 2,100, a little 

above that for our fighter aircraft.’’ At the same hearing, in response to a question on retiring the F–15C fleet, General Harris 

testified, ‘‘It is something that we’re looking at as we continue to 

bring in more fifth-gen capability, what assets do we push out at 

the bottom of that chain.’’ 

The Air Force currently fields 55 fighter squadrons in fiscal year 

2017 and as of May 1, 2017, possesses 1,970 total fighter aircraft 

inventory and 1,145 primary mission aircraft inventory, otherwise 

known as ‘‘combat-coded’’ fighter aircraft. The committee is concerned that retiring entire fleets such as the F–15C and the A–10C, 

without acquiring sufficient replacement aircraft, will drive the 

fighter aircraft inventory further below the level the Air Force 

states is required. 

The committee believes further reductions in fighter force capacity below the levels that would be required by this provision would: 

(1) pose excessive risk to the Air Force’s ability to execute the National Defense Strategy; (2) cause remaining fighter squadrons to 

deploy more frequently; and (3) drive readiness rates lower across 

the combat air forces. In light of ongoing operations in Iraq and 

Syria against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and in Afghanistan, and the increasing military capabilities of China, Russia, 

North Korea, and Iran, such reductions would be ill-advised. 

Comptroller General review of total force integration initiatives for reserve component rescue squadrons (Sec. 132) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Comptroller General of the United States to review the Air Force’s 

plan for fielding HH–60 helicopter replacement programs, and provide a briefing on such review, no later than March 1, 2018, to the 

congressional defense committees. 

Subtitle E—Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters 

F–35 economic order quantity contracting authority (sec. 

141) 

The committee recommends a provision that would grant the Department of Defense authority to enter into economic order quantity contracts for the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter. 

The committee remains highly supportive of the F–35 Joint 

Strike Fighter program and of efforts to procure increasing numbers of aircraft at the lowest possible price. However, the program 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

is still in its System Design and Demonstration (SDD) phase and 

at least two years until it reaches Milestone C, typically the point 

at which the full rate production decision is made. 

The committee recognizes economic order quantity contracts can 

produce cost savings. However, the committee believes the Department should provide analysis similar to what is required by a 

multiyear procurement authority, particularly considering the significant level of funding expected to be expended under this authority. 

Authority for Explosive Ordnance Disposal units to acquire 

new or emerging technologies and capabilities (sec. 142) 

The committee recommends a provision that would permit the 

Secretary of Defense to provide Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

(EOD) units with the authority to acquire new or emerging EOD 

technologies and capabilities not listed in the Table of Allowance 

or Table of Equipment. 

Budget Items 

ARMY 

AH–64 Apache Block IIIA Remanufacture 

The budget request included $935.9 million in line number 6 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for AH–64 Apache Block IIIA 

Remanufacture. The committee recommends an increase $39.0 million in AH–64 Apache Block IIIA Remanufacture. This is on the 

Army unfunded priority list. 

AH–64 Apache Block IIIB New Build 

The budget request included $446.0 million in line number 8 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for AH–64 Apache Block IIIB 

New Build. The committee recommends an increase of $273.7 million in AH–64 Apache Block IIIB New Build. This is on the Army 

unfunded priority list. 

Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) 

The budget request included $166.6 million in line number 33 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for Common Missile Warning 

System (CMWS). The committee recommends an increase $25.0 

million in APA for CMWS. This is on the Army unfunded priority 

list. 

Common Infrared Countermeasure (CIRCM) 

The budget request included $49.8 million in line number 34 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA), for Common Infrared Countermeasure (CIRCM). The committee recommends an increase $25.0 

million in APA for CIRCM. This is on the Army unfunded priority 

list. 

Indirect Fire Protection Capability 

The budget request included $57.7 million in line number 3 of 

Missile Procurement, Army, for Indirect Fire Protection Capability 

Inc 2–1. The committee notes that there is prior year funds availVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

able that are in excess of program needs. The committee recommends a decrease of $19.0 million. 

Joint Air-to-Ground Missile 

The budget request included $178.4 million in line number 6 of 

Missile Procurement, Army, for Joint Air-to-Ground Msls (JAGM). 

The committee notes that there are available funds due to a delay 

in production decision. The committee recommends a decrease of 

$45.0 million. 

Bradley program 

The budget request included $200.0 million in line number 1 of 

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, (WTCV) 

Army, for Bradley program. The committee notes an Army unfunded requirement. The committee recommends an increase of 

$111.0 million in line item number G80718, specifically for the recapitalization of 1 infantry Battalion Set of M2A4 Bradley Fighting 

Vehicles. 

Abrams Upgrade Program 

The budget request included $275.0 million in line 15 of Procurement of Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), for 

the Abrams Upgrade Program. The committee recommends an increase of $561.0 million in the Abrams Upgrade Program. This recapitalization of 29 Abrams tanks into M1A2SEPv3, Trophy Active 

Protection Systems, and production base support is on the Army 

unfunded priority list. 

Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System 

The budget request included $6.5 million in line item 19 of Procurement of Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV), 

for Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System. The 

committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for Multi-Role 

Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System. This is on the Army 

unfunded priority list. 

High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) 

The budget request included $53.0 million in line number 3 of 

Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for High Mobility Multi-purpose 

Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV). The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in OPA for HMMWV. This is on the Army 

unfunded priority list. 

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical 

The budget request included $420.5 million in line number 19 of 

Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN–T). The committee notes an early to need requirement in the budget for fiscal year 2018. The committee is also 

aware that the WIN–T program is significantly challenged by dated 

requirements, vulnerabilities to electronic warfare, and cyber attacks and reliability issues. The committee recommends a decrease 

of $420.5 million in OPA for WIN–T. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

Distributed Common Ground System-Army (Military Intelligence Program) 

The budget request included $314.3 million in line item 68 of 

Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Distributed Common Ground 

System-Army (DCGS–A). The committee notes the program has 

changing tactical requirements for fiscal year 2018. The committee 

recommends a decrease of $150.0 million in OPA for DCGS–A. 

Night Vision Test Equipment 

The budget request included $166.5 million in Other Procurement, Army (OPA), line number 84, for night vision devices. 

The committee urges all services to consider the use of next generation digital night vision test sets with a high-resolution video 

camera to support mission critical night vision devices. The committee understands that the United States Air Force readily adopted the new digital test sets while continuing to assess the added 

benefits of the integrated high-resolution camera solution. When 

combined together, the test set and camera greatly improve test accuracy while eliminating the inherent subjectivity of the legacy test 

systems. The committee further understands that U.S. Special Operations Command is the first military organization to field the integrated high-resolution camera into the digital test set. The committee encourages the services to procure next generation digital 

night vision test devices with a high-resolution camera. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million 

(in conjunction with other budget increases elsewhere in this Act) 

in OPA, line number 84, for a total of $231.5 million for the procurement of 50 new night vision testing devices. 

Data Processing equipment 

The budget request included $92.0 million in line number 108 of 

Other Procurement Army, (OPA), for automated data processing 

equipment. The committee notes that the Army is moving towards 

adoption of more commercial information technology (IT) solutions, 

including commercial cloud and networking capabilities, and consolidating more IT purchases with other DOD elements and Services. The committee directs the Army to accelerate these efforts, 

and therefore recommends a reduction of $15.0 million for this effort. 

Warfighter Information Network Tactical (WIN–T) Increment 2 Spares 

The budget request included $38.3 million in line number 184 of 

Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Warfighter Information Network Tactical (WIN–T) Increment 2 Spares. The committee notes 

an early to need requirement in the budget for fiscal year 2018. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $23.9 million in line item 

number BS9741 of OPA, for WIN–T Increment 2 Spares. 

Army Unfunded Requirements List 

The budget request included $18.4 billion for Procurement for the 

Army. 

The committee notes that the Army submitted an extensive Unfunded Requirements List totaling $12.7 billion. The committee beVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

lieves that since the passage of the Budget Control Act in 2011, 

budget requests have been guided by artificial constraints rather 

than the realities of the global strategic environment. This reality 

has continued for the fiscal year 2018 budget request, which too relies on an arbitrary number determined six years ago in the Budget Control Act. Such constraints on the budget, along with a sustained high operational tempo, have led to a significant degradation in our military readiness in the near term, and the threat that 

we will fall behind our adversaries in the long-term. For the last 

several years military leaders have highlighted these problems in 

great detail. 

In order to address the degraded state of our military and to stop 

the erosion of U.S. military advantage, the committee believes that 

the budget should be based on requirements, rather than arbitrary 

budget caps. The committee recommends an increase of $6.4 billion 

to Procurement for the Army for items identified in the Army’s Unfunded Requirements List. Some increases include missiles, helicopters, vehicles and equipment to support growth in the Army. 

Greater details of each increase can be found in the tables in Division D. 

NAVY 

V–22 

The budget request included $677.4 million in line number 10 of 

Aviation Procurement, Navy (APN) for V–22 (Medium Lift). 

The committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in line 

number 10 of APN. 

Carrier replacement program 

The budget request included $4.4 billion in line item 2 of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for the carrier replacement 

program. 

The committee understands the Comptroller General has identified $330.3 million in excess CVN–80 inflation costs. The committee also notes Navy officials have indicated an amended fiscal 

year 2018 budget request will be submitted to reduce the CVN–80 

procurement end cost by $325.0 million. The committee believes 

further cost reductions are achievable through ‘‘design for affordability’’ initiatives, Ford-class learning curve, man hour reductions, 

and increased competition. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $300.0 million for this program. 

Virginia-class submarine advance procurement 

The budget request included $1.9 billion in line item 5 of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Virginia-class submarine 

advance procurement. 

The committee notes that $750.0 million in additional economic 

order quantity funding for the Block V Virginia-class submarines 

that begin procurement in fiscal year 2019 would enable greater 

cost savings across the program. 

The committee recommends an additional $450.0 million for the 

Secretary of the Navy to use for (1) procurement of a third VirVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

ginia-class submarine in fiscal year 2020; or (2) to expand second 

and third tier contractors in the submarine industrial base to support planned increased production requirements, which may include economic order quantity procurement for existing programs. 

If the Secretary pursues option (2), the Secretary shall notify the 

congressional defense committees within 30 days of obligating 

funds for such purpose of the: obligation date, contractor name or 

names, location, description of the shortfall to be addressed, actions 

to be undertaken, desired end state, usable end items to be procured, period of performance, dollar amount, projected associated 

savings including business case analysis if applicable, contract 

name, and contract number. 

The committee believes that utilizing economic order quantity 

procurement, procuring an additional submarine, and expanding 

the capabilities of the supplier base should lead to greater cost savings and improved efficiency as production increases to meet the 

Columbia-class schedule and higher requirement for attack submarines in the Navy’s latest Force Structure Assessment. 

The committee also notes Virginia-class submarines will benefit 

from savings associated with missile tube continuous production 

and economic order quantity authorities. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $27.0 million due to the associated savings. Therefore, the committee recommends a net increase of $1.2 billion. 

DDG–1000 

The budget request included $224.0 million in line item 8 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for the DDG–1000 program. Following a Nunn-McCurdy cost breach in 2010, the committee understands the Navy was directed to fund the DDG–1000 

program to the higher cost estimate for fiscal years 2011 through 

2015 provided by the Director of the Office of Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation, and to the Navy’s cost estimate for fiscal year 

2016 and beyond. 

While recognizing this cost estimating adjustment increased procurement costs, the committee is concerned by continued significant cost growth in this program across the fiscal year 2016 to 

2020 period. In the fiscal year 2016, 2017, and 2018 budget requests, the Navy estimated $572.9 million, $914.3 million, and $1.1 

billion, respectively, remaining in procurement costs across the 

three-ship program. The committee notes the program unit cost has 

risen above $6.4 billion and urges the Secretary of the Navy to take 

further measures to regain cost control. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million 

for this program. 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers 

The budget request included $3.5 billion in line item 9 of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (DDG–51). 

The committee notes that the fiscal year 2016 budget request included funding for two Flight IIA DDG–51 ships and a Flight III 

engineering change proposal (ECP) to be applied to one of these 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

two ships. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92) and Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–113) supported the 

budget request. 

The committee further notes that the Navy funded the two requested fiscal year 2016 Flight IIA DDG–51 ships on March 29, 

2016. However, the committee is unaware of a plan to award the 

fiscal year 2016 Flight III ECP. 

The committee therefore recommends a decrease of $225.0 million for this program, because the fiscal year 2016 Flight III ECP 

funds can be applied to fiscal year 2018 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer requirements. 

The committee also recommends an increase of $1.8 billion for 

one additional Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a net increase of $1.6 

billion. 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyer advance procurement 

The budget request included $90.3 million in line item 10 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Arleigh Burke-class 

destroyer advance procurement. 

The committee believes that utilizing economic order quantity 

procurement across the proposed fiscal year 2018 to 2022 multiyear 

procurement contract should lead to greater cost savings and improved efficiency. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $300.0 million. 

Littoral Combat Ship 

The budget request included $636.1 million in line item 11 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for procurement of one 

Littoral Combat Ship. 

The committee notes unjustified unit cost growth in the other 

cost ($37.0 million) and other electronics ($3.0 million) categories. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $40.0 million 

for this program. 

Amphibious ship replacement LX(R) or amphibious transport dock designated LPD–30 

The budget request included no funding in line items 12 or 13 

for procurement or advance procurement associated with the amphibious ship replacement LX(R) or amphibious transport dock designated LPD–30. 

The committee notes that the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief 

of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps 

support the LX(R) as a derivative of the San Antonio-class (LPD– 

17) hull form. The committee further notes the latest Navy Force 

Structure Assessment, which was published in December 2016, increased the requirement for amphibious ships from 34 to 38. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 billion 

for construction of either an amphibious ship replacement LX(R) or 

the amphibious transport dock designated LPD–30. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

Outfitting 

The budget request included $548.7 million in line item 24 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for outfitting. 

Based on planned delivery dates, the committee notes post-delivery funding is early to need for SSN–791, LCS–15, LCS–17, LCS– 

19, LCS–20, LHA–7, and EPF–11. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $38.2 million. 

Ship to Shore Connector 

The budget request included $212.6 million in line item 25 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for procurement of 3 

Ship to Shore Connectors. 

The committee notes unjustified unit cost growth in this program. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million. 

Expeditionary Sea Base 

The budget request included no funding in line item 14 of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Expeditionary Sea Bases. The committee recommends an increase of $661.0 million for one 

additional Expeditionary Sea Base. 

Cable ship 

The budget request included no funding in line item 32 of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for a cable ship. The committee recommends an increase of $250.0 million for procurement of one cable ship and directs the Secretary of the Navy 

to utilize an existing United States or foreign design, with modifications he deems necessary, to maximize affordability and expedite delivery. 

Hybrid Electric Drive 

The budget request included $6.3 million in line item 4 of Other 

Procurement, Navy (OPN), for Hybrid Electric Drive. 

The committee had insufficient budget justification to support 

this request. Specifically, the P–3a budget exhibit was omitted, 

which details ship modifications. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $6.3 million 

for this program. 

LCS support equipment 

The budget request included $48.0 million in line item 17 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) 

support equipment. 

The committee notes this request includes procurement of two 

MT–30 engines, one Freedom variant main propulsion diesel engine 

(MPDE), and one Independence variant MPDE to serve as battle 

spares. 

The committee further notes the Navy has previously procured 

three MT–30s, two Freedom variant MPDEs, and two Independence 

variant MPDEs in this line item. The committee also notes the P– 

5a and P–21 budget exhibits were omitted, which detail procureVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

ment history and production schedules, and requests these exhibits 

be restored in the fiscal year 2019 budget request. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $42.6 million 

for this program due to procurement early to need. 

LCS mine countermeasures mission modules 

The budget request included $55.9 million in line item 37 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) 

mine countermeasures (MCM) mission modules. 

The committee notes this request included procurement of two 

Airborne Mine Neutralization Systems (AMNS). The committee 

further notes that the initial operational capability of the MCM 

mission module is planned for fiscal year 2021 and believes at least 

one AMNS is early to need. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.1 million 

for this program. 

Navy Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) 

The budget request included $4.2 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy (OPN), BLI 8106 for Navy Enterprise Resource Planning 

(ERP) in Command Support Equipment. The committee is concerned about duplication among the military services in enterprise 

resource systems. The committee recommends a decrease of $4.2 

million in BLI 8106. 

Navy eProcurement System (Navy ePS) 

The budget request included $3.7 million in Other Procurement, 

Navy (OPN), BLI 8106 for the Navy eProcurement System in Command Support Equipment. The committee is concerned about duplication among the military services in contract writing systems. The 

committee recommends a decrease of $3.7 million in BLI 8106. 

Classified project 

The budget request included $23.7 million in line item 162 of 

Other Procurement, Navy (OPN), for classified programs. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 billion for project 

0428. 

Navy Unfunded Requirements List 

The budget request included $49.5 billion for Procurement for the 

Department of the Navy. 

The committee notes that the Navy and the Marine Corps submitted extensive Unfunded Requirements Lists totaling $8.5 billion. The committee believes that since the passage of the Budget 

Control Act in 2011, budget requests have been guided by artificial 

constraints rather than the realities of the global strategic environment. This reality has continued for the fiscal year 2018 budget request, which too relies on an arbitrary number determined six 

years ago in the Budget Control Act. Such constraints on the budget, along with a sustained high operational tempo, have led to a 

significant degradation in our military readiness in the near term, 

and the threat that we will fall behind our adversaries in the longterm. For the last several years military leaders have highlighted 

these problems in great detail. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

In order to address the degraded state of our military and to stop 

the erosion of U.S. military advantage, the committee believes that 

the budget should be based on requirements, rather than arbitrary 

budget caps. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 billion 

to Procurement for the Department of the Navy for items identified 

in the Navy and the Marine Corps’ Unfunded Requirements Lists. 

Some increases include ten F/A–18 Super Hornets, four F–35Bs 

and six F–35Cs, and munitions. Greater details of each increase 

can be found in the tables in Division D. 

AIR FORCE 

Acquisition of Air Force light attack/observation aircraft 

fleet 

The budget request included no funds in Aircraft Procurement, 

Air Force (APAF) for the acquisition of a fleet of light attack/observation aircraft. 

The committee believes while sustaining the A–10C fleet for close 

air support, the Air Force should procure a fleet of 300 low-cost, 

light-attack/observation aircraft that would require minimal work 

to develop. These aircraft could conduct counter-terrorism operations, perform close air support and other missions in permissive 

environments, and help season fighter pilots to mitigate the Air 

Force’s growing and critical fighter pilot shortfall. The aircraft 

could also provide an affordable path to a light attack capability for 

allies, partners, and friends with limited financial resources. The 

Air Force could procure the first 200 of these aircraft by fiscal year 

2022. 

The committee is concerned that continued reliance on the A–10, 

B–1, B–52, F–16, and F–15E fleets to conduct armed reconnaissance and close air support (CAS) missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, 

Syria, and other regions significantly reduces airframe lifespans 

due to utilization rates that are much higher than planned and 

programmed. Additionally, these operations will continue to reduce 

aircrew training focused on their primary designated operational 

capability tasked missions in high-end contested and degraded operations against near-peer potential adversaries. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.2 billion 

in APAF, line number to be determined, for a total of $1.2 billion, 

for acquisition of a light attack/observation aircraft fleet. This effort 

will be informed by the Air Force’s Light Attack Capabilities Experimentation Campaign conducted in fiscal year 2017 to evaluate 

capabilities for armed reconnaissance, strike control and reconnaissance, combat search and rescue, CAS, and other combat missions. 

B–1B Squadrons 

The budget request included $155.6 million in line number 19 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF). 

The committee notes that $34.0 million of that funding was included for F–101 Engine Service Life Extension Program. The committee notes that $34.0 million was appropriated in fiscal year 

2017 for the same purposes and the fiscal year 2018 request is thus 

excess to need. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $34.0 million 

in line number 19 of APAF. 

C–130 propulsion upgrades 

The budget request included $66.3 million in line number 47 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF). 

The committee recommends an increase of $26.8 million in line 

number 47 of APAF. 

Budget request realignment 

The Air Force requested that the committee make several realignments in their budget to correct various errors in their submission of the Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF). The table 

below reflects these adjustments: 

CHANGES TO CORRECT SUBMISSION ERRORS 

[in millions] 

Item Account Line Item Amount Quantity 

C–130J ................................................................................... APAF 88 ¥$102.1 ¥3 

C–130J ................................................................................... APAF 4 +$102.1 +3 

C–130J ................................................................................... APAF 37 ¥$10.7 

C–130J Mods .......................................................................... APAF 48 +$10.7 

Compass Call Mods ............................................................... APAF 51 ¥$108.173 

Compass Call ......................................................................... APAF 17A +$108.173 

Air Force Unfunded Requirements List 

The budget request included $24.7 billion for Procurement for the 

Air Force. 

The committee notes that the Air Force submitted an extensive 

Unfunded Requirements List totaling $10.7 billion. The committee 

believes that since the passage of the Budget Control Act in 2011, 

budget requests have been guided by artificial constraints rather 

than the realities of the global strategic environment. This reality 

has continued for the fiscal year 2018 budget request, which too relies on an arbitrary number determined six years ago in the Budget Control Act. Such constraints on the budget, along with a sustained high operational tempo, have led to a significant degradation in our military readiness in the near term, and the threat that 

we will fall behind our adversaries in the long-term. For the last 

several years military leaders have highlighted these problems in 

great detail. 

In order to address the degraded state of our military and to stop 

the erosion of U.S. military advantage, the committee believes that 

the budget should be based on requirements, rather than arbitrary 

budget caps. The committee recommends an increase of $4.6 billion 

to Procurement for the Air Force for items identified in the Air 

Force’s Unfunded Requirements List. Some increases include 14 F– 

35As, 2 KC–46s, and additional missiles. Greater details of each increase can be found in the tables in Division D. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

Defense Wide 

Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow Upper Tier Israeli cooperative missile defense programs 

The budget request included $42.0 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, PE 208866C, for Israeli Missile Defense Cooperative 

Programs in support of the Missile Defense Agency. The committee 

recommends an increase of $290.0 million in PE 208866C, for a 

total of $332.0 million to continue procurement of Israel’s multitiered missile defense systems. The additional funding shall be apportioned as follows: $50.0 million for the Iron Dome Defense System (LIN MD83); $120.0 million for the David’s Sling Weapon’s 

System (LIN MD 34); and $120.0 million for the Arrow Upper Tier 

(LIN MD20). Additional measures pertaining to this provision are 

contained in title 16 of this Act. 

Silent Knight Terrain Following Terrain Avoidance Radar 

The budget request included $159.0 million for Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), Rotary Wing Upgrades and Sustainment, line 

49, of which $44.1 million is for Silent Knight Terrain Following 

Terrain Avoidance Radar. 

The committee notes that during multi-ship interoperability 

flight testing, U.S. Special Operations Command identified close 

range formation radar performance issues that will require software modifications. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.5 million from PDW, Rotary Wing Upgrades and 

Sustainment, Line 49, for a total of $36.6 million, and a corresponding increase of $7.5 million to Research, Development, Test 

and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Aviation Systems (PE1160403BB), 

for a total of $7.5 million, to address suitability and effectiveness 

issues associated with multi-ship formation interoperability of the 

Silent Knight Terrain Following Terrain Avoidance Radar program. 

Degraded Visual Environment 

The budget request included $159.0 million for Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), Rotary Wing Upgrades and Sustainment, line 

49, of which $26.7 million is for the Degraded Visual Environment 

(DVE) program. 

The committee understands that collaboration between U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Department of the 

Army on the development and fielding of DVE capabilities has resulted in efficiencies. As a result, SOCOM has requested the transfer of $6.0 million from PDW, Rotary Wing Upgrades and 

Sustainment to RDT&E (PE1160403BB) Aviation Systems, Line 

251, to complete Special Operations Force-unique integration and 

qualification efforts for additional sensor technologies. Accordingly, 

the committee recommends a decrease of $6.0 million to PDW, Rotary Wing Upgrades and Sustainment, Line 49, for a total of $20.7 

million, and a corresponding increase of $6.0 million to Research, 

Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Aviation Systems 

(PE1160403BB), for a total of $6.0 million. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

Shallow Water Combat Submersible 

The budget request includes $92.6 million for Procurement, De- fense-wide (PDW), Underwater Systems, line 62, of which $38.8 

million is for the Shallow Water Combat Submersible (SWCS). 

The committee understands that as a result of an intentional late 

fiscal year 2017 award to integrate design changes found during 

development testing, the proposed SWCS buy for fiscal year 2018 

has been reduced by one vessel. As a result, U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has requested the transfer of $12.8 million from PDW, Underwater Systems, line 62, to Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Maritime Systems 

(PE1160483BB) address developmental challenges with the Dry 

Combat Submersible (DCS) program. Accordingly, the committee 

recommends a decrease of $12.8 million to PDW, Underwater Systems, line 62, for a total of $26.0 million, and a corresponding increase of $12.8 million to Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, Maritime Systems (PE1160483BB), for a total 

of $34.3 million, for DCS capability enhancements. 

Defense-Wide Unfunded Requirements List 

The budget request included $4.9 billion for Procurement for Defense-Wide. 

The committee notes that the Defense-Wide agencies submitted 

an extensive Unfunded Requirements List totaling $753.0 million. 

The committee believes that since the passage of the Budget Control Act in 2011, budget requests have been guided by artificial constraints rather than the realities of the global strategic environment. This reality has continued for the fiscal year 2018 budget request, which too relies on an arbitrary number determined six 

years ago in the Budget Control Act. Such constraints on the budget, along with a sustained high operational tempo, have led to a 

significant degradation in our military readiness in the near term, 

and the threat that we will fall behind our adversaries in the longterm. For the last several years military leaders have highlighted 

these problems in great detail. 

In order to address the degraded state of our military and to stop 

the erosion of U.S. military advantage, the committee believes that 

the budget should be based on requirements, rather than arbitrary 

budget caps. The committee recommends an increase of $347.5 million to Procurement for Defense-Wide for items identified in the 

Defense Wide Unfunded Requirements List. Increases include 24 

additional THAAD interceptors. Greater details of each increase 

can be found in the tables in Division D. 

Items of Special Interest 

Air Force Low Density/High Demand assets 

‘‘Low Density/High Demand’’ or ‘‘LD/HD’’ assets are defined as 

‘‘force elements consisting of major platforms, weapons systems, 

units, and/or personnel that possess unique mission capabilities 

and are in continual high demand to support worldwide joint military operations’’. Air Force LD/HD assets are required by Combatant Commanders around the globe during contingency operations 

as well as critical to their war plans and include both the Joint 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) and Airborne 

Early Warning and Control (AWACS). Currently, the Air Force 

does not possess enough of these aircraft to meet wartime requirements due to low numbers driving higher required mission capability rates and a high operations tempo due to the constant demand in support of contingency operations around the globe. The 

committee is concerned that any reduction in these assets before a 

follow on system is in production puts our national security at high 

risk and will immediately create gaps in capability. Therefore, the 

committee recommends that the Secretary of the Air Force ensure 

replacement assets be in production before retirement of any LD/ 

HD assets. 

Aircrew Restraint 

The Committee is aware of aircraft mishaps where helicopter 

crewmembers have experienced injuries due to the type of restraints in use. The fiscal year 2017 NDAA directed the Secretary 

of Defense, in partnership with a federally funded research and development center, to study technologies designed to prevent and 

mitigate helicopter injuries to crewmembers and to improve survivability among individuals involved in such crashes. The Committee 

is aware of tested, off-the-shelf technology (MARS—Mobile Aircrew 

Restraint System) currently in use by the U.S. Air Force and 

planned for use by the U.S. Navy, that meets the goals of the fiscal 

year 2017 NDAA and provides dramatic reductions in injury probability as compared to the existing tether and gunner’s belt solution. The U.S. Air Force has issued an Air Worthiness Release 

(AWR) for this device in HH–60 aircraft and while the Committee 

acknowledges that the Army has taken preliminary steps to publish its own AWR for fielding this technology in UH–60 aircraft, 

the two platforms are almost identical. 

The committee recommends the Army use the tests and approvals of the MARS system from the U.S. Air Force for the UH–60 aircraft and accelerate the issuance of Safe for Flight instructions. 

Amphibious assault ship acceleration 

The committee is concerned with the Navy procurement profile 

for large deck amphibious assault ships, which includes a span of 

seven years until the next large deck amphibious assault ship 

(LHA–9) is procured in 2024. 

The committee notes efficiencies could be gained by reducing this 

span and thereby enabling a steadier workforce with an increased 

learning curve, material and equipment suppliers on more reliable 

and fixed delivery contracts and a more effective continuous improvement schedule. 

Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to accelerate procurement of LHA–9 to not later than 2021. 

Apache and Black Hawk Drive Train and Transmission 

Weapon System Components Rapid Deployment 

The Committee recognizes that the Army has stated that their 

top aviation priority is the development of a turbine engine, drive 

train, and transmission, which increases power output and reduces 

fuel consumption of the engines fitted to Black Hawk and Apache 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

helicopters. Section 806 of the fiscal year 2017 National Defense 

Authorization Act provides new funding and acquisition flexibility 

to experiment with, prototype, and rapidly deploy weapon system 

components and other technologies in order to outpace rapidly 

changing technologies and threats. In selecting prototype projects 

under Section 2447c, of title 10, the Committee urges the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Acquisition Logistics and Technology 

(ALT), Army Program Executive Officer (PEO) Aviation, and relevant Section 2447b oversight boards, to consult with the domestic 

drive train and transmission industry concerning innovative drive 

train and transmission component technologies which address one 

or more of the elements in subsection (c)(1) of section 2447b as applicable to the two rotorcraft systems. 

Arctic Search and Rescue 

The committee is aware that growing international interest in 

the Arctic has led to increasing commercial and security activity in 

the High North. With this steady surge in demand, the committee 

remains concerned by the limited capabilities of the United States 

to conduct search and rescue operations throughout the Arctic region. The committee notes that the Department of Defense’s Report 

to Congress on Strategy to Protect United States National Security 

Interests in the Arctic Region, a report required by this committee 

in Section 1068 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (P.L. 114–92), identified the need for additional personnel recovery capability in this region. Specifically, the report 

calls for ‘‘forward deployed/based assets in a sustainable location 

and/or rapidly deployable air drop response/sustainment packages 

suitable to remote land, cold water, or ice pack operating environments.’’ 

The committee understands that the Alaska National Guard currently possesses two air-dropped, palletized Arctic Sustainment 

Packages (ASPs) to enable the survival of fifty individuals for three 

or more days in extreme Arctic conditions. The ASP is rapidly 

deployable over varied terrain, and allows personnel to survive and 

operate in the High North. In light of emerging commercial and security requirements in the region, the committee believes that additional ASPs are needed to meet personnel recovery requirements, 

and urges the Secretary of Defense to prioritize their resourcing. 

Army Force Structure—Retaining a Full BCT 

Since 2012, the U.S. Army had charted a course to reduce the Active component from 570,000 to 450,000 service members. In 2015, 

as a part of the reduction in end-strength, the Army recommended 

that the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division (4/25 IBCT ABN) be converted to an airborne infantry battalion task force. 

The committee is aware that soon following his visit to Alaska, 

General Mark Milley, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, the U.S. 

Army announced on March 21, 2016, its intentions to ‘‘delay the reduction of an Alaska based combat unit [the 4th Brigade Combat 

Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division or 4/25], determining that 

such a move would continue to degrade its ability to respond to 

new threats in a rapidly changing global security environment.’’ 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

The committee understand that the delayed reduction of 4/25 was 

the only reduction delayed across the entire Active component of 

the U.S. Army. 

The committee is aware that in December 2016, the actual size 

of the Active component of the U.S. Army was approximately 

470,000. The committee understands that it was the U.S. Army’s 

intention to continue the reduction of the active component by 

10,000 soldiers to 460,000 soldiers by the end of Fiscal Year 2017. 

In December of 2016, both the House and Senate passed S. 2943, 

the National Defense Authorization (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 

and it was subsequently signed into law. Within this legislation 

was a new and increased authorized Active component size of 

476,000. 

On April 7, 2017, the U.S. Army announced its intent to ‘‘retain 

4/25 as a brigade combat team and not convert it to an airborne 

task force’’ due to ‘‘emerging mission requirements and increasing 

Army end strength as authorized in the [FY 2017 NDAA.]’’ 

The committee strongly commends the U.S. Army’s decision to 

first delay and then to fully retain 4/25 as a full brigade combat 

team. The committee affirms that forward-deployed and rapidly responsive ground forces, including the 4/25 IBCT (ABN), help deter 

aggression and provide reassurance to our allies and partners 

Army M4 Modular Rail System Assessment 

The Committee notes that while the Army has made over 90 upgrades to the M4 Carbine since first fielding, it still uses a legacy 

rail system compared to other readily available, government-provided rail systems that free-float the barrel. In the mid-2000s, 

SOCOM and the Army Marksmanship Unit fielded free-float rail 

systems for their M4 Carbines that placed zero weight on the barrel, ensured barrel harmonics are uninhibited, improved rifle accuracy, and increased durability. Over the last decade, the Army has 

spent over $2.9 billion dollars funding weapon enhancements 

(scopes, night vision, lasers, lights, slings, etc.) designed to increase 

soldier lethality. Utilizing a legacy rail can degrade shooting accuracy regardless of how well equipped and trained a soldier is. 

The Committee is aware that an Army unit tested the legacy rail 

against a free-float rail. In the commercial market, free-float rails 

have become the industry standard. The committee notes further 

that the legacy rail remains the baseline Army requirement and 

that the Army has not developed an acquisition plan to replace the 

legacy rail. Therefore, the committee requires the Secretary of the 

Army to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees 

by August 31, 2017, on the feasibility of adopting a free-float rail 

system for the M4 carbine including an update on the Army’s rail 

system requirement. 

Army Position Navigation and Timing-GPS (A–PNT) Distribution and Anti-Jam Capability 

Military vehicles depend on precise positioning, navigation, and 

timing (PNT) data to enable critical command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

(C4ISR) systems. Exploitation of global positioning systems (GPS) 

risks U.S. forces ability to move, shoot, and communicate. The 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

Army has determined that it must provide an Assured PNT (A– 

PNT) solution with distributed PNT architecture that support GPS 

anti-jam antennas and upgraded GPS signals (‘‘M Code’’). The committee is concerned that the A–PNT PoR is years from Initial Operating Capability, when technologies exist today that address the 

near-term requirement and are pathways to the A–PNT program 

of record (PoR), that will speed the capability to the warfighter, 

create efficiencies, and save costs. 

Specifically, the committee understands that the DAGR Distributed Device (D3/Enhanced D3) was selected by the Army as its 

lead Military GPS User Equipment (MGUE) platform. The D3 provides near-term capability, supports the A–PNT PoR, anti-jam antenna technology, and is a firm path to fielding MGUE. This solution meets requirements and near-term fielding and upgrade 

timelines for Stryker CS21, AMPV, JLTV, Patriot Missile System, 

and efforts by the Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) to mitigate regional threats. 

To address the threat in GPS denied environments, the committee understands that the Army was planning to provide the D3 

as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) to the platforms in 

the near term to align with platform upgrade efforts. However, the 

committee has been informed that the Army has revised the A– 

PNT acquisition program and is no longer planning to provide D3 

to the vehicle platforms as GFE. The committee is concerned that 

this decision would delay fielding of the capability, eliminates the 

opportunity to establish the distributed architecture required for 

the upcoming A–PNT PoR, is contrary to the Rapid Capabilities Office PNT program, delays fielding of MGUE which conflicts with 

the congressional mandate, and does not support rapid implementation of anti-jam antenna technology. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees, no later 

than September 29, 2017, detailing the revised A–PNT PoR acquisition plan, to include a detailed explanation of the current plans 

to address near-term interim A–PNT integration, test, fielding (as 

GFE) and follow-on logistics support of a distributed PNT system 

that supports M–Code in the time-frame required for critical platform upgrade and reset schedules. 

AWACS Upgrade to Block 40/50 

The committee fully supports the ongoing efforts by the Air Force 

to upgrade its fleet of E–3 Airborne Warning and Control System 

(AWACS) aircraft and strongly encourages the Air Force to fully 

fund the Block 40/45 upgrade on the entire fleet of AWACS. 

C–130H modernization 

The committee remains committed to the Air Force’s Avionics 

Modernization Program (AMP), and urges the Air Force to pursue 

the most rapid upgrade possible of the 176 C–130H aircraft. The 

committee continues to support the current two-increment AMP 

upgrade strategy, but is concerned that extensive development 

needlessly delays completion of both AMP increments despite availability of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) and non-developmental 

item (NDI) technologies, including glass cockpit and autopilot sysVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

tems and components, that are available and in use on C–130 aircraft today. 

Achieving the best possible value/capability for the taxpayer and 

the Air Force is the goal. Therefore, the committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force to maximize efforts to procure COTS and 

NDI solutions and that minimize use of unnecessary military 

standard (MIL–STD) systems. This approach must adhere to the 

intent of Section 2377 of Title 10, United States Code, and comprehensively apply the tenets of DoD’s Better Buying Power (BBP) 

3.0 policy. COTS/NDI solutions are currently flying on both U.S. 

Government and civilian C–130 aircraft that are lighter, less expensive, and have proven reliability at or above that of the MIL– 

STD solutions. Such cost-effective solutions should be embraced to 

the maximum extent possible and practical. 

Therefore, the Secretary of the Air Force is directed to provide 

a briefing to the congressional defense committees within 180 days 

of enactment of this Act that details (1) how the intent of Section 

2377 of Title 10, United States Code, and the prescribed processes 

of DoD BBP 3.0 have been vigorously applied to defining both the 

technical requirements and acquisition strategy for AMP Increments 1 & 2, including the Air Force’s creation of incentives to 

offerors for accelerated and cost-capped implementation; (2) how 

the standards requirements applied to the C–130 cockpit modernization are not excessive given the operational mission profiles 

and considering other COTS technologies already operational these 

aircraft; and (3) how the proposed solution will reduce total ownership cost to the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units 

that must then operate and maintain the aircraft. 

Columbia-class submarines 

The budget request included $842.9 million in line item 1 of 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN), for Columbia-class submarines advance procurement. 

The committee notes the cost estimate for the lead ship non-recurring engineering program support increased from the 2014 Life 

Cycle Cost Estimate to the 2016 Milestone B cost estimate. The 

committee asked about this increase, but the Navy did not provide 

a timely answer to the questions. The committee is disappointed by 

the Navy’s performance and expects the Navy to ensure robust, 

punctual explanations are provided whenever the committee asks 

for program clarifications. 

In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

conduct a comprehensive security classification review of the Columbia-class program to ensure all systems and capabilities are 

properly classified. The Secretary shall submit his findings at the 

appropriate classification level to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives not later December 

1, 2017. 

Composite technology in submarine construction 

The committee notes that the Navy has successfully integrated 

composite technology into different submarine classes and that 

composites can reduce procurement costs and lower overall lifecycle 

costs for certain components and subsystems. For example, a FebVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

ruary 2016, Navy report to Congress found a composite technology 

alternative for Columbia-class bow domes would save the Navy at least $6.6 million and avoid an additional $8.7 million in tooling. 

The committee believes the Navy should further explore opportunities to integrate proven composite technology, particularly for 

Virginia-class submarines, including the bow dome and Virginia 

Payload Module, and Columbia-class submarines, including the superstructure. 

Therefore, not later than November 1, 2017, the Secretary of the 

Navy shall deliver a report to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and House of Representatives on the feasibility and 

merits of further integrating proven composite technology into Virginia-class and Columbia-class submarines. The report shall: 

(1) Identify non-composite systems and components planned 

for Block V Virginia-class submarines and Columbia-class submarines for which a proven composite alternative is in development or fielded; and 

(2) For those systems and components identified in paragraph (1), provide the approximate cost and schedule differences if such composite systems and components were substituted for non-composite systems and components. 

Domestic supply of submarine missile launcher tubes 

The committee supports the Navy’s ongoing efforts to reduce 

cost and risk in development and production of launcher tubes 

for both the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) and the Columbia-class program, including the Common Missile Compartment (CMC). In written testimony for a hearing of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on June 7, 2017, Vice Admiral 

Terry Benedict, Director of the Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs, testified to the importance of the CMC as a critical 

component for both the U.S. Columbia-class and United Kingdom Dreadnought-class programs, with any delay to the joint 

CMC effort having the potential to impact the ability of both 

nations to maintain an effective sea-based deterrent. 

Missile tube construction is a critical and fragile subset of the 

U.S. shipbuilding industrial base that is regenerating after the last 

Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine was built in the 1990s. The 

committee is aware of the Navy’s work to reduce risk in the restart 

of launcher system production at the surface test launch facility at 

the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, to 

demonstrate that the launcher industrial base can replicate the 

successful performance of the Ohio-class Trident II (D5) launcher 

system. 

The committee urges the Navy to take every appropriate measure to ensure a viable supply of launcher tubes are available 

through the U.S. industrial base to meet the cost and schedule requirements facing both the Columbia-class program and the Virginia-class guided missile variant through VPM. 

Eagle Passive Active Warning and Survivability System 

(EPAWSS) 

The committee is aware that the U.S. Air Force has reduced 

funding programmed for the Eagle Passive Active Warning and 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

Survivability System (EPAWSS) modernization program for the F– 

15C fleet in future fiscal years. The committee continues to strongly support EPAWSS modernization for both the F–15C and F–15E 

fleet. The U.S. Air Force requires an integrated electronic warfare 

system for its air superiority aircraft in order to dominate current 

and future threats. EPAWSS provides radar warning, geo-location, 

situational awareness, and self-protection solutions to detect and 

defeat surface and airborne threats in contested environments. The 

committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force to execute the 

EPAWSS modernization program for the F–15C and F–15E as previously planned. 

Expedited testing, development and fielding for Paladin Integrated Management 

The committee continues to support the Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) upgrade to the M109A6 Paladin, the primary indirect fire weapons platform in the U.S. Army’s Armored Brigade 

Combat Teams (ABCT), and calls for the Secretary of the Army to 

prioritize and expedite PIM OT&E to include immediate tasking of 

a crew with required expertise to execute the OT&E. The PIM program is critical to the U.S. Army. It significantly improves force 

protection and survivability and reduces logistics burden for the 

Armored Brigade Combat team field artillery Soldiers. 

F–16 Block 40/50 Mission Training Centers 

The Secretary of the Air Force has directed the Air Force to accelerate procurement of additional F–16 Mission Training Centers 

(MTC) suites for Air National Guard use in order to provide continuity of training between live and virtual scenarios, develop and 

maintain required combat readiness without dependence on the 

availability of off-station resources, reduce flight operations tempo 

and flying hour cost required to gain equal training readiness, reduce travel cost, reduce personnel tempo impacts for pilots, and increase dwell time for wings, allowing more deployment flexibility. 

Additional MTCs would save travel costs and make the F–16 block 

40/50 MTC more available to Active Duty, Reserve, and Air National Guard F–16 block 40/50 pilots, resulting in enhanced readiness. 

Future air-to-ground missile capability 

It has come to the committee’s attention the Air Force lacks an 

air-to-ground missile capability sufficient to deter massed armor 

formations that may be encountered against near-peer adversaries 

in both Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Currently fielded airto-ground missiles lack the ability to be launched en masse from 

fighter aircraft against multiple maneuvering armored targets. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to provide the congressional defense committees with a briefing 60 

days following passage of this Act on the integration activities enabled by this authorization. 

Health and Usage Monitoring Systems 

The Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act included directive report language (113–446) ‘‘UH–72 Helicopter 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

health monitoring system.’’ This section encouraged the Army to 

engage in a demonstration of the Next Generation Health Monitoring System (NGHMS) on the UH–72 and directed the Secretary 

of the Army to report to Congress on the potential for integrating 

and demonstrating NGHMS. The Army response states, if ‘‘savings 

and reduction of contractor logistics support (CSL) costs could be 

achieved . . . the Army will consider integrating NGHMS on the 

UH–72 fleet and changing the current aircraft maintenance construct.’’ 

The committee is aware that the Army conducted a preliminary 

design review (PDR) in December 2016 and a critical design review 

(CDR) in February 2017. Bench-testing and installation on an experimental aircraft was conducted in March–April 2016. This effort 

will conclude with installations on 8 Army UH–72 by December 

2017. The committee understands that the program is on cost and 

schedule and that preliminary results are encouraging. 

NGHMS can achieve total platform state of awareness. Such advanced maintenance intelligence could enable early warning for 

failing platform systems, reduce emergency maintenance demands, 

provide predictable platform maintenance schedules, reduce cost 

and increase readiness. With this in mind, the committee is aware 

that Program Office Stryker is reviewing NGHMS for potential application on Ground Combat Vehicles. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees by September 15, 2017, that provides the status and available results of 

the UH–72 NGHMS testing. The report should include the Army’s 

plan for procuring and integrating NGHMS into the UH–72 fleet; 

to include a detailed description of the planned changes to the UH– 

72 aircraft maintenance construct, expected efficiencies and estimated annual cost savings. The report shall also include a summary of Program Office Strykers review of NGHMS for potential 

application on Ground Combat Vehicles. 

HH–60 Combat Rescue Helicopter Program 

The committee understands the need to replace the current HH– 

60G Pave Hawk fleet to support the demanding personnel recovery 

missions for the Department. With the limited availability of the 

current combat rescue helicopter fleet and high usage, the need to 

accelerate deliveries of this new fleet is well understood. The committee supports incentivizing the contract to accelerate development and first flight, but is concerned that the Department is not 

taking action to ensure alignment of procurement funding with the 

activities that would support this acceleration. The committee 

urges the Department to take all actions necessary to ensure that 

if the contractor can meet the accelerated schedule to complete development that there is funding in place to transition to production 

without delaying first flight and early production activities. 

HMMWV Rollover Mitigation 

The committee is concerned by the number of High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) rollover accidents that have 

occurred in recent years, after the vehicles were up-armored to improve ballistic protection and resistance to mines and improvised 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

explosive devices. The committee understands that commercial-offthe-shelf solutions are available to mitigate the problem of rollover 

accidents. The committee encourages the Army and Army National 

Guard to work expeditiously to mitigate the risk of HMMWV rollover accidents. In particular, HMMWV Modernization activities 

should be specifically directed to mitigate the risk of rollovers and 

loss of control accidents in the existing Army and National Guard 

fleet by supporting retrofit installation of antilock braking systems 

and electronic stability control kits. The committee requests that 

the Department of the Army provide a briefing on plans to mitigate 

rollover accidents within the HMMWV fleet. 

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) 

The E–8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System 

(JSTARS) aircraft has long provided significant joint air command 

and control in both land and maritime arenas. The committee is 

pleased that the budget request includes some funding to continue 

this program’s essential warfighting function until the JSTARS Recapitalization Program reaches Full Operational Capability (FOC) 

in 2028. The committee expects that the Department of the Air 

Force will take no action to prematurely retire E–8C aircraft before 

the JSTARS Recap program reaches this milestone. The committee 

is greatly concerned that a lengthy JSTARS Recap acquisition program could result in a capabilities gap which will leave the combatant commanders without an acceptable level of ground moving target indicator and battle management command and control capability for several years. Accordingly, the committee encourages the 

Secretary of the Air Force to fund all necessary modifications, including, but not limited to, Prime Mission Equipment-Diminishing 

Manufacturing Sources (PME–DMS) on all 16 E–8C aircraft and to 

maintain all E–8C aircraft in a singular configuration and 

deployable state to continue world-wide missions, avoid degradation of mission performance, and meet Combatant Commander requirements for operations during the period. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than November 

1, 2017, that describes, in detail, a strategy to sufficiently address 

manning, sustainment, modernization, and viability deficiencies 

that would resolve capability gaps, shortfalls, and deficiencies of 

the E–8C fleet of aircraft. The briefing should include a strategy 

that addresses right-sizing and balancing unit manning among the 

Total Force; maintaining proficient and current aircrews to meet 

operational requirements; resolving obsolescence and diminishing 

manufacturing sources of parts and supply; necessary mission system upgrades and operational enhancements across the E–8C fleet 

to keep the aircraft viable and relevant until the JSTARS Recapitalization aircraft is fielded; resolving maintenance deficiencies; 

standardizing existing aircraft capabilities in areas such as imagery servers and the Automated Information System; and the associated cost, budget, and timeline required to implement the strategy. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

Light Utility Helicopter Industrial Base 

The committee notes that the Army’s Aviation Restructure Initiative repurposed UH–72A Lakota Light Utility Helicopters (LUH) to 

become the primary entry-level training helicopter at the United 

States Army Aviation Center of Excellence (USAACE) at Fort 

Rucker. The committee understands that the Army has a helicopter 

pilot shortage of about 700 pilots, which generates a need for additional LUHs to meet pilot training requirements. 

In addition to USAACE, the Army National Guard also utilizes 

UH–72A helicopters for Security and Support missions. The committee understands that unmet requirements for UH–72A exist 

presently at USAACE, Combat Training Centers, and the Army 

Test and Evaluation Command. The committee understands that 

the Army issued a Justification and Approval (J&A) for 16 Lakotas 

without providing for full and open competition in December 2015. 

The pre-award J&A was subsequently protested in the U.S. Court 

of Federal Claims (COFC). The committee further understands that 

the Army appealed the COFC’s initial ruling in October 2016, but 

no exact timeline for a final ruling is known. 

The committee further understands that the Fiscal Year 2017 

Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115–31) appropriated funding for the Army to procure 28 UH–72A helicopters ‘‘in support of 

ongoing mission requirements at the Army Aviation Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker, the Combat Training Centers, and the 

Army Test and Evaluation Center.’’ In testimony before the Senate 

Armed Services Committee on May 25, 2017, the Acting Secretary 

of the Army, Robert M. Speer, stated that ‘‘the 2017 funding is held 

up in the same protest’’. The committee understands the Secretary’s statement to mean that the Army does not intend to obligate funding for the 28 Lakotas funded by Congress in P.L. 115– 

31 in a timely manner. 

The committee understands that there is dispute over the Army’s 

interpretation of its obligations pursuant to P.L. 115–31. The committee notes that the language on Lakota procurement contained 

in P.L. 115–31 is clear, directive, and legally binding. The committee is concerned about the impact of continued contracting 

delays on the Army’s pilot training capability and the UH–72A industrial base. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to reexamine the Army’s position on obligating funding for the 28 

Lakota helicopters appropriated in P.L. 115–31. The committee 

urges the Secretary to avoid conflating issues which may be legally 

separate and distinct. No later than 30 days after the enactment 

of this Act, the committee requires the Secretary to provide to congressional defense committees a report which includes a legal analysis on its position regarding obligating funding for Lakotas as directed by Congress in P.L. 115–31. The report shall also include a 

plan for the Army to mitigate its pilot shortage. 

Light-weight polymer technologies for ammunition and 

small arms 

The committee continues to support the Department of Defense’s 

efforts to decrease the weight of metal cartridge cases for ammunition in order to decrease burdens on the warfighter. Notable imVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

provements include the potential for increased individual mobility, 

decreased logistical resupply burdens, and reduced fuel consumption in operations. 

In addition to weight reduction, the committee understands that 

polymers have the potential to act as better heat insulators, enable 

the firing of more ammunition, and provide cost savings compared 

to conventional metal cartridge cases. The committee remains encouraged by the ongoing research and potential for cased telescoped 

5.56mm ammunition, which could decrease logistical weight by 

roughly 40 percent and reduce bulk storage volume by at least 12 

percent. 

Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the Department 

to expand its efforts beyond light-weight polymer ammunition casings and explore polymer magazines, ammunition pallets, rounds, 

and other advancements that could further reduce weight on the 

warfighter. For example, the Marine Corps estimates that a polymer .50 caliber pallet could reduce weight by 1,000 pounds per pallet. 

The committee continues to hold the view that any new ammunition must meet all specifications for pressure, velocity, and accuracy and must be a drop-in replacement in terms of training, weapon function, lethality, storage, and transportation. 

Maintaining strategic deterrence 

The committee is concerned with the potential for delays in the 

development and fielding of Columbia-class submarines (SSBNs). 

The committee understands the Columbia-class is planned to replace Ohio-class submarines as they decommission to maintain 10 

operational SSBNs. Although the Navy’s schedule currently shows 

the Columbia-class program meeting required delivery dates, there 

is little to no margin for delay in the program schedule to address 

unforeseen first-of-class issues. 

The committee believes the strategic deterrence mission that 

SSBNs perform is too important and the consequences of a gap in 

SSBN capacity so great that the Department of Defense should develop contingency plans for how the U.S. Strategic Command 

(STRATCOM) Commander could mitigate the possibility of an insufficient number of SSBNs to perform required patrols. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the options 

available to the Department of Defense for mitigating the risk of 

delays of various lengths, ranging from 6 months to 5 years, in delivery of the 12 boats in the Columbia-class. For each of the various 

delay lengths, the Secretary shall identify specific mitigation options that could be available to STRATCOM or the Navy if the 

number of operational SSBNs were to drop below the required 

level. The Secretary shall submit this report no later than February 1, 2018. 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Inventory Review 

The committee notes that the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected 

(MRAP) program has deployed more than 27,000 vehicles primarily 

in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi FreeVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

dom, and follow-on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. In 2013, 

the Army conducted the MRAP III study, the results of which influenced the Department of Defense’s decision to retain about 8,600 

vehicles (mostly placed in Army Prepositioned Stocks) and to divest 

the remainder. The committee believes the security environment in 

Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East has changed considerably 

since the MRAP III was conducted and may have changed or invalidated the study’s assumptions. In light of the new and emerging security environment, the committee believes that the DOD 

should thoroughly review the MRAP inventory. 

Therefore, not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 

Act, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to deliver a report to the congressional defense committees which defines the 

near-, medium-, and long-term requirements for protected vehicles 

in Iraq, Afghanistan, and any other areas that the Secretary deems 

appropriate. The report shall examine the MRAP inventory and 

make recommendations regarding its continued management. 

These recommendations should include the number of MRAPs 

which should be retained in the inventory and whether any of 

those retained should undergo modifications. 

Missile Warning Systems 

The committee is interested in efforts by the Army to field technology that can provide missile warning and laser warning capabilities for rotary and small fixed wing aircraft. As new threats proliferate, it is critical that future aircraft survivability equipment 

(ASE) be able to detect and defend air crews in a first-encounter 

scenario. Given the potentially transformational nature of such future ASE procurements, the committee directs the Secretary of the 

Army or his designee to brief the congressional defense committees 

on procurement of missile warning systems no later than 30 days 

after the enactment of this Act. The briefing should cover interim 

and future solutions, technology readiness, cost estimations, and 

fielding timeline. 

Navy Air-to-Ground Rocket Program 

The Committee recognizes the work performed by the Navy to 

transform the standard 2.75-inch Hydra rocket into an affordable, 

laser-guided, precision strike munition. It is now qualified on 

manned and unmanned, fixed-wing and rotary-wing platforms. According to the Defense Department, the weapon’s size, accuracy 

and weight have made it ideal for target engagements in urban terrain and where low-collateral damage is critical. These attributes 

have fostered adoption of the weapon system by the rest of the 

Joint Services. The Hydra rocket has also become a priority of 

international allies, further highlighting the importance of having 

a thorough acquisition done right. 

Accordingly, the committee encourages the Navy to: (1) consider 

additional platforms for employing Hydra; (2) streamline Hydra logistics; and (3) continue the program’s efforts to qualify and integrate a single software variant for rotary and fixed-wing aircraft. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

Navy large surface combatants 

The committee notes that the Navy’s 2016 Force Structure Assessment (FSA) sets a requirement for 355 ships in the battle force. 

While the current fleet includes 87 large surface combatants, the 

committee understands that the FSA calls for 104 large surface 

combatants. The committee believes that the Navy should maintain 

the two proven shipbuilding sources of large surface combatants. 

The committee emphasizes that the acquisition strategy for the 

next multiyear procurement contract should help sustain the dualsource large surface combatant shipbuilding base. 

Primary aircraft assigned to Air National Guard rescue 

squadrons 

The committee finds that National Guard rescue squadrons in 

Alaska, California, and New York play a critical role in rescue response throughout the United States during times of disaster or 

crisis, a mission that prepares these units remarkably well for success in combat. The committee notes that certain rescue squadrons, 

in addition to civilian and deployment requirements conducted by 

all National Guard rescue squadrons, are tasked with alert requirements in support of active duty missions. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Secretary of the Air Force to report to the congressional 

defense committees no later than 180 days after the passage of this 

Act on the readiness of Air National Guard units to meet active 

duty alert mission requirements and whether such units have the 

appropriate number of primary aircraft assigned to fully execute all 

assigned missions. 

SUSV Replacement Rapid Acquisition Strategy 

The committee understands that extreme cold weather conditions 

and difficult terrains like deep snow, tundra, mud, swamps, and 

wetlands create mobility challenges for U.S. ground forces. In fact, 

the Chosin Reservoir Campaign during the Korean War realistically depicted the adverse effects that extreme cold weather operating conditions had on U.S. Forces. 

The committee is aware that in 1983, the U.S. Army first began 

to field the M973 Small Unit Support Vehicle (SUSV)—a 14-person, 

tracked, semi-amphibious vehicle capable of navigating a wide 

range of otherwise impassable terrain that traditional wheeled and 

tracked vehicles cannot traverse. The SUSV travels with a footprint of just 1.8 pounds per square inch—less pressure than the 

human foot exerts—and is much better equipped to traverse difficult terrains like deep snow, tundra, mud, swamps, and wetlands. 

The committee is concerned that due to a limited availability of 

repair parts and no Army program to help support or maintain 

them, many of these 30-plus year old SUSVs are being cannibalized 

for parts to keep the few functional one remaining running and the 

entire fleet has just five years left on their projected life cycle before they will be classified obsolete. Currently there are approximately 200 SUSVs spread across the U.S. Army and the National 

Guard in states such as Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, and 

Vermont, and other states, such as Louisiana, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, and New Hampshire have an articulated requirement for 

the SUSV’ unique capabilities. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

The committee is also aware that on February 12, 2017, Headquarters, Department of the Army, G8, validated the requirement 

for a Joint All-Terrain/All-Weather Support Vehicle (JAASV) However, the committee is concerned that any program sourcing solution for the SUSV would not be sourced at this time and that the 

requirement will compete for funding in Program objective Memorandum 2019–2023. The committee is also concerned that allied 

and near peer Competitor countries are developing extreme cold 

weather ground transportation capabilities that far exceed U.S. 

military capabilities, notably the recent advances in all-weather/ 

cross-country mobility being demonstrated by new Russian specialty vehicles. 

The committee believes that the U.S. Army, Air Force, Marine 

Corps, and National Guard forces currently need a tactical vehicle 

that will provide transportation for a squad-sized element, emergency medical evacuation, command and control capability, and 

general cargo transportation on- and off-road in a wide range of 

otherwise impassable terrain, to include ice and extreme cold 

weather conditions to support year-round training and missions. 

The committee believes that the newly identified requirement—the 

JAASV—will enhance joint operations and facilitate interoperability under the adverse conditions that demand all-terrain, allweather cross-country mobility that traditional wheeled and 

tracked vehicles cannot traverse. 

Total force integration initiatives for rescue squadrons in 

the reserve component of the U.S. Armed Forces 

The committee is aware that the National Commission on the 

Structure of the Air Force—a report requested by this committee 

in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(Public Law 112–329)—recommended that ‘‘new equipment will arrive at Air Reserve Component units simultaneously with its arrival at Active Component units in the proportional share of each 

component . . . The Air Force should no longer recapitalize by cascading equipment from the Active Component to the Reserve Components.’’ Further, the Commission members testified to this committee that ‘‘There is no more significant element to an integrated 

total force than a fully integrated fielding plan for all equipment, 

especially aircraft.’’ 

The committee notes that the Air Force concurred with this recommendation without reservation and highlighted the KC–46 and 

F–35 Lightning II programs as examples of this commitment. 

While the committee is encouraged that the Air Force has 

prioritized the fielding of the HH–60G replacement programs, and 

reaffirms the need to field this critical capability to the total force 

as rapidly as possible, the committee remains concerned that the 

Air Force has not observed the principle of concurrent and proportional fielding for the fielding of the HH–60G replacement program. 

The committee is aware that the Air Force plans to field the 

HH–60G Ops Loss Replacement helicopter to National Guard Rescue Squadrons until the HH–60W is fielded to all components in 

2030. However, the committee believes the Air Force’s current 

fielding plan does not fulfill the letter or spirit of the Commission’s 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

recommendation of concurrent and proportional fielding, and that 

the Air Force has not provided sufficient grounds to justify an exception to this fundamental component of total force integration. 

The committee believes that the Air Force’s fielding plan should 

prioritize the integrated fielding of the HH–60G replacement program to units that are scheduled to deploy overseas in support of 

contingency operations, that stand alert in support of active-duty 

missions, and that maintain high levels of readiness to rapidly deploy in support of alert missions overseas. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to review its fielding plan of the HH–60G replacement programs, 

and urges the Air Force to provide recommendations on how it intends to fulfill its commitment to comply with the Commission’s 

recommendation. 

Unmanned U–2 

Section 133 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) prevents the Air Force from retiring the U–2 aircraft unless the Department of Defense were to 

meet certain conditions. One of those conditions is that, prior to retirement, the Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) would have to certify in writing that the capability to 

be fielded at the same time or before the U–2 aircraft retirement 

would result in equal or greater capability available to the commanders of the combatant commands. While the RQ–4 Global 

Hawk remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) provides impressive capabilities, the committee believes it has not achieved a level of capability 

that would permit the Chairman of the JROC to make that certification. 

At various times, the Air Force has argued that the level of U– 

2 operating and support costs, particularly manpower costs, was 

the reason for wanting to retire the U–2. The committee understands that the Air Force has considered the possibility of modifying the U–2 aircraft to make it an RPA. Under such a plan, the 

avionics systems would be modified to allow the aircrews to remotely operate the U–2, thereby removing the pilot from the cockpit. 

While supportive of enhancing RPA capability, the committee 

would like to understand the ramifications of pursuing such an option, including the pros and cons of making such a modification. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 

submit such a report with the budget request for fiscal year 2019. 

USAF UH–1N Replacement 

The Committee recognizes the urgent need to replace the current 

Air Force fleet of UH–1N aircraft that protect our inter-continental 

ballistic missile (ICBM) sites and perform the continuity of government mission for the National Capitol Region (NCR), which are obsolete and inadequate to support their missions. The continued 

delay and changes in the acquisition approach to support this urgent need have led to a delay in fielding this critical capability to 

the warfighter. The committee believes that the Air Force user 

needs are well understood. The program requirements have been 

discussed since 2001, and even though the Department has been 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

buying combat aircraft for some time, there continues to be delays 

to this procurement. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to expedite procurement and delivery of replacement aircraft and 

urges the Department, if viable, to use existing production lines to 

field this capability as soon as possible. The committee further directs the Secretary to pursue a rapid acquisition strategy. The committee encourages the Air Force to consider the benefits of a common helicopter airframe across the Air Force to reduce supply, logistics, training, and lifecycle costs. 

USNS Navajo 

The committee notes the Navy has a tradition of naming tug 

boats for Native American tribes. The committee further notes that 

over the next several years the Navy will be decommissioning all 

Powhatan-class fleet ocean tugs (T–ATF) and Safeguard-class salvage ships (T–ARS). The committee understands that these ships 

will be replaced by a single class of vessels with the designation T– 

ATS. 

In keeping with the tradition of naming U.S. Navy ships after 

Native American tribes, the committee urges the Secretary of the 

Navy to name the first T–ATS vessel the USNS Navajo. 

USS Los Alamos 

The committee notes that 2018 will be the 75th anniversary of 

Los Alamos National Laboratory. The committee further notes that 

people of Los Alamos, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the 

Navy, have a 74-year relationship that spans the Manhattan 

Project through the creation of a nuclear Navy and to the sea-based 

leg of the strategic nuclear triad of the United States. The people 

of Los Alamos and surrounding communities have contributed to 

the Navy’s offensive edge since World War II, through the Cold 

War, that continues today. 

The committee believes that naming a submarine USS Los Alamos will recognize and continue to forge the longstanding relationship between the Navy and Los Alamos. Therefore, the committee 

urges the Secretary of the Navy to name the next nuclear-powered 

fast attack submarine the USS Los Alamos. 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 

AND EVALUATION 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for research, development, test, and evaluation activities at the levels identified in section 4201 of division D of this 

Act. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Mechanisms for expedited access to technical talent and expertise at academic institutions to support Department 

of Defense missions (sec. 211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would give the Secretary of Defense the authority to establish one or more multi-institution task order contracts, consortia, cooperative agreements, or 

other arrangements with universities that do not have similar existing constructs to facilitate expedited access to university technical expertise in support of Department of Defense mission areas, 

such as cybersecurity, explosives detection, modeling and simulation, microelectronics, unmanned systems, advanced materials, machine learning, and myriad others. 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense is 

not optimally positioned to capitalize on all cross-functional aspects 

of emerging technologies that serve multiple purposes. Unfortunately, the majority of technological advancements exist under proprietary agreements unavailable to the academic research community at large. While existing programs are available in part, the 

committee believes a more streamlined construct must be available 

for expedited access to combine technical expertise and research efforts, reduce costs, and eliminate duplication of effort. 

The committee notes and supports the ongoing basic research activities that are funded by the Department of Defense at universities and government labs, which have led to the development of 

most of the operational capabilities used by our nation’s military 

today, ranging from stealth to precision munitions to battlefield 

medicine, aircraft sustainment, and the Internet. The committee 

intends the authority in the recommended provision to supplement 

those basic research funding authorities and activities, and it expects the Department to issue guidelines as appropriate that reflect 

a streamlined, efficient process for components to have increased 

access to the technical expertise resident in our nation’s universities to help address the technical, engineering, and management 

challenges facing the Department. 

In carrying out the mechanisms established in the recommended 

provision, the committee urges the Department to expand the number of individual institutions actively pursuing and demonstrating 

technical expertise in academic research that directly supports the 

efforts of the Department of Defense. 

Codification and enhancement of authorities to provide 

funds for defense laboratories for research and development of technologies for military missions (sec. 212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 139 of title 10, United States Code, to codify the research authorities of the defense laboratories originally established in section 

219 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) and improved and made 

permanent in subsequent legislation. The committee notes that this 

authority allows Department of Defense laboratory directors to 

more efficiently and flexibly support innovative in-house research 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

activities; support transition of technological innovations into operational use; support training and education of laboratory technical 

staff; and make minor improvements and repairs to critical research infrastructure and equipment. 

The committee notes that the House Armed Services Committee 

received testimony on January 7, 2016, from the Navy Acquisition 

Executive, Sean Stackley: ‘‘Section 219 funding is lifeblood to our 

warfare centers, our science and technical community, and so everything that you all have done to support that is paying off huge 

dividends, and it is underpinning our efforts in terms of prototyping and experimentation.’’ The committee commends the Defense Department on its use of the section 219 authority to date, 

and it urges the Department to continue to use the authority to 

support technological innovation and the productivity of the Defense laboratory system. 

The committee further encourages the Department to communicate the value of these types of laboratory activities in terms of 

their support for operational forces and improving outcomes of acquisition programs both to the public and to Pentagon decisionmakers. Finally, the committee directs the Secretary to use this authority as one method to support joint research and development 

activities that connect the skills and expertise of laboratories from 

multiple services to meet common technical challenges. 

Modification of laboratory quality enhancement program 

(sec. 213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

Laboratory Quality Enhancement Program established in section 

211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 

(Public Law 114–328). The committee has become aware that certain imprecise wording in the underlying statute has raised confusion within the Department of Defense and that interpretations of 

the statute different from what was intended by Congress have 

prevented certain aspects of the Laboratory Quality Enhancement 

Program from being implemented. The recommended provision 

would provide the clarifications necessary to proceed with implementation as envisioned in the original statute. The recommended 

provision would also add some new responsibilities for the panels 

created in the original statute and establish its relationship to the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, established in section 901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). 

Prizes for advanced technology achievements (sec. 214) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2374a of title 10, United States Code, which authorizes the defense research enterprise to carry out programs to award prizes in 

recognition of outstanding achievements in basic, advanced, and 

applied research, technology development, and prototype development that have the potential for application to the performance of 

the military missions of the Department of Defense (DOD). The 

recommended provision would provide the Department with greater flexibility in conducting prize competitions to enhance the performance of the Department’s military missions. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

The provision would expand the types of prizes that can be 

awarded in prize competitions. Under current law, only cash prizes 

may be awarded. The provision would remove this limitation, 

thereby allowing the Department to provide appropriate non-cash 

prizes. For example, appropriate non-cash prizes could include trophies, medals, plaques, and similar decorations for achievements in 

prize competitions. Other appropriate prizes could include personal 

property reasonably related to the purpose of the prize competition, 

such as a desktop or tablet computer or cellular phone. By providing the Department with the authority to award non-cash 

prizes, prize competition managers will have increased flexibility to 

design prize competitions that provide appropriate awards to recognize outstanding achievements that have potential application to 

the Department’s mission. 

The provision would also authorize the Department to accept 

funds from the private sector to help fund prize awards and reduce 

the overall cost of prize competitions. In doing so, the provision 

would require that the Department not give any special consideration to a private entity in return for its donation. The added prohibition on giving special consideration to a private entity in consideration for its donation is intended to maintain public trust in 

the integrity of defense programs and personnel. 

Expansion of definition of competitive procedures to include competitive selection for award of research and 

development proposals (sec. 215) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2302 of title 10, United State Code, to expand the definition 

of competitive procedures to include research and development proposals. The recommended provision would enable broad agency announcements to be used not only for soliciting science and technology (budget activities 1–3) but also other types of research and 

development, including test and evaluation (budget activities 4–7). 

The recommended provision would continue an effort to streamline and expedite acquisition in accordance with the Department’s 

Better Buying Power 3.0 program. The authority that would be 

provided shall help to prepare research and development projects 

for solicitation and award of follow-on contracts for budget line 

items (or programs) funded across the future years defense program. 

Use of broad agency announcements across the entire spectrum 

of research and development will expedite the acquisition process, 

thereby decreasing the timelines required to make awards and enabling funding to reach those innovating, researching, and developing with increased efficiency, particularly small businesses. 

Inclusion of modeling and simulation in test and evaluation 

activities for purposes of planning and budget certification (sec. 216) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 196 of title 10, United States Code, to include modeling and 

simulation activities in the test and evaluation strategic plan and 

proposed test and evaluation budgets. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
43 

The committee is concerned with the continued increasing costs 

of Department of Defense major weapon systems acquisitions. The 

committee believes that advanced modeling and simulation (M&S) 

can moderate the rising costs associated with test and evaluation 

of complex weapon systems. 

In the annual reviews of the test and evaluation infrastructure, 

undertaken by the committee, there has been no indication that the 

Department’s test and evaluation organizations are involved in any 

organized effort to reduce the cost of test and evaluation through 

coordinated modeling and simulation efforts. The committee realizes that significant investments have been made by program offices for their particular weapon systems and training uses, but 

those models are either proprietary or specifically designed for that 

weapon system and cannot be easily integrated together in a complete warfighting fashion. The committee is concerned primarily 

with models being built with non-program-specific funds. The committee recommends that the Department aggressively pursue additional efforts to use modeling and simulation more effectively in 

the development and operational test and evaluation enterprises 

within the Department. 

The committee notes that using modeling and simulation for test 

and evaluation activities is a best practice for commercial private 

sector firms and that such practices can result in significant cost 

savings. In this regard, the committee expects the Department to 

incorporate modeling and simulation techniques with the primary 

goal of reducing overall test and evaluation costs. 

Differentiation of research and development activities from 

service activities (sec. 217) 

The committee recommends a provision that would differentiate 

between research and development activities and service activities 

through the establishment of clear definitions for each activity. The 

recommended provision would update the statute to account for the 

evolving nature of research and development contracts and eliminate confusion as to what types of contract actions should be included in contract services reports. 

Over the last couple decades, the main flow of federal contracting 

has made a dramatic shift away from supply purchases to the acquisition of services. Though supply acquisitions once comprised 

the vast majority of federal contracts and government employees 

performed most of the services necessary to fulfill the government’s 

mission, acquisitions for a variety of support services contracts are 

now the most common subject of federal contracts. 

Unfortunately, no common definition of what constitutes a ‘‘service’’ exists in law or regulation. As statutes have been passed and 

regulations written to address the myriad issues associated with 

service contracting, a diverse, and often conflicting, set of definitions has emerged that is creating conflict within the U.S. Government. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the handling of research and development (R&D) activities. For example, in section 

2330 of title 10, United States Code, the definition of services specifically excludes research and development, while in 37.101 of the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation and elsewhere, research and develVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

opment is mentioned in the list of potential activities that could 

qualify as services. 

At the most simplistic level, federal acquisition practice facilitates the acquisition of supplies and services for the direct benefit 

of the U.S. Government. Since the concept of ‘‘supplies’’ has a long 

history and is generally well-understood as including all physical 

property except for land, this analysis would then imply that if 

something is not an item of ‘‘supply,’’ then it must be a ‘‘service.’’ 

This conclusion fails to take into account the other possible choices 

if something is not a supply and fails to consider the government’s 

implied position on what a service is that can be gleaned from a 

thorough reading of the statutes and regulations. Once these other 

sources are examined, it is clear that the guidance and direction on 

how to acquire services and manage services contracts is almost exclusively focused on service contractors who provide well-defined 

services directly to agencies to assist those agencies in the internal 

activities central to their missions. These types of services can include efforts such as maintenance and repair, housekeeping, security, communications, transportation, and advisory and assistance 

services. The sheer size, complexity, and value of these service contracts have generated a host of oversight activities dedicated to understanding and monitoring award frequency and adequacy of program oversight to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being properly 

spent and that inherently governmental functions are not being 

contracted out. 

Research and development activities are an entirely different 

type of endeavor. The government does not contract with research 

and development performers to support the government’s internal 

mission but instead treats them akin to program performance efforts. Unlike service contracts, research and development efforts 

will end with the provision of a physical deliverable. While a typical performance effort would have a physical product that is delivered, research and development deliverables can run the gamut of 

reports or studies to prototype projects. 

Unlike a service contract, where the U.S. Government is effectively buying people’s time to perform a defined function, research 

and development programs are concerned with the outcome of the 

research effort and the knowledge that is learned. Service contracts 

also tend to be quite detailed in the tasks to be performed and 

what constitutes the acceptable quality level of performance. In 

contrast, research and development efforts generally have a much 

more broad work statement, with the area of research and proposed approach outlined but subject to adjustment and evolution as 

the effort continues. 

Including research and development activities in the same category as services can subject such projects to the metrics, reports, 

and oversight responsibilities intended to give the Department a 

better picture of how much is being spent on internal support contractors. Including research and development contracts and their 

dollar value with service contract numbers severely skews those 

metrics and, in fact, makes it harder to achieve the Department’s 

goal. While most defense research and development agencies have 

successfully argued that such work should not be included in these 

metrics and reports in the service context, it is an annual battle 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

that consumes valuable agency time and resources with no value 

added. The simple solution to this problem is to clearly distinguish 

between research and development activities and services as being 

separate and distinct efforts, to create uniform definitions of research and development and services, and to include the clear definition of ‘‘services’’ in statute. 

Designation of additional Department of Defense science 

and technology reinvention laboratories (sec. 218) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 

list of labs that are authorized to execute the special hiring, infrastructure recapitalization, technology transfer and industry partnership, research, and other authorities that have been previously 

authorized by Congress and by the Department of Defense. The 

committee notes that these authorities are intended to be executed 

by lab directors at the local lab level, so as to be better used to address local management and bureaucratic challenges and avoid the 

inefficiency and slowness of centralized control over organizations 

whose missions require agility and innovation. The committee expects that all authorities designed to ease bureaucratic burdens on 

the labs will be delegated to local lab directors and used, consistent 

with congressional intent, to the maximum extent practicable to 

support research efforts. 

Department of Defense directed energy weapon system 

prototyping and demonstration program (sec. 219) 

The committee recommends a provision that would designate the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering as the 

official with principal responsibility for development and demonstration of directed energy weapons, pursuant to section 

219(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2017 (Public Law 114–328). The recommended provision would also 

establish an initiative within the Department of Defense to accelerate the fielding of directed energy weapon systems that would 

help counter technological advance of potential adversaries of the 

United States. 

The committee remains supportive of directed energy weapon 

systems and believes that directed energy can fundamentally 

change warfare, much like precision-guided weapons did. The committee notes that, since 1960, the Department of Defense has invested more than $6.0 billion in directed energy science and technology initiatives but has limited operational systems to date. 

While the committee commends the Department for recognizing the 

potential of directed energy weapon systems by budgeting for the 

rapid procurement of five high-energy laser weapon systems to be 

deployed in an operational environment, it continues to urge the 

Department to resource directed energy initiatives at levels necessary to transition them to full-scale acquisition programs. 

The committee realizes that directed energy weapons systems 

will not replace kinetic weapon systems nor are they an all-purpose 

solution to every warfighting scenario. However, there are specific 

scenarios today in which directed energy weapon systems can, and 

should, provide our military with tactical and strategic advantages. 

Counter-Rockets, Artillery, and Mortar (C–RAM) and Counter-UnVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

manned Aerial Systems (UAS) are specific missions in which directed energy could provide solutions to capability gaps of the military. 

A number of directed energy weapon systems have been developed but are awaiting funds in the out-years for testing and demonstration. While additional improvements can be made in the 

areas of size, weight, and power, the committee believes that many 

of the systems are fully capable now of providing our military with 

game-changing capabilities. 

The recommended provision would authorize $200.0 million for 

the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering to be used exclusively for high energy laser and high power microwave prototyping and demonstrations. As the senior official with principal responsibility for directed energy weapons, the Under Secretary for 

Research and Engineering would be entrusted with issuing guidelines for the operation of the program based on specific criteria limited to advanced technology development, prototyping, and demonstrations. The committee urges the Under Secretary to place increased priority on funding directed energy programs identified as 

unfunded priorities by the Services. 

The provision would also withhold 50 percent of the authorized 

funds until the Under Secretary develops the strategic plan required by section 219(a)(2)(A) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328; 10 U.S.C. 2431 

note) and submits the strategic plan to the congressional defense 

committees. 

Finally, the committee expects the Department to maintain management of the technical baseline with a primary emphasis on technology transition and evaluating military utility to enhance the 

likelihood that particular directed energy weapon systems will 

meet the Department end user’s need. The committee encourages 

the Department, under the program, to develop the tactics, techniques, and procedures for the weapon systems and engage the 

warfighter in the use of operational systems and produce military 

utility assessments. 

The committee expects that the Under Secretary will keep the 

congressional defense committees regularly updated on the 

progress of activities regarding directed energy weapon systems 

prototyping and demonstration. 

Authority for the Under Secretary of Defense for Research 

and Engineering to promote innovation in the Department of Defense (sec. 220) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

establishment of a process under which the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering would review and modify Department of Defense regulations that would adversely affect the innovative capacity of the DOD. The committee notes that the position of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering is charged with nurturing the technological innovative capacities of the Department and that often this capacity is crippled by 

bureaucratic processes and red tape promulgated by decision makers in organizations in the technology and innovation arena. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

Limitation on availability of funds for F–35 Joint Strike 

Fighter Follow-On Modernization (sec. 221) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

funds available for the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter Follow-On Modernization program until the Secretary of Defense submits the final 

report containing the basic elements of an acquisition program 

baseline for Block 4 Modernization as required by section 224 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). 

The committee strongly supports the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter 

program and recognizes the urgent need to provide our warfighters 

with the planned capabilities of the Block 4 modernization. However, the committee remains concerned about the executability and 

affordability of the Department of Defense’s plan for Block 4. The 

country can ill afford a repeat of the substantial cost overruns and 

schedule slippages that have plagued this program since its inception. 

The committee believes the elements of the required report—including cost estimates for development, production, and modifications; projected key schedule dates; technical performance parameters; technology readiness levels; and annual funding profiles—are 

vital to establishing the transparency, accountability, and oversight 

necessary for a program as large and as important as Block 4 modernization. Proceeding without those attributes would risk future 

congressional support of the program and increase the likelihood of 

repeating past mistakes. 

Improvement of update process for populating mission data 

files used in advanced combat aircraft (sec. 222) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense to refine the process of updating mission 

data files used in advanced combat aircraft so that they may be updated more quickly. 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters 

Competitive acquisition plan for low probability of detection data link networks (sec. 231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (or any successor to this position) and the Vice Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide written documentation and a 

briefing to the congressional defense committees, no later than February 15, 2018, on a plan for a competitive acquisition process to 

procure a secure, low probability of detection data link network capability, with the ability to effectively operate in hostile jamming 

environments while preserving the low observability characteristics 

of the relevant platforms, between existing and planned: 

(1) Fifth-generation combat aircraft; 

(2) Fifth-generation and fourth-generation combat aircraft; 

(3) Fifth-generation and fourth-generation combat aircraft 

and appropriate support aircraft and other network nodes for 

command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance purposes; and 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

(4) Fifth-generation and fourth-generation combat aircraft 

and their associated network-enabled precision weapons. 

The provision would also require the plan to include: 

(1) A non-proprietary and open systems approach compatible 

with the Rapid Capabilities Office Open Mission Systems initiative of the Air Force and the Future Airborne Capability Environment initiative of the Navy; 

(2) A competitive acquisition process, to include comparative 

flight demonstrations in realistic airborne environments; and 

(3) Low risk and affordable solutions with minimal impact or 

changes to existing host platforms and minimal overall integration costs. 

Finally, the provision would also limit the obligation or expenditure to not more than 85 percent of fiscal year 2018 funds for operations and maintenance for the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

and the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until 

15 days after the Under Secretary and Vice Chairman submit the 

plan required in the provision. 

The committee remains concerned with the adequacy of the Department of Defense’s focus on this issue and is disappointed by 

the failure to provide a sufficient plan for an advanced airborne 

data link capability as directed by section 239 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). 

Meanwhile, Air Force and Navy data link development initiatives 

have shown limited technical progress, while potential adversary 

threat capabilities continue to increase. The committee believes a 

robust low probability of detection and jamming resistant data link 

network capability will be key to comprehensive situational awareness, cooperative electronic warfare, and cooperative fire control in 

contested and degraded operations environments. 

Clarification of selection dates for pilot program for the enhancement of the research, development, test, and evaluation centers of the Department of Defense (sec. 232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make clarifications and edits to the laboratory management demonstration 

program established in section 233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). The provision would clarify the date limitations for consideration of an application to join the pilot program, and it would also clarify that any 

proposals pursuant to the pilot program shall be submitted to the 

appropriate assistant secretary. The recommended provision would 

remove any further technical or legal obstacles to successful implementation of the underlying provision. 

Requirement for a plan to build a prototype for a new 

ground combat vehicle for the Army (sec. 233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees detailing the Army’s plan to build a prototype for 

a ground combat vehicle. The committee directs the Army to submit this report within 90 days of the enactment of this Act. 

The committee is concerned that the Army is operating a family 

of armored combat vehicles designed over 40 years ago. The comVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

mittee is also concerned that the Army does not have a major armored combat vehicle currently under design. 

The committee is aware of ongoing efforts between the Tank 

Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center 

(TARDEC) and the Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort 

Benning, Georgia to identify requirements and existing enabling 

component technologies. The committee is also aware of the Army’s 

progress in integrating existing active protection systems (APS) on 

existing combat platforms such as the M1A2 Abrams, the M2A3 

Bradley, and the STRYKER. 

The committee is interested in how the Army intends to exploit 

the latest enabling component technologies that have the potential 

to dramatically change basic combat vehicle design and improve 

lethality, protection, mobility, range, and sustainment. This should 

include an analysis of capabilities of the most advanced foreign 

ground combat vehicles and whether any have characteristics that 

should inform the development of the Army’s prototype vehicle, including whether any U.S. allies or partners have advanced capabilities that could be directly incorporated in the prototype. Such 

technologies would include APS with hard and soft kill capabilities, 

reactive armor, composite armor, thermal signature reduction, 

noise reduction, fuel cell propulsion, opposed-piston engines, 32 

speed transmissions, suspension, power generation, voltage management, 3rd generation forward looking infrared sights, integrated 

hostile fire detection, manned-unmanned teaming, automatic loaders, munitions, and cannons. 

The committee is interested in the schedule, cost, key milestones, 

and leadership plan to rapidly design and build a prototype ground 

combat vehicle. The committee understands that TARDEC can develop concepts to meet emerging requirements, test developmental 

concepts with soldier involvement, model designs, virtually test and 

modify designs, integrate new technologies, manufacture prototypes, test prototypes, and demonstrate prototypes. The committee 

assesses that if TARDEC is employed to its potential, it may accelerate future efforts in acquisition and reduce developmental costs. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of the Army to use all 

acquisition authorities available to the fullest extent possible to 

plan to build a prototype for a new ground combat vehicle. In particular, the Secretary should aggressively use the latest authorities 

granted to him in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). 

The committee acknowledges that an aggressive plan to build a 

prototype is not without risks. The committee fully supports this effort to exploit all available resources to expedite the construction 

of a combat vehicle prototype incorporating the latest technologies. 

The committee believes this effort will increase knowledge of available technologies, reduce risk to performance and cost, and set conditions for an accelerated development of a highly lethal and survivable vehicle that will ensure battlefield overmatch against potential adversaries. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

Plan for successfully fielding the Integrated Air and Missile 

Defense Battle Command System (sec. 234) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to report to the congressional defense committees a plan on how the Army will successfully field a suitable, 

survivable, and effective Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle 

Command System (IBCS) program. The committee directs the Secretary to submit this plan within 180 days of the enactment of this 

Act. The provision would prohibit the Secretary from obligating any 

funds available in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 

Army, for the Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense and the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System until 

the submission of this plan. 

The committee is concerned this developmental program is not 

meeting schedule and performance objectives after having become 

a program of record over 7 years ago. The committee is aware the 

Army has delayed a Milestone C decision for limited production, 

originally scheduled for the 4th quarter of fiscal year 2016, to the 

1st quarter of fiscal year 2020. Like the Army’s Warfighter Information Network-Tactical and the Air Force’s Air Operations Center 

10.2, this program is experiencing difficulty with immature software and software integration. 

Given that the Army has already expended over $1.2 billion on 

this program with the expected requirement to spend much more, 

the committee is concerned current software will soon become obsolete before a functional IBCS is fielded. Further, having experienced at least two re-baselinings, the committee is concerned this 

program is headed toward a critical change order. 

Sense of the Congress on hypersonic weapons (sec. 235) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should expedite 

testing, evaluation, and acquisition of hypersonic weapon systems 

to meet the stated needs of the warfighter; that the United States 

cannot afford to lose its advantage over foreign countries in developing hypersonic weapons; and that the Department of Defense 

should focus on the next generation of weapon systems such as 

hypersonics. The recommended provision would also make a number of findings regarding the status of hypersonic technology in the 

Department of Defense and the potential for such weapons to 

change warfare and provide solutions to strategic problems. 

Budget Items 

Research, Development, Test & Evaluation Unfunded Requirements List 

The budget request included $82.7 billion for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense submitted extensive Unfunded Requirements Lists totaling $33.1 billion. The 

committee believes that since the passage of the Budget Control 

Act in 2011, budget requests have been guided by artificial constraints rather than the realities of the global strategic environment. This reality has continued for the fiscal year 2018 budget reVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

quest, which too relies on an arbitrary number determined six 

years ago in the Budget Control Act. Such constraints on the budget, along with a sustained high operational tempo, have led to a 

significant degradation in our military readiness in the near term, 

and the threat that we will fall behind our adversaries in the longterm. For the last several years military leaders have highlighted 

these problems in great detail. 

In order to address the degraded state of our military and to stop 

the erosion of U.S. military advantage, the committee believes that 

the budget should be based on requirements, rather than arbitrary 

budget caps. The committee recommends an increase of $2.1 billion 

to Research, Development, Test and Evaluation for items identified 

in the Unfunded Requirements List. Some increases include acceleration for Cyber and Space capabilities. Greater details of each increase can be found in the tables in Division D. 

Army 

Defense research sciences 

The budget request included $263.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 61102A, for defense research sciences. The committee notes that basic research activities 

focused in technical areas of interest to Department of Defense 

missions lay the foundation upon which other technology development and new defense systems are built. Basic research activities 

fund efforts at universities, small businesses, and government laboratories. These investments also serve to help train the next generation of scientists and engineers who may work on defense technology problems in government, industry, and academia. 

The committee also notes that this particular program builds 

fundamental scientific knowledge contributing to the sustainment 

of U.S. Army scientific and technological superiority in land 

warfighting capability and to solving military problems related to 

long-term national security needs. It also investigates new concepts 

and technologies for the Army’s future force and provides the 

means to exploit scientific breakthroughs and avoid technological 

surprises. 

To further bolster basic research funding, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 61102A for a total of 

$273.6 million. The committee directs that these funds be awarded 

through well-established and competitive processes. 

University and industry research centers 

The budget request included $87.4 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 61104A, for university and 

industry research centers. The committee notes that basic research 

activities focused in technical areas of interest to Department of 

Defense missions lay the foundation upon which other technology 

development and new defense systems are built. Basic research activities fund efforts at universities, small businesses, and government laboratories. These investments also serve to help train the 

next generation of scientists and engineers who may work on defense technology problems in government, industry, and academia. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

The committee also notes that this particular program fosters 

university and industry based research to provide a scientific foundation for enabling technologies for future force capabilities. In particular, this program funds collaborative technology alliances, 

which leverage large investments by the commercial sector in basic 

research areas that are of great importance interest to the Army. 

To further bolster basic research funding, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 61104A for a total of 

$92.4 million. The committee directs that these funds be awarded 

through well-established and competitive processes. 

Army basic research 

The budget request included $430.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, for basic research (budget activity 1). The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in 

basic research for a total of $440.0 million to support efforts at 

modernizing Army capabilities and supporting Third Offset strategies. 

Strategic materials 

The budget request included $29.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 62105A, for materials technology research. The committee notes that in order to improve and 

accelerate the development of new materials, including more sophisticated and productive use of materials by design, and to address modern military needs in materials processing, additive manufacturing, and energy coupling to materials, the Army Research 

Laboratory has launched its Open Campus Initiative to improve 

collaboration with research universities and companies. There is a 

recognized need for targeted materials research and development to 

advance knowledge and design in materials processing, science and 

engineering, focused on transforming the affordability, performance, adaptability, and environmental sustainability of materials. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

62105A for a total of $39.6 million to support these efforts. 

Aviation technology 

The budget request included $65.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 62211A, for aviation technology. The committee notes that several of the programs contained 

within this program element, such as rotors and vehicle management technology, engine and drives technologies, and platform design and structures technologies, involve research activities that 

may overlap with aviation research being performed elsewhere in 

the Department of Defense. Given this potential for redundant 

work, the committee believes that the level of funds requested for 

this program element is not entirely justified. Therefore, the committee recommends a general program decrease of $5.0 million in 

PE 62211A for a total of $60.9 million and recommends that the 

Army look for opportunities to increase collaboration and coordination with other services and research programs on aviation technology. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

Command, control, communications technology 

The budget request included $33.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 62782A, for command, control, and communications technology. The committee encourages 

the Secretary of the Army to support the development and advancement of technologies that address the increasing gaps in position, navigation, and timing architectural and technological development that address GPS vulnerabilities and combatting navigation warfare. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase for 

position, navigation, and timing technologies of $5.0 million for 

these efforts in PE 62782A for a total of $38.1 million. 

Army applied research 

The budget request included $889.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, for applied research (budget activity 2). The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million 

in applied research for a total of $904.2 million to support efforts 

at modernizing Army capabilities and supporting Third Offset 

strategies. 

Aviation advanced technology 

The budget request included $160.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 63003A, for aviation advanced technology. The committee notes that of this amount, over 

$120.0 million is requested for platform design and structures system, which represents a more than doubling of this project’s budget 

from fiscal year 2017. While the committee supports the continued 

air vehicle demonstration of critical new technologies, the committee is concerned that the large increase in funds is not justified 

by the project plans. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease for platform design and structures system of $20.0 million 

in PE 63003A for a total of $140.7 million. 

High performance computing modernization program 

The budget request included $182.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 63461A, for the high performance computing modernization program. The committee notes 

that this program is a Department-wide asset used by all of the 

Services and combat support agencies. Additional funding for this 

program would keep the research and development budget at a 

similar level to that appropriated in fiscal year 2017. The committee notes that research and development initiatives under this 

program support Defense supercomputing resource centers, the Defense Research and Engineering Network, and software applications. The U.S. government has spent over $7 billion to develop and 

implement this unique, world-class national computing asset for 

DOD, which delivers approximately 3.2 billion processor hours and 

over 3.5 quadrillion floating point operations per second, available 

and configured to support the Department’s most challenging problems and analysis of massive and complex datasets. Therefore, the 

committee recommends a program increase of $40.0 million in PE 

63461A for a total of $222.3 million. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

Military engineering advanced technology 

The budget request included $32.4 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, PE 63734A, for advanced military engineering advanced technology. The committee 

notes that of this amount, $9.6 million is requested for map-based 

planning services under the combat engineering systems project 

line. This request represents a more than five-fold increase of this 

effort’s budget over the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2017. 

The committee is concerned about the ability to absorb such a large 

increase in funding and believes the request level is an unjustified 

increase. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease for 

map-based planning services of $5.0 million in PE 63734A for a 

total of $27.4 million. 

Army advanced technology development 

The budget request included $1,071.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, for advanced technology development (budget activity 3). The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in advanced technology development for a 

total of $1,091.0 million to support efforts at modernizing Army capabilities and supporting Third Offset strategies. 

Army armored systems modernization advanced development of advanced fuel cell prototypes 

The budget request included $9.4 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $32.7 million 

was for the PE 63645A Armored System Modernization Advanced 

Development. 

The committee recognizes the importance of the Army’s efforts to 

expedite critical capabilities through rapid prototyping to meet the 

needs of combatant commanders. The committee believes that advanced fuel cell vehicles could provide to the Army considerable 

operational benefits, including reduced logistics burden, reduced 

acoustic and thermal signatures, and increased availability of mobile power for deployed forces. However, a robust program of prototyping and experimentation is required in order to field such tactical systems. The committee notes that the Army’s Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center has done 

significant work with the commercial automotive industry to develop and experiment with advanced fuel cell vehicle technologies 

and systems. The committee further believes that these activities 

are best executed through cross functional teams consisting of technology developers, operational users, testers, and commercial sector 

partners. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $70.0 million, for a total of $102.7 million, in RDT&E Army, PE 63645A, for 

the Armored System Modernization Advanced Development to prototype and test advanced fuel cell vehicles to support Army missions. 

Suite of Vehicle Protection Systems—Active Protection System (APS) 

The budget request included $98.6 million in PE 64852A of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Army, for 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

Suite of Vehicle Protection Systems—Active Protection System 

(APS). The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in 

RDT&E Army for PE 64852A for a total of $118.6 million. 

Army Contract Writing System 

The budget request included $20.3 million in Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Army for PE 65047A for Army 

Contract Writing System. The committee is concerned about duplication among the military services in contract writing systems. The 

committee recommends a decrease of $20.3 million in RDT&E, 

Army for PE 65047A for a total of $0.0 million. 

Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense (AIAMD) 

The budget request included $336.4 million in PE 65457A of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Army, for 

Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense. The committee notes an 

early to need requirement in the budget for fiscal year 2018. The 

committee recommends a decrease of $200.0 million in PE 65457A 

for a total of $136.4 million. 

Accelerated development of the Hercules recovery vehicle 

The budget request included $343.2 million in PE 23735A of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, for Combat Vehicle Improvement Programs. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 23735A for a total of $347.2 million 

for accelerating the development of the M88A2E1 Hercules recovery vehicle. This item is on the Army unfunded priority list. 

Combat Vehicle Improvement Programs 

The budget request included $343.2 million in PE 23735A, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army (RDTEA), for 

Combat Vehicle Improvement Programs. 

The Committee is concerned with the Army’s repeated decision 

to ignore the articulated requirement for a vehicle laser warning 

system as part of the Abrams 1B and the Bradley 2B ECP improvements. The laser warning system provides critical protection and 

enhances current operational capabilities utilized by forward deployed units. Any additional delay in fielding will only continue to 

undermine effectiveness and prolong an increased risk to the 

Army’s ground combat vehicles. 

The committee recommends that the Army realign its procurement plans and integrate the laser warning system onto the M1 

Abrams Tank and any other forward deploying ground combat vehicles. The committee encourages the Army to concentrate on survivability and incorporate a laser warning sensor suite system to 

adequately address the growing threat of anti-tank guided missiles 

and laser beam riding guidance systems. 

The committee believes that by focusing on mature, field-tested 

protective technology, the APS will provide a balanced framework 

that both increases lethality and protection for the warfighter. 

Therefore, as the Army transitions active protection systems (APS) 

onto ground combat vehicles through the Vehicle Protection System, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

23735A, RDTEA, for a total of (including other budget increases 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

elsewhere in this Act) $351.2 million, for the incorporation of a 

laser warning sensor suite onto the system. 

Missile/Air Defense Product Improvement Program 

The budget request included $11.2 million in PE 23801A of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, for Missile/Air 

Defense Product Improvement Program. The committee recommends an increase of $26.0 million in PE 23801A for a total of 

$37.2 million. Stinger Product Improvement Program is on the 

Army unfunded priority list. 

Distributed Common Ground/Surface System 

The budget request included $24.7 million in PE 35208A of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Army, for 

Distributed Common Ground/Surface System. The committee notes 

changing tactical requirements. The committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in PE 35208A for a total of $4.7 million. 

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical Increment 2-Initial Networking (WIN–T Inc. 2) 

The budget request included $4.7 million in PE 0310349A of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Army, for 

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical Increment 2-Initial Networking. The committee notes changing tactical requirements. The 

committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 million in PE 0310349A. 

Navy 

University research initiatives 

The budget request included $118.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 61103N, for university research initiatives. The committee notes that basic research activities focused in technical areas of interest to Department of Defense 

missions lay the foundation upon which other technology development and new defense systems are built. Basic research activities 

fund efforts at universities, small businesses, and government laboratories. These investments also serve to help train the next generation of scientists and engineers who may work on defense technology problems in government, industry, and academia. 

To further bolster basic research funding, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 61103N for a total of 

$123.1 million. The committee directs that these funds be awarded 

through well-established and competitive processes. 

Ocean warfighting environmental applied research 

The budget request included $42.4 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 62435N, for ocean 

warfighting environment applied research. The committee notes 

that large research vessels, such as the AGOR–23 class, are vitally 

important to the U.S. oceanographic research effort due to their 

range payload, duration, and ability to effectively conduct scientific 

operations in remote areas and high-sea states. As the size and capability of the university-laboratory oceanographic laboratory system fleet have generally declined in recent years, the demand for 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

research vessels like those in the AGOR–23 class has increased and 

has made that class among the highly-subscribed vessels in the 

fleet. These vessels and the research they conduct are critical to 

our national security and central to the Navy’s anti-submarine 

warfare, mine warfare work, and operational warcraft efforts. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million 

in PE 62435N for a total of $57.2 million. 

Undersea warfare applied research 

The budget request included $56.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 62747N, for undersea warfare applied research. The committee notes that the Navy has been 

researching the capacity of the shipyards that build our nation’s 

nuclear submarine forces to maintain higher production rates for 

the Virginia-class submarines while also designing and then beginning construction of the first of the Columbia-class submarines in 

fiscal year 2021. 

The committee encourages the Navy to align their efforts with 

qualified higher education partners focusing on undersea vehicle 

applications related to several key fabrication and manufacturing 

process technologies including composites, metals, and electronics. 

In addition, investments should address the overall affordability 

challenge faced by current and future submarine and undersea vehicle programs, including fabrication process innovation and the 

ability to introduce continuous technology improvements at the 

Navy’s existing undersea shipyard industrial base. 

The committee directs the Navy to closely coordinate this effort 

with its industrial base partners to ensure that funded research 

projects are relevant to specific engineering and manufacturing 

needs, as well as defined systems capabilities. Partnerships with 

academia should focus on specific, well-defined short- and longterm submarine and autonomous undersea vehicle research needs 

and accelerated technology transition, and they should include a 

strong workforce development component. To bolster this effort, the 

committee recommends an aggregate increase of $25.0 million in 

PE 62747N for a total of $81.1 million. 

Innovative naval prototypes applied research 

The budget request included $171.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 62792N, for innovative naval 

prototypes applied research. The committee notes that this program element is tasked with developing leap ahead technologies in 

game-changing areas such as cyber, directed energy, electromagnetic warfare, and autonomous systems. While the committee 

supports efforts in all of these research fields and believes that 

they are important to maintaining our military technological superiority, the committee notes that the other Services are also focusing research in all of these areas. As such, the committee believes 

that research costs can be reduced through better coordination and 

collaboration among the Services. Therefore, the committee recommends an aggregate decrease of $10.0 million in PE 62792N for 

a total of $161.1 million. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

United States Marine Corps advanced technology demonstration 

The budget request included $154.4 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 63640M, for United States 

Marine Corps advanced technology demonstration. The committee 

notes that of this amount, $59.7 million is requested for the futures 

directorate, an organization tasked with identifying future challenges and opportunities, developing warfighting concepts, and 

comprehensively exploring options to inform the combat development process to meet the challenges of the future operating environment. This request represents more than a 25 percent increase 

over the appropriations for this project in fiscal year 2017. The 

committee is concerned that such an increase is unjustified and 

cannot be absorbed through the work identified in the project description. Therefore, the committee recommends an aggregate decrease of $5.0 million for the futures directorate in PE 63640M for 

a total of $149.4 million. 

Future naval capabilities advanced technology developments 

The budget request included $231.8 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy, PE 63673N, for future 

naval capabilities advanced technology developments. The activities 

listed under this program element include capable manpower and 

enterprise and platform enablers. The committee believes that the 

work plans for fiscal year 2018 overlap significantly with activities 

and research in other services and in the commercial sector. The 

committee encourages the Navy to coordinate these research areas 

more closely with these other entities and, to the extent possible, 

take advantage of commercial off-the-shelf technologies to achieve 

these objectives. Therefore, the committee recommends an aggregate decrease of $5.0 million in PE 63673N for a total of $226.8 

million to be distributed appropriately from capable manpower and 

enterprise and platform enablers. 

Mine and expeditionary warfare advanced technology 

The budget request included $116.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, PE 63782N, for mine and expeditionary warfare advanced technology. The committee notes that 

a Navy demonstration for a maritime enhanced sensor would provide the Navy with the capability to assess a full range of anti-surface unit warfare and anti-submarine warfare capabilities, as well 

as to gather needed intelligence against threats in the United 

States Pacific Command strategic environment. United States Pacific Command has previously identified a number of mission gaps 

an enhanced sensor can satisfy, and the Navy has the opportunity 

to leverage the Air Force’s maritime target detection investments 

and long range imaging solution in a demonstration program to reduce procurement costs and expedite fielding. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for these efforts in 

PE 63782N for a total of $131.0 million for maritime intelligence, 

surveillance, and reconnaissance technology. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

Innovative naval prototypes advanced technology developments 

The budget request included $108.3 million in Research, Development, Test, Evaluation, Navy, PE 63801N, for innovative naval 

prototypes advanced technology developments. The committee 

notes that undersea warfare capabilities are a key component of 

Navy modernization plans. Therefore, the committee recommends 

an increase of $15.0 million for underwater unmanned vehicle prototypes in PE 63801N for a total of $123.3 million. 

Surface and shallow water mine countermeasures 

The budget request contained $154.1 million in PE 63502N for 

surface and shallow water mine countermeasures (MCM). 

The committee notes that, in the fiscal year 2017 budget request, 

the Barracuda MCM program was planned to be employed from an 

aircraft and was included in PE 64373N (Airborne Mine Countermeasures). In the fiscal year 2018 budget request, Barracuda was 

realigned to PE 63502N for employment from the MCM unmanned 

surface vessel and potentially other surface platforms. The committee lacks sufficient information on this fundamental change in 

Barracuda employment to support the budget request. The committee therefore recommends a decrease of $16.0 million in Barracuda product development (project 2989). 

The committee further notes PE 63502N includes the Snakehead 

large diameter unmanned underwater vehicle in project 2094. Compared to last year’s budget request, Snakehead experienced a 1- 

year delay from fiscal year 2018 to 2019 for the Critical Design Review and planned fabrication start. The committee therefore recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in Snakehead product development (project 2094). 

The committee also notes this program included no funding for 

Persistent Littoral Undersea Surveillance (PLUS) product development, support, or fleet experimentation. The committee understands that the Office of Naval Research could conduct additional 

experimentation with an existing government-owned REMUS 1000 

unmanned underwater vehicle. The committee supports utilizing 

this existing proven system for continued risk reduction, technology 

maturation, and concept development. The committee therefore recommends an increase of $10.0 million for continued REMUS 1000 

activities (project 2094). 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an overall decrease of $26.0 million for a total of $128.1 million. 

Aircraft carrier preliminary design 

The budget request included $12.0 million in PE 63564N for ship 

preliminary design and feasibility studies. 

The committee notes that all three future fleet platform architecture studies required by section 1067 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) recommended the Navy pursue a class of aircraft carriers smaller 

than the Ford-class. The committee concurs and believes smaller 

aircraft carriers would both increase capacity and provide a more 

efficient means to conduct a range of missions with lower sortie requirements, including amphibious operations. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

The committee believes the Navy should leverage the fleet architecture studies, as well as the report on alternative aircraft carrier 

options required by section 128 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), to complete preliminary design of a smaller aircraft carrier. The committee further 

believes that completing preliminary design would provide Department leaders with an option to supplement Nimitz- and Ford-class 

aircraft carriers. 

The committee understands that when the USS Midway (CV–41) 

was decommissioned in 1992, the ship was conventionally-powered; 

weighed between 60,000 and 70,000 tons; and contained 2 catapults and arresting gear to support up to 65 fixed wing aircraft. 

Based on the committee’s review of relevant studies and reports, 

the committee views these attributes as desirable for a class of 

smaller aircraft carriers and believes more than one United States 

shipyard should be capable of building aircraft carriers. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million, for a total of $42.0 million, in PE 63564N and directs the Secretary of the Navy to complete preliminary design of a smaller aircraft carrier. The Secretary shall submit the preliminary design to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 

Representatives not later September 30, 2019. 

Littoral Combat Ship 

The budget request contained $41.0 million in PE 63581N for 

Littoral Combat Ships. 

The committee notes the Littoral Combat Ship project (3096) included no product development and a reduced level of test and 

evaluation activity. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $7.0 million, for a total of $34.0 million, to align support costs with program activity. 

Marine Corps Rapid Capabilities Office 

The budget request included $17.8 billion for Research, Development, Test, Evaluation, Navy, of which $7.1 million was for PE 

64320M for Rapid Technology Capability Prototype. 

The committee notes the importance of the Marine Corps Rapid 

Capabilities Office (MCRCO) as part of the larger defense-wide acquisition system reform. The MCRCO will be housed inside the 

Marine Corps Warfighting Lab and should continue to improve the 

Corps’ rapid prototyping capabilities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for PE 64320M for Rapid Technology Capability Prototype for 

a total of $17.1 million. 

Extra large unmanned undersea vehicles 

The budget request included $66.5 million in PE 64536N for research, development, test, and evaluation of advanced undersea 

prototyping. 

The committee notes the budget request for this program element provides for the prototyping and testing of extra large unmanned undersea vehicles (XLUUV), including procurement of up 

to five vehicles and the lease of one vehicle, in project 3394. The 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

committee further notes the contract for fabrication of up to five 

XLUUVs, battery energy sections, and mine warfare payloads is 

scheduled to be awarded in fiscal year 2019 with XLUUV deliveries 

to begin in fiscal year 2020. 

The committee is concerned with the Navy’s concurrent approach 

to design, technology development, and integration, as well as the 

feasibility of the XLUUV concept of employment for envisioned 

missions. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $52.9 million 

for project 3394, for a total of $13.6 million, due to fabrication funding being ahead of need and insufficient detail on program milestones necessary to deliver a system capable of achieving desired 

mission objectives. 

Air Crew Systems Development 

The budget request included $13.2 million in PE 64264N of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN) for air 

crew systems development. 

The committee is concerned by repeated incidents of physiological episodes occurring in a number of Navy aircraft, particularly the F/A–18 Hornet and Super Hornet, EA–18G Growler, and 

T–45 Goshawk. Despite being Naval Aviation’s number one safety 

priority and the existence of a physiological episode team since 

2010, determining root causes and establishing adequate mitigations remain elusive. The committee is encouraged by the level of 

attention senior Navy leadership has shown towards this issue, but 

it believes more must be done to solve this danger to our Naval 

Aviators and Naval Flight Officers. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million, including $10.0 million to establish a prize competition designed to accelerate identification of the root cause or causes of 

physiological episodes, in PE 64264N of RDTEN for a total of $33.2 

million. 

F–35 System Design and Demonstration—Marine Corps 

The budget request included $152.9 million in PE 64800M, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN), for the 

Marine Corps contribution to F–35 System Design and Demonstration (SDD). 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense is 

not budgeting the resources necessary to ensure that the SDD 

phase is completed in a timely, efficient, and effective manner. The 

committee believes that it is essential the program efficiently and 

effectively completes the SDD phase to ensure that the warfighter 

receives the required capabilities and that the program is established on a solid foundation, with minimal outstanding deficiencies 

that need to be corrected in later modifications. The committee further believes post-SDD software updates and testing resources will 

be necessary prior to introduction of the first increment of Block 4 

Follow-on Modernization to correct any deficiencies either left over 

from SDD or discovered in Initial Operational Test & Evaluation. 

The committee does not believe these efforts are being properly 

resourced. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

The country can ill afford further delays to the F–35’s necessary 

capabilities. However, it is equally essential to ensure the minimal 

number of deficiencies are deferred beyond SDD, both to deliver the 

necessary warfighting capabilities and to avoid further costly modifications later. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $91.2 million, for a total of $244.1 million, in PE 64800M, RDTEN, for F– 

35 SDD. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends additional funding increases for F–35 SDD to aid in the development 

of this vitally important program. 

F–35 System Design and Demonstration—Navy 

The budget request included $109.0 million in PE 64800N, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN), for the 

Navy contribution to F–35 System Design and Demonstration 

(SDD). 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense is 

not budgeting the resources necessary to ensure that the SDD 

phase is completed in a timely, efficient, and effective manner. The 

committee believes that it is essential the program efficiently and 

effectively completes the SDD phase to ensure that the warfighter 

receives the required capabilities and that the program is established on a solid foundation, with minimal outstanding deficiencies 

that need to be corrected in later modifications. The committee further believes post-SDD software updates and testing resources will 

be necessary prior to introduction of the first increment of Block 4 

Follow-on Modernization to correct any deficiencies either left over 

from SDD or discovered in Initial Operational Test and Evaluation. 

The committee does not believe these efforts are being properly 

resourced. 

The country can ill afford further delays to the F–35’s necessary 

capabilities. However, it is equally essential to ensure the minimal 

number of deficiencies are deferred beyond SDD, both to deliver the 

necessary warfighting capabilities and to avoid further costly modifications later. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $66.7 million, for a total of $175.6 million, in PE 64800N, RDTEN, for F– 

35 SDD. Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends additional funding increases for F–35 SDD to aid in the development 

of this vitally important program. 

Navy eProcurement (Navy ePS) 

The budget request included $11.2 million in Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy for PE 65013N for Navy 

eProcurement in Information Technology Development. The committee is concerned about duplication among the military services 

in contract writing systems. The committee recommends a decrease 

of $11.2 million in RDT&E Navy for PE 65013N for a total of $0.0 

million. 

Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System (NSIPS) 

The budget request included $23.9 million in Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Navy for PE 65013N for Navy 

Standard Integrated Personnel System in Information Technology 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

Development. The committee is concerned about duplication among 

the military services in integrated personnel and pay systems. The 

committee recommends a decrease of $23.9 million in RDT&E, 

Navy for PE 65013N for a total of $0.0 million. 

DDG–1000 

The budget request included $140.5 million in PE 24202N for the 

DDG–1000 program. 

The committee notes the budget request for this program element contains $121.2 million in cost growth in fiscal year 2018 and 

$222.3 million in cost growth over the fiscal year 2018 to 2020 period, as compared to the fiscal year 2017 budget request. The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to take further measures 

to regain cost control. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0 million 

in PE 24202N for the DDG–1000 program for a total of $90.5 million. 

Management, technical, and international support 

The budget request included $94.6 million in PE 65853N of research, development, test, and evaluation, Navy for management, 

technical, and international support. 

The committee notes the following projects contain unjustified growth: 2221 ($4.0 million) and 3027 ($1.5 million). 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.5 million 

for a total of $89.1 million. 

Classified project 

The budget request included $1.5 billion in PE 99999N of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy for classified programs. 

The committee recommends an increase of $200.0 million, for a 

total of $1.7 billion, for project 0428. 

Air Force 

Hypersonic wind tunnels 

The budget request included $124.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 62201F, for aerospace 

vehicle technologies. The committee recommends an increase of 

$5.0 million in PE 62201F to enhance efforts on advanced 

hypersonic wind tunnel experimentation and applied research for a 

total of $129.7 million. The committee notes that hypersonic technologies are a key component of Third Offset strategies but is concerned that investment has been insufficient to support test infrastructure, advanced testing techniques, and the testing workforce. 

Without these investments, it is unlikely that hypersonic systems 

will achieve operational status. 

Human effectiveness applied research 

The budget request included $108.8 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 62202F, for human 

effectives applied research. The committee notes that the Air Force 

Research Laboratory started a multi-year Secure Live-Virtual-ConVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

structive Advanced Training Environment Advance Technology 

Demonstrator to develop and demonstrate a mixed live-and-synthetic air combat environment to train pilots for missions involving 

current and future anti-access/area denial and asymmetric threats 

at an affordable cost. Such training systems are higher fidelity, 

more realistic, and threat-representative training. The introduction 

of these exercises will offer combat pilots substantially improved 

battlefield realism, and the committee urges the military services 

to apply the necessary focus and resources to support LVC training 

for combat pilots in the near-term. 

The committee notes that the demonstration needs additional 

funding for development activities which include ensuring multiple 

independent levels of security, encryption certification, development of a fifth generation advanced training waveform, and support for additional platform types. The lack of full funding puts at 

risk the ability to bridge the developmental effort into a program 

of record. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of 

$25.0 million in PE 62202F for a total of $133.8 million to support 

research on advanced training environments. 

Aerospace propulsion 

The budget request included $192.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 62203F, for aerospace 

propulsion. The committee notes that the Air Force must continue 

development of critical next-generation engine programs that require both significant research and development funding and longlead times for propulsion-system development. Advanced propulsion research is critical to meeting the requirement of advanced 

weapon systems concepts. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million 

in PE 62203F for a total of $200.7 million. 

Electronic combat technology 

The budget request included $60.5 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 63270F, for electronic 

combat technologies. In order to support collaboration between the 

Defense Digital Service and the Air Force Research Laboratory to 

improve Air Force software engineering capabilities and to address 

high priority technical issues plaguing Air Force information technology acquisition programs and deployed systems, the committee 

recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63270F for a total 

of $65.5 million. 

Commercial Space Situational Awareness (SSA) Consortia/ 

Testbed 

The committee is concerned about the increasingly contested environment in space and believes that commercial solutions, in some 

cases, are available to rapidly fill critical operational gaps and mitigate emerging threats. 

Therefore, the committee supports the funding of the Air Force’s 

unfunded requirement of $15.0 million to establish a commercial 

Space Situational Awareness (SSA) Consortia/Testbed to help the 

Air Force field ‘‘best of breed’’ commercial space situational awareness and Battle Management Command and Control (BMC2) softVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

ware. In an effort to normalize and better understand the many 

SSA investments underway or planned, the committee requests the 

Air Force provide a report itemizing the amounts the Air Force has 

requested on development, operations, and sustainment in the fiscal year 2018 budget request for each of the following three components, as well as funding requested in the unfunded requirements 

process: surveillance sensor systems, SSA software for operations 

centers, and BMC2 software for operations centers. In the report 

the Air Force should appropriately delineate investments in commercial capabilities versus Air Force research and development efforts and include a description for each including a discussion of 

how and where it plans to leverage commercial space situational 

awareness capabilities. The committee directs the Air Force to provide this information to the congressional defense committees within 30 days. 

Air Force Contracting Information Technology System 

The budget request included $15.9 million in Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force for PE 91410F for Air 

Force Contracting Information Technology System. The committee 

is concerned about duplication among the military services in contract writing systems. The committee recommends a decrease of 

$15.9 million in RDT&E, Air Force for PE 91410F for a total of 

$0.0 million. 

F–35 System Design and Demonstration—Air Force 

The budget request included $293.0 million in PE 64800F of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF) 

for the Air Force contribution to F–35 System Design and Demonstration (SDD). 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense is 

not budgeting the resources necessary to ensure that the SDD 

phase is completed in a timely, efficient, and effective manner. The 

committee believes that it is essential that the program efficiently 

and effectively completes the SDD phase to ensure that the 

warfighter receives the required capabilities and that the program 

is established on a solid foundation, with minimal outstanding deficiencies that need to be corrected in later modifications. The committee further believes post-SDD software updates and testing resources will be necessary prior to introduction of the first increment of Block 4 Follow-on Modernization to correct any deficiencies 

either left over from SDD or discovered in Initial Operational Test 

and Evaluation. The committee does not believe these efforts are 

being properly resourced. 

The country can ill afford further delays to the F–35’s necessary 

capabilities. However, it is equally essential to ensure the minimal 

number of deficiencies are deferred beyond SDD, both to deliver the 

necessary warfighting capabilities and to avoid further costly modifications later. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $172.2 million, for a total of $465.2 million, in PE 64800F, for F–35 SDD. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends additional funding increases for F–35 SDD to aid in the development of this vitally 

important program. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

Restructure of Air and Space Operations Center—Weapons 

System upgrade program 

The budget request contained $119.8 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF), PE 65458F, for 

the Air and Space Operations Center—Weapons System 10.2 upgrade program. 

The committee is concerned with the length and cost of the Air 

and Space Operations Center Weapons System 10.2 upgrade program, especially after the program experienced a critical change in 

March 2016, where the Milestone C fielding decision was delayed 

for an additional 3 years and the cost for the development phase 

was estimated to double over the original estimate, increasing from 

$374.0 million to $745.0 million. This program, while complex in 

nature and complicated by emerging cyber assurance requirements, 

was originally established in fiscal year 2007. For such a core Air 

Force requirement in a system intended to enable its Combined 

Forces Air Component Commanders to effectively plan and execute 

air and space campaigns in support of combatant commander 

warfighting requirements, a 13-year program from inception to 

fielding is unacceptable. 

The committee is also concerned that the treatment of Department of Defense software production and sustainment activities in 

the same manner as traditional acquisition programs is an impediment to the faster delivery of required capabilities. Software production should be treated primarily as advisory and assistance 

services under indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract structures, with specific contract lines to deliver increments of information technology from appropriate experts in a more rapid fashion. 

In today’s rapidly changing technology environment, software production and sustainment activities represent a continuous and ongoing effort that do not conform well with current acquisition program cycles and milestones. 

The committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force, in the pursuit of restructuring how information systems are developed and 

sustained, to use a pathfinder approach on this program to: 

(1) Establish an Air Force Life Cycle Management Center 

(AFLCMC)/Defense Innovation Unit—Experimental (DIUx) 

modernization team; 

(2) Establish a change management initiative to empower 

AFLCMC to run a multi-phase pathfinder pilot; 

(3) Deliver the initial capability of the pathfinder pilot within 

8 to 12 months; 

(4) Transition software management capability, contracting 

vehicles, and hiring authority from DIUx to the Air and Space 

Operations Center Program Management Office over the next 

24 to 36 months; 

(5) Demonstrate how executive leadership will facilitate agile 

software production processes; and 

(6) Distribute lessons learned for incorporation into other Department of Defense business information and national security system software production efforts. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $104.8 million in RDTEAF, PE 65458F, for the Air and Space Operations 

Center—Weapons System 10.2 upgrade program, for a total of 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

$15.0 million, which is sufficient authorization of funds for residual 

contract liabilities. 

Advanced weapons systems testing capabilities 

The budget request included $82.9 million in Research, Development, Test, Evaluation, Air Force, PE 64759F, for major test and 

evaluation investment. The committee notes that this bill supports 

and accelerates the Department’s efforts to modernize military capabilities to meet the threats of the future, especially in advanced 

weapons systems, such as hypersonic missiles and directed energy. 

The committee notes that the successful development and deployment of the systems depends on robust testing capabilities including open air ranges with modern instrumentation and highly 

skilled technical workforce. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $15.0 million in PE 64759F to improve open air range testing capabilities to 

support development of Third Offset advanced weapons systems, 

for a total of $97.9M. 

Air Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System (AF–IPPS) 

The budget request included $21.9 million in Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Air Force for PE 65018F for Air 

Force Integrated Personnel and Pay System (AF–IPPS). The committee is concerned about duplication among the military services 

in integrated personnel and pay systems. The committee recommends a decrease of $21.9 million in RDT&E, Air Force for PE 

65018F for a total of $0.0 million. 

Minuteman III Squadrons 

The budget request included $210.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 11213F, for Minuteman 

III Squadrons, of which $20.0 million was incorrectly loaded across 

the related programs during the budget process. The committee 

supports the request by the Air Force to transfer funds between 

these subprograms and therefore recommends a decrease of $10.0 

million in Minuteman Ground and Communication Equipment 

from $119.4 million to $109.4 million, a decrease of $10.0 million 

in Minuteman Support Equipment from $31.6 million to $21.6 million, and an increase of $20.0 million in ICBM Cryptography Upgrade II from no funding to $20.0 million, with the aggregate funding for Minuteman III Squadrons remaining at $210.9 million. 

Pulsed solid rocket motor technology 

The budget request contained $35.0 million in Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF) for PE 27161F for 

Tactical AIM Missiles. 

The committee is aware that substantial advances are being 

made in the development of pulsed solid rocket motor technologies 

that could significantly increase the range and probability of kill 

for existing air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles. With the increasing capabilities of potential adversary air-to-air and air-to-surface 

munitions, successful transition of such technologies could be rapidly fielded into existing U.S. munitions inventories to maintain 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 

technological overmatch in air dominance against potential adversaries. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in RDTEAF, for PE 27161F, for a total of $55.0 million, to support the development of pulsed rocket motor technologies for airto-air and air-to-surface missiles. 

Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network 

The budget request included $48.8 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force, PE 33131F, for the Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network (MEECN), of 

which $10.0 million was requested for Global Aircrew Strategic 

Network Terminal (ASNT) Increment 1; $22.5 million was for Common VLF/LF Receiver (CVR) Increment 2; and $15.4 million was 

for Global ASNT Increment 2. The committee notes that program 

delays in Global ASNT Increment 1 have further delayed Increment 2. The committee supports the Air Force’s request to transfer 

funds between these subprograms and therefore recommends that 

CVR Increment 2 be decreased by $12.3 million for a total of $10.3 

million; Global ASNT Increment 2 be reduced by $8.8 million for 

a total of $6.5 million; and Global ASNT Increment 1 be increased 

by $21.1 million for a total of $31.1 million, in order to support 

timely completion of Increment 1, with the aggregate funding for 

MEECN remaining at $48.8 million. 

C–130J 

The budget request included $26.8 million in PE 41132F, Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF) for 

the C–130J program. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $6.4 million in PE 

41132F for RDTEAF, for a total of $20.4 million, for the C–130J 

program due to the availability of prior year funds that are excess 

to program needs. 

Defense Wide 

National defense education program 

The budget request included $74.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 61120D8Z, for the 

national defense education program. The committee notes that that 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) authorized a program the Department of Defense 

to engage in innovative and evidence-based efforts to improve 

science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) educational opportunities for military children. The committee notes 

that by this fall, 215 military-connected high schools will be engaged in the program. The committee also notes that this program 

is yielding significant dividends and tangible results. For example, 

using the highly rigorous Advanced Placement exam qualifying 

score (3 or better on a 5-point scale) as the benchmark, program 

schools have seen an average of a 152 percent increase in successful math and science examinations after 3 years in the program. 

To support these efforts, the committee recommends an additional 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

$5.0 million in PE 61120D8Z for a total of $79.3 million to support 

evidence-based military child STEM education. 

Manufacturing Engineering Education Program 

The budget request included $74.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 61120D8Z, for the 

National Defense Education Program. Improving the quality and 

availability of manufacturing engineering education is critically important to sustaining and advancing the manufacturing industrial 

base of the United States, which is vital for the economic and national security of the country, and specifically the Defense Industrial Base, on which the Department of Defense directly depends 

for its warfighting capabilities. Manufacturing engineering education suffered in proportion to the collapse of manufacturing employment in the last decade, and needs to be revitalized. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for the Manufacturing Engineering Education Program established under section 

2196(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code in PE 61120D8Z for a 

total of $94.3 million. 

Support for minority women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields at historically black colleges and universities 

The budget request includes $25.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 61228D8Z, for research activities at Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

(HBCUs). The committee is aware of the need to increase participation of all American citizens in defense and related national security efforts. Students at HBCUs represent a largely untapped pool 

of U.S. citizens who have technical training and can obtain the security clearances needed to work on high priority national security 

challenges. The committee notes that the HBCU program at the 

Department of Defense has worked both to fund high priority university research, especially through the establishment of centers of 

excellence in key disciplines and activities, and to strengthen the 

pipeline of talent from HBCUs into technical positions within the 

Department. The committee urges the Department to engage 

HBCUs to support the training and education of minority women 

in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) 

fields that are of interest to the military, particularly through research funding, fellowships, and internships and cooperative work 

experiences at Defense laboratories. The committee recommends 

that the Department considering increasing investments in these 

kinds of activities in future budgets to support Administration initiatives on HBCUs. Consistent with the spirit and findings of the 

INSPIRE Women Act (Public Law 115–7), the Promoting Women 

in Entrepreneurship Act (Public Law 115–6), and Executive Orders 

promoting excellence and innovation at Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities (E.O. 13532 and E.O. 13779), the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to support merit-based and 

competitive awards to HBCUs in PE 61228D8Z for a total of $27.9 

million. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 

Tactical technology 

The budget request included $343.8 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, PE 62702E, 

for tactical technology, of which $33.5 million was requested for the 

multi-azimuth defense fast intercept round engagement system. 

The committee notes that this system, while potentially capable, 

faces an uncertain transition future due to the complexity involved 

with installation deployment, combined with practical limitations 

on its use. In addition, the committee notes that the Navy has not 

yet signed on as a transition partner despite the potential application to naval warfare. 

The committee also notes that a number of efforts in this program element are proposed for significant growth, at a time when 

similar activities in the Services and the Strategic Capabilities Office are also growing. At the same time, the committee is concerned 

that the agency appears to be undertaking some of these efforts 

without sufficient coordination with the defense research community. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 

million in PE 62702E for a total of $328.8 million and recommends 

that a portion of the decrease be applied to multi-azimuth defense 

fast intercept round engagement system. 

Electronics technology 

The budget request included $295.4 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, PE 62176E, 

for electronics technology. The committee notes that the request 

represents an increase of over 33 percent above the amount enacted for fiscal year 2017, which itself was 25 percent above the 

amount enacted for fiscal year 2016. The committee notes that the 

completed projects in this program element did not for the most 

part transition to programs of records. As a result, the committee 

recommends a general program decrease of $10.0 million in PE 

62176E for a total of $285.4 million. 

Analytic assessments 

The budget request included $13.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, PE 63288D8Z, 

for science and technology analytic assessments. The committee 

recommends a reduction of $5.0 million in PE 63288D8Z for a total 

of $8.2 million, reflecting an interest in supporting higher priority 

technology development activities. The committee also urges the 

Department to make use of a broader set of analytic capabilities, 

including those at not-for-profit research organizations and think 

tanks, universities, and in-house laboratories to support these 

types of analyses. 

Enhancement of Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership to Department of Defense 

The budget request included $136.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63680D8Z for Manufacturing Science and Technology Program. The National Institute 

for Standards and technology (NIST) conducts a nation-wide Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) to support small manufacturing companies to reduce costs, increase productivity, improve 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
71 

management, enhance their supply chains, and discover and adapt 

to new market and supply chain opportunities. The MEP already 

supports a large fraction of the small manufacturers in the Defense 

Industrial Base, and has already formed relationships with the 

Manufacturing USA Institutes established by the Department of 

Defense over the last five years. With additional funding, the MEP 

could provide services to a larger fraction of the small businesses 

already serving or seeking to become part of the Defense Industrial 

Base. In addition, the MEP could play a pivotal role in ensuring 

the success of the Manufacturing Institutes by using its dense network of small business relationships to promote exposure, networking, and collaboration between small manufacturers, the MEP 

centers (as defined in section 25(a) of the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(a)), and the regional institutes of Manufacturing USA. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $35.0 mil- lion in program element PE 63680D8Z for a total of $171.2 million. 

Of this increase, $20.0 million would be to extend the support of 

the MEP to improve the productivity of the Defense Industrial 

Base, and $15.0 million would be to establish partnerships between 

MEP centers and the Manufacturing USA Institutes to enhance 

participation by small manufacturers, disseminate technology and 

know-how to small businesses, and enhance the supply chains of 

the Institutes’ corporate members. 

Sustaining Investment in Manufacturing USA Institutes 

The budget request included $136.2 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63680D8Z for the 

Manufacturing Science and Technology Program. Over the last five 

years, the Department of Defense (DOD) established eight manufacturing technology institutes under the Manufacturing USA Initiative. The institutes are public-private partnerships between the 

government, industry, and academia to mature new, advanced 

manufacturing technology (technology readiness levels 3–7) in focused areas that are key to future economic growth and national 

security. After five years of government co-investment, the institutes must be self-sustaining. Fiscal year 2017 is the fifth and final 

year of government funding for the original institute, America 

Makes, which is focused on additive manufacturing and 3D printing. In the next several years, Department of Defense seed funding 

for the institutes will cease. The committee agrees that the institutes should be self-sustaining, but believes that the institutes represent a valuable research and development resource that the Department should be using to advance its manufacturing technology 

agenda. The committee recommends and increase of $20.0 million 

in PE 63680D8Z for a total of $156.2 million for the Department 

to enter into contracts with the institutes to address specific Defense manufacturing technology challenges and opportunities. 

The committee notes that there are tensions between elements of 

the institutes’ designs and goals. The institutes bring together companies for collaborative purposes and common interests, but these 

companies compete with each other and are naturally cautious 

about exposing ideas about technical solutions that they believe 

could provide a competitive advantage. The Department of Defense, 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 

as a matter of policy, emphasizes the importance of open access 

among all institute members to intellectual property developed at 

the institute, but this can discourage companies from working at 

the institutes with their vertically aligned supply chains to create 

proprietary technological advances. More generally, the institutes 

are intended to mature manufacturing technology while at the 

same time remaining at the ‘‘pre-competitive’’ phase of maturation. 

These constraints deter the institutes from generating distinctive 

intellectual property or solutions to address specific manufacturing 

technology requirements. This in turn could limit the value of the 

institutes’ work to the military services and the corporate members 

that support the institutes financially. This could handicap the institutes within DOD, because the metric used to evaluate manufacturing technology programs is the successful transition of technology directly to legacy or new programs. 

The committee recommends that the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel become an active participant in guiding 

the Department’s work and engagement with the institutes and the 

metrics that are developed to assess them, to ensure greater insights into the military services’ actual defense/supply chain needs. 

The committee urges the Department to encourage institutes to 

support institute members desiring to work at the institutes with 

supply chain partners on proprietary advances. It is vital for the 

Department to ensure that the companies that financially support 

the institutes realize measurable returns on their investment. The 

committee further encourages exploration of new collaborative institute models being explored by the services outside the Manufacturing USA framework, such as the Army Research Laboratory’s 

new Center for Agile Materials Manufacturing Science. 

SERDP and ESTCP increases 

The budget request included $20.4 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Defense-wide, of which $71.8 

million was for the PE 63716D8Z Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and $54.5 million for 

the PE 63851D8Z Environmental Security Technology Certification 

Program (ESTCP). 

The committee notes that both SERDP and ESTCP demonstrate 

and validate the most promising innovative technologies that can 

meet the Department’s most urgent environmental requirements, 

provide a return on investment, and are executed through a free 

and open competition. 

The committee remains very concerned with the rising number 

of military installations across the country that have tested positive for contaminated drinking water with the presence of per- and 

polyfluoroakyl substances, which have a lifetime health advisory of 

70 parts per trillion according to the Environmental Protection 

Agency. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of 

$10.0 million in RDT&E, PE 63716D8Z, for SERDP, and an increase of $10.0 million in RDT&E, PE 63851D8Z, for ESTCP, for 

totals of $81.8 million and $64.5 million respectively. 

Lastly, the committee directs the Department to use the increases in SERDP and ESTCP to address the following urgent concerns: (1) The safety and welfare of the servicemembers and their 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
73 

dependents by eliminating or reducing the generation of pollution 

and use of hazardous materials and reducing the cost of remedial 

actions and compliance with environmental laws and regulations, 

specifically as it relates to per- and polyfluoroakyl substances; (2) 

Improved munitions response and unexploded ordnance mitigation 

and removal; and (3) Long-term threats to sustain training and 

testing ranges. 

Microelectronics technology development and support 

The budget request included $219.8 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63720S for microelectronics technology development and support. The committee remains concerned about manufacturing supply chain assurance 

against counterfeit parts and ensuring ready access to trusted 

microelectronics. The committee notes its desire for a long-term 

strategy for the development of trusted microelectronics that can 

withstand any future problems with an international supply chain. 

To support efforts in microelectronics technology development and 

support, the committee recommends an increase of $80.0 million in 

PE 63720S for a total of $299.8 million. 

Operational energy capability improvement 

The budget request included $20.4 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $38.4 

million was for the PE 64055D8Z Operational Energy Capability 

Improvement Fund (OECIF). 

The committee recognizes the urgent requirement to constantly 

innovate and improve combat capability and operational effectiveness for the warfighter, via targeted and competitive operational 

energy science and technology investments. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 mil- lion, for a total of $48.4 million, in RDT&E, PE 64055D8Z, for 

OECIF. 

Specifically, the committee directs the Department to use the 

OECIF and increase in funding to address the following urgent 

concerns: deployable technologies that can harvest water from air, 

tactical microgrids, hybrid energy storage modules, waste to energy 

technologies given the continual challenge of open-air burn pits, 

joint infantry company prototypes, long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicles, and other technologies deemed appropriate. 

Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Program 

The budget request included $105.3 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense Wide, PE 603913C, for Israeli 

Cooperative Missile Defense Programs. The committee recommends 

an increase of $268.5 million in PE 603913C, for a total of $373.8 

million, to reduce development risk and continue the modernization 

of Israeli’s multi-tiered missile defense systems. The additional 

funding shall be apportioned as follows: $28.1 million for the 

Arrow-3 Upper Tier system; $105.0 million to conduct flight tests 

of the Arrow-3 Upper Tier system at a U.S. test range; $71.5 million for the Arrow System Improvement program; and $63.9 million 

for the David’s Sling program. The committee urges the Government of Israel to avoid any additional, unnecessary costs in further 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

tests of the Arrow-3 program and to leverage these and any other 

U.S. funds already appropriated to plan for such future tests. 

Corrosion control and prevention funding increase 

The budget request included $20.4 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide, of which $3.8 

million was for PE 64016D8Z Department of Defense (DOD) Corrosion Program. 

The committee continues to be concerned that the Department 

has consistently underfunded the DOD Corrosion Program since 

fiscal year 2011. The DOD estimates that the negative effects of 

corrosion cost approximately $22.9 billion annually to prevent and 

mitigate corrosion of its assets, including military equipment, 

weapons, facilities, and other infrastructure. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million, for a total of $13.8 million, in RDT&E Defense-wide, PE 

64016D8Z, for the DOD Corrosion Program. 

Defense technology offset 

The budget request included $0.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 64342D8Z for defense technology offset. The committee notes that insufficient funds 

have been put towards directed energy, inconsistent with the intent 

of Congress to bolster directed energy technologies. In addition, a 

provision elsewhere in this Act establishes a directed energy weapon system prototype and demonstration initiative and authorizes 

$200 million for these efforts. The committee underscores that directed energy systems are still critical areas of work in need of 

greater support and attention. The committee believes that the Department needs to focus in particular on the transition from lab development to deployment and fielding. Consequently, the committee recommends a general increase of $200.0 million in PE 

64342D8Z for a total of $200.0 million to be used only for the purposes of directed energy weapon systems prototyping and demonstration in conjunction with the new program established elsewhere in this Act. Of this increase, the committee recommends that 

an appropriate amount be made available for the Joint Directed 

Energy Transition Office to carry out additional authorities and responsibilities, including the development of the strategic plan, pursuant to section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). The committee notes that 

this increase builds on the efforts in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), which established a new technology offset program that included a strong focus 

on directed energy technologies. 

Ground-Launched Intermediate-Range Missile 

The budget request included no funding for a Ground-Launched 

Intermediate-Range Missile in Research, Development, Test, and 

Evaluation, Defense-wide. The committee recommends an increase 

of $65.0 million for this initiative. A provision related to the authorization for the use of such funds is included in title XVI of this 

Act. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

Government-unique Tracking and Reporting Tool 

The budget request included $21.4 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 65027D8Z, for IT 

Development Initiatives including $2.0 million for a Financial Management and Certification Tracking and Reporting Tool. Given that 

colleges and universities exist, and nearly every federal agency, 

and every company has some kind of mandatory training program 

for employees, the tracking of certification and reporting for training initiatives is a solved technical problem in the commercial market. The Department does not need to award a contract to develop 

a new system from scratch, and instead should develop an approach that considers modernizing the existing system to optimize 

its performance using expertise resident in the Department, or ordering an off-the shelf solution from the commercial market and 

configuring it. Therefore the committee recommends a reduction of 

$2.0 million from this account. 

Defense-Wide Electronic Procurement Capabilities 

The budget request included $11.9 million in Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide (RDT&E DW), for PE 

65210D8Z for Defense-Wide Electronic Procurement Capabilities. 

The committee is concerned about duplication among the military 

services in contract writing systems. The committee recommends a 

decrease of $11.9 million in RDT&E DW for PE 65210D8Z for a 

total of $0.0 million. 

Software developmental testing 

The budget request include $20.6 million in PE65804D8Z for Development Test and Evaluation in Research, Development, Test, 

and Evaluation, Defense-Wide. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to improve capabilities for the agile testing of software to support more 

efficient development of advanced information technologies and 

systems. 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 

The budget request included $37.9 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), PE 

1105219BB, for the development, integration, and testing of special 

operations-unique mission kits for the Medium Altitude Long Endurance Tactical (MALET) MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). 

U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is responsible for the 

rapid development and acquisition of special operations capabilities 

to, among other things, effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks while avoiding collateral damage. 

The committee understands that the budget request only partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its fleet 

of MQ–9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $13.0 million in RDTEDW for the MQ–9 UAV for a total of 

$50.9 million. 

The committee strongly supports SOCOM’s efforts to accelerate 

fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging technologies 

on its fleet of MQ–9 UAVs. The committee has authorized additional funds above the budget request in each of the last 5 years 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

to enhance these efforts and understands that SOCOM has successfully developed and acquired a number of new capabilities, including improved weapon effectiveness, target location and tracking, 

image resolution, and video transmission during that time. The 

committee expects SOCOM to update the committee periodically on 

its development efforts under the MALET MQ–9 UAV program. 

Items of Special Interest 

Active electronically scanned array radar improvements 

The committee notes that Air Force and Navy fighter aircraft are 

equipped with active electronically scanned array (AESA) types of 

radars, and all services are actively pursuing retrofit of these types 

of radars on legacy aircraft. The Air Force has identified threats 

from adversaries operating at frequencies where AESA radar’s capability can be further improved, and has tasked the Air Force Research Laboratory to lead the development of technologies that address these capability gaps, in order to develop hardware that can 

be used across the services to address spectrum threats to radars, 

weapons, missile seekers, and other airborne platforms. The Committee encourages the Air Force to continue these efforts and provide resources as needed to develop newer, more capable arrays 

which will provide significant performance advantages. 

Advanced airlift airship technology 

The committee has continuing interest in advanced lighter-thanair (LTA) logistic airship technology and remains eager to see practicability, operating utility, and cost benefits proven, believing that 

advanced technology in this area can provide a transformational logistic capability for the Department of Defense by adding particular value to a range of airlift missions. Advanced airships have 

the potential to effect significant changes in atmospheric flight; 

however, fostering government involvement and leadership remains the vital catalyst to help advanced airships emerge. 

To this end, the Senate report accompanying S. 2943 (S. Rept. 

114–255) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2017 directed the Secretary of Defense to stand up leadership responsibility for an advanced airship initiative. The goal was to encourage the successful development of outsize airlift technology 

that could release revolutionary capability for defense logistics, particularly with respect to long range ‘‘point of need delivery’’ and 

outsize or extreme weight airlift to facilitate humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and non-combatant evacuation operations. 

Airship efforts during the past 20 years or more have failed to 

make a breakthrough as viable cargo carriers. The committee has 

determined that a more deliberate approach to the development of 

future airship technology is evidently required. The transformational potential for outsize cargo airlift is not in doubt: the 

committee notes that the United States Transportation Command 

has stated previously that airships possess the key to a substantial 

strengthening of military air mobility. However, effective developmental execution has been missing. 

The committee believes that this can be changed and the technology successfully matured through robust engagement by the DeVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

fense Department. Simple ‘‘blimp’’ technology is not the basis of a 

successful program. The goal must be an advanced air vehicle that 

is consistent with 21st century military transportation needs. The 

demand for structured experimentation and development leading to 

demonstration appears best suited to be undertaken by the Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency, where there is a history of advanced airship work, notably, the heavy-lift Walrus program. 

The introduction of a system of integrated advanced airship lift 

technologies is the key to addressing the hard issues of in-flight 

buoyancy control, vertical take-off and landing capability, and ballast generation. In this way, airships operating with extreme 

outsize payloads can achieve the operating standards that are typical of modern air transportation. The Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency, working with the military, industry, and commercial sector, is uniquely agile and fitted to manage this type of approach. 

The Department must take the lead to explore advanced airship 

outsize cross-modal airlift to meet the emerging needs of the Air 

Force, United States Transportation Command, and the other combatant commands. In this regard, the committee directs that, not 

later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall: 

(1) Identify a senior leader to reaffirm defense leadership 

and responsibilities for airship technical initiatives; 

(2) Provide an outline for a future Department of Defense 

airship technology strategy that takes ownership of maturation 

efforts consistent with military outsize airlift capability to 

identify: 

(a) Critical technology challenges and demonstrations required to provide proof of viability; 

(b) Development risks and important lessons learned; 

and 

(c) Impediments to successful demonstration, including 

gaps in Department of Defense understanding of airship 

technology; and 

(3) Lay out notional estimates for time, costs, and other necessary resources to conduct an incremental demonstration for 

technical viability with suitable decision points and off-ramps. 

Aircraft battery cost-savings technology improvements 

The committee believes all proven and relevant technologies 

should be investigated for application to existing platforms if such 

an application would greatly reduce the cost to the government. In 

particular, lithium-ion battery technology, a proven commercial 

technology, would bring better, more efficient power storage capability to military aircraft. 

Because all military aircraft rely on effective batteries for systems starting and emergency power, a durable and reliable battery 

is a key component to an effective fighting asset. Any power-density increases or battery life improvements lead directly to cost savings through reductions in maintenance cycles, purchasing costs, 

and space and weight requirements. Estimates show that leading 

lithium-ion batteries can offer 2 to 3 times the service life of tradiVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

tional nickel-cadmium aircraft batteries at 50 percent of the 

weight. 

Given these circumstances surrounding the latest battery technology improvements, the committee recommends all service aviation program research offices review available battery solutions for 

cost savings through alternate battery sourcing options, capitalizing on available lithium-ion battery technologies for longer battery life and reduced costs. 

Botulinum Toxin Type A countermeasures 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense and more 

specifically DTRA is managing efforts to develop a vaccine to 

counter botulinum toxin types A and B. There is evidence and discussion in the scientific community stating that the use of the 

BoNT/A vaccine which the department is pursuing can limit future 

medical treatments for military personnel in that it would prevent 

immunized warfighters and veterans from receiving the benefit of 

the rapidly growing number of important medical uses of botulinum toxin type A. Several of these medical uses are critically important to the military veteran population, including treatments for 

PTSD-associated migraine and amputation pain. 

Within 60 days of enactment of this act, DTRA shall brief the 

congressional defense committees on their research and development plans to counter botulinum toxin type A. This would include 

any projected impact and/or potential drawbacks in using the 

BoNT/A vaccine. 

Briefings on autonomy, robotics, and artificial intelligence 

The committee recognizes the importance of technologies such as 

autonomy, robotics, and artificial intelligence for the future of military capabilities. Accordingly, the committee requests that the secretary of each military service and offices of the Department of Defense as selected by the Secretary of Defense provide briefings to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the House and the Senate on 

planned and potential research, development, testing, and evaluation of such technologies. The briefings should discuss what entities 

within the service or office have responsibility for robotics, autonomy, and artificial intelligence issues and existing plans for research, development, testing, and engineering of these technologies 

as well as plans to incorporate these technologies into doctrine and 

strategy. 

Clarification of definition of small business for purposes of 

prototype project authority 

The committee notes that Other Transactions authority has proven to be successful in helping the Department of Defense attract 

nontraditional performers, including small businesses. These performers carry out prototype projects that enhance the mission effectiveness of military personnel. The committee encourages and supports the Department of Defense to expand its use of Other Transactions authority for funding agreements under the Small Business 

Innovative Research program and Small Business Technology 

Transfer program. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

The mission of these two small business programs is to support 

scientific excellence and technological innovation through the investment of federal research funds in critical American priorities to 

build a strong national economy. Encouraging and supporting the 

Department of Defense to use proven innovative procurement processes such as Other Transactions authority for funding agreements 

under the small business programs will both enhance the mission 

effectiveness of the Department of Defense and help accomplish the 

mission of the programs. 

Common data environment for modeling and simulation 

Modeling, training, and simulation efforts require significant 

amounts and different types of data in order to adequately simulate the operational environment. Each community and military 

service within the Department of Defense currently independently 

develops data for modeling and simulation purposes to support 

their own training, operations, analysis, test and development. The 

committee believes that this approach is not optimal, with independent data solutions increasing costs and inhibiting interoperability across the Department. The committee recognizes that some 

investment has been made to create capability to improve data 

sharing, reduce costs, and eliminate duplicative data collection and 

processing efforts. The committee further recognizes that additional 

investment and coordinated strategy may be needed to maintain 

and advance better use of data by the modeling and simulation 

community. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to take 

actions to identify and address data collection, analysis, and sharing issues that are limiting development of more robust modeling 

and simulation capabilities. 

Comptroller General review of Next Generation Air Dominance 

The Navy and Air Force are both in the process of analyzing alternative system concepts to address future capability gaps described in the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Initial Capabilities Document. The NGAD analysis of alternatives is expected to be completed in fiscal year 2018. At that time, the Services will have identified their preferred system concept(s) and will 

likely begin significantly increasing investments to mature critical 

technologies, begin early design work, and refine system requirements with the expectation of fielding an NGAD system capable of 

penetrating anti-access/area-denial operating environments by the 

2030 timeframe. Both services are considering a family of systems 

approach with the potential acquisition of a new advanced fighter 

aircraft for replacing F/A–18, EA–18, F–15C, and F–22 as a major 

element of their NGAD investment plans. Given the likely size of 

the potential future investment for this capability, the complexity 

and risk inherent in the family of systems approach, and the strategic importance of successfully acquiring next generation air dominance capabilities, independent perspective and oversight will be 

vital to achieving a successful effort. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States, on an annual basis until the Milestone C or full rate 

production decision for any resulting program of record, to review 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

the Department’s NGAD investment plans and associated acquisition program(s) and to provide periodic briefings to the congressional defense committees on the findings of the reviews. The Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) initial review should include 

an assessment of the Department’s NGAD requirements, concept 

alternatives, and risk reduction efforts. Future reviews should also 

include an assessment of the relevant NGAD acquisition programs’: 

(1) acquisition strategies; (2) technology, design, and production 

readiness; (3) development, testing, and fielding progress; and (4) 

overall cost, schedule, and technical performance. 

The committee believes that in order to support the GAO’s efforts, it is necessary to ensure timely access to program information including, but not limited to, cost and budget information, detailed schedules, contractor data, program management reports, decision briefings, risk and technology readiness assessments, and 

technical performance measures. Given the classified nature of 

some of the information, the GAO is directed to advise the committee of any assistance GAO personnel will need to secure access 

to information related to this review. 

Executive agent for printed circuit board technology 

The committee is aware of ongoing efforts through the Department of Defense Executive Agent for Printed Circuit Board Technology (PrCB EA) to develop and execute a strategy to address the 

declining printed circuit board industrial base and gaps identified 

in the 2015 Department of Defense Executive Agent for Printed 

Circuit Board and Interconnect Technology Roadmap. According to 

a PrCB EA industrial base capability assessment, between 1980 

and 2014, the printed circuit board manufacturing base declined 86 

percent from over 2,000 manufacturers to just 280. The committee 

is concerned that what remains of the U.S. printed circuit board industrial base is becoming less capable of sustaining the superiority 

of Department of Defense systems and growing increasingly dependent on foreign suppliers, particularly China. This poses a risk 

to the Defense supply chain in terms of the quality and trustworthiness of the products it acquires. The committee supports continued execution of PrCB EA functions addressing trust, supply 

chain, organic capability, and research activities, including the continued development of a network of trusted suppliers and 

leveraging the DoD Trusted Supplier Program to include PrCB designers, manufacturers, and electronic assemblers. 

Facility leasing authority for Department of Defense science 

and technology laboratories and test and evaluation 

centers 

The committee notes that a lack of modern and adequate facilities and infrastructure is likely the single biggest challenge facing 

Department of Defense science and technology laboratories and test 

and evaluation centers. Being forced to work in old, outdated, and 

potentially dangerous laboratories and facilities not only affects the 

pace and output of scientific achievement, but it also harms morale 

and retention among a highly-skilled group of government employees. In addition, aging facilities often present serious safety considerations that further impact the ability of the laboratories and cenVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

ters to carry out their missions. All of these issues hamper the productivity and efficiency of the defense research, development, test, 

and evaluation enterprise and ultimately hurt the development of 

technology for our Armed Forces. 

The committee further notes that section 2812 of title 10, United 

States Code, authorizes the secretary of a military service or the 

Secretary of Defense to enter into lease agreements for a wide 

range of facilities. However, this authority has seldom been used 

for defense laboratories and test centers, despite the obvious need 

for newer and more modern laboratory facilities. 

In recognition of the existing needs and authorities, the committee directs the secretary of each military service to delegate 

down the authority to enter into lease agreements to the respective 

director of each Department of Defense science and technology laboratory and test and evaluation center. By delegating this authority, the committee expects that the directors of laboratories and 

centers would have the authority to enter into lease agreements 

with private contractors for certain kinds of facilities, pursuant to 

section 2812 of title 10, United States Code. The committee further 

expects that use of the authority by respective directors would significantly expedite the usage of modern and safe facilities. 

Human simulation 

The Committee recognizes a foundational research effort that 

couples applied research in human simulation with physics-based 

survivability analysis models will lead to substantial information 

and insight that lowers costs to enhance warfighter mobility, survivability, welfare and training. The committee believes that funding for research and integration of physics-based human simulation 

with existing government models of survivability/lethality analysis 

and human performance to create a holistic model will support: (1) 

the research and development of more realistic avatars that can 

‘‘feel’’ the forces of the environment, have strength, can exhibit fatigue, and have natural behavior like their human counterparts; (2) 

integration of the models; and (3) model verification and validation. 

Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) 

The committee commends the Army for moving forward with research and development of the Improved Turbine Engine Program 

(ITEP), the service’s stated top aviation modernization program. 

The Army is further commended for its efforts in exploring initial 

ways to accelerate development and fielding of this critical program 

that is intended to develop a more fuel efficient and powerful engine for the current UH–60 and AH–64 helicopter fleets. This new 

engine will substantially increase operational capabilities in high 

or hot environments, increase range, and improve fuel efficiency 

while reducing the logistics footprint, resulting in dramatically reduced operating and support costs. Given the positive progress of 

this key program, the Committee fully funds ITEP in fiscal year 

2018 and encourages the Army to ensure ITEP is robustly funded 

in future years. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
82 

Improving aerospace materials performance 

The committee supports the Department of Defense’s efforts to 

develop new capabilities to improve structural metallic materials 

used in high priority aerospace and other defense missions. The 

committee notes that advanced materials processing and characterization techniques, available in industry, academia, and government labs, including using high-energy X-rays and other techniques, can help design engineers better understand which materials are best suited for stressing military performance requirements and develop optimal and efficient manufacturing processes 

for these unique materials. It is critical that Department of Defense scientists engage in hands-on experiential learning to train a 

new generation of materials scientists and engineers in these new 

capabilities, including the creation and implementation of high-fidelity simulations and advanced data-science methods to support 

development of next generation weapons systems. The committee 

recommends that the Department encourage and establish partnerships with industry and academic centers of technical expertise, as 

well as leveraging unique, world-class research infrastructure best 

suited to support Department of Defense technology goals. 

Joint directed energy test center 

The committee notes that next generation weapon systems are 

being developed by the Department of Defense and industry, but 

the nation’s infrastructure for testing those weapon systems is antiquated and in need of modernization. The Department of Defense 

established the nation’s first High Energy Laser System Test Facility (HELSTF) in 1975, but the technology has seen significant advancements over the course of four decades. As directed energy 

weapon systems mature, the need to validate their performance becomes increasingly important. 

The committee applauds the Air Force for proposing a Joint Directed Energy Test Center, which could potentially concentrate government expertise and reduce duplication of effort across the Department of Defense in order to support more rapid and cost effective testing and fielding of directed energy weapon systems. The 

committee believes that doing so could also allow the broad, standardized collection and evaluation of data to establish test references and support policy decisions in a more reliable fashion. 

The committee is aware that the Test Resource Management 

Center and the High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office produced a report in 2009 recommending funding over the future 

years defense program to develop and maintain adequate personnel, resources, and facilities to test current and future high energy laser systems. Despite these recommendations, the Department has submitted budget requests that have resulted in a 75 

percent cut in budget and personnel at HELSTF. With this in 

mind, the committee directs the Director of Operational Testing 

and Evaluation to review and update the 2009 report and to identify infrastructure and personnel needs at HELSTF to accommodate the growth and maturity of directed energy weapon systems 

across the military services. The Director should consult with the 

services and reference the Air Force Directed Energy Flight Plan 

when updating the report. The committee directs the Department 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
83 

to submit and brief the updated to the defense committees on the 

updated report within 90 days. 

Live, Virtual, and Constructive Training 

The ability of the services to effectively and efficiently train to 

real world threats in realistic environments is being increasingly 

challenged by a variety of factors, including security concerns, airspace limitations, and a lack of representative threats. As the gap 

widens between what our forces would likely face in a conflict with 

a near-peer adversary and what they can train to, U.S. combat effectiveness will atrophy. However, advances in technology for simulator systems, including fidelity, synthetic inputs, and other technologies, have allowed the services to expand opportunities for realistic and effective training. The migration to more live, virtual, and 

constructive (LVC) training has the potential to fill training gaps 

and enhance the services’ overall training programs. While strongly 

supportive of the services’ efforts to develop LVC capabilities, the 

committee is concerned the services are executing the various development programs to deliver training solutions that are insufficiently integrated and interoperable, inhibiting the potential for 

taking full advantage of these systems for invaluable joint force 

training. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretaries of the Air Force, 

Army, and Navy, not later than March 1, 2018, to provide to the 

congressional defense committees a report on their respective plans 

for LVC training. The reports should include: (1) a description of 

the warfighter requirement(s) that LVC training programs are 

meant to fulfill; (2) a description of programs for fielding LVC 

training; (3) an identification of costs associated with each of the 

LVC programs; (4) an estimate of the projected timelines for fielding the LVC training systems; (5) a discussion of any challenges to 

development, integration, and fielding of LVC capabilities; (6) a description of the extent to which interoperability with the LVC architectures of the other services has been included in the requirements, development, integration, and fielding of their respective 

LVC programs; and (7) an identification of who in the services’ organization is responsible for ensuring the interoperability of their 

LVC capabilities with the other services. The required report shall 

be unclassified, but may include a classified annex. 

Low cost unmanned aerospace systems development 

Future anticipated military threats and tighter defense budgets 

combine to drive the need for new and innovative solutions towards 

the development of future low cost unmanned aerospace systems 

(UAS). As manned aircraft costs have continued to escalate, so has 

the need for UAS concepts that offer dramatic reductions in cost in 

order to bring ‘‘mass’’ to the engagement and to achieve a cost imposing effect on future adversaries, has grown. UAS performance, 

design life reliability and maintainability drive the cost of today’s 

systems, and need to be traded to achieve the optimum capability 

and cost effects. Thus, the committee believes the development of 

an attritable UAS, with fighter like capability, whereby virtue of 

its cost, loss of aircraft could be tolerated, is necessary in order to 

change the cost curve of war. This concept should provide long 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
84 

range, runway independent launch and recovery, transonic, strike 

capability in remote, contested regions where forward basing is difficult or prohibited. Therefore, the committee urges the Department of Defense to further research and development activities into 

fighter-like, low-cost, attritable UAS with the intent of creating a 

program of record and encourages the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to consider this capability when updating UAS related requirements. 

Machine learning for national security 

The committee commends the Department’s focus on machine 

learning in its Third Offset Strategy as a means of enhancing the 

safety of our men and women in uniform, lowering costs, streamlining processes, and informing strategic decision making. The committee is aware that the exponential growth in data available for 

collection globally as well as the evolving machine learning techniques and growing computational resources are both an opportunity and a necessity. Countries that make effective use of these 

data and tools will have strategic and tactical advantages over 

those that do not. As such, the committee urges the Department to 

continue to expand its exploration of commercial machine learning 

offerings and, in particular, to consider the promise of machine 

learning applied to non-traditional data sets, including financial 

markets, the Internet of things, and global supply chains. These 

and other like data sets encapsulate the actions and decisions of 

wide swaths of the world’s population and thus may provide enhanced situational awareness as well as anticipatory signals of future events. 

Management innovation at Department of Defense labs and 

test ranges 

On May 3, 2017, the committee received testimony indicating 

that bureaucratic processes, procedures, regulations, and other internal hurdles are stifling the innovative capacity of the Department of Defense laboratories and test centers. Former officials from 

all three service research enterprises, as well as from the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense, indicated that these challenges were pervasive in their services and organizations. The committee was frustrated to learn not only that innovation is being stifled but also 

that authorities granted by this committee in previous years have 

not yet been utilized. 

This situation both drives up costs and slows the development of 

advanced technologies and systems to support operational needs. 

The committee is concerned that Department general counsels and 

other management officials are narrowly interpreting authorized 

flexibilities and policies that would streamline bureaucratic processes and increase the effectiveness and efficiency of labs and test 

ranges. Furthermore, the committee notes that some organizations, 

such as the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, the Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the Strategic Capabilities 

Office, have been given special management attention to overcome 

bureaucratic barriers and support their mission execution. 

The committee expects the Department to create incentives for 

its workforce. The committee highlights that authorities to increase 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

local control of management processes at its laboratories and test 

ranges, identify and eliminate burdensome processes and policies, 

and streamline internal business practices to support innovation 

missions have already been granted in section 233 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114– 

328). As such, the committee reiterates its expectation that these 

authorities will be implemented this fiscal year. 

The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to pay similar 

attention to the needs of the vast majority of the Department’s innovation workforce, namely the personnel at the labs and test 

ranges, and provide them with similar support and relief from bureaucratic barriers. Further, the committee expects the Secretary 

to develop a set of awards and other incentives for personnel or 

teams who identify bureaucratic issues in the Department’s innovation organizations and develop solutions to address them. 

Marine Corps nano-sized vertical takeoff and landing small 

unmanned aircraft 

The committee supports the United States Marine Corps (USMC) 

Requirements Oversight Council’s (MROC) nano-sized and Vertical 

Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

(SUAS) approved program, and the MROC’s determination that 

nano-sized VTOL SUAS are critical at the squad level to help Marines in small units enhance situational awareness. This capability 

has received the support of the Commandant of the Marine Corps 

and was further supported in the 2017 USMC Land Systems Investment Plan. The committee is also supportive of the USMC 

$14.2 million unfunded request in fiscal year 2017 for this effort. 

For squad level missions, pocket-sized sensors provide soldiers with 

improved intelligence, situational awareness, and enhanced targeting capability. The committee understands that this technology 

has been successfully demonstrated by allies during operations and 

believes it holds promising potential for USMC operations. 

The committee urges the Commandant of the Marine Corps to 

advance development and implementation of nano-sized VTOL 

SUAS capability at the squad level. The committee directs the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by December 15, 2017 providing the 

status of the nano-sized and Vertical Takeoff and Landing Small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems program, a detailed discussion of the 

technologies being reviewed, and the acquisition plan for implementing this capability into the standard USMC squad inventory. 

Maritime barriers 

The Secretary of the Navy provided a report on May 10, 2016 in 

response to the Senate report accompanying S. 1376 (S. Rept. 114– 

49) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. 

The Navy concluded that a commercial-off-the-shelf maritime security barrier ‘‘has the potential to provide greater operational capability compared to the current port security barriers against current and projected threats.’’ The business case analysis showed a 

significant decrease in sustainment cost for a commercial system. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

Accordingly, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy 

to continue development, testing, and evaluation of next generation 

water barriers. 

Minerva special interest area on information operations 

The committee notes that the Minerva Research Initiative provides the Department of Defense with valuable research that enhances the Department’s understanding of the social forces shaping 

national security challenges. The committee also notes that the Department’s understanding of information operations, such as those 

detailed in the Director of National Intelligence’s report titled, ‘‘Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections,’’ 

would benefit from additional research and findings. Therefore, the 

committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to provide the Minerva Research Initiative with additional support to preform greater research on information operations, including ways to identify 

and counter fake media, identify automated misinformation spreading techniques, and other technical aspects to include short-term 

factors. The committee directs the Secretary to provide a report on 

the status of this new research area to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later 

than 180 days after the enactment of this Act. 

Next Generation Jammer 

The committee believes the Navy’s Next Generation Jammer 

(NGJ) is a critical element of Airborne Electronic Attack that is required to meet both current and emerging electronic warfare gaps. 

The committee understands that the Navy will field NGJ capabilities in three increments covering different radio frequency bands. 

Each increment will be designed as separate podded systems and 

each system will cover a different segment of the electromagnetic 

spectrum. Increment 1 focuses on the mid-band threat and Increment 2 will cover low-end frequency ranges to counter emerging 

threats from ‘‘low band’’ radar systems. While the Increment 1 program is well underway, the Navy’s request for fiscal year 2018 includes $66.7 million for Increment 2 (low band). The FY18 funding 

will be used to collect data from technology demonstrations to confirm assertions of technical maturity that may be used in the Increment 2 podded solution in order to support potential program entry 

at Milestone B. 

While the committee supports the Navy’s plan to thoroughly examine options early in the program, the committee believes the 

Navy should investigate whether Increment 1 hardware could be 

leveraged to reduce the overall cost of Increment 2 and reduce 

schedule risk. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy 

to consider leveraging Increment 1 investments and design elements for Increment 2. The committee believes that, if it were possible to do so, leveraging proven technology may allow unique Increment 2 development efforts to focus on items specific to the low 

band jamming capability, such as antenna development and other 

discriminating technology. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

Radiation detection technology 

The committee remains concerned that shortfalls in fielding the 

most current radiation detection devices, specifically personal 

dosimeters, continue to exist, and most notably within the Active 

Army force structure. To ensure our troops and domestic first responders are provided with the best possible protection to monitor 

against nuclear exposure, the committee strongly encourages the 

Department to expedite and complete the fielding of modern radiation detection equipment, specifically personal dosimeters, across 

the force. 

Report on defense manufacturing and technology supply 

chain 

The committee is concerned that the domestic manufacturing 

and industrial base has weakened to the point that it may no 

longer be able to support the needs of the Department of Defense, 

especially in delivering low cost goods and systems to operational 

forces, responding to demands for surge production, and manufacturing next generation military technologies. The committee notes 

that the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental and the Pentagon’s 

Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy have both 

begun analyses on coordinated foreign investment strategies in 

U.S. defense manufacturing sectors and in those U.S. companies 

developing military-relevant emerging technologies. Combined with 

the United States’ own lack of strategies, industrial policies, and 

funded programs to address existing and developing weaknesses in 

the domestic technological and industrial base, this situation presents a clear threat to the national security interests of the United 

States. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to prepare a report examining the extent to which largescale outsourcing of manufacturing activities to China, Chinese investments in manufacturing capabilities, and Chinese investments 

in emerging technologies are leading to the hollowing out of the 

U.S. defense industrial and technology base. This report should 

also detail the national security implications of a diminished domestic industrial base, including assessing any impact on U.S. military readiness, compromised U.S. military supply chains, and reduced capability to manufacture and develop new state-of-the-art 

military systems and equipment. The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit this report to the congressional defense 

committees no later than 1 year after the enactment of this Act. 

Review of policies on use of directed energy weapon systems 

The committee notes that Department of Defense policies exist 

that limit the use of high energy lasers (HEL) and high power 

microwaves (HPM) in testing and in combat. While it is necessary 

to examine unintended consequences of potential weapon systems, 

current restrictions and approval processes for directed energy 

weapon systems may be overly burdensome and prevent the deployment and usage of those systems. The committee therefore directs the Department of Defense to identify policies that may 

hinder the approval process and usage of directed energy weapon 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

systems, intentional and unintentional, and to propose possible 

remedies. The committee encourages the Department to place an 

emphasis on risk mitigation measures as opposed to risk avoidance 

when proposing solutions, similar to other weapon systems, and to 

brief the congressional defense committees on its findings. 

Small engine technologies 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to adequately resource efforts to identify low-cost, efficient, small engine 

technologies capable of powering missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles, and directs the Secretary of Defense, or an appropriate subordinate in the Department of Defense, to provide a briefing to the 

defense committees on current research and development efforts 

and the industrial base that supports this technology not later than 

180 days after enactment of this Act. 

Streamlined acquisition practices to support innovation at 

Department of Defense laboratories 

The committee notes that expert witnesses during a Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities hearing on May 

3, 2017, identified a number of acquisition management and bureaucratic burdens that both slowed the process of incorporating 

new technologies into Department of Defense systems and drove up 

costs of development and adoption. Similarly, the leadership of the 

Defense Innovation Board has indicated that the Department does 

not have ‘‘an innovation problem’’ but rather ‘‘an innovation adoption problem.’’ 

The committee is concerned that acquisition processes hinder the 

ability of the defense laboratories to invest in leading edge research 

and technology development efforts at small business and commercial companies and also to execute the contracting transactions necessary to run the laboratories themselves in the most efficient 

manner. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 

working through the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and 

Engineering and the Laboratory Quality Enhancement Panel, to 

develop a set of recommendations for a pilot program on streamlined acquisition that could be executed by the defense laboratories. 

The pilot could include waivers of processes, regulations, and directives, as well as recommendations on relief from statutory restrictions and requirements. The committee directs that these recommendations be delivered to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than one 

year after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Ultra Low Power Deployable Radar 

The Committee is aware of efforts undertaken by U.S. Special 

Operations Command (SOCOM) to develop an ultra-low power, 

rapidly deployable radar to enhance surveillance and reconnaissance missions and to provide small team force protection in austere locations such as mountainous, foliage, and riverine environments. The Committee understands that requirements for such a 

capability may be finalized in the near future and looks forward to 

the results of SOCOM’s deliberations. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

University science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs with the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps 

The committee is aware that many Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) programs have developed summer leadership 

camps focusing on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). These residential programs offer a unique exposure 

to and hands on experience in technology focused fields for many 

students in school districts with limited STEM education. The committee understands that partnerships with local universities have 

been critical to provide the infrastructure, curriculum, and connections with industry and STEM educators needed for these programs to be a success. The committee strongly supports the continuation of the JROTC STEM leadership camps and other STEM 

learning opportunities that promote STEM education experiences 

that prioritize hands-on learning to increase student engagement 

and achievement. Furthermore, the services are encouraged to develop ways to share best practices for STEM curriculum across the 

JROTC regions. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(91) 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for operation and maintenance activities at the levels identified in section 4301 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Logistics and Sustainment 

Sentinel Landscapes Partnership (sec. 311) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Department of Defense to participate in Sentinel Landscapes. The 

committee encourages the Department of Defense, Departments of 

Agriculture, and the Department of Interior to work together to 

align resources and implement a comprehensive, multiple-tool approach to promoting and sustaining compatible land uses in a manner that protects nearby military test and training needs and can 

benefit landowners and partners. 

Increased percentage of sustainment funds authorized for 

realignment to restoration and modernization at each 

installation (sec. 312) 

The committee recommends a provision that would grant temporary permissive authority to the Secretary of Defense to authorize an installation commander to realign up to 7.5 percent of that 

installation’s sustainment funds to restoration and modernization. 

The committee notes that this authority would expire on September 30, 2022. 

Subtitle C—Reports 

Plan for modernized, dedicated Department of the Navy adversary air training enterprise (sec. 321) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of the Marine Corps 

to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives, not later than March 1, 2018, a resource ready and executable plan for developing and emplacing a 

modernized dedicated adversary air training enterprise to support 

the full spectrum air combat readiness of the United States Navy 

and Marine Corps. 

The committee believes the threat that our combat air forces face 

is steadily increasing, both in capacity and advanced capability. Potential foes have made rapid technological advances, increased the 

size of their air forces, and postured those forces more aggressively. 

As a result, air superiority is no longer a given for U.S. forces, reVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
92 

newing the urgency for high-end adversary air training. However, 

the committee is concerned the Navy and Marine Corps are not 

currently positioned to provide the necessary training in either an 

effective or efficient manner. While the Navy Fleet Fighter Composite and Marine Fighter Training Squadrons provide invaluable 

training to the fleet, they are limited in capacity and their aircraft 

are old, limiting their ability to replicate high-end threat representations that our forces are likely to encounter in any conflict with 

a near-peer adversary. Indeed, the 2017 Marine Aviation Plan 

states the adversary capacity gap is growing and the F–5s flown 

by the adversary squadrons do not meet the requirements for F/A– 

18 and F–35 aircraft. The training gap will only increase as the 

Navy and Marine Corps transition to the F–35, increasing the need 

for high-end threat representations. 

To meet training requirements, Navy and Marine Corps squadrons are forced to rely on organic adversary (or ‘‘red’’) air, using up 

valuable hours on operational aircraft and providing limited training for pilots who are already receiving insufficient flight hours. 

While the committee believes that advances in Live, Virtual, and 

Constructive training will help alleviate some of the training gaps, 

no amount of constructive or simulated training can match actual 

flying against real world airborne threats with advanced sensors, 

electronic warfare, and advanced performance parameters. 

The Department of the Navy needs to develop a comprehensive 

plan to provide our aviators the advanced adversary air training 

they need to ensure the United States’ ability to control the air 

when and where it chooses. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Defense Siting Clearinghouse (sec. 331) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 7 of title 10, United States Code, to ensure the proper assessment of energy projects by the Department of Defense’s Siting 

Clearinghouse. 

Temporary installation reutilization authority for arsenals, 

depots, and plants (sec. 332) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

pilot program to grant permissive authority to the Secretary of the 

Army to authorize leases and contracts up to 25 years under section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, if the Secretary determines that a lease or contract will promote the national defense to 

maintain the viability of an arsenal, depot, plant, or military installation on which such facility is located. The committee further 

notes that any lease is subject to a 90-day hold period for the purposes of review by the Army real property manager. The committee 

finally notes that this authority would expire on September 30, 

2020. 

Pilot program for operation and maintenance budget presentation (sec. 333) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 3- 

year pilot program for the operating tempo, flying hour, depot 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
93 

maintenance, and base operating support subactivity groups for 

each service to be submitted as an annex or annexes in conjunction 

with the President’s budget requests beginning with fiscal year 

2019 and ending with the submission for fiscal year 2021. The committee believes that the operation and maintenance budget, which 

comprises about 40 percent of the Department of Defense’s annual 

budget submissions, requires additional transparency. 

Servicewomen’s commemorative partnerships (sec. 334) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to provide not more than $5.0 million for the 

acquisition, installation, and maintenance of exhibits, facilities, historical displays, and programs at military service memorials and 

museums that highlight the role of women in the military. 

Authority for agreements to reimburse states for costs of 

suppressing wildfires on State lands caused by Department of Defense activities under leases and other grants 

of access to state lands (sec. 335) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2691 of title 10, United States Code, to grant permissive authority to the Secretary of Defense to reimburse a state for reasonable costs when that state incurs costs to suppress wildland fires 

that were caused by the activities of the Department of Defense. 

Repurposing and reuse of surplus Army firearms (sec. 336) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to transfer all excess firearms, related spare 

parts and components, small arms ammunition, and ammunition 

components currently stored at Defense Distribution Depot, Anniston, Alabama that are no longer actively issued for military service 

and not commercially available to Rock Island Arsenal for melting 

and to be reforged into new firearms and force protection barriers. 

The committee notes that M–1 Garand rifles, caliber .45 M1911/ 

M1911A1 pistols, and caliber .22 rimfire rifles are exempt. 

Department of the Navy marksmanship awards (sec. 337) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 40728 of title 36, United States Code, to grant permissive authority to the Secretary of the Navy to transfer to the Corporation 

for the Promotion of Rifle Practice & Firearms Safety M–1 Garand 

and caliber .22 rimfire rifles within the inventories of the Navy and 

Marine Corps stores at Defense Distribution Depot, Anniston or 

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane for the sole purpose as 

awards for competitors in marksmanship competitions held by the 

Navy or Marine Corps. The committee notes these awards cannot 

be resold. 

Subtitle E—Energy and Environment 

Authority to carry out environmental restoration activities 

at National Guard and Reserve locations (sec. 341) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2701(a) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the secVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
94 

retary to carry out environmental restoration activities at the National Guard and Reserve locations, in light of the cleanup challenges with respect to perfluorooctane sulfonate and 

perfluorooctanoic acid. 

Special considerations for energy performance goals (sec. 

342) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2911(c) of title 10, United States Code, to include goals to reduce the future demand and the requirements for the use of energy, to enhance energy resilience to ensure the Department has 

the ability to prepare for and recover from energy disruptions that 

impact mission assurance on military installations, and leverage 

third-party financing to address installation energy needs. 

Centers for Disease Control study on health implications of 

per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances contamination in 

drinking water (sec. 343) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the 

Department of Defense to conduct a human health study through 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assess the 

human health effects of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in 

sources of drinking water. 

Environmental oversight and remediation at Red Hill Bulk 

Fuel Storage Facility (sec. 344) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

sense of Congress that the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility is 

a national strategic asset. 

Budget Items 

Army support reduction 

The budget request included $38.9 billion in Operation & Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $1.0 billion was for SAG 435 Other 

Service Support. 

Based on analysis by the Government Accountability Office, the 

committee understands this subactivity group has historically 

under executed its appropriated funding. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $45.0 million in OMA to SAG 435 Other Service Support. 

Navy information technology reduction 

The budget request included $45.4 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $914. million was for SAG 

BSIT Enterprise Information. 

Based on analysis by the Government Accountability Office, the 

committee understands this subactivity group has historically 

under executed its appropriated funding. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $32.0 million to SAG BSIT Enterprise Information due to low execution in 

prior years. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
95 

Naval History and Heritage Command reduction 

The budget request included $45.4 billion in Operation & Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $1.9 billion was for SAG BSM1 

Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization. 

The committee understands that within this request was $29.0 

million for an increase to the Naval History and Heritage Command. The committee believes these funds can be better aligned for 

other sustainment, restoration, and modernization priorities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $29.0 million in OMN to SAG BSM1 Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization. 

Air and Space Operations Center—Weapons System 

The budget request included $39.4 billion in Operation & Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.3 billion was for SAG 011C 

Combat Enhancement Forces. 

The committee recommends an increase of $104.8 million in 

OMAF, SAG 011C Combat Enhancement Forces, for a total of $1.4 

billion, for the purpose of software production and sustainment activities for rapid incremental improvements to the Air and Space 

Operations Center—Weapons System. 

Air National Guard advertising reduction 

The budget request included $6.9 billion in Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG), of which $97.2 million was 

for SAG 042J Recruiting and Advertising. 

The committee understands that within the Recruiting and Advertising request was an increase of $60.5 million to fund additional marketing and advertising efforts. The committee notes this 

request would nearly triple the Air National Guard’s advertising 

budget. The committee believes these funds can be better aligned 

for other readiness priorities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $45.0 million in OMANG to SAG 042J Recruiting and Advertising. 

Defense Acquisition University 

The budget request included $42.4 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), of which $145.0 million was 

for SAG 3EV2 for the Defense Acquisition University (DAU). 

The committee notes that of this request, $7.9 million is requested for curriculum development. This amount is almost $5.0 

million lower than the reported estimate for fiscal year 2017, which 

is $12.5 million. In light of the committee’s recent acquisition reforms and the reforms included in this Act, the committee believes 

it is important that DAU have the resources necessary to engage 

with ongoing efforts to improve the acquisition system, culture, and 

workforce and to be better equipped to manage the reforms in this 

Act. Specifically there are provisions in this Act that task DAU 

with creating or collaborating on new curricula related to Other 

Transaction Authority and procurement of commercial items. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMDW of 

$5.0 million to SAG 3EV2 Defense Acquisition University. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
96 

STARBASE increase 

The budget request included $34.7 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), of which $183.0 million was 

for SAG 4GT3 Civil Military Programs. 

The committee notes the STARBASE Program is a highly effective program that improves the knowledge and skills of students in 

kindergarten through 12th grades in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 

The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million for SAG 

4GT3 Civil Military Programs for the STARBASE program. 

Funding for impact aid 

The budget request included $2.7 billion in the Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense (SAG 4GTJ) for the operations of the Department of Defense Education Activity. The amount authorized to be appropriated for OMDW includes the following changes from the budget 

request. The provisions underlying these changes in funding levels 

are discussed in greater detail in title V of this committee report. 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Impact aid for schools with military dependent students ............... +25.0 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities .............................. +10.0 

Total ............................................................................................. +35.0 

Defense environmental international cooperation program 

The budget request included $34.7 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW) 030, of which $960,000 was 

for the Defense Environmental International Cooperation (DEIC) 

program. 

The committee notes that the Army National Guard and other 

military units are frequently called upon to respond to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR) crises around the 

world. The DEIC enables the Army National Guard to share best 

practices and lessons learned from its own HA/DR missions and 

promote the sustainment of mission capability among our allies, in 

order to develop and enhance their own self-sufficient HA/DR capabilities with a limited amount of funding. 

For example, given the ongoing readiness challenges of the 

United States Southern Command and its limited resources to conduct its HA/DR mission, the Army National Guard has used the 

DEIC to provide training and capability development to countries 

within the region so that they can remove debris and otherwise respond in the event of an earthquake or hurricane. 

Accordingly, in order to continue the enhancement of the Department’s readiness and HA/DR capabilities, including those of the 

Army National Guard, the committee recommends an increase of 

$1.0 million in OMDW for the DEIC program. 

Studies on aircraft inventories for the Air Force 

The budget request included $1.6 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW) for SAG 4GTN Administration and 

Service-wide Activities. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
97 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a provision 

that would direct the Secretary of Defense to commission three 

studies to be submitted to the congressional defense committees on 

potential future aircraft inventories and capability mixtures no 

later than March 1, 2019. These studies would provide competing 

visions and alternatives for a future set of choices regarding Air 

Force aircraft capabilities and capacities. One study would be performed by the Department of the Air Force, with the participation 

of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of Net Assessment. 

The second study would be performed by a federally funded research and development center. The third study would be conducted by a qualified independent, non-governmental institute selected by the Secretary of Defense. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN Administration and Service-wide Activities for the performance of these studies, for a total of $1.6 billion. 

CDC study increase 

The budget request included $34.7 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), of which $1.6 billion was for 

SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense to conduct a Center for Disease 

Control (CDC) nationwide health study on PFAS for contamination 

in drinking water. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in OMDW to SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense for 

the CDC study. 

Bulk fuel savings 

The budget request included $38.9 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), $45.4 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.9 billion for Operation and Maintenance, 

Marine Corps (OMMC), $39.4 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $69.2 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW). 

The committee understands that as of May 2017, the Department has overstated its projected bulk fuel costs for fiscal year 

2018. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed decrease of $396.3 million for excess projections in fuel costs. 

Foreign currency fluctuations 

The budget request included $38.9 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), $45.4 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.9 billion for Operation and Maintenance, 

Marine Corps (OMMC), $39.4 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $34.7 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW). 

The committee believes that when foreign currency fluctuation 

(FCF) rates are determined by the Department of Defense, the balance of the FCF funds should be considered, particularly if the balance is close to the cap of $970.0 million. The Government AccountVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
98 

ability Office (GAO) has informed the committee that as of March 

2017, the Department does not plan to transfer in any prior year 

unobligated balances to replenish the account for fiscal year 2017. 

GAO analysis projects that the Department will experience a net 

gain in fiscal year 2018 due to favorable foreign exchange rates. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed decrease of $313.3 million for FCF. 

Operation and Maintenance Unfunded Requirements List 

The budget request included $223.3 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense submitted 

extensive Unfunded Requirements Lists totaling $33.1 billion. The 

committee believes that since the passage of the Budget Control 

Act in 2011, budget requests have been guided by artificial constraints rather than the realities of the global strategic environment. This reality has continued for the fiscal year 2018 budget request, which too relies on an arbitrary number determined 6 years 

ago in the Budget Control Act. Such constraints on the budget, 

along with a sustained high operational tempo, have led to a significant degradation in our military readiness in the near term, 

and the threat that we will fall behind our adversaries in the longterm. For the last several years military leaders have highlighted 

these problems in great detail. 

In order to address the degraded state of our military and to stop 

the erosion of U.S. military advantage, the committee believes that 

the budget should be based on requirements, rather than arbitrary 

budget caps. The committee recommends an increase of $4.8 billion 

to Operation and Maintenance for items identified in the Unfunded 

Requirements List. Some increases include funding greater home 

station training and depot maintenance. Greater details of each increase can be found in the tables in Division D. 

Items of Special Interest 

Availability and Readiness of Special Operations Forces to 

Support Geographic Combatant Commander Requirements 

The Department of Defense (DOD) continues to rely heavily upon 

U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) in the effort to counter violent extremist groups including ISIS and al Qaeda. According to 

testimony by General Raymond Thomas, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), there are approximately 8,000 

SOF forces deployed across over 80 countries at any given time, the 

majority of whom are deployed to the U.S. Central Command 

(CENTCOM) area of responsibility. General Thomas also testified 

that most SOF units are employed to their sustainable limit and 

reiterated the importance of preserving SOF’s high state of fullspectrum readiness to support a range of missions. 

The high rate of deployments has raised concerns regarding the 

readiness and availability of SOF to conduct operations other than 

those focused on counterterrorism and in support of Geographic 

Combatant Commands (GCC) other than CENTCOM. Accordingly, 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
99 

the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States 

to evaluate the following issues: 

1. What challenges, if any, has DOD faced in providing SOF 

to meet the requirements of the Geographic Combatant Commands? 

2. To what extent does DOD consider operational tempo in 

prioritizing and tasking SOF deployments in support of 

CENTCOM operations, including determining tradeoffs between conventional and SOF capabilities and the requirements 

of other GCCs? 

3. What challenges, if any, has DOD faced in providing deployed SOF forces with key enablers including, but not limited 

to, airlift, medical evacuation, intelligence, expeditionary base 

operating support, logistics, and airfield operations? 

4. To what extent has DOD assessed the impact of SOF mission and deployment rates on unit readiness and the availability of SOF forces to conduct other missions and support the 

requirements of other GCCs? 

5. To what extent has the reliance on Overseas Contingency 

Operations (OCO) funding impacted the readiness of SOF and 

how will it continue to impact SOF if funding isn’t shifted to 

the base defense budget in future years? 

6. Any other issues the Comptroller General determines appropriate. 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services not 

later than November 1, 2017, on the Comptroller General’s preliminary findings and submit a final report to the congressional defense committees on a date agreed to at the time of the briefing. 

Basic Expeditionary Airmen Skills Training and Base Camp 

Integration Lab 

The committee remains encouraged by efforts of the Air Force 

and Army Research Laboratories, and is strongly supportive of 

their commitment to improving combat capabilities for the 

warfighter through projects like the Basic Expeditionary Airman 

Skills Training (BEAST) site at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland 

in Texas, and the Basic Camp Integration Lab (BCIL) and Force 

Provider at Fort Devens and Natick Soldier Systems Center in 

Massachusetts. Notably, the BEAST site in Texas allows roughly 

39,000 recruits per year to train and experience the program, while 

Natick scientists continue to demonstrate and evaluate new advanced, energy-efficient shelters and shelter components. Efforts 

like BEAST and BCIL leverage existing and openly competed technologies to demonstrate the ‘‘FOB of the future’’, to improve combat 

capabilities with items like deployable and secure microgrids, 

smart power controllers, advanced batteries, better shelter insulation, light emitting diode lighting systems, and others. The committee notes that these kinds of advanced technologies when combined into a deployable package can lead to proven increases in capability as well as cost decreased, not only in combat zones, but in 

support of humanitarian assistance and disaster response missions, 

such as when the Army deployed to Africa during its Ebola response mission. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
100 

Consequently, the committee strongly encourages the Department to continue the progress made towards improving combat capabilities through its investments in FOB efficiencies that reduce 

logistical burdens on the warfighter, like BEAST and BCIL. 

Cyber-secure microgrids and energy resilience for installations 

The committee remains concerned regarding the vulnerabilities 

of cyber-attacks, physical attacks, and severe weather, which 

threaten the Department of Defense’s (DOD) ability to recover from 

multi-day utility disruptions on its installations. Improving energy 

resilience helps decrease utility disruptions and grid outages that 

negatively impact operations and compromise readiness. 

Accordingly, the committee believes the Department could better 

utilize and integrate existing authorities such as military construction, facilities sustainment restoration and modernization accounts, 

energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs), power purchase 

agreements (PPAs), and utility energy saving contracts (UESCs) to 

ensure installations have resilient, reliable, and continuous power 

during disruptions to the electrical supply though deployment of 

cyber-secure technologies like microgrids. Notably, microgrids are 

fuel agnostic, so they can operate on fossil fuels, fuel cells, batteries, combined heat and power, and renewables. When distributed energy generation is combined with control systems like 

cyber-secure microgrids, DOD has a significant opportunity to 

maintain readiness. 

In pursuing such actions and investments the Department 

should recognize and factor in the current costs of achieving energy 

assurance. In assessing a microgrid’s cost effectiveness, the Department should view the life cycle costs of stand-alone backup generators that could produce equivalent energy resilience and assurance 

as an avoided cost and thus available for financing third party investments through ESPCs, PPAs, or UESCs. For example, recent 

analysis has shown that replacing standalone generators with a 

microgrid could save $8.0 to $20.0 million over the life cycle, depending on location. As such, the committee directs the Secretary 

of Defense to provide a summary of actions taken to pursue 

microgrid deployments through third party financing in the Department’s next Annual Energy Management Report. 

Additionally, the committee notes that DOD continues to experience multiple utility grid outages every year. The committee 

strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to consider the appropriate 

use of the Department’s existing exemption from section 591 of title 

40, United States Code to address frequent utility outages and negative impacts to readiness, especially as it relates to the use of 

cyber-secure microgrids and advanced infrastructure controls. 

Cybersecurity risk to Department of Defense facilities 

The committee remains concerned that as Department of Defense 

facilities are transitioning to smart buildings increasingly utilizing 

wireless controls for heating, ventilation and air conditioning, security systems, lighting, electrical power, fire alarms, elevators, visitor controls, cellular communications, Wi-Fi networks, first responder communications, and other systems are increasing interVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
101 

connected and online. This higher connectivity has increased the 

threat and vulnerability to cyber attacks, particularly in ways existing DOD regulations were not designed to consider. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to 

deliver to the congressional defense committees a report, as was 

specified in the Senate report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 that: (1) Delineates the structural 

risks inherent in control systems and networks, and the potential 

consequences associated with a system compromise through a cyber 

event; (2) Assesses the current vulnerabilities to cyber attack initiated through Industrial Control Systems (ICS) at Department of 

Defense installations worldwide, for the purpose of determining 

risk mitigation actions for current and future implementation; (3) 

Proposes a common, Department-wide implementation plan to upgrade and improve the security of control systems and networks to 

mitigate identified risks; (4) Assesses the extent to which existing 

Department of Defense military construction directives, regulations, and instructions require the consideration of cybersecurity 

vulnerabilities and cyber risk in preconstruction design processes 

and requirements development processes for military construction 

projects; and (5) the capabilities of the Army Corps of Engineers, 

the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, the Air Force Civil Engineer Center, and other construction agents, as well as participating stakeholders, to identify and mitigate full-spectrum cyberenabled risk to new facilities and major renovations. 

For the purposes of this legislation, ICS include, but are not limited to, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Systems, Building Automation Systems Utility Monitoring, and Energy Management and Control Systems. Such report shall include an estimated 

budget for the implementation plan. 

Defense Media Activity IP Streaming 

The committee notes the pilot program by Defense Media Activity (DMA) to transition from an antiquated satellite-based media 

delivery system to an Internet-based ‘‘IP streaming’’ platform. The 

committee is supportive of this enhanced distribution of media and 

the associated delivery of expanded programming and reduction of 

the costs associated with delivering this content. The committee encourages DMA to utilize private sector methods to track the outcomes (e.g., viewership) associated with this pilot, and the rest of 

its programming, to better understand the Department’s demand 

for programming and to be responsive to this feedback. 

Defense threat assessment and master plan for climate 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

must be able to execute its missions effectively and efficiently by 

adapting to the full spectrum of current and future threats. Secretary Mattis stated to the committee, ‘‘where climate change contributes to regional instability, the Department of Defense must be 

aware of any potential adverse impacts’’, ‘‘climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating 

today’’ and ‘‘the Department should be prepared to mitigate any 

consequences of a changing climate, including ensuring that our 

shipyards and installations will continue to function as required.’’ 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
102 

The committee notes that a series of climate-related events have 

cost DOD significant resources, measured in funding and negative 

impacts on readiness. Specifically, the committee notes that in January, a tornado caused over $320.0 million in damages at Marine 

Corps Depot at Albany, Georgia. At Lackland Air Force Base in 

Texas, there were 81 black flag training days in 2012, and 226 in 

2016. In Alaska, three locations of early warning radar infrastructure have been damaged and moved due to coastal erosion that was 

not expected to occur until 2030. Wildfires postponed the launch of 

a satellite in California and led to training range closures for multiple months in North Carolina, South Carolina, Idaho, Florida, 

and New Mexico. Researchers at the University of Nebraska at 

Lincoln found that wildfires have tripled between 1985 and 2014, 

growing from 33 to 117 per year. At Laughlin Air Force Base, a 

hail storm damaged 39 pilot training aircraft, costing roughly $80.0 

million in repairs which won’t be completed until June of 2018. 

Warehouses containing hazardous materials flood 24 inches on a 

regular basis in Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia. In South Carolina, private citizens near Fort Jackson have filed seven lawsuits 

seeking $20.0 million in damages, alleging the Army failed to 

maintain a dam that ruptured during historic rainfall and flooding. 

In Louisiana, the railroad system at Fort Polk’s Joint Regional 

Training Center requires major repairs due to ‘‘epic rains.’’ In Virginia, high water flooding creates ‘‘significant damage’’ to pier infrastructure at Norfolk Naval Shipyard creating reliability and 

safety issues. Warming Arctic temperatures at Thule Air Force 

Base in Greenland have caused extensive airfield pavement repairs 

at over $30.0 million, which is roughly the cost of one Army Combat Training Center rotation. In Arizona, a heat wave caused over 

40 flights to be canceled, with clear implications that DOD aircraft, 

ships, and vehicles must be able to continue to operate in extreme 

hot and cold temperatures. The Congressional Budget Office has 

concluded ‘‘costs associated with hurricane damage will increase 

more rapidly than the economy will grow’’ resulting in $39.0 billion 

annually by 2075. Lastly, the Government Accountability Office 

found that ‘‘weather effects associated with climate change pose 

operational and budgetary risks’’ to DOD. 

Accordingly, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a comprehensive threat assessment 

and implementation master plan no later than March 1, 2018 on 

the risks and vulnerabilities to DOD missions and infrastructure 

associated with climate-related events. The assessment and master 

adaptation plan shall include: (1) Effects and mission impacts of a 

changing climate, if any, on DOD operations, testing and training 

ranges, readiness, basing, acquisition, contingency basing, command and control, supply chain, logistics, stockpiles, and the associated costs; (2) Plans and procedures to continue missions in the 

event of loss or damage to critical energy and water infrastructure; 

(3) Guidance for combatant commanders to address regional-specific theater campaign plan impacts in order to mitigate climate-related events that contribute to instability; (4) Anticipated impacts 

from increased global operations tempo as a result of greater numbers of humanitarian assistance and disaster response events; (5) 

Guidance for the military services and Joint Staff to integrate cliVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
103 

mate impact scenarios and long-term projections into planning; (6) 

Adaptation plans and procedures to ensure military investments 

with taxpayer dollars are constructed to better withstand flooding 

and extreme weather events; (7) Updates to built and natural infrastructure design, changes to military construction standards, 

Unified Facilities Code, and encroachment procedures; (8) Improved modeling techniques and data sources to better predict future erosion, flooding, and other extreme weather events; (9) Opportunities to pursue public-private partnerships under existing 

authorities with any non-DOD entity in order to mitigate climaterelated impacts; (10) Adaptation progress metrics and recommendations for further research and development; (11) Strategies and recommendations to alleviate climate vulnerabilities, including timelines and resource requirements; and (12) Any other 

aspects deemed appropriate. 

The threat assessment and implementation master plan may include a classified annex, if necessary. 

Defense-wide Working Capital Fund cash management practices 

The committee notes that recent analysis of the Defense-wide 

Working Capital Fund (DWWCF) cash management practices conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that 

the Department of Defense needs to improve its cash management 

practices. Notably, the DWWCF monthly cash balances were outside the upper and lower cash requirements as defined by the Department’s Financial Management Regulation for 87 of 120 months 

during fiscal years 2007 through 2016 and for more than a year on 

3 separate occasions. 

The committee commends the Department for taking actions outside the normal budget process during the 10-year period to bring 

the monthly cash balances within the cash requirements such as 

cash transfers and fuel price adjustments. However, these actions 

were not sufficient to bring the monthly cash balances within the 

cash requirements. The GAO found this occurred because the Department’s Financial Management Regulation did not contain guidance on when managers should use available cash management 

tools. 

Accordingly, no later than October 1, 2017, the committee directs 

the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to provide guidance 

in the Department’s Financial Management Regulation on the timing of when managers should use available cash management tools 

and provide the congressional defense committees with the guidance once it is developed. 

Department of Defense and Department of Energy collaboration to improve energy resilience 

Earlier this year, the Secretary of Defense told the committee 

during combat operations in Iraq ‘‘our efforts to resupply the force 

with fuel made us vulnerable in ways that were exploited by the 

enemy.’’ The Secretary also stated the importance of ‘‘relieving the 

dependence of deployed forces on vulnerable fuel supplies’’’ and 

‘‘the purpose of such efforts should be to increase the readiness and 

reach of our forces.’’ 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
104 

Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the Department 

of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE) to continue 

to exercise the existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

signed by both parties in 2010 by partnering to enhance DOD’s energy resilience. The partnership between DOD and DOE has successfully driven the research and development of technologies that 

have improved DOD’s energy resilience posture at military installations. For example, under a research agreement the Army, an aerospace laboratory, and the DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory developed the Consolidated Utility Base Energy (CUBE) 

system. 

The CUBE system is an integrated power distribution platform 

that delivers power for a solar-battery-diesel hybrid system to reduce the use of diesel-fueled generators at forward operating bases 

(FOBs). Roughly 40 percent of a FOB’S total energy demand is 

typically powered by diesel generators. 

The committee notes the CUBE system has demonstrated to decrease fuel use by 31 percent and diesel generator run time by 42 

percent when compared to diesel-only, while maintaining reliable 

and high-quality power output. When combined with other advanced and efficient FOB technologies like rigid wall and net zero 

shelters, solar roofs, and solar-powered targeting systems for fire 

control missions, the potential to save fuel consumption adds up to 

another 50 percent in reduced demand. 

Notably, the CUBE system is suitable for off-the-grid operations 

in remote areas, like FOBs, as well as humanitarian assistance and 

disaster relief operations in Africa and elsewhere around the world. 

The committee strongly encourages the DOD to continue the development and fielding of technologies like the CUBE system which 

can help reduce the risk of lives lost transporting fueling a combat 

zone, enhance combat capability, all with the added benefit of reducing costs to the taxpayer. 

Eastern Gulf Test and Training Range 

The committee notes that the Air Force Development Test Center’s mission is to plan, conduct, and evaluate testing of U.S. and 

allied non-nuclear munitions, electronic combat, target acquisition, 

weapon delivery, base intrusion protection, and supporting systems. That mission is executed at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, 

whose land test areas encompass 463,000 acres and water test 

areas, including the Eastern Gulf Test and Training Range 

(EGTTR), which cover 86,500 square miles in the Gulf of Mexico, 

making it the Department of Defense’s (DOD) largest test and 

training area in the world. 

The committee is concerned that the open-air range test-data 

gathering instrumentation infrastructure on EGTTR is not keeping 

pace with the advanced capabilities of modern weapons systems 

and munitions. The committee is further concerned that, with a 

growing volume of test and training requirements, more instrumentation throughout the EGTTR is required for efficient use of air, 

surface, and subsurface test areas to reduce the competition for 

range space between operational readiness priorities and fielding 

new system capabilities. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
105 

The committee understands that emerging technologies such as 

hypersonics, autonomous systems, and advanced sub-surface systems could require enlarged testing and training footprints. The 

committee further understands that the potential development of 

energy projects have the potential to encroach and negatively impact military training and operations. The committee also supports 

the Department’s view that ‘‘national security and energy security 

are inextricably linked and the DOD fully supports the development of our nation’s domestic energy resources in a manner that 

is compatible with military testing, training, and operations.’’ The 

committee is also aware of the Department’s current position that 

‘‘[t]he moratorium on oil and gas ‘leasing, preleasing, and other related activities’ ensures that these vital military readiness activities may by conducted without interference and is critical to their 

continuation.’’ 

Accordingly, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense 

to modernize and expand open-air range test capabilities operation 

and maintenance in the EGTTR and continue to work with the 

other Departments to ensure that the test and training missions 

conducted in EGTTR are protected from activities incompatible 

with successful mission completion. 

Encouraging the use of the Innovative Readiness Training 

program 

The committee is aware that readiness challenges continue to 

face the Armed Forces due to budgetary constraints. The committee 

continues to recognize the value of the Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) program, which allows Military Services realistic, joint 

training opportunities for National Guard, Reserve, and ActiveDuty members. 

The committee values the IRT program for its low cost and high 

benefit to achieving measurable military readiness. The committee 

strongly encourages the Department of Defense to continue utilizing IRT programs to provide mission-essential training, 

prioritizing programs that directly support Active-Duty missions. 

Examples of IRT activities include, but are not limited to, constructing rural roads and airplane runways, small building and 

warehouse construction in remote areas, transportation of medical 

supplies, and military readiness training in the areas of engineering, health care and transportation for under-served communities. 

The committee understands the IRT program offers complex and 

challenging training opportunities for domestic and international 

crises. The committee is also aware that states that utilize the IRT 

program include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, 

Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Wyoming, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

The committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense to 

continue to fully utilize IRT programs that provide hands-on and 

mission-essential training and that are available to active, reserve, 

and National Guard forces. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
106 

Energy assurance on military installations 

In order to assess the current statutory authorities and their appropriateness and flexibility to support energy resilience on military installations, the Secretary of Defense is directed to report to 

the defense committees within 180 days of enactment of this Act 

the following: (1) authorities used in award of energy resilience 

projects during fiscal years 2015–2017 and (2) challenges experienced during fiscal years 2015–2017 in the execution of energy resilience projects due to limitations in existing statutory authorities. 

Energy efficient military shelters 

The committee is aware of requirements that the Department of 

Defense has to leverage current technologies that will deliver energy efficient returns on investments. The committee believes that 

such efficient technologies will reduce the tactical demand on the 

warfighter while also make current billeting structures more energy efficient. Additionally, these efficiencies mean greater reduction in fuel consumption, and can ultimately lead to improved quality of life conditions for our warfighters. 

The committee also understands that these efficient technologies 

can lead to a 35 percent reduction in demand for heating ventilation and air conditioning requirements, in order to maintain 70 degree interior temperatures in extreme cold and hot environments. 

The committee notes that by ensuring that our deployed 

warfighters have adequate living conditions, the Department also 

ensures that our forces are more combat effective, more prepared 

on the battlefield, and better able to perform their mission. 

The committee further encourages the Department of the Air 

Force to leverage currently available energy-saving supplemental 

insulation technologies that will lead to reduced environmental 

control units in a deployed environment, further leading to cost 

savings with respect to total cost of ownership of billeting and shelters in the Basic Expeditionary Airfield Resources (BEAR) Base 

program. Accordingly, the committee recommends the Department 

continue to support and allocate the appropriate resources for energy efficient insulation systems, solar protection, and more efficient medium shelters procured through the BEAR Base program. 

Energy savings performance contracts and combined heat 

and power 

The committee notes the importance for the Department of Defense (DOD) to enhance installation readiness and resilience 

through energy infrastructure improvements. The committee recognizes the efforts by the DOD to use third-party financing, such as 

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC), to provide cost-effective efficiency improvements to military installations. 

The committee is strongly supportive of these efforts by the DOD 

and strongly encourages the use of these contracts and other thirdparty financing methods to improve energy infrastructure, resilience, and facilities important to the mission on military installations. 

For example, the committee is very supportive of the ESPC task 

order which will build a site-wide and secure microgrid integrating 

10 megawatts of new onsite power generation and battery storage 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
107 

at Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) Parris Island, South Carolina. The committee is encouraged that the ESPC will reduce 

MCRD’s energy demand by 79 percent and water consumption by 

27 percent through infrastructure upgrades that will improve installation resilience, and provide the ability to operate in islandmode during the event of a commercial grid outage, or simply reduce utility purchases during peak demand periods. The ESPC upgrades at 121 buildings on Parris Island will also reduce operation 

and sustainment costs, address potentially cost-intensive military 

construction requirements, include a solar carport array, a battery 

storage system, and replace the currently end-of-life steam plant 

with a new fully automated natural gas-fueled combined heat and 

power (CHP) plant. 

More broadly, the committee is also strongly supportive of the 

Army’s goal to double the amount of energy production from combined heat and power (CHP) facilities on its installations in the 

next two years to 200 MW, and to triple it by the end of 2020 to 

300 MW. The committee looks forward to the forthcoming development and release of the Army’s overarching CHP deployment strategy that appropriately considers CHP and other ESPC methods as 

a key element of the Army’s energy and sustainability strategy. 

Similarly, the committee strongly encourages the Department of 

the Navy to exceed its current inventory of nine CHP projects at 

roughly 90 MW and for the Air Force to exceed its roughly 15–20 

MW of CHP. 

Energy savings performance contracts assessment 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide an assessment to the congressional defense committees no later than 90 

days after the date of enactment of this Act. The assessment shall 

include but not be limited to: (1) recommendations on the use of 

energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs) for savings achieved 

through training improvements; (2) identification of potential savings that could be achieved through improvements to training; (3) 

pros and cons of using those savings as part of a long term ESPC; 

(4) any new authorities that would be needed if a decision was 

made to use savings as part of additional ESPC; and (5) any other 

recommendations deemed appropriate. 

Fabric and membrane technology 

The committee expresses its ongoing support for Department of 

Defense research and testing of cutting-edge fabric and membrane 

technologies to improve service members’ comfort, effectiveness and 

mission readiness. The Senate report accompanying S. 1376 (S. 

Rpt. 114–49) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2016 included a requirement for the Secretary of Defense to 

submit a report to the committee on fabric-based respiratory protective equipment, including evaluations of emerging technologies 

to minimize service member exposure to inhalation of particulate 

and pollutants. Additionally, in the Senate report accompanying S. 

2943 (S. Rpt. 114–255) of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee further directed the Secretary 

of the Army to report similarly on footwear technologies that incorporate new polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) and other membrane 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
108 

technologies. In light of these directives, the committee understands that the Army is currently evaluating the referenced technologies and that the evaluations are yielding positive results. 

Recognizing the importance of these technologies to warfighter 

readiness, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives, no later December 15, 2017, on 

the suitability of the above-mentioned technologies to military applications. Specifically, the report should provide an evaluation of 

the fabric-based respiratory protective equipment technologies reviewed under the requirement in Senate Report 114–49, identification of specific applications for integration of the technology, and 

a plan for transitioning the technology into such applications and 

programs. In line with the Army’s review of footwear technologies 

as required in Senate Report 114–255, the report should provide a 

detailed evaluation of new ePTFE membranes, laminates, and 

other membrane technologies. Additionally, the report should include suggested revisions to current requirements and product descriptions that could be implemented to expand access to these 

membrane technology advancements. Finally, the report should include a plan for transitioning membrane technologies into military 

applications, including the Army Boot Modernization Programs 

such as the jungle combat boot program, the cold weather and extreme cold weather boot programs, and future cold weather clothing systems. 

Foreign language training 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue placing a high priority on foreign language proficiency programs to ensure warfighters and national security professionals receive the language and culture training needed to complete their 

missions effectively, to include partnerships with K–12 schools and 

universities. 

The committee is also aware of efforts already underway across 

the Department of Defense (DOD) and the intelligence community 

to review language training platforms in an effort to develop a 

more streamlined, efficient, customizable, and economic way to provide foreign language training DOD-wide. In order to achieve these 

goals, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with agency directors and the intelligence community to review current language training platforms and explore options to 

jointly develop a single language training platform to increase efficiency and cost savings. 

Implementation of Defense Science Board Task Force on energy systems for forward/remote operating bases 

The committee notes the Defense Science Board (DSB) Task 

Force on Energy Systems for Forward/Remote Operating Bases recently identified a number of recommendations to help the Department ‘‘meet this challenge of providing reliable, abundant, and continuous energy.’’ 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense and 

the military departments to implement a number of the DSB’s recommendations: (1) Conduct a gap analysis of energy requirements 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
109 

for future capabilities; (2) In conjunction with the Joint Staff, ensure that future operational energy requirements are an explicit 

part of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council process and Defense Acquisition Board process; (3) Ensure operational units are 

involved in developing and managing energy requirements and 

standards for their mission in order that requirements and standards are both realistic and meaningful for improved operations; (4) 

Ensure the Combatant Commands include in their future requirements the need for abundant, reliable, and efficient energy technologies to enable future capabilities; (5) Incentivize the military 

services to collaboratively develop future considerations for remote 

and forward operating bases and expeditionary forces that address 

energy demands and the alternative sources to meet demand, reduce risk, and improve efficiency; (6) Establish metrics to evaluate 

effectiveness to improve efficiency of current deployable energy systems and drive efficiencies for future deployable energy systems 

through standards and integration, contracting, measuring data, 

training, and operating behavior; (7) Establish evaluation criteria 

to determine an enduring or non-enduring base; (8) Invest in research, development, test, and evaluation of alternative energy 

technologies with the potential to offer improved combat capabilities in remote and forward areas—in particular—technologies 

should be measured in terms of reduced logistics and reduced tactical signature during operations, reduced health and safety risk to 

warfighters, reliability and cost; (9) Establish a policy requiring all 

wargames, major unit field training, and joint exercises to include 

fuel and fuel logistics; (10) The DOD shall work with the DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy to engage in research, development, demonstration, and deployment of micro-reactor concepts, also known 

as very small reactor concepts, with electric power generation of 10 

megawatts or less, for meeting the strategic needs of the DOD, including, where appropriate, powering remote bases and forward operating bases, and for commercial applications in remote areas. In 

conjunction with the DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, the DOD 

should produce a manufacturability feasibility report within 24 

months, and should focus efforts to enable the deployment of a 

functioning prototype reactor within 7 years; and (11) Any other 

recommendations deemed relevant and appropriate. 

The committee further directs the Department to update the 

committee no later than February 1, 2018, on the status of implementing these DSB recommendations. 

Implementation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances 

cleanup 

Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

reported that the Department of Defense (DOD) has improved its 

reporting on the cost of environmental cleanup for installations 

closed under the Base Realignment and Closure process, but recommended that DOD include estimates of cleaning emerging contaminants in future reports to Congress and develop a process for 

collecting and sharing lessons learned on environmental cleanup. 

The committee is encouraged that DOD concurred with both recommendations and identified specific actions the Department will 

take to implement the recommendations. The committee looks forVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
110 

ward to receiving the more detailed environmental remediation 

cost estimates that will include remediation cost for per- and 

polyfluoroalkyl substances compounds and other emerging contaminants to help ensure that adequate resources are being devoted to 

this important initiative. 

Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

implement the GAO’s recommendation to share lessons learned 

from environmental remediation among the military services to 

promote the redevelopment of closed military bases. 

Increasing contracting efficiency through commercial offthe-shelf solutions for personal protective equipment 

The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) for 

continuing efforts to make acquisition and procurement of personal 

protective equipment (PPE) and organizational clothing and individual equipment (OCIE) more efficient. Programs such as the 

Army’s Rapid Equipping Force (REF) and Soldier Enhancement 

Program result in shorter procurement processes to field critical 

items of PPE and OCIE faster and more effectively. Approved 

items such as ballistic eye protection, armor plate carriers, load 

carriage, footwear, helmets, clothing items, and replacement parts 

and supplies are often readily available as commercial-off-the-shelf 

(COTS) solutions. 

The committee is concerned that PPE and OCIE procurements 

continue to be slower than necessary due to administrative delays 

and burdensome requirements processes. Therefore, the committee 

believes that DOD and the military departments, as part of the 

broader acquisition reform effort, should accelerate the use of 

COTS solutions to meet the evolving PPE and OCIE needs of our 

servicemembers. 

Individual soldier equipment acquisition strategy 

The committee is aware and supportive of recent determinations 

by the Secretary of Defense have opened all combat positions to female warfighters. This significant change to Department policy creates several opportunities to better serve the needs of both female 

and male warfighters. 

For many years, the Department of Defense has acquired individual equipment for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in a 

piecemeal manner, purchasing equipment such as boots, helmets, 

combat clothing, and body armor with insufficient focus on the 

seamless integration of these essential, lifesaving products. The 

committee is concerned that currently available items of personal 

protective equipment (PPE) and organizational clothing and individual equipment (OCIE) do not meet the specific and unique requirements for female warfighters and further improvements could 

be made to reduce the weight of PPE and OCIE. 

The committee believes that the new Department of Defense policy presents an opportunity for the military departments to focus 

on the ‘‘Warfighter as a System’’ and properly address the unique 

needs of our female warfighters through a holistic acquisition strategy. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

produce a report delivered to the Senate Armed Services Committee no later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act outVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
111 

lining plans to provide innovative, lifesaving PPE and OCIE developed specifically for female warfighters. The report should include 

plans for budgeting, requirements, and procurement of female-specific equipment including helmets, combat uniforms, body armor, 

footwear, and other critical equipment categories. The report 

should include detailed plans on integrating the latest commercially available materials and advanced product design to lighten 

the load for all warfighters. 

Item unique identification implementation and verification 

The committee remains very concerned that the Department of 

Defense (DOD) has failed to enforce its own policy and strategy for 

improving asset tracking and in-transit visibility. Furthermore, the 

committee remains concerned that the DOD has failed to deliver its 

required report to the committee on the Defense Contract Management Agency’s (DCMA) plan to foster the adoption, implementation, and verification of the Department’s revised item unique identification (IUID) policy across the Department and the defense industrial base. 

The committee continues to support the DOD’s goal of enhancing 

asset visibility with IUID, automatic identification technology, and 

automatic identification and data capture processes. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

certify to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives no later than September 1, 2018, that the 

DCMA is complying with its own new policies, timelines, procedures, staff training, and equipment issuance to ensure contract 

compliance with the IUID policy for all items that require unique 

item level traceability at any time in their life cycle, to support 

counterfeit material risk reduction, and to provide for systematic 

assessment and accuracy of IUID marks as set forth by DOD Instruction 8320.04. 

KC–46A aerial refueling tanker emergent requirements 

The KC–46A will serve as the backbone of the Air Force’s critical 

aerial refueling mission for the next several decades, replacing the 

aging 1950s-era KC–135 Stratotanker fleet. The committee is 

aware that the Air Force has provided funding for numerous military construction projects at installations across the country to prepare for the delivery and bed down of the aircraft. 

However, the committee is concerned that as the KC–46A program matures and requirements become better defined, additional 

military construction and facilities, sustainment, restoration and 

modernization (FSRM) funding is necessary to properly support the 

fielding of the aircraft, house additional personnel, and meet unforeseen requirements of the tanker mission. The committee 

strongly encourages the Air Force to review and validate new and 

emergent requirements and prepare to provide additional military 

construction and FSRM funding in its budget request for fiscal year 

2019. 

Lithium-ion powered devices 

The committee commends the Navy’s steps to limit the possession, use, and stowage of certain devices containing lithium-ion batVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
112 

teries aboard ships, submarines, aircraft, boats, craft, and heavy 

equipment. This policy change is in response to reports of lithiumion batteries overheating and igniting—causing dangerous explosions that lead to physical harm and material damage. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to extend the Navy’s 

policy, which prohibits the possession, use, and stowage of certain 

lithium-ion powered devices aboard ships, submarines, aircraft, 

boats, craft, and heavy equipment, across the services to include 

other relevant weapon systems to ensure servicemembers’ and 

equipment are protected from unnecessary harm. The committee 

recommends that the Department establish similar policies for 

other potentially damaging lithium-ion powered devices that may 

threaten readiness. 

Marine Corps cold-weather and high altitude training 

The committee understands the United States Marine Corps has 

a nearly 70-year history with cold-weather and mountain warfare 

training at the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center 

(MCMWTC) at Bridgeport, California. The committee further understands that the MCMWTC—which spans 46,000 acres in the 

Toiyabe National Forest—provides U.S. servicemembers and allied 

partners with the critical training and basic skills needed to conduct combat operations as a component of a Marine Air Ground 

Task Force or other task force in mountainous, high altitude, and 

cold weather environments. The committee notes that in a first of 

its kind operation in January of 2017, the Marine Corps deployed 

approximately 300 Marines to Norway to, among other things, improve their ability to fight in the Arctic cold. 

Following a visit in July of 2016 by General Robert Neller, the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps, the committee is aware that the 

Marine Corps is now examining the rotational deployment of up to 

a battalion of U.S. Marines to Alaska for similar cold-weather, 

high-altitude, and mountainous training. The committee is aware 

that the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC) has 2,490 

square miles of land space, 65,000 square miles of available airspace, and 1.5 million acres of maneuver land. The committee is 

further aware that the JPARC allows for robust ground training including Air Assault, Deploy/Redeploy, Electronic Warfare, Full 

Spectrum, Individual and Small Unit, Large-Scale Joint Force, Live 

Fire, and Mounted and Dismounted Maneuver operations, among 

many others. The committee recognizes that Alaska’s unique strategic location and its existing aerial ports of debarkation/seaports 

of debarkation provide deployed and stationed forces with power 

projection and rapid contingency response capabilities into three 

geographic combatant commands—U.S. Northern Command, U.S. 

European Command, and U.S. Pacific Command. 

The committee, recognizing the unique training opportunities offered in the JPARC, applauds this effort by the Marine Corps to 

augment and diversify its existing cold-weather, high-altitude, and 

mountainous training. 

Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the Marine 

Corps to complete its examination of the deployment of Marines to 

Alaska and directs the Marine Corps to brief the congressional defense committees upon completion of its examination. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
113 

Master plan and investment strategy for the modernization 

of public shipyards under jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy 

The committee notes that in April 2013, the Department of the 

Navy submitted a report to Congress pursuant to the requirements 

in section 2865 of the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 112–81) with an investment plan to address the facilities and infrastructure requirements at each public 

shipyard under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy. The report included analysis that the $3.5 billion total maintenance backlog consisted of over 1,000 buildings at the four public 

shipyards. Of those, 53 mission-essential facilities were in poor condition and consisted of $1.2 billion of the total value, with an additional 30 mission-essential facilities on the verge of being rated as 

in poor condition. The committee also notes that the $3.5 billion facility maintenance backlog does not include the cost of modernizing 

shipyard utilities, which have been experiencing unplanned outages that can disrupt aircraft carrier and submarine availability 

schedules. 

The committee notes that the Department of the Navy is investing in existing facilities that may not be ideally designed, placed, 

sized, or configured to support the current work processes, leading 

to inefficiencies in ship repair functions. The 2013 Navy report 

states that, ‘‘Much of the naval shipyard infrastructure was designed for World War II-era ship construction rather than modern 

nuclear-powered ship repair processes, which reduce their efficiency in repairing today’s ships.’’ Yet, 27 of the 29 projects listed 

for the Naval shipyards are repairs of existing, inefficient facilities. 

More than half are simple repairs that address only one component 

of a building without addressing overall renovations to improve the 

mission effectiveness of the facility. In order for resources to be expended prudently for maximum benefit for shipyard operations, the 

Department must first review industrial processes, logistics 

streams, and workload distribution to develop a facilities plan, 

which consolidates and optimizes ship repair processes. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit a report by February 1, 2018, on an engineering master 

plan for the optimal placement and consolidation of facilities and 

major equipment to support ship repair functions at each shipyard 

and an investment strategy to address the facilities, major equipment, and infrastructure requirements at each public shipyard 

under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy. The report 

shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements: (1) A 

review of current and projected workload requirements for ship repairs to assess efficiencies in the use of existing facilities including 

consideration of new ship characteristics, obsolescence of facilities, 

siting of facilities and equipment, and various constrained process 

flows; (2) An analysis of life-cycle costs to repair and modernize existing mission-essential facilities versus the cost to consolidate 

functions into modern, right-sized waterfront facilities to meet current and programmed future mission requirements; (3) A review of 

the progress made in prioritizing and funding projects that facilitate implementation of the hub concept for ship repair in order to 

improve process efficiencies, consolidate, and contribute to availVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
114 

ability cost and schedule reductions; (4) A master plan for each 

shipyard incorporating the results of a review of industrial processes, logistics streams and workload distribution required to support ship repairs at each shipyard and the facilities requirements 

to support optimized processes; and (5) An updated investment 

strategy planned for each public shipyard, including timelines to 

complete the master plan for each shipyard, a list of projects and 

brief scopes of work, and cost estimates necessary to complete 

projects for mission essential facilities. 

Military training for operations in densely populated urban 

terrain 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 

congressional defense committees a report no later than March 1, 

2018 on plans and initiatives to enhance existing urban training 

concepts, capabilities, and facilities that could provide for new 

training opportunities that would more closely resemble large, 

dense, heavily populated urban environments. The report shall include specific plans and efforts to provide for a realistic environment for the training of large units with joint assets and recently 

fielded technologies to exercise new tactics, techniques, and procedures, including consideration of anticipated urban military operations in or near the littoral environment and any relevant cyber 

vulnerabilities. 

The report shall also include consideration of multiple training 

facility options and the costs and benefits associated therewith, including non-traditional options, such as leased facilities and National Guard facilities or other facilities owned or operated by a 

state government. The committee notes that there has been sustained congressional interest in improving joint urban training 

strategies and capabilities for more than two decades and encourages the Department to draw upon the results of past studies on 

this matter. 

The report shall be submitted in unclassified form but may include a classified annex. 

Navy dry dock capacity 

No later than September 30, 2018, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense 

committees that assesses depot-level ship maintenance capacity in 

the public shipyards. The report should capture any projected capacity shortfall and evaluate potential strategies to match the industrial capacity of the public shipyards to future fleet maintenance requirements. Further, the report should recommend courses 

of action that include timeframes and funding requirements. 

Organic depot capacity and interoperability 

The committee remains concerned that significant maintenance 

backlogs exist in the organic industrial base, particularly in the 

case of the F/A–18 Hornet A–D legacy models. The committee believes that additional capacity for such backlogs could be achieved 

through the expansion of cross-service depot maintenance operations. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
115 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

assess the feasibility of expanding cross-service depot maintenance 

within the organic industrial base to avoid future backlogs, particularly in the case of the F/A–18 Super Hornet E–F models. The committee recommends the Department to consider using the F/A–18 

Hornet A–D legacy models as a test case for this assessment, along 

with any other platforms the Department deems appropriate. 

Paint training programs 

The committee believes that maximum efficiency is critical for 

more than 350 military paint facilities that perform painting and 

coating operations, including corrosion prevention and control, 

radar absorption, and camouflage. The committee understands that 

the Department’s operations require stringent specifications for the 

coating of each piece of equipment. 

The committee understands paint training programs provide 

training for military painters and coating operations. The committee notes paint training programs can save the Department 

time and funding resources by using advanced technology and 

equipment along with hands-on training to effectively apply coatings and reduce waste. Additionally, increasing coating transfer efficiency and preventing corrosion and rework can improve asset 

readiness. Furthermore, the committee understands that paint 

training programs consistently update to the latest advancements 

in coatings, application equipment, and technology. Lastly, the 

committee notes that the paint training programs have trained 

hundreds of military and contract painters, serving all of the military departments. 

Processes for translating strategy into force structure and 

readiness decisions 

The committee notes that the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) 

outlines the Department of Defense’s (DOD) priority missions, 

force-sizing construct, major force planning assumptions, and key 

capabilities to help size and shape the future joint force to meet the 

National Military Strategy. The DPG’s main objectives are to ensure that sufficient capabilities essential to the success of future 

operations are being developed by the components and reflected in 

the President’s budget request. 

In 2010, DOD began bundling scenarios into Integrated Security 

Constructs (ISCs), which were intended to allow the services to 

make trade-off decisions when faced with competing demands. The 

2015 National Military Strategy suggested that DOD has consumed 

readiness as quickly as it has been generated for nearly a generation and that DOD is taking action to better balance achieving immediate operational goals with improving readiness for future operations. Over time, DOD has varied the way it applies plans and 

scenarios to determine readiness requirements. These different approaches to making force structure and readiness decisions can directly affect, among other things, the funding for weapons systems, 

maintenance, personnel, and training that are needed. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States not later than May 1, 2018 to evaluate the extent to which DOD is translating strategy into guidance and force 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
116 

structure from a joint versus service-specific approach. The Government Accountability Office review should assess: (1) In the absence 

of approved ISCs and scenarios, what approaches are the military 

services using for force structure planning and sizing; (2) How are 

the military services applying plans and scenarios to determine 

readiness requirements and what are the associated assumptions 

and business rules; (3) To what extent do DOD and the Joint Staff 

have visibility over the services’ approaches for making force structure and readiness decisions in order to weigh potential tradeoffs, 

mitigate risks, and become more efficient across the joint force; and 

(4) How the DPG gives guidance on doctrine, required capabilities 

and shortfalls, force structure, and training to ensure the service 

secretaries are meeting their title 10 responsibilities of man, train, 

and equip. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to brief the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and 

House of Representatives, not later than March 1, 2018, on its preliminary findings. 

Report on F–35 Joint Strike Fighter sustainment affordability and transparency 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense’s 

(DOD) sustainment strategy for the Joint Strike Fighter is not 

linked closely to the military services’ budgets that provide the necessary funding for the projected $1.0 trillion in operating and support costs of the program, thus contributing to the lack of transparency and misalignment of responsibility and accountability that 

has plagued the program from its inception. In 2014, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that while DOD has 

begun some cost-savings efforts and established sustainment affordability targets for the F–35 program, DOD did not use the military services’ budgets to set these targets. Therefore, these targets 

may not be representative of what the services can realistically afford and do not provide a clear benchmark for DOD’s cost-savings 

efforts. While the committee is encouraged by the Department’s attention on cost reduction efforts, until the budgets of the services 

actually inform the affordability targets the Department is trying 

to achieve, there is no way to ensure that any cost savings will actually result in a sustainment strategy that will be affordable. The 

current strategy lacks the transparency necessary for an efficient 

and effective use of taxpayer dollars by the services that are actually operating and funding sustainment. Continuing the current 

practice of having the F–35 Joint Program Office handing a bill to 

the services during execution fails to incorporate the services’ budgetary input to guide sustainment decisions, prioritize requirements, 

and identify potential areas for savings. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House 

of Representatives, not later than March 1, 2018, a report on the 

Department’s plan for improving the transparency and affordability 

of the sustainment strategy for the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter. The 

required report shall include the following elements: (1) a description of affordability constraints linked to, and informed by, military 

service budgets to help guide sustainment decisions, prioritize reVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
117 

quirements, and identify additional areas of savings; (2) an explanation of the processes in place and steps taken to ensure that the 

Department of the Navy and the Department of the Air Force have 

full transparency of the F–35 sustainment costs that they are funding, and the corresponding capabilities provided, in order to support their own affordability initiatives; and (3) any other matter 

deemed relevant by the Secretary of Defense. 

Report on required training capabilities of the Fallon Range 

Training Complex 

The committee recognizes the undeniably vital contribution the 

Fallon Range Training Complex (FRTC) makes to the readiness of 

our nation’s forces, especially our Naval Strike Warfare and Naval 

Special Warfare units. As the only location where an entire carrier 

air wing can train together as they fight, the Fallon ranges are irreplaceable for Naval Aviation. However, current land and airspace 

restrictions limit the realism of the training environment. The 

Navy is in the early stages of developing a plan to address the 

looming 2021 expiration of the current Fallon Range land withdrawal. During this transition, the committee believes that it is 

necessary to modernize the FRTC, particularly the expansion of usable land and airspace. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Chief of Naval Operations 

to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, by February 1, 2018, describing the required training capabilities of the 

Fallon Range Training Complex. The required report should include: (1) an overview of current training capabilities of the FRTC; 

(2) the training requirements that need to be met by the FRTC; (3) 

proposed improvements to the land and airspace of the FRTC; (4) 

proposed capability upgrades for the FRTC; and (5) the impacts of 

not modernizing the FRTC, in terms of both space and capabilities. 

The required report shall be unclassified, but may contain a classified annex. 

Report on small arms industrial base 

In 2010, the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011 repealed section 2473 of title 10, United States 

Code, which had required the Department of Defense to only procure certain small arms repair parts and components from a limited number of industry sources that the Department had identified 

as comprising the small arms production industrial base (SAPIB). 

In 2015, the committee included directive report language entitled ‘‘Small Arms Production Industrial Base’’ within the report to 

accompany the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92). This directed the Secretary of Defense 

in coordination with the senior military services acquisition executives, to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed Services 

on the current state of the SAPIB, as well as on the effect the repeal is having on the current SAPIB. 

The committee believes the briefing provided by the Army was 

insufficient. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with senior military services acquisition executives, to submit a report to the Armed Services Committees of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than January 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
118 

15, 2018, on the state of the SAPIB. At a minimum, this report 

shall: (1) identify critical small arms systems and items; (2) describe the department’s strategy for preserving a stable SAPIB in 

the areas of development, production, maintenance and competitive 

contracting; (3) describe the use of science and technology, small 

business programs, and organic depot activities to improve and enhance quality, delivery, competition, engineering and capability. 

Review of corrosion control and prevention in the Department of Defense 

The committee notes that the negative effects of corrosion con- tinue to cost the Department of Defense (DOD) over $22.0 billion 

annually. The committee is concerned that the military departments have not adequately funded their corrosion control and prevention activities nor have all the military services placed the appropriate emphasis on their corrosion executives. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate the: (1) Results of resourcing efforts 

for corrosion executives in the military departments; (2) Corrosion 

prevention office and the corrosion control and prevention executives’ oversight roles in implementing corrosion prevention and control planning on acquisition and sustainment programs; (3) Extent 

of interagency working groups to include DOD that are focused on 

the potential application and implementation of infrastructure corrosion prevention and mitigation technologies government-wide. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to brief the committee not later than March 1, 2018, on its 

preliminary findings. 

Review of minimum capital investment for certain depots 

The committee notes that section 2476 of title 10, United States 

Code, requires that each fiscal year, the Secretary of a military department shall invest in the capital budgets of the covered depots 

of that military department a total amount equal to not less than 

6 percent of the average total combined maintenance, repair, and 

overhaul workload funded at all the depots of that military department for the preceding three fiscal years. Under the statute, the 

capital budget of a depot includes investment funds spent to modernize or improve the efficiency of depot facilities, equipment, work 

environment, or processes in direct support of depot operations, but 

does not include funds spent for sustainment of existing facilities, 

infrastructure, or equipment. 

However, exactly how the military departments determine the 

funds available for both investment and sustainment is unclear to 

the committee. If they are, for example, using the capital budget 

on sustainment, the military services may be substantially underfunding both their investment and sustainment requirements at 

the depots. The committee notes that the military depots should be 

receiving not less than 6 percent of their total workload funding for 

investment actions alone; and funding for sustainment actions 

should be budgeted separately. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate to what extent the military departments are complying with the requirement in section 2476 of title 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
119 

10, United States Code, to invest in the capital budgets of covered 

depots a total amount equal to not less than 6 percent of the average total combined maintenance, repair, and overhaul workload 

funded at all the depots for a military department for the preceding 

three fiscal years; and the extent to which the amounts identified 

for capital budget activities by the military departments were spent 

on sustainment of existing facilities, infrastructure, or equipment. 

The Comptroller General may also include other related matters as 

appropriate. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to brief the committee not later than March 30, 2018, on its 

findings. 

Review of training for commanders that consult and interact with federally recognized tribes 

The committee recognizes the significant effort and institutional 

knowledge required to maintain healthy working relationships between many domestic Department of Defense installations and the 

federally recognized tribes in the communities in which these installations are based. 

The committee recommends that the Department review the 

preparation given to Command Select List Designees, Installation 

Commanders, Garrison Commanders, and General Officers with assignment at installations that regularly engage with at least one 

geographically proximate federally recognized tribe. 

Specifically, the committee recommends that the Department review the pre-command course training provided to these leaders, 

specifically the training pertaining to the cultural history of any 

relevant federally recognized tribes to the installation, the treaty 

rights, if any, of such tribes and the legal implications for the installation, and the history of military and United States Government engagement with such tribes, and best practice communication and engagement strategies used for maintaining healthy working relationships with these tribes. 

Ship and submarine depot maintenance 

The committee is concerned by challenges with maintaining the 

current Navy fleet of 276 ships. For example, the committee notes 

the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN–77) availability was scheduled 

for an eight-month availability that required 13 months in 2016; 

USS Albany (SSN–753) took over 48 months to complete its 22- 

month maintenance availability and missed a deployment as a result; and the USS Boise (SSN–764) was originally scheduled for a 

2016 public shipyard availability that was recently shifted to a 

2019 private shipyard availability. In addition to the USS Boise, 

the Navy has also recently shifted the USS Montpelier (SSN–765) 

and USS Columbus (SSN–762) availabilities from public shipyards 

to private shipyards. 

The committee understands insufficient public shipyard capacity 

has led to cost inefficiency and delay, and the rescheduling of some 

submarine maintenance availabilities to private shipyards. The 

committee further understands the Navy does not anticipate eliminating the current maintenance backlog of 5.5 million man-days at 

public shipyards until 2023. The committee notes the latest Navy 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
120 

shipbuilding plan indicates the fleet will grow by 33 ships to 309 

ships in 2023. The committee is concerned by the task of accomplishing the increased maintenance requirements while simultaneously eliminating a maintenance backlog that has continued to 

grow since 2011. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

House of Representatives a detailed plan to accomplish surface 

ship and submarine maintenance through fiscal year 2023. For this 

period, by fiscal year, this plan shall include: the planned maintenance workload by ship class, public and private shipyard workforce capacity based on recent demonstrated performance (i.e., performance factor), comparison of workload to workforce (adjusted for 

performance) for public and private shipyards by ship class, plans 

to shift maintenance from public to private shipyards, estimated 

costs, and budgeted costs in the fiscal year 2018 budget request. 

This plan shall be submitted with the fiscal year 2019 budget request. 

Technology roadmap and comprehensive water strategy 

The committee remains concerned that the Department will continue to face long-term challenges related to its water requirements, coupled with the increased potential for security risks and 

destabilization impacts requiring the Department’s response 

around the globe. While there has been much attention placed on 

the cyber vulnerabilities of energy use and the fragility of the electric grid, the committee believes a secure and reliable supply of 

water is essential to the Department’s ability to perform its critical 

missions on its installations and in support of operational deployments. 

The Department has repeatedly informed the committee that 

roughly 80 percent of a logistical resupply convoy’s weight consists 

of water and fuel in support of combat operations. On military installations, water demand can compete with the economies of local 

communities, especially in rural areas that experience drought and 

increased risk of wildfires. The Department needs to ensure it fully 

understands local water rights and access to sources of water. 

The committee strongly encourages the Department to develop 

the advanced technologies necessary to meet its requirements for 

water production, treatment, and purification, as well as capitalize 

on commercially available capabilities. For example, the Army has 

been able to reduce installation water use by roughly 4.4 billion 

gallons, save $11.0 million per year, and reduce total water requirements by roughly one-third through utilities privatization programs at 23 locations. 

Notably, university researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology were recently able to develop a small device that harvests an individual’s daily drinking water requirement from the atmosphere in arid environments, with no energy input other than 

natural sunlight. The committee strongly encourages the Department to pursue and field these types of advanced technologies to 

meet its water requirements. 

Accordingly, the Secretary of Defense shall, in coordination with 

the military departments and combatant commands, submit a techVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
121 

nology roadmap to address capability gaps for water production, 

treatment, and purification and a comprehensive water strategy 

addressing research, acquisition, training, and organizational 

issues to the committee not later than May 1, 2018. 

The roadmap and strategy shall include but not be limited to 

identifying: (1) The projected global security impacts the Department will face in 2025 and beyond due to diminishing amounts of 

potable water; (2) Technologies and capabilities to produce, purify, 

and treat water on site from groundwater, surface water, or recycling used water, in order to reduce or eliminate demand for water 

resupply and distribution; (3) Technologies and capabilities for 

water production, purification, and treatment that are compact, 

portable, and use a low energy demand, to the maximum extent 

possible; (4) Technologies and capabilities that have the ability to 

readily provide potable water for distributed operations in remote 

areas and in the event of humanitarian assistance and disaster response (HA/DR) missions; (5) Holistic approaches to maximize 

water efficiencies on military installations and forward operating 

bases through the use of advanced technologies and capabilities; (6) 

The expanded use of third party financing and utilities privatization to sustain and recapitalize aging water infrastructure; (7) Lessons learned from previous utilities privatization contracts that will 

be used in future contract negotiations to ensure long-term water 

rights, security, conservation, and market opportunities; (8) Metrics 

to track water use and quantify savings to include the expanded 

use of water meters; (9) Risk mitigations to address the testing, 

identification, and remediation requirements for emerging contaminants and other water source vulnerabilities to ensure human 

health and safety standards are met; (10) Ways to incorporate lessons learned and best practices drawn from the past 15 years of 

combat operations and HA/DR missions; (11) Cooperation and collaboration opportunities with other agencies, non-government entities, academia, local communities, and foreign nations; (12) Infrastructure and other development funding requirements; (13) Policies and methods to monitor water market trends and how water 

market mechanisms are evolving over time to minimize the fully 

burdened cost of water to the Department; (14) Opportunities to acquire more subject matter expertise on water issues to identify future threats to mission performance; and (15) Any necessary legislative or policy change recommendations. 

The comprehensive strategy may also include a classified annex, 

if deemed appropriate. 

Textile decisions 

As the Department of Defense continues its work to streamline 

military uniforms, both combat and dress uniforms, the committee 

recognizes the significant importance of a stable and domestic textile industrial base to produce garments for the country’s 

warfighters. 

Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the Department to 

take into consideration such an impact upon the industrial base 

and its suppliers, including the small businesses that provide critical contributions, while making such decisions. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
122 

Third-party financed energy projects 

The committee continues to be strongly supportive of the Department’s efforts to use third party financing mechanisms and other 

appropriate authorities for energy projects that improve installation resilience, increase the readiness and ability of the military 

services to deploy, and balance the stewardship of taxpayer funding 

since third-party financed projects have little upfront cost to the 

Department. 

Accordingly, the committee continues to strongly encourage DOD 

to continue to use third party financing mechanisms and other appropriate authorities to take full advantage of private sector financing for renewable and distributed energy projects that improve installation resilience, increase readiness and mission assurance, and 

offer cost savings. Lastly, the committee continues to strongly encourage DOD to prioritize resilience in its pursuit of projects and 

to leverage payment in kind options for black start capability in the 

event of grid outages whether through technologies like cyber-secure microgrids, additional feeder lines, islanded operations, or 

other appropriate assets. 

Use of proximate airfields to support undergraduate pilot 

training installations 

The committee is aware that Air Force Undergraduate Pilot 

Training (UPT) installations utilize nearby civilian airfields to accomplish parts of their training syllabus and as emergency landing 

sites. Partnerships with organizations operating civilian airfields 

already increase training opportunities and overall pilot training 

capacity. However, the committee believes there may be additional 

opportunities to improve cooperation and partnership covering 

proximate civilian airfields that could be beneficial to both Air 

Force and local communities. 

Therefore, not later than 90 days after the enactment of this act, 

the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives a study on the feasibility of obtaining increased access to proximate civilian aviation facilities to: (1) expand Undergraduate Pilot Training capacity at civilian aviation facilities where 

cooperation agreements already are being used to meet throughput 

requirements; (2) to create additional surge capacity at such facilities; and (3) extend such agreements to additional proximate civilian aviation facilities. 

Wargame for operations in the Arctic 

The committee supports the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 2016 

Arctic Strategy, including the desired end-state for a ‘‘secure and 

stable region where U.S. national interests are safeguarded, the 

U.S. homeland is defended, and nations work cooperatively to address challenges.’’ Given the continued involvement and expanding 

footprint of Russia and other nations, including U.S. allies in the 

Arctic, harsh weather conditions, and the potential for increased oil 

and gas exploration, the committee remains concerned that the 

rapidly changing strategic waterway is a potential driver of instability, requiring the Department to be prepared to incorporate any 

changes in the comprehensive domain awareness in DOD planning. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
123 

Additionally, the committee is concerned that a lack of icebreaker 

ships and the challenges of constructing other permanent infrastructure in the Arctic may limit DOD’s ability to operate and ensure regional access given the evolving security threats, icebreaker 

capabilities of Russia and other nations, and the evolving physical 

environment. 

The committee believes that DOD, other U.S. federal agencies, 

and U.S. allies and partners need to ensure they can operate with 

sustainable proficiency in the high latitudes of the Arctic region, 

just as they prepare for operations in every other region around the 

world. The committee is also concerned that coastal erosion rates 

that were projected by the Air Force not to occur until 2030 and 

2040 have already been observed, which threatens DOD’s existing 

early warning radar infrastructure. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

conduct an Arctic wargame to assess the strategy, assumptions, 

and capabilities of the United States Northern Command to secure, 

stabilize, and assure access to all international waters, airspace, 

and homeland approaches in the Arctic. The wargame and appropriate tabletop exercises shall include, but not be limited to: (1) 

Necessary infrastructure and regional-specific capabilities for DOD 

operations in the Arctic, to include icebreakers and communications improvements; (2) Potential mechanical and maintenance constraints of the current class of U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships, 

submarines, ground vehicles, equipment, and aircraft, to include 

unmanned systems, operating in the Arctic, given the temperatures, weather, and opening of new transportation routes; (3) Regional implications of American icebreakers and other allied and 

partner forces operating in the region in the event of new commercial ship traffic transiting the Arctic during 30 to 60 days of free 

water access; and (4) Necessary updates to concepts of operations, 

tactics, techniques, and procedures, rules of engagement, protections for regional-specific indigenous communities, potential new 

navigation routes, and search and rescue requirements. 

Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, the Secretary shall convey to the congressional defense committees the findings of the Arctic wargame. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(125) 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Active Forces 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Active-Duty end strengths for fiscal year 2018, as shown below: 

Service FY 2017 

Authorized 

FY 2018 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2018 

Request 

FY 2017 

Authorized 

Army .......................................................................... 476,000 476,000 481,000 +5,000 +5,000 

Navy ........................................................................... 323,900 327,900 327,900 0 +4,000 

Marine Corps ............................................................. 185,000 185,000 186,000 +1,000 +1,000 

Air Force .................................................................... 321,000 325,100 325,100 0 +4,100 

DOD Total ......................................................... 1,305,900 1,314,000 1,320,000 +6,000 +14,100 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2018, as shown below: 

Service FY 2017 

Authorized 

FY 2017 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2018 

Request 

FY 2017 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 343,000 343,000 343,500 +500 +500 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 199,000 199,000 199,500 +500 +500 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 58,000 59,000 59,000 0 +1,000 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 38,500 38,500 38,500 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................................... 105,700 106,600 106,600 0 +900 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 69,000 69,800 69,800 0 +800 

DOD Total ......................................................... 813,200 815,900 816,900 +1,000 +3,700 

Coast Guard Reserve ................................................ 7,000 7,000 7,000 0 0 

End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the 

reserves (sec. 412) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2018, as shown 

below: 

Service FY 2017 

Authorized 

FY 2018 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2018 

Request 

FY 2017 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 30,155 30,155 30,155 0 0 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 16,261 16,261 16,261 0 0 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 9,955 10,101 10,101 0 +146 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
126 

Service FY 2017 

Authorized 

FY 2018 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2018 

Request 

FY 2017 

Authorized 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................................... 14,764 16,260 16,260 0 +1496 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 2,955 3,588 3,588 0 +633 

DOD Total ......................................................... 76,351 78,626 78,626 0 +2275 

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

413) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military technicians (dual status) for the reserve components of the 

Army and Air Force for fiscal year 2018, at the following levels: 

Army National Guard: 22,294; Army Reserve: 6,492; Air National 

Guard: 19,135; and Air Force Reserve: 8,880. These authorizations 

reflect the conversion of 12.6 percent of the technician population, 

as requested in the fiscal year 2018 budget request, to civilian employees under section 3101 of title 5, United States Code, or section 

1601 of title 10, United States Code as authorized elsewhere in this 

Act to reflect the requirements of section 1084 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). 

The committee notes that the same number of personnel are 

available for full-time support of the reserve components of the 

Army and the Air Force through the combination of military technicians (dual status) and employees under section 3101 of title 5, 

United States Code, or section 1601 of title 10, United States Code. 

The budgetary authorization for full-time support remains the 

same. Further, the committee has not reduced either the overall 

Selected Reserve end strength or budgetary authority for civilian 

personnel relative to this conversion. 

Fiscal year 2018 limitation on number of non-dual status 

technicians (sec. 414) 

The committee recommends a provision that would set the limit 

on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2018, at 

zero to reflect the requirements of section 1084 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) 

converting non-dual status technicians to civilian employees under 

section 3101 of title 5, United States Code, or section 1601 of title 

10, United States Code, by no later than October 1, 2017. 

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on 

active duty for operational support (sec. 415) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of reserve personnel authorized to be on Active 

Duty for operational support under section 115(b) of title 10, 

United States Code, as of September 30, 2018, as shown below: 

Service FY 2017 

Authorized 

FY 2018 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2018 

Request 

FY 2017 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 17,000 17,000 17,000 0 0 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 13,000 13,000 13,000 0 0 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
127 

Service FY 2017 

Authorized 

FY 2018 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2018 

Request 

FY 2017 

Authorized 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................................... 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0 

DOD Total ......................................................... 69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0 

Number of members of the National Guard on full-time duty 

in support of the reserves within the National Guard 

Bureau (sec. 416) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

number of personnel authorized to be on full-time duty in support 

of the reserves within the National Guard Bureau to not exceed the 

number equal to six percent of the number authorized by section 

412 of this Act. 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations 

Military personnel (sec. 421) 

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

Budget Items 

Military personnel funding changes 

The amount authorized to be appropriated for military personnel 

programs include the following changes from the budget request: 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Military Personnel Underexecution .................................................. ¥1083.37 

Public-Private partnership on military spousal employment ......... +1.0 

Defense Innovation Board software development review ............... +1.0 

Total ............................................................................................. ¥1,081.37 

The committee recommends a total reduction in the Military Personnel (MILPERS) appropriation of $1,081.37 million. This amount 

includes: (1) A reduction of $1083.37 million to reflect the Government Accountability Office’s most recent assessment of the average 

annual MILPERS underexecution; (2) An increase of $1.0 million 

to support a pilot program for a public-private partnership venture 

on military spousal employment overseas; and (3) An increase of 

$1.0 million for the Defense Innovation Board to conduct an analysis of software development and acquisition regulations for the 

Department of Defense. 

Military Personnel Unfunded Priorities List 

The budget request included $141.7 billion for Military Personnel. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense submitted extensive Unfunded Requirements Lists totaling $33.1 billion. The 

committee believes that since the passage of the Budget Control 

Act in 2011, budget requests have been guided by artificial conVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
128 

straints rather than the realities of the global strategic environment. This reality has continued for the fiscal year 2018 budget request, which too relies on an arbitrary number determined six 

years ago in the Budget Control Act. Such constraints on the budget, along with a sustained high operational tempo, have led to a 

significant degradation in our military readiness in the near term, 

and the threat that we will fall behind our adversaries in the longterm. For the last several years military leaders have highlighted 

these problems in great detail. 

In order to address the degraded state of our military and to stop 

the erosion of U.S. military advantage, the committee believes that 

the budget should be based on requirements, rather than arbitrary 

budget caps. The committee recommends an increase of $627.8 million to Military Personnel for items identified in the Unfunded Requirements List. Increases include growing the Army by 6,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps by 1,000 Marines. Greater details of 

each increase can be found in the tables in Division D. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(129) 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy 

Clarification of baselines for authorized numbers of general 

and flag officers on active duty and in joint duty assignments (sec. 501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 526 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the Active-Duty 

and joint-duty assignment baselines for general and flag officers. 

Authority of promotion boards to recommend officers of 

particular merit be placed at the top of the promotion 

list (sec. 502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 616 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize an officer promotion board to recommend Active-Duty officers of particular merit 

be placed at the top of the promotion list to better incentivize talent by recognizing top performing officers with promotion timing 

based on merit rather than based solely on seniority. 

Clarification to exception for removal of officers from list of 

officers recommended for promotion after 18 months 

without appointment (sec. 503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 629 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the requirement to remove officers from a list of officers recommended for promotion after 18 months without appointment does not apply when 

the military department concerned is not able to obtain and provide to the Senate the information the Senate requires to give its 

advice and consent to the appointment concerned because that information is under the control of a department or agency of the 

Federal Government other than the Department of Defense. 

Flexibility in promotion of officers to positions of Staff 

Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps and Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Navy 

(sec. 504) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 5046 and 5149 of title 10, United States Code, to retain prior 

flexibility in the promotion of officers to positions of Staff Judge 

Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps and Deputy 

Judge Advocate General of the Navy. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
130 

Repeal of requirement for specification of number of officers who may be recommended for early retirement by 

a Selective Early Retirement Board (sec. 505) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 638a of title 10, United States Code, to repeal the requirement 

that Service secretaries specify the number of officers who may be 

recommended for early retirement. This change would allow more 

effective management of retirement-eligible senior officers who are 

not competitive for future promotion. Officers who have been 

passed over for promotion or who have at least 2 years time-ingrade and whose names are not on a list of officers recommended 

for promotion would be eligible for selective early retirement. 

The committee intends this authority to be used to ensure a 

high-quality senior officer population. Selective retirement authority allows the military services to create vacancies in the control 

grades of O–5 and O–6, thereby allowing high-performing younger 

officers to promote more quickly in specific cases where the needs 

of the service dictate such authority to be used. 

Extension of service-in-grade waiver authority for voluntary 

retirement of certain general and flag officers for purposes of enhanced flexibility in officer personnel management (sec. 506) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1370 of title 10, United States Code, to extend to 2025 the authority to waive the time-in-grade requirement for certain general 

and flag officers for voluntary early retirement without reduction 

in grade of up to 10 percent of the authorized Active-Duty strength 

for officers in those grades for purposes of enhanced flexibility in 

officer personnel management. 

Inclusion of Principal Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics among officers subject to repeal of statutory 

specification of general officer grade (sec. 507) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3016 of title 10, United States Code, to remove the requirement that the Principal Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary 

of the Army for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall be a 

lieutenant general. 

Clarification of effect of repeal of statutory specification of 

general or flag officer grade for various positions in the 

Armed Forces (sec. 508) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 502 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2017 (Public Law 114–328) to clarify that the grade of an officer 

serving as of the date of the enactment of that Act in a position 

whose statutory grade is affected by an amendment made by section 502 may not be reduced after that date by reason of such 

amendment as long as the officer remains in continuous service in 

such position after that date. 

The committee also recommends a provision that would amend 

section 3084 of title 10, United States Code, to repeal the requireVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
131 

ment that an officer appointed as Chief of the Veterinary Corps of 

the Army who holds a lower grade shall be appointed in the grade 

of brigadier general. 

Grandfathering of retired grade of Assistant Judge Advocates General of the Navy as of repeal of statutory specification of general and flag officers grades in the Armed 

Forces (sec. 509) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that 

officers holding certain positions as of December 23, 2016, whose 

statutory grade is affected by amendments made by section 502 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) may be retired in such grade with the retired pay 

of such grade, unless entitled to higher pay under another provision of law. 

Service credit for cyberspace experience or advanced education upon original appointment as a commissioned officer (sec. 510) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 12207 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize service secretaries to credit any person receiving an original appointment as 

a reserve commissioned officer with a period of constructive service. 

Constructive service would be credited to an individual for special 

experience or training in a particular cyberspace-related field or for 

any period of advanced education in a cyberspace-related field beyond the baccalaureate degree level. Constructive service credit can 

not exceed one year for each year of special experience, training, 

or advanced education, and not more than three years total constructive service may be credited. This authority is intended to 

allow the Defense Department to better recruit individuals with 

cyberspace-related skills into vacant critical cyberspace positions. 

Authority for officers to opt-out of promotion board consideration (sec. 510A) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

service secretaries to provide that an active and reserve component 

officer may, upon the officer’s request, be excluded from consideration by a promotion selection board. The committee intends this 

authority be used to enable an officer to complete a desirable career broadening assignment or to develop additional technical expertise without harming future promotion potential. 

Reauthorization of authority to order retired members to 

active duty in high-demand, low-density assignments 

(sec. 510B) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 688a of title 10, United States Code, to authorize service secretaries to order retired military service members to active duty on 

a voluntary basis to meet critical manning needs. The period of active duty would be in accordance with an agreement between the 

member and the Secretary concerned. Activation under this authority is limited to 1,000 members. The authority to use section 688a 

of title 10, United States Code, expired on December 31, 2011. This 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
132 

authority would be reinstated for a 5-year period and would expire 

on December 31, 2022. The committee expects that this authority 

will be used to address the pilot shortage. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management 

Consolidation of authorities to order members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces to perform duty 

(sec. 511) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 515 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92) to require the Secretary of Defense to 

submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives by April 30, 2019, legislative proposals 

designed to implement alternative approaches to reducing the number of statutory authorities by which members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces may be ordered to perform duty to not 

more than eight statutory authorities grouped into four duty categories to which specific pay and benefits may be aligned. 

Establishment of Office of Complex Investigations within 

the National Guard Bureau (sec. 512) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 1101 of title 10, United States Code, to establish the Office of 

Complex Investigations within the National Guard Bureau under 

the authority, direction, and control of the Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau. The office would be organized, trained, equipped, 

and managed to conduct administrative investigations in order to 

assist the States in the organization maintenance, and operation of 

the National Guard for the following types of investigations: (1) allegations of sexual assault involving members of the National 

Guard; (2) circumstances involving members of the National Guard 

in which other law enforcement agencies within the Department of 

Defense do not have jurisdiction or authority to investigate; and (3) 

other circumstances as the Chief of the National Guard Bureau 

may direct. 

The committee remains highly concerned that the Office of Complex Investigations, as it currently operates, has a high level of investigative staff turn-over that exceeds 50 percent of its full-time 

support manning requirements on an annual basis. Therefore, it is 

the intent and expectation of the committee that the Office of Complex Investigations should be staffed in a manner that allows for 

multi-year tours for members of the National Guard on active duty 

or full-time National Guard duty for the purposes of service with 

the Office of Complex Investigations. The committee directs the 

Chief of the National Guard Bureau to submit to the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, 

no later than April 1, 2018, a status report on the official establishment of the Office of Complex Investigations that lays out the manning documents and turn-over rates for such office. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
133 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities 

Report on policies for regular and reserve officer career 

management (sec. 516) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no 

later than March 1, 2018, with recommendations for mechanisms 

that would: (1) Increase the ability of officers to repeatedly transition between Active-Duty and Reserve active-status throughout the 

course of their military careers; (2) Provide additional flexibility in 

managing the populations of officers in the grades of major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel and Navy grades of lieutenant commander, commander, and captain; (3) Utilize the modernized retirement system provided by the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) to encourage officers 

to pursue careers of lengths that vary from the traditional 20-year 

military career; (4) Create alternative career tracks for officers that 

encourage and facilitate the recruitment and retention of officers 

with technical expertise; (5) Develop a career and promotion path 

for officers in cyber-related officer specialties; (6) Ensure the officer 

corps does not become disproportionately weighted in the field 

grade officer ranks; and (7) Any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate to improve the effective recruitment, management, and retention of regular and reserve officers of the Armed 

Forces. 

This report is the committee’s first step in a comprehensive review of the military officer personnel system for both the active and 

reserve components. The committee recognizes that military officer 

careers today are largely managed according to regulations, laws, 

and traditions established many decades ago, which may no longer 

be effective in recruiting and retaining the high-quality talent required to succeed against future threats. The Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) of 1980 (Public Law 96—513) 

and the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA) of 

1995 codified Active-Duty and Reserve officer management based 

on fixed career- and promotion-time parameters that inhibit flexibility and the adoption of modern talent management principles. 

DOPMA and ROPMA mandate predetermined promotion timelines 

and statutory limits on the number of officers serving in field grade 

ranks. This results in an up-or-out promotion structure and an, oftentimes, one-size-fits-all officer career. 

Additionally, the committee notes that DOPMA and ROPMA advanced important reforms that helped to build an officer corps that 

remains exceedingly capable. These statutes imparted crucial discipline into the management of field grade officers, which ensures 

the officer corps does not become disproportionately represented by 

senior ranking officers. DOPMA had the laudable goal of simplifying and standardizing officer promotion practices across all military departments, while also ensuring adequate and competitive 

opportunities for continued officer advancement. These goals remain important, but as the nature of military service has evolved, 

particularly over the last 16 years of extended overseas engagement, the committee believes the policies dictated by DOPMA and 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
134 

ROPMA should be carefully reviewed to ensure that they do not 

unnecessarily complicate officer career management and dissuade 

some highly talented officers from joining or continuing their military service. 

In particular, as a result of maintaining separate active and reserve officer management statutes, the committee notes the challenge of creating a truly integrated active and reserve total force. 

Under DOPMA and ROPMA, separate, oftentimes duplicative, personnel bureaucracies manage two distinct populations of officers 

(active and reserve) who are increasingly likely to serve alongside 

each other when deployed to a combat zone or when training for 

future conflicts. The committee plans to assess whether a more integrated approach would better serve the entire officer population 

and encourage a continuum of service among those officers who 

wish to continue to wear the uniform on Active Duty or in the reserves. 

The newly implemented blended retirement system presents an 

important opportunity for the military departments to reevaluate 

their personnel needs and supporting policies. As nearly every service member will now leave the military with some form of retirement benefit, the military should evaluate the necessity of the 

more-traditional 20-year military career. It is possible that the 

military would benefit from some officer careers extending far beyond 20-years while others should be much shorter. One of the key 

concerns of Congress in passing DOPMA was ensuring that those 

officers not selected for promotion, but close to the 20 years of service required for a military pension, be generally allowed to remain 

on Active Duty in their current grade. This resulted in some officers being retained on Active Duty beyond the military’s requirement, solely so they could receive retirement benefits. The new 

blended retirement system allays that concern, as now nearly all 

new officers will receive some form of retirement benefit. 

The requirement to stand for promotion according to predetermined timelines is one of the hallmarks of DOPMA and ROPMA. 

To be competitive for promotion, officers frequently must serve in 

a variety of assignments for relatively short periods of time. This 

produces officers with great breadth of experience but who sometimes lack important depth. In some career fields, like aviation, 

cyber, and acquisition it may be more desirable for officers to develop their technical skills rather than sprinting to gain the required breadth of experience required to be competitive for promotion. New career tracks dedicated to producing officers with 

great technical expertise could be an important recruiting and retention tool for those personnel who possess valuable skills but are 

not well-suited to more traditional DOPMA-driven officer career 

paths. 

One of the principle features of DOPMA and ROPMA is the creation of strict quotas for the number of officers allowed to serve in 

the field grade ranks of major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel (lieutenant commander, commander, and captain for the Navy). These 

quotas ensure the military departments maintain a healthy balance of experienced and junior officers. However, to achieve the 

DOPMA-required field grade quotas and to make room for younger 

officers to continue to advance, some officers may be forced out of 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
135 

the military prematurely. This dynamic could be particularly damaging to more technically oriented career fields like cyber, acquisition, or aviation. Imparting some degree of flexibility in managing 

the field grade officer population could allow the military departments to retain both valuable experienced officers and promote deserving younger officers. 

The committee recognizes that the enduring success of the U.S. 

military, an all-volunteer force with a global mission, depends on 

its ability to harness the dynamism of American society to meet 

evolving strategic threats. As the United States confronts an increasingly challenging security environment, the military cannot 

afford to rely upon an overly prescriptive officer personnel system 

designed for a bygone era. The threats facing the nation are too unpredictable and complex to rely on one-size-fits-all officer management policies designed to win the Cold War. 

Responsibility of Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces for 

standards and qualifications for military specialties 

within the Armed Forces (sec. 517) 

The Committee recommends a provision that would vest in the 

Chief of Staff of each of the Armed Forces the responsibility for establishing, approving, and modifying the criteria, standards, and 

qualifications for military specialty codes within that Armed Force. 

The Secretary of Defense will still retain oversight authority. 

Confidential review of characterization of terms of discharge of members of the Armed Forces who are survivors of sexual assault (sec. 518) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 79 of title 10, United States Code, to establish a new section 

1554b that would codify section 547 of the Carl Levin and Howard 

P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) that required service secretaries 

to establish a confidential process by which an individual who was 

the victim of a sex-related offense during military service may challenge, through boards for the correction of military records, the 

terms or characterization of the discharge or separation of the individual from the military on the grounds that the terms or characterization were adversely affected by the individual being the victim of such an offense. The provision also changes the terminology 

of the provision by substituting ‘‘survivor’’ for ‘‘victim’’ throughout. 

Improvements to certain authorities and procedures of discharge review boards (sec. 519) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1553 of title 10, United States Code, to repeal the 15-year statute of limitations on filing claims for review of a discharge or dismissal by service discharge review boards. The provision would also 

authorize presentation of evidence to the boards by telephone or 

video conference, to the extent reasonable and technically feasible. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
136 

Public availability of information related to disposition of 

claims regarding discharge or release of members of the 

Armed Forces when claims involve sexual assault (sec. 

520) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1552 and 1553 of title 10, United States Code, to require 

boards for the correction of military records and discharge review 

boards to make publicly available on an internet website the number and disposition of decided claims in which sexual assault is alleged to have contributed in whole or in part to the characterization of a claimant’s discharge or release from the military. 

Subtitle D—Military Justice Matters 

Revision to Manual for Courts-Martial with respect to dissemination of visual depictions of private areas or sexually explicit conduct without the consent of the person 

depicted (sec. 521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment 

of this Act, to amend part IV of the Manual for Courts-Martial to 

include as an enumerated offense under section 934 of title 10, 

United States Code (article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice), the distribution of a visual depiction of the private area 

of a person or of sexually explicit conduct involving a person that 

was (1) Photographed, videotaped, filmed, or recorded by any 

means with the consent of such person; and (2) Distributed by another person who knew or should have known that the depicted 

person did not consent to such distribution. 

Technical and conforming amendments in connection with 

reform of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 522) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make technical and conforming amendments in connection with the reform of 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice contained in division E of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public 

Law 114–328). 

Priority of review by Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 

of decisions of Courts of Criminal Appeals on petitions 

for enforcement of victims’ rights (sec. 523) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 806b of title 10, United States Code (article 6b(e)(3) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), to prioritize the review of a decision 

on a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 

the Armed Forces, as determined under the rules of the Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces. 

Assistance of defense counsel in additional post-trial matters for accused convicted by court-martial (sec. 524) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 838 of title 10, United States Code (article 38 of the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), to clarify that in any court-martial proceeding resulting in a conviction, the defense counsel may 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
137 

assist the accused in the submission of any matter under section 

860, 860a, or 860b of title 10 (article 60, 60a, or 60b, UCMJ). 

Enumeration of additional limitations on acceptance of plea 

agreements by military judges of general or special 

courts-martial (sec. 525) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 853a of title 10, United States Code (article 53a of the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice), as added by section 5237 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114– 

328), to enumerate additional limitations on the acceptance of plea 

agreements by military judges of general or special courts-martial. 

Additional proceedings by Courts of Criminal Appeals by 

order of United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces (sec. 526) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 866 of title 10, United States Code (article 66 of the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice), as amended by section 5330 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 

114–328), to require the Court of Criminal Appeals to order a hearing or other proceeding if the Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces determines that additional proceedings are warranted. 

Clarification of applicability and effective dates for statute 

of limitations amendments in connection with Uniform 

Code of Military Justice reform (sec. 527) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 

applicability and effective dates for statute of limitations amendments in connection with the reform of the Uniform Code of Military Justice contained in division E of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). 

Modification of year of initial review by Military Justice Review Panel of Uniform Code of Military Justice reform 

amendments (sec. 528) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 946 of title 10, United States Code (article 146 of the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice), as amended by section 5521 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 

114–328), to modify the year of initial review by the Military Justice Review Panel of Uniform Code of Military Justice reform 

amendments. 

Clarification of applicability of certain provisions of law to 

civilian judges of the United States Court of Military 

Commission Review (sec. 529) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 950f of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that civilian 

judges appointed to the United States Court of Military Commission Review are authorized to engage in outside business activities, 

including the practice of law, when not performing the duties of a 

judge on the court. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
138 

Enhancement of effective prosecution and defense in courtsmartial and related matters (sec. 530) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 542 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2017 (Public Law 114–328) to include an additional element in the 

program for effective prosecution and defense in courts-martial in 

order to ensure adequate supervision and oversight of trial and defense counsel. The provision would authorize assignment of civilian 

employees to provide such supervision. The provision would also require service secretaries to assess the feasibility of a military justice career track for judge advocates that leads to judge advocates 

with military justice expertise in the grade of colonel, or Navy captain. This pilot program would also include the use of skill identifiers to identify judge advocates for the program and guidance for 

promotion boards to ensure that judge advocates in the program 

have the same opportunity for promotion as other judge advocates 

being considered by such boards. 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces jurisdiction to review interlocutory appeals of decisions on certain petitions for writs of mandamus (sec. 531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 806b of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Court of 

Appeals for the Armed Forces to review for legal error a grant or 

denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus by a service Court of 

Criminal Appeals. 

Punitive article on wrongful broadcast or distribution of intimate visual images or visual images of sexually explicit conduct under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subchapter X of chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, to establish 

a new punitive article in the Uniform Code of Military Justice that 

would prohibit the wrongful broadcast or distribution of intimate 

visual images of another person or visual images of sexually explicit conduct involving a person. 

Subtitle E—Member Education, Training, Transition, and 

Resilience 

Ready, Relevant Learning initiative of the Navy (sec. 541) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a certification, 

not later than October 1, 2017, and each year thereafter, regarding 

the Navy’s Ready, Relevant Learning (RRL) initiative. 

The committee understands the Navy’s RRL initiative, which will 

alter training for 76 of 87 Navy enlisted ratings, consists of three 

stages. The first stage, ‘‘Block Learning,’’ is intended to reorganize 

current Navy training and delivery methods into blocks that will 

be delivered closer to the time of actual use in a sailor’s career. The 

second stage, ‘‘Enhanced, Accessible Learning,’’ will modernize 

training content to deliver new content and media methods. The 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
139 

third stage, ‘‘Anytime, Anywhere Learning,’’ will align processes, 

standards and resources, as well as provide rapid, responsive training content. 

While recognizing the potential of the RRL initiative, the committee is concerned with the associated fiscal year 2017 through 

2021 savings of $1.3 billion, which is achieved through a reduction 

in student billets and results in 6,000 fewer student billets in fiscal 

year 2021. The committee understands the savings are largely attributable to a 30 percent reduction in time spent at ‘‘A’’ schools 

(i.e. initial rating training) and a 70 percent reduction in time 

spent at ‘‘C’’ schools (i.e. advanced rating training). The committee 

further understands that more than $1.0 billion of this reduction 

is being shifted to the Operations and Maintenance, Navy (OMN) 

account to procure modernized delivery material. 

The committee views Navy’s RRL initiative as a fundamental 

transformation in training, based on more than 87 percent of Navy 

enlisted ratings being affected and the shift of more than $1.0 billion from traditional training billets to developmental softwarebased training applications (i.e. modernized delivery). 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the Secretary of the 

Navy provide an annual certification attesting that the transition 

to modernized delivery methods is complying with best practices, 

as well as meeting or exceeding the existing training delivery approach for all associated training requirements. 

Element in preseparation counseling for members of the 

Armed Forces on assistance and support services for 

caregivers of certain veterans through the Department 

of Veterans Affairs (sec. 542) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1142(b) of title 10, United States Code, to include an element 

in servicemembers’ preseparation counseling describing the assistance and support services for family caregivers of eligible veterans 

under the program conducted by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

pursuant to section 1720G of title 38, United States Code. Additionally, the provision would require the service secretaries, within 

180 days of the date of the enactment of this Act, to permit a caregiver, at the election of the servicemember who may require caregiver services, to participate in appropriate sessions of the 

servicemember’s preseparation counseling to become informed of 

assistance and support services available to caregivers and to understand better how the servicemember’s transition to civilian life 

may impact the caregiver. 

Discharge in the Selected Reserve of the commissioned service obligation of military service academy graduates 

who participate in professional athletics (sec. 543) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 4348(a), section 6959(a), and section 9348(a) of title 10, United 

States Code, to provide for a graduate of a military service academy who is selected to participate in professional athletics to accept 

an appointment as a commissioned officer as a member of the Selected Reserve until completion of the commissioned service obligation. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
140 

Pilot programs on appointment in the excepted service in 

the Department of Defense of physically disqualified 

former cadets and midshipmen (sec. 544) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

secretary of each military department to carry out a pilot program 

for the purpose of evaluating the feasibility and advisability of allowing eligible individuals who cannot accept a commission or complete a period of Active Duty due to physical disqualification to fulfill an Active Duty service obligation through service as Department of Defense civilian employees in the excepted service. This 

pilot authority would sunset 4 years after the date of enactment of 

this Act. 

Limitation on availability of funds for attendance of Air 

Force enlisted personnel at Air Force officer professional military education in-residence courses (sec. 545) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation or expenditure of funds for the purpose of Air Force enlisted personnel attending Air Force officer professional military 

education courses until the later of: (1) The date on which the Secretary of the Air Force submits to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and to the 

Comptroller General of the United States, a report on the attendance of such personnel at such courses; (2) The date on which the 

Comptroller General of the United States submits to such committees a report setting forth an assessment of such report; or (3) 180 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

The committee is aware that the first group of enlisted airmen, 

four Chief Master Sergeants, graduated in Academic Year 2016– 

2017 from the Air University’s Air War College in-residence program at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. The Air War College 

is the United States Air Force’s premier officer professional military education program. The Air Force justifies its decision to allow 

in-residence attendance by senior enlisted personnel at officer professional military education courses by rationalizing a need for 

these enlisted personnel to attend a ‘‘strategic-level school’’ to get 

exposure to the same learning environment as officers. However, 

the committee has learned the four graduated Chief Master Sergeants are all being assigned to wing-level command chief positions 

rather than to strategic-level staff or agency positions. 

The committee understands that Chief Master Sergeants already 

gain ‘‘strategic-level’’ knowledge at the Chief’s Leadership Course. 

By allowing senior enlisted personnel to attend officer professional 

education courses in-residence, the Air Force effectively reduces inresidence advanced professional military education opportunities 

for deserving officers. 

The committee is disappointed that even with the Congress’ historically deep interest in professional military education, the Air 

Force failed to consult or even notify the congressional defense 

committees prior to directing the inclusion of enlisted members at 

a senior officer professional military education course. In addition, 

the committee understands the commandant of Air War College recently announced the attendance of 16 Chief Master Sergeants for 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
141 

the Academic Year 2017–2018 Air War College class; notification 

for which has also not yet been provided to the defense committees. 

Pilot program on integration of Department of Defense and 

non-Federal efforts for civilian employment of members 

of the Armed Forces following transition from Active 

Duty to civilian life (sec. 546) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program, of 2 years duration, to assess the feasibility and advisability of assisting certain 

members of the Armed Forces transitioning from Active Duty to civilian life by accelerating and improving their access to employment through coordination, integration, and leveraging existing 

programs and authorities of the Department of Defense with programs and resources of state and local agencies, higher education 

institutions, employers, and other public, private, and nonprofit entities. 

Two-year extension of suicide prevention and resilience 

program for the National Guard and Reserves (sec. 547) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 10219(g) of title 10, United States Code, to extend the authority for suicide prevention and resilience programs for the National 

Guard and Reserves until October 1, 2020. 

Sexual assault prevention and response training for all individuals enlisted in the Armed Forces under a delayed 

entry program (sec. 548) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require service secretaries, insofar as practicable, to provide training on sexual 

assault prevention and response to enlistees in a delayed entry program before they begin basic training or initial active duty for 

training in the Armed Forces. 

Use of assistance under Department of Defense Tuition Assistance Program for non-traditional education to develop cybersecurity and computer coding skills (sec. 

549) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a 

briefing by the Secretary of Defense, no later than 60 days after 

the date of the enactment of this Act, to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the feasibility and advisability of the enactment into law of using the Department of Defense Tuition Assistance Program for courses or programs of education in cybersecurity skills or related skills and computer coding skills or related skills. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
142 

Subtitle F—Defense Dependents’ Education and Military 

Family Readiness Matters 

Part I—Defense Dependents’ Education Matters 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 551) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$10.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for impact aid payments for children with disabilities (as enacted by Public Law 106–398; 114 Stat. 1654A–77; 20 U.S.C. 7703a) using the 

formula set forth in section 363 of the Floyd D. Spence National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106– 

398), for continuation of Department of Defense assistance to local 

educational agencies that benefit eligible dependents with severe 

disabilities. Subsection (b) of the provision would allow the Secretary of Defense to use $5.0 million, of the total amount authorized, for payments to local educational agencies with higher concentrations of military children with severe disabilities, at his discretion and without regard to the formula set forth in section 363 

of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398). 

The committee directs the Secretary to develop a plan for the distribution of the funds authorized under subsection (b) of the provision and to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives a report on that plan by 

no later than December 31, 2017. The report shall identify those 

local educational agencies that would receive funding under that 

subsection along with a description of the unmet need of military 

children with severe disabilities in those locations, accounting for 

any funding such local educational agencies receive pursuant to the 

formula set forth in section 363 of the Floyd D. Spence National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106– 

398). 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members of the Armed 

Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees 

(sec. 552) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$25.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for continuation of the Department of Defense (DOD) assistance program 

to local educational agencies impacted by enrollment of dependent 

children of military members and DOD civilian employees. 

One-year extension of authorities relating to the transition 

and support of military dependent students to local educational agencies (sec. 553) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 574(c)(3) of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364 (20 U.S.C. 7703b 

note)) to extend the authorities relating to transition and support 

of military dependent students to local educational agencies from 

September 30, 2017, to September 30, 2018. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
143 

Part II—Military Family Readiness Matters 

Housing treatment for certain members of the Armed 

Forces, and their spouses and other dependents, undergoing a permanent change of station within the United 

States (sec. 556) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 7 of title 37, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations that permit certain servicemembers 

undergoing permanent change of station relocations within the 

United States to request special housing treatment for spouses and 

dependents. Under this provision, certain spouses and dependents 

would be: (1) Eligible to continue living in government-owned or 

government-leased housing; and (2) Eligible for early housing in 

government-owned or government-leased housing. This provision 

would also authorize a servicemember to be eligible, on a spaceavailable basis, either for temporary use of government-owned or 

government-leased housing or an equitable basic allowance for 

housing if a spouse or other dependent relocates at a different time 

from the member. This provision would be effective on October 1, 

2018. 

Direct hire authority for Department of Defense for 

childcare services providers for Department child development centers (sec. 557) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Secretary of Defense with direct hire authority to recruit and appoint qualified childcare services providers to positions within the 

Department of Defense Child Development Centers. The Secretary 

shall prescribe the regulations required and commence implementation of such direct hire authority no later than May 1, 2018. 

Report on expanding and contracting for childcare services 

of the Department of Defense (sec. 558) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no 

later than March 1, 2018, on the feasibility and advisability of the 

following: (1) Expanding the operating hours of childcare facilities 

of the Department of Defense in order to meet childcare services 

requirements for swing-shift, night-shift, and weekend workers; (2) 

Using contracts with private-sector childcare services providers to 

expand the availability of childcare services; (3) Contracting with 

private-sector childcare service providers to operate childcare facilities of the Department on military installations; and (4) Expanding 

childcare services to members of the National Guard and Reserves 

if such expansion does not substantially increase costs of childcare 

services for the military departments or conflict with others who 

have higher priority for space in childcare services programs. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
144 

Report on review of General Schedule pay grades of 

childcare services providers of the Department of Defense (sec. 559) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no 

later than March 1, 2018, on a review of the General Schedule pay 

grades for childcare services provider positions within the Department of Defense. The committee remains concerned with the propensity of individuals to serve as childcare providers at Department of Defense facilities. Conducting a review of the General 

Schedule pay grades is required to ensure that the Department is 

offering a fair and competitive wage for these important force-enabling civilian positions. 

Pilot program on public-private partnerships for telework 

facilities on military installations outside the United 

States (sec. 560) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of providing telework facilities for military 

spouses on military installations outside the United States to the 

extent that space is available for such facilities. The provision 

would require the pilot program be conducted at no less than two 

military installations outside the United States selected by the Secretary for up to 3 years in duration, in consultation with the host 

nation. The pilot program shall be conducted as one or more publicprivate partnerships between the Department of Defense and a private corporation or partnership of private corporations with up to 

$1.0 million authorized to be available to carry out the pilot program. The committee expects the pilot programs to be conducted 

consistent with existing status of forces agreements with host nations or pursuant to appropriate modifications of such agreements. 

Report on mechanisms to facilitate the obtaining by military spouses of professional licenses or credentials in 

other States (sec. 561) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no 

later than March 1, 2018, on the feasibility and advisability of the 

following: (1) The development and maintenance of a joint federalstate clearing house to process the professional license and credential information of military spouses; (2) The establishment of a 

joint federal-state taskforce dedicated to the elimination of unnecessary or duplicative professional licensure and credentialing requirements among the states; (3) The development and maintenance of an Internet website that serves as a one-stop resource on 

professional licenses and credentials for military spouses that sets 

forth license and credential requirements for common professionals 

in the states and provides assistance and other resources for military spouses seeking to obtain professional licenses or credentials 

in other States. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
145 

Additional military childcare matters (sec. 562) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense to set and maintain the hours of operation 

of childcare development centers in a manner that considers the 

demands and circumstances of military service. In addition, the 

provision would require service secretaries to provide childcare coordinators at each military installation where significant numbers 

of servicemembers with accompanying dependent children are stationed. 

Subtitle G—Decorations and Awards 

Authority of Secretary of the Army to award the Personnel 

Protection Equipment award of the Army to former 

members of the Army (sec. 571) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to award the Personnel Protection Equipment award of the Army to former members of the Army. 

Authorization for award of Distinguished Service Cross to 

Specialist Frank M. Crary for acts of valor in Vietnam 

(sec. 572) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

President to award the Distinguished Service Cross to Specialist 

Frank M. Crary for acts of valor while serving in Vietnam with 

Company D, 1st Battalion (Airborne), 12th Cavalry Regiment, 1st 

Cavalry Division on April 7, 1966. 

Subtitle H—Other Matters 

Modification of submittal date of Comptroller General of the 

United States report on integrity of the Department of 

Defense whistleblower program (sec. 581) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 536 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2017 (Public Law 114–328) to revise the due date for the report required of the Comptroller General of the United States in that section concerning the Department of Defense whistleblower program 

to December 31, 2018. 

Report to Congress on accompanied and unaccompanied 

tours of duty in remote locations with high family support costs (sec. 582) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to initiate a comprehensive review of the policies for determining which posts are accompanied, which are unaccompanied, and the extent to which the costs to the taxpayers and 

security risks to family members are considered. 

The committee is concerned with the significant costs associated 

with maintaining accompanied tours at remote locations. The proposed new 52 family housing units on Kwajalein would cost over 

$1.3 million each. The proposed $250.0 million replacement hospital at Guantanamo Bay would cost $50.0 million per bed. Costs 

for school construction and support are also significantly higher at 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
146 

these remote locations than they are in the United States, which 

is a primary reason why locations such as Diego Garcia are unaccompanied. 

A report would be due to the congressional defense committees 

no later than 1 year after the enactment of this Act. 

Items of Special Interest 

Addressing challenges in remotely piloted aircraft community 

The committee has repeatedly expressed concern in the past regarding the projected shortfalls of pilots and sensor operators for 

remotely piloted aircraft (RPA). The committee notes that the Air 

Force provides the majority of RPA pilots and commends the Air 

Force for working aggressively to address this need. 

Department of Defense policy states personnel cannot be deployed at a ratio of more than one to one, deploy-to-dwell, without 

explicit approval by the Secretary of Defense. The policy also establishes a goal of a one-to-two deploy-to-dwell ratio when possible. 

Most RPA crew personnel are not considered ‘‘deployed’’ under the 

current definition, yet they effectively fight in combat every day. 

Establishing a ‘‘combat-to-dwell’’ ratio for the RPA community has 

consistently been cited as a key means to reduce stress and create 

career opportunities for RPA personnel. 

Similarly, the committee is concerned about the promotion rates 

of RPA officers. The Government Accountability Office’s 2014 report, Actions Needed to Strengthen Management of Unmanned 

Aerial System Pilots, showed that RPA pilots were promoted at 

below average rates from 2006–2013 on most boards and on only 

3 of the 24 boards were RPA pilots ‘‘promoted in the top 50 percent 

of the career fields that competed.’’ 

The committee reiterates its commitment to ensuring the Air 

Force continues implementing initiatives identified by the RPA 

Culture and Process Improvement Program (CPIP). Therefore, not 

later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives on the implementation of CPIP initiatives, 

progress toward meeting the 10:1 crew-to-combat line ratio and the 

1:0.5 combat-to-dwell ratio, as well as future plans to ensure access 

to mental health professionals, childcare, housing, and other services at RPA bases meets the needs of the airmen stationed there. 

The committee also directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to provide an update, with a report to follow, to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives on the promotion rates of RPA pilots and sensor 

operators since its 2014 study. The update should determine if promotion rates have improved, factors leading to any current disparities in promotion rates of RPA officers, and recommendations to alleviate any disparity. Specifically, the update should include recommendations for how to increase (a) the selection of RPA officers 

for intermediate developmental education programs, and (b) the 

number of billets assigned to RPA pilots and sensor operators in 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
147 

the Rated Staff Allocation Plan (RSAP) to proportions comparable 

to that of fighter pilots and other fields. 

DANTES program for members of the Armed Forces applying for tuition assistance 

The committee remains supportive of the Department of Defense’s Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support 

(DANTES) program. For servicemembers utilizing DANTES, there 

is a demonstrated record of success. DANTES provides 

servicemembers and their families access to additional financial aid 

resources and helps them obtain education support. The program 

also identifies credit-by-examination and entrance examination 

education programs for higher education. Most importantly, 

servicemembers using tuition assistance in combination with 

DANTES have a higher completion rate than those who are either 

unaware of the DANTES program or choose not to use it. The committee strongly encourages the Department to ensure that 

servicemembers who apply for tuition assistance receive information about this program during the tuition assistance application 

process. 

Department of Defense collaboration with educational institutions on cybersecurity education and training 

The committee remains concerned about the pipeline for cybersecurity professionals who can assist the Nation with cyber deterrence and operations. The committee strongly urges the Department of Defense to consider developing plans for a pilot program 

for the educational support offices at installations to partner with 

liberal arts institutions to provide transitioning military personnel 

cybersecurity degrees that focus on ethics, character, leadership, 

national security law, and communication. Additionally, the committee encourages the institutions within this network to work 

with the service academies to continue the curriculum development 

in cybersecurity to insure that current demands are met. 

Department of Defense review of overseas assignment policy for civilian and contractor personnel in support of 

Department of Defense operations 

The committee remains highly concerned with the inconsistent 

overseas assignment policies that exist among the military, civilian, and contractor employee populations. Servicemembers assigned to accompany overseas tours must complete medical evaluations and obtain certifications that they and their dependents can 

live and work in environments where many specialized medical capabilities may not exist to meet their needs. Under current policy, 

however, there is no requirement for civilian and contractor employees to undergo the same medical screening policy. This inconsistency in policy overburdens the Department of Defense’s finite 

medical, educational, and other family support resources when civilian and contractor personnel and their dependents with exceptional needs transfer overseas. This practice of inconsistent assignment policies strains the defense budget and impacts readiness. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of overseas assignment policies pertaining to civilian and conVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
148 

tractor personnel in support of Department of Defense operations 

and to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 

2018, with the following information: (1) Policy changes the Secretary has made to align and clarify overseas assignment policies 

to ensure the medical screening requirements are the same for 

military members, civilian employees, contractors, and dependents 

of each category of employees; (2) Legislative changes necessary to 

match the policies pertaining to the medical screening of civilian 

and contractor personnel and their dependents to those pertaining 

to military personnel and their dependents; and (3) Any other information the Secretary determines to be relevant to medical 

screening of Department of Defense employees and dependents 

prior to overseas assignments. 

Encouraging more flexibility in changes of station 

The committee remains concerned about the impact that frequent permanent changes of station can have on servicemembers 

and their families. The committee believes these moves—often tied 

to promotion criteria for servicemembers—can pose great challenges for military families. Therefore, the committee encourages 

the Department to consider measures that would allow 

servicemembers who seek them to lengthen tours of duty and lessen the frequency of their permanent change of station moves without harming their promotion prospects to enhance military readiness and benefit retention of servicemembers. 

Ensuring military borrowers receive appropriate benefits 

The committee notes that service members are exempt from paying interest on their federal student loans for the length of time 

served in an area of hostilities. Unfortunately, since 2008, eligible 

service members have avoidably overpaid $100 million dollars in 

federal student loan interest payments due to a lack of communication between the Department of Education, Department of Defense, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, and federal student loan servicers. 

Additionally, the committee notes that in accordance with the 

Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, 

service members enrolled in an income-driven repayment programs 

are eligible for a waiver from annual recertification obligations of 

their income. Service members with federal Perkins Loans are also 

eligible for a cancellation of a percentage of their debt, based on 

qualifying years of military service, in accordance with Section 465 

of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. Again, in both 

of these instances, too many eligible service members have not 

taken advantage of these benefits due to a lack of communication 

between the Department of Education, Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and federal student loan servicers. 

The committee also notes that in recent years, the Departments 

of Defense and Education have proven that through additional coordination and information sharing with student loan servicers, the 

federal government can automate the benefits for which servicer 

members are eligible under the Servicemember Civil Relief Act and 

dramatically increase the number of service members who receive 

the benefits Congress intended them to receive—as demonstrated 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
149 

by the recent automation of the six percent rate cap for 

servicemembers. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Education (including 

its student loan servicers), and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

to make every practical effort to automate the application of student loan benefits available to eligible servicemembers using information in existing federal databases at the Departments of Education and Defense in a timely manner so service members can receive the benefits due under the law. The committee further directs 

the Secretary of Defense to brief the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services on the plan of action for implementing this automation 

process by December 1, 2017. 

Greater discretion to garrisons for Family, Morale, Wellness, 

and Recreation programs 

The committee is concerned about the process by which Family, 

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (FMWR) programs are being selected for termination, particularly in the Army, as it relates to the 

needs of remote and isolated installations. Installation commanders 

should play a greater role in identifying programs and facilities 

worthy of MWR investment or sustainment. The committee urges 

the Installation Management Command (IMCOM) to provide greater discretion and to consult to the maximum extent practicable 

with garrison commanders, especially those at remote and isolated 

installations, to ensure that servicemembers and dependents stationed at such installations have access to appropriate FMWR programs and facilities. The committee urges IMCOM to consider 

adopting a funding model that accounts for revenue earned at an 

installation versus the performance of its individual enterprises to 

allow services critical to the long-term well-being of remote and isolated installations to continue operating as long as the aggregate 

revenue remains a net positive. The committee acknowledges that 

identifying savings is important, especially in budget-constrained 

times, but they should not come at the expense of programs that 

are most important to garrison commanders at the local level. 

Leadership training 

The committee continues to recognize the importance of protecting the rights of conscience of members of the Armed Forces, 

consistent with the maintenance of good order and discipline. The 

Congress has expressed this view in title 42, United States Code, 

section 2000bb, et seq. and in section 533 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) as 

amended by section 532 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66). Complying with this law 

requires an intentional strategy for developing and implementing 

a comprehensive training program on religious liberty issues for 

military leadership and commanders. The committee urges the Department, in consultation with commanders, chaplains, and judge 

advocates, to ensure that appropriate training on religious liberty 

is conducted at all levels of command on the requirements of the 

law, and to that end the committee directs the Secretary, in consultation with the Chief of Chaplains for the Army, Navy, and Air 

Force, to develop curriculum and implement training concerning reVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
150 

ligious liberty in accordance with the law. Recipients of this training should include commanders, chaplains, and judge advocates. 

Quality of instruction in schools of the Department of Defense Education Activity 

The committee has received disturbing anecdotal reports from 

military parents of poor quality instruction in certain overseas 

schools of the Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA). 

As a result, the committee requested data from DODEA to understand better the quality of instruction provided by DODEA’s teachers, but the Department of Defense failed to provide such data. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the following data to the committee by no later than August 

1, 2017: (1) A de-identified list of teachers, by school location, who 

were placed under performance improvement plans (PIP) over the 

last 5 years; (2) Course subjects taught by each such teacher, duration of the PIP for each such teacher, outcome of the PIP for each 

such teacher, and course subject qualifications of substitute teachers hired to back-fill teachers under PIPs; and (3) An assessment 

of the impact of the instructional ability of such teachers on students’ educational outcome measures. 

Report on credentialing program utilization 

In order to evaluate the current progress of past and ongoing 

military credentialing improvement efforts and opportunities, the 

Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 

Representatives by no later than December 1, 2017, on the utilization of the program to assist members in obtaining professional credentials authorized by section 2015 of title 10, United States Code, 

by each military service, including the types of credentials obtained 

and the cost to the Government, as of the date of enactment of 

June 1, 2017, along with any recommendations for regulatory or 

statutory change the Secretary considers appropriate to ensure 

members are able to obtain such credentials relating to their military training and skills from appropriately qualified entities. 

Report on joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs suicide prevention 

Suicide continues to plague the military Services, and the problem is exacerbated as servicemembers separate from the Department of Defense and enter a new system of care provided by the 

Department of Veterans Affairs. The committee encourages the 

Secretary of Defense to work with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

to assess the feasibility of establishing a joint office to house an 

interagency task force on suicide prevention. This office would facilitate the sharing of best practices between the agencies’ respective suicide prevention offices and collaborate and share resources 

where appropriate, such as with the joint use of the Suicide Crisis 

Hotline. The Secretary of Defense shall report the results of its assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives within 180 days of this report. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
151 

Report on measures to prevent retaliation against survivors 

of sexual assault and harassment in the performance 

evaluation process 

Professional reprisal against servicemembers who report sexual 

assault or harassment undermines readiness, depresses recruitment and retention, and erodes unit cohesion. The Department of 

Defense has made some progress in addressing retaliation in recent 

years. In February 2016, the Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP)—established by section 576 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239)—published recommendations to reduce retaliation related to sexual assault offenses. On April 28, 2016, the Secretary of Defense announced the 

Department of Defense Retaliation Prevention and Response Strategy Regarding Sexual Assault and Harassment, as required by section 539 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92). The committee commends the Department on these efforts, and encourages it to continue to incorporate 

the JPP and other expert recommendations into its global strategy. 

Nevertheless, one-third of female servicemembers who report unwanted sexual contact indicated experiencing a negative outcome 

they perceived to be professional reprisal. One form of professional 

reprisal is retaliation in performance reports. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives not later than 180 days after enactment a report 

on measures undertaken to: 

(1) Monitor the performance evaluations, duty assignments, 

receipt of awards, and progression toward promotion of complainants who make unrestricted reports for signs of retaliation; 

(2) Ensure that evaluators subject to a recent complaint of 

sexual misconduct do not conduct performance appraisals of 

the complainant; 

(3) Provide guidance to unit leaders and others on the potential effects of sexual harassment and assault on performance 

after a servicemember in their unit makes an unrestricted report; and 

(4) Instruct those who investigate retaliation complaints to 

consider the totality of the circumstances, including, but not 

limited to, the survivor’s performance, assessments, or feedback from peers or third parties of his or her own performance, 

and language, however subtle, that may indicate decreased enthusiasm for the survivor’s work or career progression. 

The committee further recognizes the Air Force policy granting 

servicemembers, including survivors, the option to authorize a nonrated performance period. The committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to conduct a review of this policy, including its effects on 

career progression, and include its findings and the potential for 

replication across the service branches in the required report. 

Review of United States Marine Corps recruit training policies 

The committee recognizes the importance of integrated training 

for building unit cohesion, improving readiness, and cementing 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
152 

trust and respect among service members; in short, the Committee 

accepts the maxim that the military services should train as they 

fight. The committee is also aware of the long-standing practice 

within the Marine Corps to keep certain parts of initial recruit 

training gender-specific, while the majority of initial recruit training is fully integrated with male and female marines training sideby-side. The committee directs the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps to review Marine Corps policies concerning the integration of 

male and female marines during recruit training and the effects 

that the current training structure has on individual performance, 

unit cohesion, and furthering the goal of fostering an environment 

of respect among fellow marines and to report to the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives the 

results of this review by no later than October 1, 2017. 

ROTC Cyber Institute 

There remains a nationwide shortage of 500,000 cyber professionals and correspondingly a universal need for an increase in cybersecurity education and training. The Army Cyber Branch created in 2015 and formed 41 total Cyber Mission Force teams, as 

well as 21 United States Army Reserve and Army National Guard 

Cyber Protection Teams. The first 33 teams began deploying once 

reaching minimum competency. There remains an urgent need to 

commission lieutenants into cyber branch and there is significant 

competition for talent with the private sector. 

A program to establish ROTC Cyber Institutes for purposes of accelerating the development of foundational expertise in critical 

cyber operational skills for future military and civilian leaders of 

the Armed Forces and Department of Defense of the United States 

including such leaders of the Reserve Components could help address these shortfalls. Ideal programs should include: instruction 

and practical experiences that lead to accredited cyber certifications in the field; targeted strategic foreign language proficiency 

training for such future leaders designed to significantly enhance 

critical cyber operational capabilities; mathematical foundations of 

cryptography and courses in cryptographic theory, and; programs 

to expand the pool of qualified cyber instructors necessary to support cyber education. 

The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a feasibility study of establishing ROTC Cyber Institutes, including an 

assessment of the suitability of one or more Senior Military Colleges hosting such an institute, for the purposes of accelerating the 

development of foundational expertise in critical cyber operational 

skills for future military and civilian leaders of the Armed Forces 

and Department of Defense of the United States including such 

leaders of the Reserve Components. This study should include an 

assessment of existing partnerships at the colleges or universities 

under consideration, and if or at what level they meet the above 

program recommendations, a description of current curriculum that 

advances cyber competency, additional authorities needed, costs associated with implementing new partnerships and any existing 

plans to establish such institutes. This study should be submitted 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 

Representatives by no later than December 1, 2017. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
153 

Service-specific history courses as a core curriculum requirement of the military service academies 

The committee is concerned that the United States military service academies may be overemphasizing core academic curriculum 

course requirements that mirror civilian universities, rather than 

educating cadets on the unique culture and history of their individual services, with such emphasis as the original rationale for establishing separate service academies. It is vital to the strength of 

joint force operations that American military officers from each 

branch of the Armed Services understand and comprehend the history, doctrine, and capabilities of their respective Services to better 

provide options for the optimal execution of joint force operations 

in support of meeting U.S. national security objectives. 

‘‘Jointness’’ means that among the four United States military 

Services, a separately developed and highly specialized array of capabilities is provided through service or functional components to 

a joint force commander—with the commander’s responsibility to 

assemble a plan from among this ‘‘menu’’ of capabilities, applying 

the appropriate ones for the contingency at hand. What is often 

misunderstood about joint operations is that its strength resides in 

the separateness of the service components. 

Joint force operations create synergies because they capitalize on 

each Services’ core functions—skill sets that requires lengthy time, 

effort, and focus to cultivate. It can take as many as twenty years 

to develop a competent division, Surface Action Group, Marine Expeditionary Force, or Aerospace Expeditionary Force commander. 

The committee believes these skill sets require a strong foundation 

in Service history. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives, no later than March 1, 2018, a report detailing the core academic and military curriculum requirements of 

each United States military service academy, to include a detailed 

description and length of core history and military studies courses 

that specifically cover the principles, founders, formative events, organization, capabilities, and major engagements of their respective 

Service in their support and execution of America’s national security objectives. 

Shortfall of United States Air Force aircraft maintenance 

personnel 

The committee remains concerned with the current aircraft 

maintenance personnel shortfall in the United States Air Force. 

The Air Force has indicated as many as 4,000 additional aircraft 

maintenance personnel are required to achieve the necessary manning level and that rebuilding this critical workforce is a long-term 

project due to the extensive training required. The committee notes 

the significant value that the Department of Defense achieves 

through the use of Air Force Community Partnerships and recommends the Air Force examine additional public-private options 

to help alleviate this critical shortfall. The committee encourages 

the Air Force to pursue partnerships with local and regional educational institutions utilizing existing authorities contained in title 

10, United States Code. The Air Force should explore creative opVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
154 

tions, such as creating an aircraft maintainer training program 

pipeline, to help achieve the required level of aircraft maintenance 

personnel at United States Air Force installations. 

Transition Assistance Program challenges for the National 

Guard and Reserves 

The committee is concerned about uneven participation rates by 

eligible members of the National Guard and Reserves in the Department of Defense’s Transition Assistance Program (TAP). To 

help ensure greater participation of eligible servicemembers in 

TAP, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to collect information on any challenges facing demobilizing members of the National Guard and Reserves regarding the timing and location of TAP courses. Additionally, the 

Secretary should consider the addition of related questions to the 

TAP online assessment tool, which are specific to members of the 

National Guard and Reserves. 

Transition Assistance Program information for unit commanders 

The Department of Defense’s Transition Assistance Program 

(TAP) provides information, tools, and training to ensure 

servicemembers and their spouses are well-prepared to transition 

into civilian life. To ensure servicemembers’ completion of TAP, the 

committee encourages the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to require that all Services provide military 

commanders information on the TAP participation levels of 

servicemembers under their commands. The Services may use such 

information to hold commanders accountable for ensuring that 

servicemembers complete TAP. 

Use of Post-9/11 GI Bill for technical schools and institutes 

The committee notes that many transitioning servicemembers 

desire a career in technical and mechanical fields to build upon the 

skills and knowledge attained during service rather than pursuing 

a traditional degree-granting academic program. The committee 

strongly encourages the Department of Defense to ensure that information on technical schools and institutes be offered to 

transitioning servicemembers during the transition counseling provided by the Department of Defense so that servicemembers are 

aware of all options for which they can apply their Post-9/11 GI 

bill. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(155) 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER 

PERSONNEL BENEFITS 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances 

Fiscal year 2018 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

pay raise of 2.1 percent for all members of the uniformed services 

effective January 1, 2018. 

Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in 

rates of Basic Allowance for Housing under certain circumstances (sec. 602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority of the Secretary of Defense to temporarily increase the rate of the Basic Allowance for Housing in areas impacted by natural disasters or experiencing a sudden influx of personnel. 

Adjustment to Basic Allowance for Housing at with-dependents rate of certain members of the uniformed services 

(sec. 603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 403 of title 37, United States Code, to eliminate the with-dependents rate for the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) in the 

case of married members of the uniformed services who are collocated and who have dependents. Under current law, one such 

member is eligible for the with-dependents rate, while the other 

must receive the without-dependents rate. A recent audit report 

from the United States Army Audit Agency (USAAA) found that 

BAH entitlements paid to married servicemembers collocated in 

the same military housing area significantly exceeded the local 

housing costs for these servicemembers. For fiscal year 2014, 

USAAA estimated that 13,220 collocated married servicemember 

couples received about $471.8 million in combined BAH payments. 

However, local housing costs for these servicemember couples were 

about $267.0 million, a difference of about $204.8 million. This occurred because Department of Defense policy, specifically the Joint 

Travel Regulation, allows collocated married servicemembers to receive two separate BAH payments despite occupying a single residence in the same military housing area. The USAAA found that 

reducing BAH for the 13,220 couples who receive the with-dependents rate to the without-dependents rate would bring housing allowance entitlements more in line with their actual costs of housing. While it would not entirely eliminate the disparity between the 

benefit paid and the cost of housing, the adjustment would save the 

Department an estimated $52.0 million annually and $311.8 milVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
156 

lion over the next 5 years. The provision further includes a preservation of current BAH for members with uninterrupted eligibility 

for such BAH. 

Modification of authority of President to determine alternative pay adjustment in annual basic pay of members 

of the uniformed services (sec. 604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1009(e) of title 37, United States Code, to remove the justification of serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare 

from the waiver authority of the President to make an alternative 

pay adjustment. 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus, 

the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus, special pay for 

enlisted members assigned to certain high-priority units, the Ready 

Reserve enlistment bonus for persons without prior service, the 

Ready Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with 

prior service, the Selected Reserve enlistment and reenlistment 

bonus for persons with prior service, travel expenses for certain inactive-duty training, and income replacement for reserve component members experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for 

Active-Duty service. 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate accession 

bonus, education loan repayment for certain health professionals 

who serve in the Selected Reserve, accession and retention bonuses 

for psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses, incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, special pay for Selected Reserve health professionals in critically short wartime specialties, 

the accession bonus for dental officers, the accession bonus for 

pharmacy officers, the accession bonus for medical officers in critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus for dental 

specialist officers in critically short wartime specialties. 

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for 

nuclear officers (sec. 613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending period of active service, the nuclear career accession 

bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
157 

One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities 

(sec. 614) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the general 

bonus authority for officers, special bonus and incentive pay authorities for nuclear officers, special aviation incentive pay and 

bonus authorities for officers, and special bonus and incentive pay 

authorities for officers in health professions, and contracting bonus 

for cadets and midshipmen enrolled in the Senior Officers’ Training 

Corps. The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to 

pay hazardous duty pay, assignment or special duty pay, skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus, and retention incentives for members qualified in critical military skills or assigned to high priority 

units. 

One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of 

other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus, precommissioning incentive pay for foreign language proficiency, the accession bonus for new officers in 

critical skills, the incentive bonus for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease personnel shortage, the incentive bonus for 

transfer between Armed Forces, and the accession bonus for officer 

candidates. 

Aviation bonus matters (sec. 616) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 334 of title 37, United States Code, to require the Department 

of Defense and the military services to justify aviation bonus levels 

through a business case analysis for such levels, establish a tiered 

limitation on maximum amounts of aviation bonuses, and require 

additional budget justification materials to accompany the President’s fiscal year budget submission to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code. Such justification shall 

include the following elements: (1) The amount requested for the 

payment of aviation bonuses using amount authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year concerned by aircraft type category; (2) 

The business case analysis supporting the amount so requested by 

aircraft type category; (3) Whether or not the amount requested for 

each aircraft type category will permit the payment of the maximum amount of the aviation bonus authorized; and (4) A description of any plans the secretary concerned has to address manning 

shortfall by non-monetary means. The tiered limitation on maximum amounts of aviation bonuses shall vary by anticipated manning shortfalls for each fiscal year by aircraft type category. In no 

event may all the agreements entered into during a fiscal year by 

a secretary concerned provide for the maximum amount payable. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
158 

Special aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities for enlisted members who pilot remotely piloted aircraft (sec. 

617) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 5 of title 37, United States Code, to create a new authority to 

pay aviation incentive pay and bonuses to enlisted member remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) pilots with statutory caps of $1,000 

per month for aviation incentive pay and $35,000 per year for aviation bonus pay, which is equivalent to the current caps under section 334 of title 37, United States Code, for pilots who are officers. 

This authority will also include the same business case analysis requirement for setting bonuses that is required under section 334 of 

title 37, United States Code, for pilots who are officers. The committee intends this authority to be a companion to the efforts precipitated by this committee to begin the training pipeline for enlisted RPA pilots in the United States Air Force. This authority 

would also be available for enlisted pilots in the other services, 

such as the Army, where enlisted pilots are already utilized in the 

unmanned aerial vehicle community. 

Technical and clerical amendments relating to 2008 consolidation of certain special pay authorities (sec. 618) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make technical and clerical corrections to titles 10, 14, 24, 26, 37, and 42, 

United States Code, as part of the Department of Defense transition to the consolidated authorities authorized in section 661 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 

Law 110–181), which provided eight consolidated statutory special 

and incentive pay authorities for future use to replace those currently in use. 

Subtitle C—Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor 

Benefits 

Part I—Amendments in Connection With Retired Pay 

Reform 

Adjustment to the Survivor Benefit Plan for members electing lump sum payments of retired pay under the modernized retirement system for members of the uniformed services (sec. 631) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 1447 of title 10, United States Code, and section 1452 of title 

10, United States Code, to ensure equitable treatment under the 

Survivor Benefit Plan of members of the uniformed services covered by the modernized retirement system who elect to receive a 

lump sum of retired pay, as authorized under section 1415 of title 

10, United States Code. 

Technical correction regarding election to participate in 

modernized retirement system for non-regular component members experiencing a break in service (sec. 632) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that 

the election period for the modernized retirement system authorVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
159 

ized by section 631 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) is extended for up to 30 days 

in the case of regular component members returning to service 

after a break in service that occurs during the election period. 

Part II—Other Matters 

Authority for the Secretaries of the military departments to 

provide for care of remains of those who die on Active 

Duty and are interred in a foreign cemetery (sec. 636) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1482(a) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a service 

secretary to provide for the enduring care of the remains of ActiveDuty servicemembers interred in foreign cemeteries if the burial location was designated by the secretary concerned. 

Technical corrections for use of member’s current pay grade 

and years of service in a division of property involving 

disposable retired pay (sec. 637) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 1408(a)(4) of title 10, United States code, to allow the Department of Defense to implement section 641 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) by 

clarifying that the division of property is to be calculated based on 

the date of the divorce decree, dissolution, annulment, or legal separation. 

Permanent extension and cost-of-living adjustments of Special Survivor Indemnity Allowances under the survivor 

benefit plan (sec. 638) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1450 of title 10, United States Code, to permanently extend 

the authority to pay the Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance and 

would require inflation adjustments to that Allowance by the 

amount of the military retired pay cost-of-living adjustment for 

each calendar year beginning in 2019. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Construction of domestic source requirement for footwear 

furnished to enlisted members of the Armed Forces on 

initial entry into the Armed Forces (sec. 651) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

requirements to furnish footwear to enlisted members of the Armed 

Forces on initial entry if the Secretary of Defense determines that 

there would be only a sole certified source of supply. The Secretary 

of Defense would also be required to ensure that all procurement 

of athletic footwear to which this subsection applies are made using 

firm fixed price contracts. Consistent with section 418 of title 37, 

United States Code, the committee directs the Secretary to establish practices and take all necessary steps to protect service members in initial entry training from unnecessary injuries. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
160 

Inclusion of Department of Agriculture in Transition Assistance Program (sec. 652) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subsection (a) of section 1144 of title 10, United States Code, to require 

inclusion of information provided by the Department of Agriculture 

in the Transition Assistance Program. 

Review and update of regulations governing debt collectors 

interactions with unit commanders (sec. 653) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, no later than 180 days after the date of the 

enactment of this Act, to review and update Department of Defense 

Instruction 1344.09 and any associated regulations to ensure that 

such regulations comply with Federal consumer protection laws 

with respect to the collection of debt. 

Items of Special Interest 

Report on base pay of senior enlisted members performing 

special advisory duties 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives no later than March 1, 2018, analyzing whether 

senior enlisted positions in advisory roles with responsibilities 

equivalent to those identified in footnote four of the military basic 

pay tables should receive an increase in basic pay under footnote 

four of the military pay tables as a result of their special advisory 

and representation duties. 

United States Air Force civilian pay budgeting process 

The Inspector General for the Department of Defense released a 

report (DODIG–2017–039) on January 5, 2017, finding that that 

the Air Force civilian pay requirements in the Operations and 

Maintenance appropriation did not capture the funding needed to 

pay Air Force civilian personnel because the Air Force did not have 

written procedures that described the process and course data to 

use for developing its civilian pay requirements. The Air Force had 

incorrectly calculated pay for civilian positions based on positions 

filled (end-strength) rather than full-time equivalents (FTEs) as required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance 

for calculating civilian work-year cost. The Inspector General also 

found that the Air Force based its programming decision on flawed 

civilian work-year cost data. Accordingly, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Air Force to issue a report no later than February 

1, 2018, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

House of Representatives with the following information: (1) Written procedures for the Air Force civilian pay budget process; (2) A 

certification that the written procedures comply with the guidance 

on civilian FTEs as prescribed by OMB Circular A–11, ‘‘Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget’’; (3) A certification 

that all budget calculations and decisions will be documented and 

maintained by the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial 

Management and Comptroller); and (4) An explanation of steps the 

Air Force has taken to correct budget deficiencies in civilian pay 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
161 

stemming from the fiscal year 2016 Budget Estimate Submission, 

which led to a $212.0 million reprogramming request from Congress to correct the budget shortfall created by the Air Force. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(163) 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits 

TRICARE Advantage demonstration program (sec. 701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services, to establish a demonstration program, not 

later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, to enable eligible beneficiaries to enroll in Medicare Advantage plans. 

The Secretary would carry out the demonstration program for a 

minimum of 5 years. In conducting the demonstration program, the 

Secretary would competitively select, in market areas with large 

concentrations of beneficiaries eligible for TRICARE for Life, one or 

more Medicare Advantage plans from which the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services has waived or modified requirements 

under section 1857(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w– 

27(i)). The Secretary would use risk-bearing, capitated contracts 

with Medicare Advantage organizations to administer the demonstration program, and only those Medicare Advantage plans with 

minimum quality star ratings of four or higher could participate in 

the program. 

Under the demonstration program, the Secretary may include 

medical services provided by military medical treatment facilities 

and pharmaceutical agents provided by the TRICARE Pharmacy 

benefits program as additional services provided by the Department. The provision would require enrollment of all applicable eligible individuals located in an area participating in the demonstration program, but individuals could opt out of the program if desired. The provision would require the Secretary and the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services to determine jointly the appropriate 

distribution of costs and potential savings that result from the 

demonstration program. Finally, the provision would require the 

Secretary to submit: (1) An initial report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, 

within 1 year of the date of the enactment of this Act, on implementation of the demonstration program; and (2) A final report to 

the same committees not later than 4 years after the date of the 

enactment of this Act. 

Upon becoming eligible for Medicare, TRICARE beneficiaries 

gain Medicare wrap-around coverage through the Department’s 

TRICARE for Life (TFL) program. Currently, there are over 2 million beneficiaries enrolled in the TFL program. Estimated federal 

spending on health care services for this population totaled about 

$16.0 billion last year with Medicare paying about $12.0 billion and 

TFL paying about $4.0 billion. The committee believes that a 

TRICARE Advantage demonstration program, customized for the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
164 

TFL population, would result in better health outcomes for TFL 

beneficiaries with costly chronic health conditions and help to prevent utilization of high-cost, unnecessary health care services. Additionally, a TRICARE Advantage demonstration program should 

improve the experience of care while reducing government spending in both the Medicare and TRICARE programs. 

Continued access to medical care at facilities of the uniformed services for certain members of the reserve components (sec. 702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1076d(f) and 1076e of title 10, United States Code, to clarify 

the eligibility for medical services for beneficiaries enrolled in 

TRICARE Reserve Select and TRICARE Retired Reserve. 

Modification of eligibility for TRICARE Reserve Select and 

TRICARE Retired Reserve of certain members of the reserve components (sec. 703) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1076d(a) and 1076e(a) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize enrollment in TRICARE Reserve Select or TRICARE Retired Reserve of a servicemember who is enrolled, or is eligible to 

enroll, in a health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5, United 

States Code. 

Expedited evaluation and treatment for prenatal surgery 

under the TRICARE program (sec. 704) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to implement processes and procedures to ensure a covered beneficiary under the TRICARE program, whose 

pregnancy is complicated with a fetal condition or suspected fetal 

condition, receives at the discretion of the covered beneficiary, expedited evaluation, non-directive counseling, and treatment from a 

perinatal or pediatric specialist capable of providing surgical management and intervention in utero. 

Specification that individuals under the age of 21 are eligible for hospice care services under the TRICARE program (sec. 705) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1079(a)(15) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize hospice care services for eligible beneficiaries under the age of 21. 

Modifications of cost-sharing requirements for the 

TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program and treatment of 

certain pharmaceutical agents (sec. 706) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend paragraph 6 of 1074g(a) of title 10, United States Code, to modify costsharing amounts for the TRICARE pharmacy benefits program for 

years 2018 through 2026. After 2026, the Department could establish cost-sharing amounts equal to the cost-sharing amounts for the 

previous year adjusted by an amount, if any, to reflect increases in 

costs of pharmaceutical agents and pharmacy dispensing fees. With 

this provision, beneficiaries would continue to receive pharmaVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00200 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
165 

ceuticals at no cost in military medical treatment facilities. For 

years 2018 through 2020, the cost-share amount for up to a 90-day 

supply of a generic pharmaceutical agent dispensed through the 

mail order pharmacy would be $10, which would partially cover the 

Department’s administrative costs for the drug and would result in 

a consistent drug cost-share with generic drugs dispensed in retail 

pharmacies. Under this provision, there would be no changes to 

cost-sharing amounts for survivors of members who died on Active 

Duty or for disabled retirees and their family members. 

To encourage use of pharmaceutical agents that provide the 

greatest value to beneficiaries and the Department, the provision 

would authorize the Secretary of Defense, upon recommendation 

from the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee and review by the 

Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel, to exclude from 

the pharmacy benefits program any pharmaceutical agent that the 

Secretary determines provides little or no value to covered beneficiaries and the Department. Additionally, the Secretary would 

give preferential status to any non-generic pharmaceutical agent on 

the uniform formulary by treating it, for the purposes of cost-sharing, as a generic product under the TRICARE retail pharmacy and 

mail order programs. Finally, the provision would amend section 

1079 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary to 

adopt special reimbursement methods, amounts, and procedures in 

medical contracts to encourage physicians to use high-value pharmaceutical agents and to discourage use of low-value agents. 

Consolidation of cost-sharing requirements under TRICARE 

Select and TRICARE Prime (sec. 707) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1075 of title 10, United States Code, to consolidate cost-sharing requirements under TRICARE Prime and Select. This provision 

would eliminate the grandfathering of cost-sharing requirements 

for beneficiaries enrolled in the TRICARE program prior to January 1, 2018, as authorized in section 701 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). The 

amendments under this provision would take effect on January 1, 

2018. 

TRICARE technical amendments (sec. 708) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make several 

technical amendments to statutory language regarding the 

TRICARE program. 

Contraception coverage parity under the TRICARE program 

(sec. 709) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1074d of title 10, United States Code, to require coverage of 

contraception services for all female covered beneficiaries under the 

TRICARE program. The provision would prohibit cost-sharing for 

certain contraception services, including all methods of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration, contraceptive 

care, sterilization procedures, and education and counseling, provided to beneficiaries covered by TRICARE. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
166 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration 

Modification of priority for evaluation and treatment of individuals at military treatment facilities (sec. 721) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 717(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive the priority of covered beneficiaries to receive evaluation and treatment at military treatment facilities in order to 

provide evaluation and treatment for the following individuals: (1) 

Persons severely wounded or injured by acts of terror in the United 

States; or (2) Residents of the United States severely wounded or 

injured by acts of terror outside the United States. 

Selection of directors of military treatment facilities and 

tours of duty of such directors (sec. 722) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, not later than January 1, 2019, to develop 

common qualifications and core competencies required for selection 

of directors of military medical treatment facilities. The provision 

would also establish a minimum length of 3 years for tours of duty, 

with limited exceptions, for those directors to ensure greater stability in health system executive management at each facility and 

throughout the military health system. 

Clarification of administration of military medical treatment facilities (sec. 723) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1073c(a) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the individual responsible for ensuring readiness of the members of the 

Armed Forces and civilian employees of a military medical treatment facility and for furnishing the health care and medical treatment at that facility can be either a military or civilian director 

under the authority, direction, and control of the Defense Health 

Agency. Additionally, the provision would authorize, if the Secretary of Defense determines it appropriate, that a military director (or other senior military officer or officers) of a military medical 

treatment facility (MTF) may be a commanding officer for purposes 

of Chapter 47 of this title (the Uniformed Code of Military Justice) 

with respect to military personnel assigned to the MTF. 

Modification of execution of TRICARE contracting responsibilities (sec. 724) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subsection (b) of section 705 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) to clarify the execution 

of contracting responsibility for acquisition of managed care support contracts under the TRICARE program initiated after the date 

of the enactment of this Act. Under this provision, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment would serve as 

the acquisition decision authority and be responsible for approving 

the acquisition strategy and conducting pre-solicitation, pre-award, 

and post-award acquisition reviews. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
167 

Pilot program on establishment of integrated health care 

delivery systems (sec. 725) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, within 1 year of the date of the enactment 

of this Act, to conduct a pilot program of not less than 5 years duration to establish integrated health care delivery systems among 

the military health system, other federal health systems, and private sector integrated health systems. In consultation with the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and Health and Human Services, the 

Secretary would establish a multi-disciplinary task force to develop 

a plan to implement the pilot program. Not later than 180 days 

after the date of the enactment of this Act, the task force would 

submit an implementation plan for the pilot program to the Secretary that would: (1) Create high-value integrated health systems; 

(2) Empower health care providers with real-time advanced information technology solutions; (3) Empower patients with transparent information on health care costs, quality outcomes, and 

safety within health care provider networks; and (4) Provide incentives to patients and health care providers to prevent overuse of 

low-value health care services. The provision would require the 

Secretary to submit a report on the implementation plan to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Finally, the Secretary would submit a final report 

on the pilot program to the same committees not later than 4 years 

after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters 

Extension of authority for Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 731) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority for the joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Demonstration Fund from September 30, 2018, to 

September 30, 2019. 

Additional emergency uses for medical products to reduce 

deaths and severity of injuries caused by agents of war 

(sec. 732) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1107a of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to approve the emergency use of medical products, outside the United States, in situations in which an emergency use of an unapproved product or an emergency unapproved 

use of an approved product cannot be authorized under section 564 

of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb– 

3) because the emergency does not involve an actual or threatened 

attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent. 

The committee understands that hemorrhage is a leading cause 

of survivable death from battlefield wounds, and complex blood 

components, when used in a battlefield environment, can quickly 

control hemorrhage and save lives. Traditional pathways to the 

Food and Drug Administration’s approval and licensure of critical 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
168 

medical products, like freeze dried plasma, for battlefield use are 

too slow to allow for rapid insertion and use of these products on 

the battlefield. The committee believes this provision could lead to 

even higher survival rates from severe battlefield wounds suffered 

by servicemembers. 

Prohibition on conduct of certain medical research and development projects (sec. 733) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of Defense and each service secretary from funding or 

conducting a medical research and development project unless the 

secretary concerned submits a written certification to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives that the project is directly designed to protect, enhance, or restore the health and safety of members of the Armed Forces. Additionally, the secretary concerned could not initiate the funding or 

conduct of any such project until 90 days after submission of written certification to the committees. 

Modification of determination of average wait times at urgent care clinics and pharmacies at military medical 

treatment facilities under pilot program (sec. 734) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subsections 744(c)(2) and 744(d)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) to require the 

Secretary of Defense to utilize a formula derived from health care 

industry best practices in determining the average wait times to 

display under such paragraphs. 

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

735) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting forth a plan of the Department to improve pediatric care and 

related services for children of members of the Armed Forces. 

Inclusion of gambling disorder in health assessments and 

related research efforts of the Department of Defense 

(sec. 736) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to incorporate medical screening questions 

specific to gambling disorder into the Annual Periodic Health Assessment (DD Form 3024) conducted by the Department for members of the Armed Forces. Additionally, the provision would require 

the Secretary to incorporate questions on gambling disorder into its 

ongoing research survey efforts. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
169 

Items of Special Interest 

Aircraft medical kits on rotary aircraft responding to mass 

casualty incidents 

The committee recognizes that rotary wing aircraft are the most 

common platforms to respond first to mass casualty incidents even 

if they are not fully capable medical evacuation aircraft. Updating 

aircrew equipment and helicopter medical kits to the latest standards will enhance patient and aircrew survivability. The committee 

encourages the Secretary of Defense to ensure that survival medical equipment on these aircraft is consistent with the most current 

standards for U.S. military tactical combat casualty care for all casualty evacuation capable platforms. 

Assessment of ability of Department of Defense to use modeling and simulation capabilities to address medical 

training requirements 

The committee recognizes the importance of technological developments that allow the Department of Defense (DOD) to use modeling and simulation capabilities to improve medical training requirements. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine under which the National 

Academies assess the ability of DOD to use modeling and simulation capabilities to address medical training requirements of the 

Department. 

In conducting the assessment, the National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine shall assess, but not be limited to: (1) The modeling and simulation technology available to the 

Federal Government and the private sector; (2) Research and development programs that the Department could undertake to enhance the modeling and simulation technology available to the Department; (3) Programs to transition modeling and simulation technology into operational use by the Department; (4) The advantages 

and disadvantages of using modeling and simulation, including fiscal and educational advantages and disadvantages; and (5) Any 

other aspects deemed relevant and appropriate. 

The assessment shall also include recommendations to the Secretary on: (1) Improvements to policies and programs of the Department to increase the use of modeling and simulation technology; (2) Research and development priorities of the Department 

that will enhance modeling and simulation capabilities; (3) The development of specific technical metrics to improve modeling and 

simulation training; and (4) Any other recommendations deemed 

relevant and appropriate. The committee further directs that the 

assessment shall be delivered not later than June 1, 2018. 

Comptroller General report on Department of Defense 

measures to maintain critical wartime medical readiness skills and core competencies of health care providers 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to submit a report, not later than 90 days after the Secretary of Defense submits the report required by section 721(b) of 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
170 

the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 

2017 (Public Law 114–328), to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives that contains: (1) 

An assessment of the methodology used by the Secretary of Defense, under section 721 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017, to define and determine the medical and dental personnel requirements 

necessary to meet operational medical force readiness requirements; (2) A determination of whether the list of medical and dental personnel requirements necessary to meet operational medical 

force readiness requirements, submitted in the report by the Secretary, reflects the methodology described above; (3) A determination of whether the Secretary has developed and implemented 

measures described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of section 

725 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 

(Public Law 114–328); and (4) An assessment of the methodology 

used by the Secretary in developing and implementing measures 

described in section 725 to maintain the critical wartime medical 

readiness skills and core competencies of health care providers 

within the Armed Forces. 

Comptroller General review of the Department of Defense’s 

recruitment and retention programs for military dentists 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) experiences challenges in the recruitment and retention of 

certain dental specialists due in part to an increasingly competitive 

civilian dental health care job market and projected future nationwide shortages of dentists as the demand for dental care in the 

United States exceeds supply. To address these challenges, the 

Services offer a variety of recruitment and retention programs to 

encourage dentists to serve, including accession bonuses, scholarship programs, special pays, loan repayment programs, retention 

bonuses, and advanced training and education programs. The extent to which the DOD’s approach to identify military dental requirements and to achieve recruitment and retention goals for military dentists is unclear to the committee. Therefore, the committee 

directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a 

review of DOD’s approach to recruit and retain military dentists 

and to provide a briefing on preliminary observations to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than January 24, 2018. At that time, a date 

for the final product will be determined. The review shall address, 

at a minimum, the following: 

(1) What are the Services’ processes for developing the military health system’s requirements for dentists and to what extent are the Services’ authorizations filled to meet requirements? 

(2) To what extent has DOD examined the effectiveness of its 

programs for recruiting and retaining dentists? 

(3) To what extent have the Services developed plans to address any identified gaps in military dental corps officer specialties? 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
171 

Comptroller General review of workforce mix within the 

military health system 

The Department of Defense (DOD) has estimated that an inefficient medical workforce mix—the combination of military personnel, federal civilian employees, and contractors—costs the department about $3 billion over the future years defense program. 

In addition, a recent study sponsored by DOD found that the complete cost to the taxpayer of military medical personnel far exceeds 

the cost of civilian health care providers with comparable skills. 

Due to concerns about these and other inefficiencies within the 

military health system, Congress enacted a series of reforms in the 

National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 

114–328), including a provision authorizing conversions of military 

health care provider positions to civilian or contractor positions. 

Given DOD’s potential for realizing substantial financial benefits 

by implementing such conversions and for optimizing its mix of 

medical personnel, DOD’s careful attention toward medical workforce management will be important as it moves forward with 

health system reforms. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to conduct a review of DOD’s approach to assess and 

determine its workforce mix within the military health system and 

to provide preliminary observations to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by the end 

of February 2018. At that time, a final product date will be determined. The review shall address, at a minimum, the extent to 

which: (1) The military departments have policies and procedures 

in place for periodically evaluating their health care workforces to 

ensure efficient and effective use of personnel resources; (2) The 

composition of healthcare workforces within each of the military 

departments is based on analyses of alternative populations—including active and reserve military personnel, civilians, contractors, 

and a mix thereof—and their related costs and benefits; and (3) 

The military departments have developed long-range strategies and 

workforce plans for ensuring that an appropriate number and mix 

of personnel are maintained within their healthcare workforces. 

Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense electronic health record interoperability 

The committee applauds the decision by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to adopt the electronic health record (EHR) of 

the Department of Defense (DOD), MHS Genesis, which consists of 

a commercial off-the-shelf EHR system, Cerner Millennium. The 

Secretary’s bold decision will ensure seamless transition of realtime medical records information between healthcare providers of 

the DOD and the VA. The committee encourages the VA to work 

closely with DOD to leverage the platform, architecture, tools, and 

processes established for MHS Genesis to ensure successful implementation of its new EHR throughout VA’s hospitals and clinics. 

Additionally, the committee expects both DOD and VA to work collaboratively to establish seamless interoperability among MHS 

Genesis, the VA’s EHR, and private sector EHRs. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
172 

Epidemiological study on the association between certain 

cancers and military aircraft operations 

The committee is aware of anecdotes of potentially increased occurrences of certain cancers in military personnel associated with 

military aircraft operations. For example, acute myeloid leukemia 

may occur at higher rates for personnel involved in military aircraft operations, such as U.S. Air Force F–15 pilots, than for the 

general U.S. population because of long-term exposure to microwave radiation. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to conduct a retrospective epidemiological study on personnel involved in military aircraft operations: (1) To measure the 

frequency and assess the distribution of certain cancers in this population; and (2) To determine if there is a correlation between environmental exposures associated with military aircraft operations 

and the development of certain cancers in this population. 

Impact of medical care referrals on servicemembers assigned to remote and isolated military installations in 

the United States 

The committee notes with concern that military operational capabilities may be degraded when military medical treatment facilities 

refer Active-Duty servicemembers and their families, assigned to 

remote and isolated military installations in the United States, for 

specialty care services provided only in large metropolitan areas. 

For example, the minimum travel time to and from a specialty care 

referral appointment can be 5 hours or more in remote locations 

like Cannon Air Force Base. Excess travel times for medical appointments remove servicemembers from their duty locations for 

lengthy periods, which degrades operational capabilities and ultimately harms readiness. Therefore, the committee directs the Department to explore additional opportunities to develop military-civilian integrated health systems near remote and isolated military 

installations in the United States to provide a comprehensive range 

of primary and specialty medical care services for servicemembers 

and their families where they live and work. 

Improper medical claims payments 

Section 725 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) required the Comptroller General 

of the United States to examine the similarities and differences between TRICARE and Medicare regarding how each program identifies and recovers improper medical claims payments. In a February 

2015 report, the Comptroller General found that the Department 

of Defense uses a less comprehensive methodology than the methodology Medicare uses to measure improper payments. The Department’s methodology fails to examine the medical records documentation underlying medical claims, an important process step 

that can help determine whether claims were improperly paid. As 

a result of the findings and recommendations of the Comptroller 

General, the committee directs the Department to implement a robust methodology to monitor medical claims for improper payments. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
173 

Licensed mental health counselors 

The committee is aware of varying standards within the Department of Defense regarding the practice authorities of licensed mental health counselors. Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to review existing policies and guidance regarding licensed mental health counselors 

throughout the military health system and make recommendations 

regarding the establishment of a uniform Department-wide standard regarding privileging and independent practice authority. 

Licensing of federally owned medical inventions 

The committee directs the Department of Defense (DOD) to exercise its rights under sections 209(d)(1) or 203 of title 35, United 

States Code, to authorize third parties to use inventions that benefited from DOD funding whenever the price of a drug, vaccine, or 

other medical technology is higher in the United States than the 

median price charged in the seven largest economies that have a 

per capita income at least half the per capita income of the United 

States. 

Military dental research 

The Military Dental Research Program (MDRP) focuses on developing successful procedures and technology to reconstruct and restore function of craniofacial (face and skull) tissues and structures 

of severely wounded warfighters. No other federal dental program 

duplicates this research. Craniofacial injuries cause significant 

physical and emotional challenges for servicemembers and often result in difficulty breathing, eating, and speaking. 

Additionally, research at the MDRP seeks to develop improved 

methods to contain and eliminate antibiotic-resistant infections resulting from severe burns. The MDRP also maintains its traditional focus on troop readiness by conducting research to target 

preventive efforts to reduce the incidence of dental disease, thereby, improving overall combat effectiveness. The committee believes 

that the MDRP deserves greater priority within the Department of 

Defense’s efforts to advance combat trauma research. 

Novel drug therapies for PTSD 

The committee has long supported the development of new therapies for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

The committee urges the Department to prioritize the development 

and approval of novel drug therapies for the treatment of PTSD. 

To accomplish this task, the committee encourages the Department 

to consider the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Breakthrough Therapy Designation program. This program is one of four 

FDA programs intended to help ensure rapid approval and availability of beneficial therapies for serious medical conditions. The 

Committee directs the Department to consider carefully any guidance that the FDA’s Breakthrough Therapy program may provide 

for the identification, development, and approval of novel therapies 

for the treatment of PTSD. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
174 

Report on action to address mental health of remotely piloted aircraft community 

The Air Force is pursuing efforts to improve the quality of life 

and quality of service of the remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) community. This plan seeks to address the burden on RPA crews due 

to significant demand for persistent intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and strike capabilities. The committee is concerned 

about the potentially unique impacts on RPA pilots and airmen 

who are stationed in the United States while operating aircraft engaged in combat abroad. 

Section 1712A of title 38, United States Code, provides for counseling and mental health services for a veteran or member of the 

Armed Forces who engaged in combat by ‘‘remotely controlling an 

unmanned aerial vehicle, notwithstanding whether the physical location of such veteran or member during such combat was within 

such theatre of combat operations or area.’’ A 2011 School of Aerospace Medicine report titled ‘‘Psychological Health Screening of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Operators and Supporting Units,’’ found 

‘‘there is a high incidence of emotional exhaustion/fatigue among 

RPA operators as a group in comparison to noncombatant airmen’’ 

and that ‘‘efforts to reduce occupational burnout should focus on 

operational stressors and be equally devoted to weapon- and nonweapon-deploying RPA operators.’’ 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives on steps the Air Force, 

Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard are taking to address 

the mental health of RPA pilots and airmen supporting RPA operations, particularly those stationed in the United States flying missions with aircraft assigned operationally to Combatant Commands. This report should also include detailed efforts the Air 

Force is taking to retain these pilots, given the potential for exhaustion and occupational stress. 

Traumatic brain injury research 

Servicemembers and veterans can experience immediate and latent symptoms of traumatic brain injury (TBI), including headaches, mental confusion, memory loss, impulsivity, and depression. 

The committee commends the Department’s efforts to promote research addressing symptoms of TBI in the acute stages after injury 

and the prevention of such injuries. Key challenges facing the Department of Defense, however, are: (1) Understanding how to reverse neurodegeneration in the brain to restore lost brain function; 

and (2) Understanding the short and long-term effects of mild TBI 

on the brain to develop therapies that improve the function of those 

regions of the brain that may have escaped damage. The committee 

encourages the Department to continue its collaboration with public and private partners to accelerate the development of pharmaceutical therapies to reverse the latent and delayed-onset effects of 

TBI and to support clinical grade research of directly reprogrammed autologous neural precursor cells. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(175) 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS 

Implementation of acquisition reforms 

The committee notes that with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) 

and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 

(Public Law 114–92), the Department of Defense has been provided 

with the most expansive legislative reform agenda on acquisition in 

a generation. While such reforms will take time to fully implement, 

the committee is disappointed with the Department’s slow rate of 

implementation and apparent unwillingness to embrace meaningful 

change in order to improve its acquisition outcomes. 

The Department of Defense has suffered under a cumbersome acquisition bureaucracy for the majority of its existence. However, 

over the course of its history, the Department has still been able 

to increase the United States’ military technical advantage over the 

nation’s adversaries and competitors. In recent years, however, the 

Department has presided over a diminution of military technical 

advantage due to an inability to adapt to the global proliferation 

of technology, particularly in the commercial sector. The self-imposed and congressionally driven bureaucratic processes that have 

slowed the acquisition system have provided current and potential 

adversaries an opportunity to challenge our military today and in 

the future. The Department’s current acquisition challenge, and 

the threats that it enables, therefore, goes beyond important traditional concerns of efficiency and financial stewardship. 

All elements of the Department of Defense’s acquisition enterprise must innovate in order to increase the United States’ military 

technical advantage. This innovation cannot be limited to the kinds 

of technology the Department seeks to acquire. The methods by 

which such technologies are acquired are of equal significance in 

providing our Armed Forces with a timely technical edge. It is the 

responsibility of all elements of the Department’s acquisition system to drive such innovation and to recognize that different types 

of innovation are required for an office such as the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Research and Engineering than for the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. 

It is the intent of the committee that the Department of Defense 

pursue military technical advantage through multiple pathways. 

Basic research, experimentation, prototyping, rapid acquisition, acquisition and adaptation of commercial items, middle tier acquisition, and major defense acquisition programs all play vital roles in 

developing and fielding the capability required by our Armed 

Forces. These pathways require different approaches to risk management, requirements development, contracting, and governance. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
176 

The committee therefore expects to see the Department align acquisition methods with the nature of the capability being acquired. 

This will require, for example, making use of flexible tools like 

Other Transaction Authorities to speed early research and prototyping efforts to transition into production while using firm-fixed 

price contracts to manage costs of large-scale acquisition of systems 

with lower technical risk. 

Allowing for more nuanced approaches to supporting multiple acquisition pathways requires a workforce that is well-educated, 

trained, and provided with incentives to apply judgement in tailoring acquisition approaches while appropriately managing risk. 

The committee notes the success of the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund in allowing the Department to recruit, 

educate, and retain the talent it needs. Provisions elsewhere in this 

Act seek to raise awareness of additional acquisition methods, such 

as the use of Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12 Acquisition of 

Commercial Items, Other Transaction Authorities, and Agile Acquisition while also supporting the development of tools to enable easier tailoring of the acquisition process. 

The committee is particularly concerned about the Department’s 

approach to developing, acquiring, and managing software and software-intensive systems. The Department’s acquisition processes 

are too cumbersome to develop traditional military hardware effectively, let alone modern software systems. Accordingly, this Act directs the Department to commence pilot activities to restructure 

struggling software-intensive programs and start new programs in 

a more effective manner. The committee will provide strong oversight on software-intensive acquisitions to ensure that the Department of Defense adopts effective methods of developing and managing its software. 

In conclusion, this Act clarifies and reinforces the reforms of previous years. It is the intent of the committee to provide the Department of Defense with as much flexibility as possible to develop its 

own processes, organizational structures, and initiatives to improve 

its acquisition view and culture. The committee expects, and will 

support to the maximum extent possible, innovative initiatives 

from the Department that improve acquisition outcomes. In the 

meantime, the committee will continue to perform oversight over 

the Department’s efforts to reform and improve its acquisition culture and practices, and hold senior leaders responsible and accountable for those efforts and their success. 

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management 

Repeal of temporary suspension of public-private competitions for conversion of Department of Defense functions 

to performance by contractors (sec. 801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

325 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84; 123 Stat. 2253), one year after the date of enactment of this Act. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
177 

Technical and conforming amendments related to program 

management provisions (sec. 802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make technical and conforming amendments related to program management 

provisions from the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017 

(Public Law 114–328). 

Should-cost management (sec. 803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, within 180 days after the date of enactment 

of this Act, to amend the Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to provide for the appropriate use of the shouldcost review process in a manner that is transparent, objective, and 

provides for the efficiency of the systems acquisition process in the 

Department of Defense. The committee remains concerned that the 

current process utilized by the Department of Defense does not 

meet basic elements of transparency or define objective criteria by 

which should-cost determinations are made. Further, the committee expects that the Department will incorporate elements that 

prioritize efficiency into the regulations required by this provision. 

The regulations required should incorporate, at a minimum, the 

following elements: (1) a description of the feature distinguishing 

a should-cost review and the analysis of program direct and indirect costs; (2) establishment of a process for communicating with 

the contractor the elements of a proposed should-cost review; (3) a 

method for ensuring that identified should-cost savings opportunities are based on accurate, complete, and current information and 

are associated with specific engineering or business changes that 

can be quantified and tracked; (4) a description of the training, 

skills, and experience, including cross functional experience, that 

Department of Defense and contractor officials carrying out a 

should-cost review should process; (5) a method for ensuring appropriate collaboration with the contractor throughout the review process; (6) establishment of review process requirements that provide 

for sufficient analysis and minimize any impact on program schedule; and (7) a requirement that any separate audit or review carried out in connection with the should-cost review be provided to 

the prime contractor under the program. 

Clarification of purpose of Defense acquisition (sec. 804) 

The committee recommends a provision that would create consistency between the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation and 

current Department of Defense policies and instructions with respect to the purpose of the defense acquisition system. The committee notes that the Department of Defense is constantly forced 

to balance equities related to the near and far term defense needs 

as well as defense and national security goals and broader national 

and public policy goals. The Department also struggles to align 

goals relative to improving the speed and response to threats with 

public transparency and fiscal stewardship and in executing a 

growing set of missions within a defined budget. The committee remains concerned that these balances and goals sometimes drive the 

Department into practices that drive up costs, slow down the acquiVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00213 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
178 

sition process, and result in sub-optimal capabilities being developed and deployed to operational forces. 

Defense policy advisory committee on technology (sec. 805) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a committee of senior executives 

from U.S. firms in the national technology and industrial base who 

would meet with the Secretary, the secretaries of the military departments, and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The committee would meet annually with the Department of Defense from 

fiscal years 2018 to 2022 to discuss technology threats to the national security of the United States and emerging technologies that 

could be used to counter such threats. This committee would be exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) due 

to the sensitive and, at times, classified nature of its work. 

Report on extension of development, acquisition, and 

sustainment authorities of the military departments to 

the United States Special Operations Command (sec. 

806) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out a review of the acquisition authorities available to the secretaries of the military departments 

and the acquisition executives of the military departments to determine the feasibility and advisability of providing such authorities 

to the Commander of the United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the acquisition executive of the Command for 

the development, acquisition, and sustainment of special operations-peculiar technology, equipment, and services. The provision 

would further require the Secretary, not later than 120 days after 

the enactment of this Act, to submit to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report 

on the required review, including the results of the review, an identification of the authorities the Secretary recommends be extended 

to SOCOM, recommendations for any modifications of such authorities the Secretary considers appropriate for SOCOM, recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the Secretary considers appropriate for the specified authorities, and any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate. 

The committee notes that under section 167 of title 10, United 

States Code, the Commander of SOCOM and the acquisition executive of the Command have responsibility for the development and 

acquisition of special operations-peculiar equipment and the acquisition of special operations-peculiar material, supplies, and services 

in support of Special Operations forces, which have been commonly 

referred to as SOCOM’s ‘‘service-like’’ responsibilities. However, the 

committee understands that there is a lack of clarity about the applicability of acquisition and sustainment authorities provided to 

the secretaries and acquisition executives of the military departments to the Commander and acquisition executive of SOCOM, 

which could result in unnecessary bureaucratic burden and delays 

to SOCOM’s rapid research and development, prototyping, and 

fielding of technology, equipment, and services that are critical to 

ensure the success of the Command in carrying out its missions. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
179 

As such, the committee believes that to the maximum extent practicable, the Secretary should provide to the Commander and the acquisition executive of SOCOM acquisition and sustainment authorities that are equivalent to those provided to the secretaries and acquisition executives of the military departments for such purposes. 

Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting 

Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations 

Waiver authority for purposes of expanding competition 

(sec. 811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

subsection to section 2304 of title 10, United States Code, that 

would grant discretionary authority to the Secretary of Defense to 

expand competition for Department of Defense (DOD) contracts 

where there is only one responsible bidder for any provision of law 

other than subsection 2304(c) of title 10, United States Code. The 

committee notes that this provision is not intended to affect the authorities of current set aside programs including those under the 

Small Disadvantage Business (8(a)) program, the Ability One program, the Berry amendment, and small business programs. It is intended to enhance opportunities for competition in traditional solicitations for DOD goods and services. 

Increased simplified acquisition threshold applicable to Department of Defense procurements (sec. 812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to set the simplified acquisition threshold at $250,000 for the Department of Defense in order 

to reflect a modest increase in inflation due to the erosion of purchasing power under the current threshold. This will expand opportunities for Small Disadvantaged Businesses, Women-Owned Small 

Businesses, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business, and 

businesses in Historically Underutilized Business Zones to contract 

with the Department of Defense to provide innovation and rapid 

solutions and services to the Department. 

Increased threshold for cost or pricing data and truth in negotiations requirements (sec. 813) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2306a of title 10, United States Code, to increase the threshold 

for certified cost or pricing data and truth in negotiation requirements to $1.0 million. Section 824 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) sets goals for 

the Secretary of Defense to follow in reducing reimbursable costs 

pertaining to bid and proposal submissions. This provision would 

aid the Department of Defense in realizing that goal. 

Contract authority for advanced development of initial or 

additional prototype units (sec. 814) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, and would add a new section related to the contract authority allowed for advanced development of initial or additional prototype units. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
180 

Treatment of independent research and development costs 

on certain contracts (sec. 815) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2372 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the requirements for the Secretary of Defense to create an Advisory Panel Related to the Goal for Reimbursable Bid and Proposal Costs. The 

panel should be established if the amount of reimbursable bid and 

proposal costs paid by the Department of Defense for a fiscal year 

exceeds 0.75 percent of the total aggregate industry sales to the 

Department for the fiscal year and it should be created by the Secretary within 180 days of exceeding such threshold. 

Non-traditional contractor definition (sec. 816) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2302(9) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the definition 

of a non-traditional contractor to better align with the definition of 

an entity, which was intended to be interpreted as allowing specific 

business units within a corporation to be considered as non-traditional contractors. 

Repeal of domestic source restriction related to wearable 

electronics (sec. 817) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that 

the domestic source restrictions authorized under the Berry 

Amendment do not apply to wearable electronics. The committee 

notes that these technologies will provide advanced communications, sensing, and medical diagnostics capabilities to operational 

forces. 

Use of outcome-based and performance-based requirements 

for services contracts (sec. 818) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a justification requirement for use of personnel and labor hours for the 

procurement of services valued in excess of $10.0 million based on 

specific descriptive personnel and labor hour requirements unless 

the program manager and contracting officer first submit to the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment a 

written justification including the reasons for basing the contract 

on those requirements instead of outcome- or performance-based 

requirements. This authority would sunset at the close of September 20, 2022. 

Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, the Comptroller General of the United States should submit 

to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives a report on justifications submitted pursuant to 

this provision. The report should review the adequacy of the justifications and identify any recurring obstacles to the use of 

outcome- and performance-based requirements instead of specified 

personnel and labor hour requirements for purposes of awarding 

services contracts. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
181 

Pilot program for longer term multiyear service contracts 

(sec. 819) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to use the existing authority under subsection 

(a) of section 2306c of title 10, United States Code, to enter into 

up to 5 contracts for periods of not more than 10 years for services 

described in subsection (b) of such section, which may be extended 

for up to 5 additional 1-year terms. This authority would be subject 

to a reporting requirement for the Secretary of Defense to submit 

a progress report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than 1 year after the 

date of enactment of this Act. The provision would also require a 

review by the Comptroller General of the United States, who would 

be required to submit a report of to the congressional defense committees not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

The Secretary of Defense would also be required to enter into an 

agreement no later than 90 days after enactment of this Act with 

an independent organization with relevant expertise to study best 

practices and lessons learned from using services contracts for periods longer than 5 years by commercial companies, foreign governments, and state governments, as well as service contracts for periods longer than 5 years used by the Federal Government, such as 

Energy Savings Performance Contracts. Such Energy Savings Performance Contracts provide an existing example of longer term 

multiyear service contracts and are an alternative financing mechanism designed to accelerate investment in cost effective energy 

conservation measures in existing federal buildings. 

Identification of commercial services (sec. 820) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 876 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2017 (Public Law 114–283) to require the Secretary of Defense to 

identify those industry subcategories in facilities-related services, 

knowledge-based services (excluding engineering services), construction services, medical services, or transportation services in 

which there are significant numbers of commercial services providers able to meet the requirements of the Department of Defense. 

Government Accountability Office bid protest reforms (sec. 

821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to require contractors who 

file bid protests with the Government Accountability Office on a 

contract with the Department of Defense to pay to the Department 

of Defense costs incurred for processing a protest at the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Defense when 

such a protest is filed by a party with revenues in excess of $100.0 

million during the previous year where all of the elements of such 

protest are denied in an opinion by the Government Accountability 

Office. 

The provision would also require contractors who file a protest 

on a contract on which they are the incumbent to have all payments above incurred costs withheld on any bridge contracts or 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
182 

temporary contract extensions awarded to the contractor as a result of a delay in award resulting from the filing of such protest. 

Such withheld funds should be released to a protesting incumbent 

contractor if: (1) the solicitation that is the subject of the protest 

is cancelled and no subsequent request for proposal is released or 

planned for release; or (2) the Government Accountability Office 

issues an opinion that upholds any of the protest grounds filed 

under the protest. If the protested contract for which payments are 

withheld is not awarded to a contractor, the withheld payments 

should be released to the Department of Defense and deposited into 

an account that can be used by the Department to offset costs associated with Government Accountability Office bid protests. 

Enhanced post-award debriefing rights (sec. 822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, no later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to revise the Department of Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to require that all mandatory post-award debriefings must provide details and comprehensive statements of the agency’s rating for each evaluation criterion 

and of the agency’s overall award decision. The revision would encourage the release of all information that would otherwise be releasable in the course of a bid protest challenge to an award to protect the confidential and proprietary information of other offerors. 

This provision would allow for the opportunity for follow-up questions for a disappointed offeror within 2 business days of receiving 

a post-award debriefing to be answered in writing by the agency 

within 5 business days. 

Limitation on unilateral definitization (sec. 823) 

The committee recommends a provision that would apply limitations and a notice and wait period to all undefinitized contractual 

actions of $50.0 million or greater. Such limitations would require 

that if an agreement is not reached on contractual terms, specifications, and price by a date certain, the contracting officer may not 

unilaterally definitize those terms, specifications, and price over 

the objection of the contractor until the head of the agency approves the definitization in writing, the contracting office provides 

the written approval to the contractor, and the head of the agency 

notifies the congressional defense committees of the approval. The 

contract modification unilaterally definitizing the action should not 

take effect until 60 calendar days after the congressional defense 

committees have been notified. 

Restriction on use of reverse auctions and lowest price technically acceptable contracting methods for safety equipment (sec. 824) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 814 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2017 (Public Law 114–328) in order to restrict the Department of 

Defense (DOD) from the use of reverse auctions and lowest price 

technically acceptable contracting methods when procuring critical 

safety equipment. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
183 

Use of lowest price technically acceptable source selection 

process (sec. 825) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2017 (Public Law 114–328) in order to ensure that the Department 

of Defense is acquiring goods that are providing valuable solutions 

and technology and not just offering contracts to bidders with the 

lowest cost. 

Middle tier of acquisition for rapid prototype and rapid 

fielding (sec. 826) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 804(c)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2016 (Public Law 114—92) to eliminate the cost-sharing requirement for the rapid prototyping and fielding for middle tier acquisition programs. 

Elimination of cost underruns as factor in calculation of 

penalties for cost overruns (sec. 827) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 828(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 10 U.S.C. 2430 note) to remove the 

use of cost underruns to offset cost overruns and avoid the cost 

overrun penalty, beginning in fiscal year 2018. 

Contract closeout authority (sec. 828) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 836(b)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) to extend contract closeout authority to those contracts entered into at least 17 years before the 

current fiscal year. 

Service contracts of the Department of Defense (sec. 829) 

The committee recommends a provision to require the Department of Defense to include certain information on services contracts in annual future years defense programs. The amendment 

prohibits initiation of public-private (A–76) competitions until this 

information is provided or until the Secretary of Defense certifies 

that a plan to provide such information by the next fiscal year has 

been developed. 

Department of Defense contractor workplace safety and accountability (sec. 830) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require contracting officers, prior to awarding or renewing covered contacts, to 

consider any identified violations of the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act of 1970 or equivalent State laws by the offeror or covered subcontractors using publicly available information. Contractors would have the right to protest bids and appeal actions taken 

pursuant to this provision. 

The Comptroller General of the United States would also be required to submit a report not later than 180 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act to the Department of Defense and the congressional defense committees on the following elements: (a) A description of the Department of Defense’s existing procedures to 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
184 

evaluate the safety and health records of current and prospective 

contractors; (b) An evaluation of the Department’s adherence to 

those procedures; (c) An assessment of the current incidence of 

health and safety violations by Department Contractors; (d) An assessment of whether the Department of Labor has the resources to 

investigate and identify safety and health violations by Department 

of Defense contractors; and (e) An assessment of whether the Department of Labor should consider assuming an expanded investigatory role or a targeted enforcement program for ensuring the 

safety and health of workers under Department of Defense contracts. 

Department of Defense promotion of contractor compliance 

with existing law (sec. 831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Congress that: (1) the Department of Defense should 

aim to ensure that parties contracting with the Federal Government abide by existing law, including worker protection laws; (2) 

worker protection laws, including chapter 43 of title 38, United 

States Code and the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 were 

enacted to ensure equitable workplace practices; (3) identifying and 

helping to improve the compliance of contractors with worker protection violations will help avoid setbacks and delays stemming 

from contracting with non-compliant contractors; and (4) the Secretary of Defense has the authority to ensure contractors’ compliance with existing laws and should establish a goal to work with 

responsible contractors who are in compliance with worker protection laws. 

Subtitle C—Provisions Relating to Major Defense 

Acquisition Programs 

Revisions to definition of major defense acquisition program (sec. 835) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 430(a) of title 10, United States Code, to prevent programs formerly designated as major automated information systems and programs currently designated as business systems from being designated as major defense acquisition programs. 

Prohibition on use of lowest price technically acceptable 

source selection process for major defense acquisition 

programs (sec. 836) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 144 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new section that 

would prohibit the use of a lowest price technically acceptable 

source selection process for the development contract of a major defense acquisition program (MDAP), beginning with programs requested for fiscal year 2019. The Secretary of Defense would be required to submit to the congressional defense committees a notification of the source selection process that the Department of Defense plans to use for the development contract of an MDAP, with 

the budget for which authority is requested for the development 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
185 

contract of an MDAP, or within 30 days before release of the request for proposals for the development contract. 

Federal acquisition regulations provide for a best value continuum where the relative importance of cost or price may vary. 

Where the requirement is clearly definable, cost or price may play 

a dominant role. The less definitive the requirement, the more development work is required. The greater the performance risk, the 

more technical or past performance may play a dominant role. The 

lowest price technically acceptable source selection approach is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the 

technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. By 

contrast, a trade-off process is appropriate when best value is expected to result in selecting other than the lowest price or other 

than the highest technically rated proposal and when the process 

allows the government to make trade-offs among cost or price and 

non-cost factors. 

The committee believes that a contract to develop a MDAP does 

not lend itself to a strictly lowest price technically acceptable 

source selection approach. The source selection approach used for 

the development contract for the B–21 long-range strike bomber, 

an MDAP, was not characterized by the Department of Defense as 

a lowest price technically acceptable process. However, the committee believes that the Department’s source selection approach 

more resembled a lowest price technically acceptable process rather 

than a trade-off process. Given the high degree of development 

work required for the program and the high degree of performance 

risk for the vendor, as evidenced by the fact that the Department 

awarded a cost plus contract for this effort, the committee believes 

that a source selection process that allowed the government to 

make trade-offs among cost or price and non-cost factors was warranted. Going forward, the committee expects the Department to 

use a trade-off source selection process for the development contract of a major defense acquisition program. 

Subtitle D—Provisions Relating to Acquisition Workforce 

Training in commercial items procurement (sec. 841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President of the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) to establish 

a training program on part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). 

The committee believes that since enactment of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA), the Congress has articulated a policy of favoring commercial procurements, including 

commercial ‘‘of a type’’ items. However, 2 decades after passage of 

the FASA, acquisition workforce training in the use of FAR Part 

12 remains deficient. One of the guiding principles of the FAR is 

to ‘‘maximize the use of commercial products and services,’’ and 

section 2377 of title 10, United States Code, requires market research to determine what commercial items or commercial items 

‘‘of a type’’ are available in the marketplace. FAR part 12 implements the Federal Government’s preference for the acquisition of 

commercial items contained in sections 1906, 1907, and 3307 of 

title 41, United States Code, and sections 2375–2377 of title 10, 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
186 

United States Code, by establishing acquisition policies more closely resembling those of the commercial marketplace and encouraging the acquisition of commercial items and components. 

Despite this, the committee believes that DAU courses have very 

little content involving the training of the acquisition workforce in 

matters related to FAR part 12 and the procurement of commercial 

items. The 2014 Defense Business Board report, ‘‘Innovation: Attracting and Retaining the Best of the Private Sector,’’ noted that 

acquisition training by DAU was ‘‘insufficient to meet the needs of 

the Department’’ and ‘‘an example of training deficiency is the lack 

of training on market research . . . [causing] acquisition and contracting personnel [to] fall back on cost-based judgments for contracting decisions.’’ Accordingly, this provision would aim to provide comprehensive training to the acquisition workforce on the use 

of part 12. 

Modification of definition of acquisition workforce to include personnel engaged in the acquisition or development of cybersecurity systems (sec. 842) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1705(h)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code, to include personnel who are engaged in the acquisition of systems related to cybersecurity to the list of personnel who may be trained under the 

Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund. 

Training and support for programs pursuing agile acquisition methods (sec. 843) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the President of the Defense Acquisition University, to establish an in-resident targeted 

training course at the Defense Acquisition University on agile acquisition. 

Credits to Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (sec. 844) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1705(d)(2)(D) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the 

Secretary of Defense may adjust the amount for a fiscal year to an 

amount that is more than $600.0 million or less than $400.0 million if the Secretary determines that the amount is greater or less 

than reasonably needed for the purposes of the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund for such fiscal year 

to assist with acquisition workforce planning and development. 

Subtitle E—Provisions Related to Commercial Items 

Modification to definition of commercial items (sec. 851) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2376 of title 10, United States Code, to amend the definition 

of ‘‘commercial item’’ for minor modifications ensure that government-unique systems and technologies are not treated as commercial items. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
187 

Revision to definition of commercial item (sec. 852) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 103(8) of title 41, United States Code, to clarify that nondevelopmental items are commercial items when the procuring 

agency determines, in accordance with conditions in the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation, that the item was developed exclusively at 

private expense and has been sold in substantial quantities on a 

competitive basis to multiple local, state, or foreign governments. 

Commercial item determinations (sec. 853) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2380 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that a contract 

or sub-contract relating to the prior acquisition of an item using 

commercial item acquisition procedures under part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) should serve as a prior commercial item determination under this section of title 10. 

Additionally, the committee notes that a significant barrier to retaining commercial item determinations occurs when a determination is made by a prime contractor as part of the acquisition of a 

major weapons system. The Department of Defense (DOD) contracting officers and Defense Contracting Activity officials have recently not recognized prime contractor commercial item determinations for sustainment contracts, despite the fact that these items 

have been sold under FAR part 12 to prime contractors for years. 

Accordingly, this provision would also amend section 2306a(b)(4)(A) 

of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the current statute to provide that previous commercial item determinations made by a 

prime contractor in the acquisition of a commercial item for DOD 

will be afforded the same presumption as if that determination 

were made by a contracting officer. 

Preference for acquisition of commercial items (sec. 854) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2377(b) of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that the acquisition of commercial items and nondevelopmental items take 

priority over any small business set-aside program that would result in a non-commercial offering but to clarify that contracts for 

commercial items may be set aside for small business. 

Inapplicable laws and regulations (sec. 855) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to review and, if necessary, revise the Procedures by which the Department of Defense applies governmentunique regulations to the process by which it buys commercial 

items. It further eliminates all regulations not required by law that 

were promulgated after the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 

1996 (Public Law 103–355) that create government-unique clauses 

in contracts or subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial items 

and commercial off the shelf (COTS) items, except for regulations 

that the Secretary determines are vital to national security or required by law. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
188 

Subtitle F—Industrial Base Matters 

Review regarding applicability of foreign ownership, control, or influence requirements of national security industrial program to national technology and industrial 

base companies (sec. 861) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to review whether companies whose ownership is based in countries that are part of the national technology 

and industrial base (as defined by section 2500 of title 10, United 

States Code) should be exempted from the foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI) requirements of the National Security Industrial Program. This provision would also allow the Secretary of 

Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to maintain a list of companies whose ownership is based in countries that 

are part of the national technology and industrial base that are eligible for such an exemption from FOCI. 

Pilot program on strengthening manufacturing in defense 

industrial base (sec. 862) 

The committee recommends a provision that would create a pilot 

program that would authorize the Department of Defense to use 

existing authorities to support investments that enhance the ability 

of the defense industrial base to meet military needs. The committee notes that the Department of Defense depends on a strong 

manufacturing and industrial base, especially as it seeks to modernize weapons systems to address global threats. This base is increasingly tied to the commercial manufacturing and industrial 

base, and a growing number of defense systems are dependent on 

dual-use commercial technologies and systems. 

The provision authorizes the Department to invest in the manufacture of these kinds of technologies and systems, especially 

through the use of contracts, loan guarantees, direct loans, and 

purchases of equipment to support the startup of needed production lines. Further, the provisions allows the Department to engage 

with private sector financing and investment instruments, including instruments that take equity stakes in concerns—so as to support needed advanced manufacturing capabilities. The committee 

believes that these kinds of activities will improve the return on investment of government research programs, as well as helping critical defense suppliers maintain domestic manufacturing capabilities in the face of global competition. 

Sunset of certain provisions relating to the industrial base 

(sec. 863) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2534 of title 10, United States Code, to sunset the miscellaneous limitation on the procurement of goods other than United 

States goods at the close of September 30, 2018 relating to photovoltaic devices. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
189 

Subtitle G—International Contracting Matters 

Procurement exception relating to agreements with foreign 

governments (sec. 865) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the requirement pertaining to procurement of items grown, reprocessed, 

reused, or produced in the United States does not preclude the acquisition of items as part of a weapon system if the acquisition is 

necessary in furtherance of an agreement with a foreign government in which both governments agree to remove barriers to purchases of supplies produced in the other country or services performed by sources of the other country. 

Applicability of cost and pricing data certification requirements (sec. 866) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2306a(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that additional certification is not required for a foreign military sale where 

there is already an existing U.S. Government contract for the same 

or similar item or service for which the U.S. Government has current cost and pricing data and insights into the reasonableness of 

price. 

Enhancing program licensing (sec. 867) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, to establish a structure implementing a revised program export licensing framework in order to provide comprehensive export 

licensing authorization to support large international cooperative 

defense programs between multiple nations and determine what, if 

any, regulatory authorities require modification. 

Subtitle H—Other Transactions 

Use of Other Transaction Authority 

The passage of section 815 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) created the authority 

to use Other Transaction Authority (OTA) for prototyping and production purposes. The committee is pleased to see new and longstanding users of other transactions make additional use of this 

important and flexible contracting method. However, the committee 

remains frustrated by an ongoing lack of awareness and education 

regarding other transactions, particularly among senior leaders, 

contracting professionals, and lawyers. This lack of knowledge 

leads to an overly narrow interpretation of when OTAs may be 

used, narrow delegations of authority to make use of OTAs, a belief 

that OTAs are options of last resort for when Federal Acquisition 

Regulation (FAR) based alternatives have been exhausted, and restrictive, risk averse interpretations of how OTAs may be used. 

These behaviors force innovative projects and programs into unnecessarily restrictive contracting methods, needlessly adding bureaucracy, cost, and time. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
190 

The statutory authority for other transactions as delineated in 

section 2371 and 2371b of title 10, United States Code, is written 

in an intentionally broad manner. The Department of Defense 

(DOD) should interpret these authorities accordingly, recognizing 

that it has authority to use OTAs with the most flexible possible 

interpretation unless otherwise specified in those particular sections. Making use of OTAs, and their associated flexibility, may require senior leaders and Congress to tolerate more risk. The committee is willing to tolerate that risk, as long as it is well understood and communicated to oversight officials, and when responsibility for such risk is assigned to appropriate, accountable officials. 

Such risks can, and should, be mitigated through various means 

from oversight to program design and acquisition strategies. Importantly, any such risk must be viewed as lesser than the risks of 

stymieing innovation or slowing the development and fielding of 

critical new capabilities. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee removes additional barriers 

to the use of OTAs while also requiring DOD to increase education 

and awareness of these authorities. The committee does not wish 

to add further explicit authorities for specific functions under section 2371 or section 2371b of title 10, United States Code, as doing 

so may lead to the incorrect impression that all potential functions 

that may be executed under OTAs must be stated in statute. However, two common misinterpretations deserve clarification here. 

First, it is necessary to clarify the definition of small business for 

purposes of prototype project authority. The committee notes that 

OTAs have proven to be successful in helping the Department attract nontraditional performers, including small businesses. These 

performers carry out prototype projects that enhance the mission 

effectiveness of military personnel. The committee encourages and 

supports DOD’s efforts to expand its use of OTA for funding agreements under the Small Business Innovation Research program and 

Small Business Technology Transfer program. 

The mission of these two small business programs is to support 

scientific excellence and technological innovation through the investment of federal research funds in critical American priorities to 

build a strong national economy. Encouraging and supporting the 

Department of Defense to use proven innovative procurement processes such as OTAs for funding agreements under the small business programs will both enhance the mission effectiveness of the 

Department and help accomplish the mission of the programs. 

Second, it is necessary to clarify the follow-on production contracts using OTA. The committee notes that there has been some 

uncertainty about the proper interpretation of the requirements for 

follow-on production when using a consortium OTA model. Paragraph (f)(2) of section 2371b of title 10, United States Code, detailing the authority created in section 815, states that follow-on production ‘‘may be awarded to the participants in the transaction 

without the use of competitive procedures . . . if 

(A) competitive procedures were used for the selection of 

parties for participation in the transaction; and 

(B) the participants in the transaction successfully completed the prototype project provided for in the transaction.’’ 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
191 

‘‘Competitive procedures’’ refers to a competition for award of an 

OTA to a consortium or a competition for a particular project. Follow-on production contracts and transactions entered into pursuant 

to this section should be structured to maximize access to the participant’s products, as appropriate, from any organization within 

DOD. Accordingly, contracting officers should use a variety of established acquisition tools, including a modification to the original 

consortium-based or individual prototype project award, a separate 

OTA, or a FAR acquisition instrument. This will allow for a swifter, seamless transition of cutting-edge technologies to the 

warfighter throughout the acquisition process. 

Other transaction authority (sec. 871) 

The committee recommends a provision to streamline the process 

by which authorized officials may enter in ‘‘other transaction agreements’’ by removing the requirement for the specific approval by 

senior acquisition officials for the use of such agreements for large 

projects. This provision would also amend this authority to allow 

for the required one-third cost share to be supplied by third party 

private investment. 

Education and training for transactions other than contracts and grants (sec. 872) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subsection (g) of section 2371 of title 10, United States Code, to require 

the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Department of Defense 

provides sufficient education and training in the use of transactions 

other than contracts and grants. 

The committee is pleased with the successful use of Other Transactions to support acquisition speed and innovation. However, 

those seeking to make use of Other Transaction Authorities are too 

frequently stymied in their efforts by an acquisition workforce unfamiliar with the use of those authorities. Accordingly, the committee directs the United States Army Contracting Command, U.S. 

Navy Research Laboratory, United States Air Force Office of 

Transformational Innovation, and the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency to develop, in collaboration with the Defense Acquisition University, an Other Transaction Authority curriculum of 

education, training, and experiential learning for executives, program managers, contracting officers, lawyers, and other relevant 

stakeholders. This curriculum may be developed and executed 

using funds from the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development 

Fund. 

Preference for use of other transactions and experimental 

authority (sec. 873) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a preference for using transactions other than contracts, contracts, cooperative agreements, 

and grants for science and technology, prototyping, and experimental purposes pursuant to sections 2371, 2371b, and 2373 of title 

10, United States Code. This preference should include funds expended from 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, and other accounts used for the purVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00227 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
192 

poses of science and technology, prototyping, and experimental purposes. 

Methods for entering into research agreements (sec. 874) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2358 of title 10, United States Code, to explicitly authorize the 

use of Other Transactions Authority and Experimental Procurement Authority as methods for entering into research agreements 

with industry, academia, and other researchers and technology developers. 

The committee supports Department efforts to improve the pace 

of technological development of advanced military systems to meet 

current and future threats, and it believes that these types of research agreements can be effective in improving the speed of development and operational use of technologies and can reduce program costs. The committee believes that the use of these approaches for research efforts is already authorized and legal under 

existing law, but there is bureaucratic and cultural resistance to 

using these methods that limits their use by the bulk of the defense research and engineering enterprise. The committee notes 

that this provision is intended to provide more encouragement for 

the Department to use these types of approaches as it seeks to 

speed the process of technological innovation. 

Subtitle I—Development and Acquisition of Software 

Intensive and Digital Products and Services 

Digitizing the Department of Defense business, enterprise, 

and warfighting capabilities 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense’s 

warfighting, business, and enterprise capabilities are increasingly 

reliant on or driven by software and information technology. The 

committee notes with concern that the Department is behind other 

federal agencies and industry in implementing best practices for 

acquisition of software and information technology capabilities, to 

include agile and incremental development methods and associated 

training, tools, and infrastructure. 

The committee notes that existing law and acquisition regulation 

provide significant flexibility to the Department and that the Department has explicitly provided for tailoring in its acquisition directives and instructions. The committee is concerned, however, 

that, despite the aforementioned, the organizational culture and 

tradition of acquiring capabilities using a hardware-dominant approach remains the status quo and as such represents a significant 

impediment to effectively tailoring acquisition approaches to incorporate agile and incremental development methods suited to software-intensive business, enterprise, and warfighting capabilities. 

The committee contends that the implementation of such methods—which represent best practices for both industry and government—is absolutely vital to delivering capabilities. To ensure the 

adoption of such practices, the committee expects the Department 

to: 

(1) Strengthen the Chief Information Officer’s role in software intensive and information technology reliant business, 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
193 

enterprise, and warfighting capabilities as described elsewhere 

in this Act, by establishing and enforcing information technology policies and standards, planning and programming, and 

budget formulation and execution; 

(2) Make use of existing flexibilities via, through two pilot 

programs described elsewhere in this Act; 

(3) Push forward in implementing agile development methods via additional flexibilities in conducting a third pilot described elsewhere in this Act; and 

(4) Invest in tools and training through efforts described 

elsewhere in this act to better support the acquisition workforce. 

Rights in technical data (sec. 881) 

The committee recommends a provision what would amend section 2302 of title 10, United States Code, to define technical data 

with respect to software acquired by, and the means by which that 

data is provided to, the Department of Defense. The committee is 

concerned that the Department of Defense does not have access to, 

or make use of, all the data associated with software required to 

develop, configure, adapt, or maintain its software assets. 

The technical data required to effectively manage and maintain 

software assets goes well beyond documentation to include source 

code and also the data associated with the development, configuration, and testing of that code. The Department of Defense must ensure that it maintains access to such data as a prerequisite for improving its software practices and outcomes. 

Defense Innovation Board analysis of software acquisition 

regulations (sec. 882) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Defense Innovation Board to complete an analysis of software development and acquisition regulations for the Department of Defense. The committee is concerned about the state of software development and acquisition within the Department of Defense and 

is seeking recommendations on authorities and regulations the 

committee might create or remove in order to better enable the Department to improve its software outcomes. The committee is particularly interested in the Defense Innovation Board’s recommendations on methods by which to enable the use of industry best practices within the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense 

should ensure that the Defense Innovation Board has access to any 

information it requires to undertake this analysis. 

This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to report 

to the congressional defense committees on the preliminary findings no later than 150 days after the enactment of this Act. No 

later than 1 year after the Secretary tasks the Defense Innovation 

Board with the study, the Board should submit its report to the 

Secretary; no later than 30 days after receipt, the Secretary should 

submit the final report, together with such comments as the Secretary determines appropriate, to the congressional defense committees. The committee has authorized $1.0 million to be spent on 

personnel conducting this review, as reflected in the military personnel budget item. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
194 

Pilot to tailor software-intensive major programs to use 

agile methods (sec. 883) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Department of Defense to identify one major program per service and 

one major program acquired by a defense agency or other DOD 

component and use tailoring to realign those programs into smaller 

increments to deliver meaningfully useful capability within 180 

days of realignment. 

To achieve this objective the Department shall use the tools, resources, and expertise of digital and innovation organizations, such 

as the Defense Innovation Board; Defense Innovation Unit Experimental; Defense Science Board; Defense Digital Service; federally 

funded research and development centers, research laboratories, 

and other technical, management, and acquisition experts; the 

General Services Administration’s Office of 18F; and the science, 

technology, and innovation activities established pursuant to section 217 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92). 

Review and realignment of defense business systems to emphasize agile methods (sec. 884) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of investments in business systems and use tailoring to realign those programs to emphasize agile methods. The committee is encouraged by 

the flexibility outlined in the Department of Defense’s (DOD) recent instruction DOD 5000.75 regarding categorization, development, and acquisition of defense business systems. Recognizing the 

Department’s efforts to challenge the limitations of traditional approaches to developing and acquiring defense business systems, in 

executing section 2222(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, via the 

Department’s new instruction, the committee encourages the Department to act swiftly and boldly to implement tailoring of existing investments to reflect best practices in software-intensive programs and portfolio and category management of such programs. 

In conducting this review, the Secretary should use: the tools, resources, and expertise of digital and innovation organizations, including the Defense Innovation Board, Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, Defense Science Board, Defense Digital Service, federally funded research and development centers, research laboratories, and other technical, management, and acquisition experts; 

the General Services Administration’s Office of 18F; and the 

science, technology, and innovation activities established pursuant 

to section 217 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). 

Software development pilot using agile best practices (sec. 

885) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to identify between four and eight software 

development activities within the Department of Defense or military departments and pilot the use of modern agile methods as well 

as oversight metrics appropriate for agile development. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
195 

To achieve this objective the Secretary should: direct the use of 

streamlined processes and available rapid solicitation procedures 

(and not lowest price technically acceptable or cost plus contracts); 

direct a vision and a road map; leverage the Digital Services Playbook; direct the use of commercial best practices for advanced computing systems; award within three months of identification, delivery of functionality; direct delivery of follow-on capability 2 weeks 

apart. 

Personnel resourced toward these efforts should include a program manager, product owner, engineering lead, design lead, with 

certain qualifications best suited for agile development. 

Data rights should obtain such that software is open source and 

such that the copyright holder provides for it to be publicly available or such that sufficient data rights enable any third party to 

continue or to maintain it. 

Certain restrictions regarding the use of funds and contract types 

apply. 

In conducting this review, the Secretary should use the tools, resources, and expertise of digital and innovation organizations, including the Defense Innovation Board, Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, Defense Science Board, Defense Digital Service, federally funded research and development centers, research laboratories, and other technical, management, and acquisition experts; 

the General Services Administration’s Office of 18F; and science, 

technology, and innovation activities established pursuant to section 217 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92). 

The Secretary should report on commencement and completion of 

the pilot activity under this section. 

Use of open source software (sec. 886) 

The committee recommends a provision to improve the Department of Defense’s management of the source code, and other technical data, associated with its custom developed computer software. 

This provision covers unclassified, non-defense item software and 

does not apply to any items covered by section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778). The provision directs the Secretary to update the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to ensure that the Department negotiates access 

to its own code, manage that code using open source licenses, and 

identify means by which it can better manage the code base associated with its legacy software. The Secretary of Defense is also directed to consult with experts from the Defense Innovation Board, 

DARPA, the NSA, and the Defense Digital Service when updating 

the DFARS and drafting additional policy or instructions on the 

use of open source software and to make use of existing Department of Defense open source resources where possible. The provision further directs the Department to make use of technology 

prize competitions for improving, repurposing, or reusing software, 

and to identify methods to reverse engineer Department of Defense 

software for which source code is unavailable. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
196 

Subtitle J—Other Matters 

Improved transparency and oversight over Department of 

Defense research, development, test, and evaluation efforts and procurement activities related to medical research (sec. 891) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of Defense from entering into a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement for congressional special interest medical research program under the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program of the Department of Defense unless there is sufficient compliance with cost accounting standards and other specified 

requirements. 

Rights in technical data related to medical research (sec. 

892) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require special interest medical research programs under the Congressionally 

Directed Medical Research Program of the Department of Defense 

to include agreements that provide the United States Government 

with the same rights to the technical data that apply to items or 

processes developed under the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement as applicable under section 2320(a)(2)(A) of title 10, United 

States Code, to items and processes developed exclusively with federal funds. 

Oversight, audit, and certification from the Defense Contract Audit Agency for procurement activities related to 

medical research (sec. 893) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Defense Contract Audit Agency to certify the adequacy of the accounting systems and perform an incurred cost audit prior to the 

obligation of funds for congressional special interest medical research programs under the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program of the Department of Defense. 

Requirements for Defense Contract Audit Agency report 

(sec. 894) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

standard definition for the Defense Contract Audit Agency’s 

(DCAA) reporting on its backlog. In future reporting, DCAA should 

include any individual incurred cost audit that has not been completed within 18 months after receipt of a qualified proposal as 

part of the incurred cost audit backlog. 

Prototype projects to digitize defense acquisition regulations, policies, and guidance, and empower user tailoring of acquisition process (sec. 895) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, to develop prototypes to 

digitize defense acquisition regulations, policies, and guidance. The 

committee is concerned that the Department of Defense lacks the 

tools to effectively tailor its acquisition practices for specific 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
197 

projects. Acquisition policy itself states that policies are tailorable, 

but such flexibilities are rarely made use of in practice. The Department should therefore leverage a digital support tool to facilitate such tailoring in accordance with existing laws, regulations, 

and guidance. 

Pilot program for adoption of acquisition strategy for Defense Base Act insurance (sec. 896) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot program for the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers for purposes of adopting an acquisition strategy for insurance required by the Defense Base Act (32 

U.S.C. 1651, et seq.) in order the minimize the cost of such insurance to the Department of Defense. The contract entered into 

under this authority would be effective for at least 3 years, or as 

considered appropriate by the Secretary. The committee notes that 

this provision is not intended to change policies on support of workmen’s compensation or reduce compensation practices. The committee believes that the provision should result in a more efficient 

acquisition strategy that reduces costs to the Department of Defense. 

Phase III awards (sec. 897) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 9(r)(4) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(r)(4)). The provision would clarify that the issuance of Phase III awards should 

give preference to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) 

and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) award recipients 

who developed the technology. This provision would also clarify 

that SBIR and STTR award recipients should fulfill the competition requirements under section 2304 of title 10, United States 

Code, for military procurement. 

Pilot program for streamlined technology transition from 

the SBIR and STTR programs of the Department of Defense (sec. 898) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot program for the commercialization of products and services produced by covered small business concerns developed through the Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) 

programs. For this pilot program, the Secretary of Defense should 

set up a multiple award contract for those products and services. 

The pilot program would terminate on September 30, 2023. 

Annual report on limitation of subcontractor intellectual 

property rights (sec. 899) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees, no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act and 

annually for 5 years afterwards, a report listing all contracts entered into during the previous fiscal year using procedures under 

part 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation where the prime contractor limited the intellectual property rights of one or more subVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00233 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
198 

contractors without being required to do so by the United States 

Government. 

Extension from 20 to 30 years of maximum total period for 

Department of Defense contracts for storage, handling, 

or distribution of liquid fuels and natural gas (sec. 899A) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2922(b) of title 10, United States Code, to raise the maximum 

period of Department of Defense contracts for storage, handling, or 

distribution of liquid fuels and natural gas from 20 to 30 years. The 

committee believes that the 20-year limitation is outdated, since 

modern fuel storage infrastructure is capable of operating for up to 

30 years and could produce substantial savings. 

Exception for Department of Defense contracts from requirement that business operations conducted under 

government contracts accept and dispense $1 coins (sec. 

899B) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 5112(p)(1) of title 31, United States Code, to exempt Department of Defense contracts from the requirements in order to relieve 

the cost burden on the Department associated with these regulations. 

Investing in rural small businesses (sec. 899C) 

The committee recommends a provision that expands the pool of 

eligible communities for the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) program and 

provides much-needed flexibility to rural small businesses participating in the program. This provision allows governors to directly 

petition SBA to designate additional rural areas as HUBZones; reduces the number of a small firm’s employees required to live within a HUBZone from 35 to 33 percent; and requires SBA’s HUBZone 

office to make a decision on a governor’s application within 60 

days. 

Items of Special Interest 

Assess requirements in certain categories of business systems for consolidation to pursue cost-effective solutions 

The committee notes with concern that the military services continue to separately procure business systems in categories where 

requirements could be consolidated for efficiency and cost-effectiveness, such as contract writing, personnel and pay, and enterprise 

resource programs. Accordingly, the committee has recommended 

reductions in the research and development and procurement accounts for systems in these categories. 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to refocus 

its efforts toward common solutions in these categories. As outlined 

under DOD Instruction 5000.75 pertaining to defense business systems, the Department should take a portfolio approach to categories, should leverage the use of fixed-price contracting, and pursue the use of commercial-off-the-shelf solutions that minimize 

customization, and more frequent delivery of increments. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
199 

Leveraging the use of fixed-price contracts entails that sufficient 

technical risk, business process re-engineering, and software engineering work has been done prior to contract award. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee has established a pilot program for business systems that would encourage use of commercial 

best practices in cost-effective agile development, and the committee recommends that the systems separately pursued by the 

military services in these categories be considered for participation 

in that pilot. 

Avoidance of specification of contractor facility locations in 

solicitations and contract requirements 

The committee notes with concern the use by the United States 

Department of the Army organizations of contract requirements 

that set specific criteria for locations of contractor facilities. The 

committee notes that in some cases these restrictive requirements 

are driven by law or policy, and that in some cases the location of 

a contractor’s facility may be a legitimate factor in source selection 

designed to produce the best value for warfighters and taxpayers. 

However, these types of restrictions may also be used to unfairly 

limit competitions to favor specific contractors. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to identify all solicitations 

released in the past 2 years which specify contractor location as a 

requirement for contract award. The Secretary should then determine whether this requirement was justified based on statutory, 

regulatory, or policy requirements, or are legitimately a 

differentiator in determining the best value to soldiers and to the 

taxpayer. The committee directs the Secretary to report the results 

of this review and analysis to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives, no later than June 

1, 2018. 

Commercial off-the-shelf power supplies 

The Committee understands the implementation of commercial 

items in military systems offers significant opportunities for reduced development time, faster insertion of new technology, and 

lower life-cycle costs. Maximizing the use of commercially mature 

technology provides the greatest opportunity to meet program cost, 

schedule, and performance objectives and is consistent with an evolutionary acquisition strategy to address today’s threats. 

However, the committee is concerned that program managers 

apply a broad brush stroke to the use of commercial items in an 

effort to address these objectives, introducing unnecessary risk to 

systems in the interest of a cost or schedule tradeoff. The fact remains, commercially available power supplies remain a primary 

failure mode of military systems. The cost and schedule savings 

driven from the implementation of commercially available power 

supplies in military aircraft, ground vehicles, and ships is rarely 

worth the risk introduced to the system based on the unreliable design of commercial power supplies. Commercially available power 

supplies are not robustly designed to account for military environments, including the threats posed by electromagnetic interference, 

varying temperature and humidity conditions, or the shock and vibration loads commonly found on military platforms. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
200 

Today’s industrial base does offer a range of robust power supply 

products specifically designed for military environments. These robust products consider design specifications in line with the rugged 

environments in which they’ll by subjected to throughout their 

lifecycle. These considerations lead to a highly reliable power supply that significantly reduces this as a failure mode. 

The committee encourages program managers and acquisition 

professionals to pay particular attention to the intended product 

use environment and understand the extent to which this environment differs from the commercial use environment. Further, the 

committee expects appropriate testing and qualification of power 

supplies to ensure technical risk is reduced. 

Comptroller General evaluation of Contractor Business Systems Improvement Program 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to submit to the congressional defense committees a report 

evaluating the extent to which the Contractor Business Systems 

Improvement Program established pursuant to section 893 of the 

Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 (Public Law 111–383; 10 U.S.C. 2302 note) has improved the 

ability of the contractors to perform work on Department programs 

and the ability of the Department of Defense to manage and oversee contractor performance. This report is due no later than 180 

days after the enactment of this Act. The evaluation should cover 

the following topics: 

(1) A description of how the program was implemented, including scope, roles, and responsibilities; data generated; and 

program activities; 

(2) An accounting of program implementation costs to the 

Department; 

(3) An assessment of program implementation costs to contractors, including an accounting of costs to implement and 

how these costs compare to the value of the contractor’s total 

gross revenue allocated to United States Government contracts; 

(4) Identification of how the Contractor Business Systems 

Improvement Program led to improvements in contractor performance on programs or improved Department management 

and Department oversight of the programs, considering the 

various phase of the acquisition process (acquisition planning, 

award, administration, oversight, and closeout); 

(5) An assessment of the relative value and role of independent third party auditors and government auditors in assessing a contractor’s business systems; 

(6) Identification of information that would be useful to the 

Department and contractors in assessing contractor business 

systems; 

(7) Identification of improvements in management and oversight in situations where contractors perform on more than one 

Department program; 

(8) Representative case studies; and 

(9) A description of any other matters the Comptroller General determines to be relevant. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
201 

Cybersecurity in modernizing the Department of Defense 

healthcare management system 

The Department of Defense Healthcare Management System 

Modernization (DHMSM) program is designed to support a continuum of medical care for military personnel and enable 

healthcare personnel to easily access service members’ medical 

records worldwide. In fiscal year 2017, the Department successfully 

fielded DHMSM to a small, outpatient-only hospital at Fairchild 

Air Force Base. The committee notes that the Program Executive 

Office DHMS has worked closely with both the Department’s medical community and the DHMSM contractor to re-engineer the Department’s medical business processes to adapt to the contractor’s 

existing, off-the-shelf medical business software solution. The committee also notes that the Department’s swift deployment of capability to Fairchild demonstrates the Department’s progress in implementing best practices for IT acquisition. The committee strongly approves of these actions as they reduce risk and save time and 

money for the Department. 

The committee is encouraged by the recent decision that the Department of Veterans Affairs will use Department of Defense’s 

Military Health System (MHS) Genesis as its future electronic 

health record system, as this represents an opportunity for significant efficiencies and to ease transition and interoperability between 

service members’ and veterans’ records who are entering the VA’s 

medical system. 

The committee notes that the program has funded extensive cybersecurity testing and this is appropriate for a system that will 

eventually store medical and financial information for over 9 million DOD beneficiaries worldwide. However, the committee is concerned that many of the cybersecurity problems discovered to date 

have not yet been fixed. The committee is concerned it would put 

the medical records of DOD personnel — and, given the VA’s recent 

decision to use MHS Genesis, potentially veterans as well—at unnecessary risk, and accordingly the committee strongly encourages 

the Department to address cybersecurity vulnerabilities prior to additional deployments. 

Cybersecurity Regulation—Small Business Compliance Assistance 

The committee supports efforts by the Department of Defense to 

develop a new cyber security and incident reporting process for defense contractors with access to controlled unclassified information 

stored on or processed by contractor information systems, as required by Section 914 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239). The committee is aware, 

however, that the Department’s implementation of this requirement through the new contracting clause on Safeguarding Covered 

Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting in DFARS 

252.204–7012 has been a cause of concern and confusion from 

many in industry, including small businesses and businesses for 

which defense revenue is a small portion of their overall operations. The committee is aware of the Department’s efforts to assist 

industry with implementation of this new guidance, but remains 

concerned by the degree to which small businesses and other nonVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00237 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
202 

traditional defense contractors are struggling to meet this requirement. Therefore, the Committee urges the Department to collaborate with universities or other organizations to provide low-cost cybersecurity services to small businesses, as recommended by the 

U.S. Small Businesses Administration Office of Advocacy in a public comment published on February 29, 2016, and increase outreach 

efforts to small businesses regarding their obligations under the 

regulation. 

The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to review 

industry compliance with the DFARS clause, including particular 

compliance challenges among small businesses producing commercial items with defense revenue as only a small share of overall 

revenue. The review should also assess the efficacy of the Department’s efforts to assist industry with implementation and should 

include input from affected contractors, including both prime and 

subcontractors. Finally, the review should consider and make a recommendation regarding any delay or exception to the December 31, 

2017 compliance deadline and the associated impact on both the 

Department’s access to the industrial base and cyber and information security standards. The Secretary shall brief the armed services committees of the House and Senate on the results of the review no later than October 15, 2017. 

Defense Acquisition University research collaboration with 

academia 

The committee notes that the Defense Acquisition University 

performs some research on acquisition policy issues in order to improve training of acquisition professionals and to support development of innovative acquisition models and practices. The committee 

believes that these activities should be expanded and better connected with research efforts and expertise in academia. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Director of the Defense Acquisition University to develop, maintain, and promulgate a list of high priority 

academic research and analysis topics on defense acquisition policy 

issues. The intent of this list is to make academic and governmentaffiliated researchers aware of the topics that are of particular concern to the defense acquisition community and to guide their research to areas that will have a higher likelihood of impact. The 

committee notes that the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) provided specific authority 

for the Department of Defense to use funds within the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund to support some of these 

types of research activities and that section 217 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) 

authorized a program of science and technology activities that were 

in part intended to leverage research capabilities to improve acquisition policies and practices. 

Defense Innovation Unit Experimental 

The committee applauds the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx) for accelerating the adoption of private sector innovations by the Department. The services DIUx offers are important 

to accessing technological advances from nontraditional defense 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
203 

contractors, for whom the speed of defense contracting presents too 

great a hurdle to do business. 

The committee encourages DIUx to continue to support Department of Defense missions by providing flexible and streamlined acquisition of new technologies. The committee directs the Department to consider expanding the mission of the Unit to include new 

physical locations at which DIUx may post reservists as in the 

model piloted in Austin, Texas, with a specific emphasis on evaluating locations that would allow a close collaboration with Department of Defense laboratories. 

Department of Defense exemptions from certain regulations 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review, no 

later than January 1, 2018, the costs and benefits of exempting 

purchases by the Department of Defense and the National Nuclear 

Security Administration from the following executive orders and 

presidential memorandum as necessary: (1) Executive Order 13706 

(Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors); (2) Executive Order 13655 (Non-Retaliation of Disclosure of Compensation 

Information) (3) Executive Order 13655 (Non-Retaliation for Disclosure of Compensation Information); (4) Presidential Memorandum: 

Advancing Pay Equality Through Compensation Data Collection; 

(5) Presidential Memorandum: Updating and Modernizing Overtime Regulations; (6) Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Contractor Tax Delinquency; (7) Executive Order 13495 (Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under 

Service Contracts); (8) Executive Order 13494 (Economy in Government Contracting); (9) Executive Order 13496 (Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor Laws); and (10) Executive 

Order 13502 (Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal Construction Projects). 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to recommend exemptions or changes as necessary to best support efficient and effective execution of Department of Defense missions. 

Exchanges with industry before receipt of proposals 

Consistent with existing acquisition regulations and committee 

initiatives, the committee believes that exchanges of information 

among all interested parties, from the earliest identification of a requirement through receipt of proposals, should be highly encouraged. Any exchange of information must be consistent with procurement integrity requirements so as to avoid creating unfair advantages for potential proposers. The committee believes that the 

purpose of exchanging information is to improve the understanding 

of DOD requirements and industry capabilities, thereby allowing 

potential offerors to judge whether or how they can satisfy the 

DOD’s requirements, and increasing DOD’s knowledge of what solutions industry could offer to satisfy the requirement, enhancing 

the ability to obtain quality supplies and services, at reasonable 

prices, and increase efficiency in proposal preparation, proposal 

evaluation, negotiation, and contract award. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
204 

Impact of Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) 

contract vehicles on small businesses and innovation 

The committee is concerned about the effect of the Department’s 

use of the One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services (OASIS) 

multiple award, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract vehicles on the small business community and on innovation. 

The structure and the use of the OASIS vehicles may be creating 

disincentives for small businesses, reducing competition and negatively affecting innovation. 

The committee is concerned OASIS does not have a consistent or 

transparent process for on boarding or off boarding companies, nor 

does it have a consistent review of companies currently on the vehicle. OASIS does not contain a pathway for subcontractors to gain 

the experience necessary to compete to on board as a prime contractor, and incumbent companies not already on the vehicle are 

unable to compete for contracts they currently hold. Finally, the 

committee is concerned OASIS requirements may be too burdensome for some small businesses to meet reasonably. Understanding 

IDIQ contract vehicles may offer efficiencies to the Department; the 

committee believes these efficiencies must be balanced with support for the small business community and the innovation that 

community can offer. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to analyze and 

submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the effect of Department’s use of the OASIS IDIQ contract vehicles on 

the small business community and on innovation. 

Increase in licensing fees and the negative competitive impact on the services sector 

The committee is concerned with the recent surge in licensing 

fees being charged to acquire necessary parts and components used 

in the maintenance of the military’s aging aviation and ground 

fleet. This increase in licensing fees is unnecessarily increasing 

costs to the government and having a negative impact on competition within the services sector. The committee strongly recommends that the government negotiate data rights and intellectual property costs directly with the original equipment manufacturers to encourage competition to achieve the best value for the 

government. 

Integrity of patented intellectual property in reverse engineering programs 

The committee supports the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA’s) 

reverse engineering program but is concerned that small business 

intellectual property is not being adequately protected, especially in 

those cases where end items are developed without federal funding 

and are patented. The Committee directs the Comptroller General 

of the United States to conduct a review of DLA’s application of reverse engineering. The review will determine: if DLA has adequate 

measures in place to protect small business intellectual property; 

if DLA is providing patented materials to third-party contractors; 

if Department of Defense Instruction 4140.57 requires modification 

to provide guidance to protect small business intellectual property. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
205 

Notice of cost-free federal procurement technical assistance 

in connection with registration of small business concerns in procurement systems 

The Director of the Defense Logistics Agency, in consultation 

with the Administrator of General Services and the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget, shall establish procedures to ensure that any notice or direct communication regarding registration 

of a small business concern in a procurement system contains information about cost-free federal procurement technical assistance 

services that are available through the Small Business Administration, Procurement Technical Assistance Centers of the Defense Logistics Agency, the Department of Commerce (including the Minority Business Development Agency), and other Federal agencies and 

programs. 

Ongoing improvement to the management of the National 

Technology and Industrial Base 

The committee strongly supports international cooperative defense agreements that serve to reduce barriers and enhance collaboration between the United States and our strongest allies. The 

committee is concerned, however, that even following the conclusion of these agreements certain barriers remain that restrict cooperation on an industrial level, limiting the exchange of information, data, and technology between domestic industry and our closest allied industrial partners participating in the national technological and industrial base. The committee believes that enabling 

such collaboration would contribute significantly to the successful 

development, production, and fielding of the highest-quality systems at the most reasonable costs. Specifically, the committee is 

concerned that certain barriers to cooperation may be discouraging 

domestic industry from fully leveraging mature systems and technology solutions already developed by our allies that could benefit 

the U.S. and allied operating community, resulting in unnecessary, 

costly, and redundant development initiatives. These barriers also 

impact the ability of those countries that are part of the U.S. national technology and industrial base to modify U.S.-origin equipment, preventing proper integration and uniformity across their 

armed forces and discouraging them from purchasing equipment 

from the United States. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense is currently 

undertaking a review, in consultation with interagency partners, of 

various authorities, requirements, and their implications, related to 

National Technology and Industrial Base countries. The committee 

directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the relevant congressional 

defense committees no later than 30 days after completion of the 

review or no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act. 

The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure 

that this review addresses: 

(1) The manner in which National Technology and Industrial 

Base countries may transfer controlled material within the National Technology and Industrial Base, including once materials have been exported from the United States to one of these 

countries; 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
206 

(2) The mechanisms by which National Technology and Industrial Base countries can raise and address concerns in a 

multilateral forum; and 

(3) The extent to which the authorities and obligations of National Technology and Industrial Base countries conflict with 

existing bilateral treaties. 

Procurement Technical Assistance Center transitional cost 

share 

The committee recognizes the valuable role of Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (PTACs) in assisting small businesses to 

compete in the defense marketplace. The Procurement Technical 

Assistance Program (PTAP) was authorized in 1985 and is administered by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). DLA provides funding through PTAP on a cost share basis. The federal cost share is 

limited to no more than 50 percent, unless a PTAC provides services in a distressed area, as defined by regional unemployment 

rates, in which case the government cost share is limited to no 

more than 75 percent. The Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization provided DLA discretion to fund up to 65 percent of 

program costs for PTACs serving non-distressed service areas but 

DLA has not yet used the discretion to do so. 

The committee is concerned that for PTACs serving regions 

transitioning from distressed to non-distressed status, a reduction 

in government cost share from 75 percent to 50 percent would have 

a significant negative impact on PTAC activities and undermine 

small business activity in regions that are only beginning to experience reduction in unemployment. This creates uncertainty for those 

PTACs which may be required to reduce small business assistance 

which could serve to increase unemployment in the impacted region. The committee urges DLA to use existing authority to provide 

up to a 65 percent cost share to PTACs serving non-distressed service areas that within the prior three years served distressed service 

areas, prioritizing applications that have the highest likelihood of 

delivering best value to the Department of Defense. 

Program Management Report 

The committee is interested in how the Department of Defense 

can incorporate nationally accredited standards for project, program, and portfolio management—as required by Public Law 104– 

113 and Public Law 114–264—into its existing project, program, 

and portfolio management policy, guidance, and instruction, as well 

as how it may replace or revise existing policy, guidance, and instruction related to project, program, and portfolio management. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to deliver, not later than 90 days after enactment, a report 

to Congress on the adoption of project, program, and portfolio management standards within the Department of Defense. 

Report on Monopolistic Practices 

The Defense Logistics Agency is responsible for achieving fair 

and reasonable prices for noncompetitive spare parts required for 

Department of Defense equipment. The committee is concerned 

about allegations that, in some cases, the Defense Logistics Agency 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
207 

is paying excessive prices for noncompetitive spare parts without 

conducting thorough cost analyses. The committee is also aware of 

allegations that some contractors who provide spare parts to the 

government may be disguising their cost structures from procurement officers, in effect acting as hidden monopolists, decreasing 

competition and increasing prices to the government. 

The committee therefore directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to conduct a study of Department of Defense and Defense Logistics Agency processes for purchasing noncompetitive 

spare parts and make recommendations for how to improve transparency and reporting in this area. The committee further directs 

the Comptroller General to provide a final report to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2018, on the results of 

the study. 

Strategic Capabilities Office Support 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense acquisition process has proven ineffective for on-time procurement 

due to institutional reliance on military development that does not 

capitalize on the private sector, which is the driving force of innovation today and for the future. 

Furthermore, the committee recognizes that the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) is demonstrating promising concepts and systems with innovative programs that average completion in three 

years using a comparatively small budget. 

In order to enhance Department of Defense acquisition, the committee encourages the transition of technology developed by SCO 

for rapid fielding of new capabilities, the adoption of SCO culture 

of both competition and failing without fear of punishment, as well 

as the application of SCO lesson’s learned to improve the Department of Defense acquisitions process. 

Supporting the Development and Commercialization of National Security Technologies 

The committee supports the efforts of the Department of Defense’s MD5 National Security Technology Accelerator Program to 

build new partnerships to connect innovators and entrepreneurs 

with the education, networks, and resources to capitalize on Defense-inspired technologies to advance U.S. security and economic 

priorities. The Committee recognizes the national security imperative for developing a network of innovators and entrepreneurs both 

inside and outside of the Department of Defense equipped with the 

incentives, expertise, know-how, and resources required to successfully develop, commercialize, or apply technology relevant to the 

military. The Committee recommends continued support of the 

MD5 National Security Technology Accelerator’s activities, further 

building and scaling the necessary components to support civil 

military partnerships in technology research and development. 

Use of Commercial Services 

The committee notes that for some services, like transportation 

and communications, security and reliability requirements of the 

Department of Defense are often more strict than those of the commercial market. In May 2017, TRANSCOM Commander General 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
208 

Darren McDew testified during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the distinct vulnerability USTRANSCOM faces 

because the majority of the command’s transportation data resides 

and travels through the unsecure commercial internet. In his testimony Commander McDew stated, ‘‘I do not have the authority to 

compel a commercial industry to bring their standards up to the 

level that we have inside. Nor are we assured exactly what that 

standard is. We do know that inside the Department of Defense, 

U.S. CYBERCOM and others have established a standard that we 

believe that our networks are protected. Outside, I guarantee you 

that every CEO thinks that they have the level that they think 

they need. Reconciling what they think and what reality is, is important.’’ The Committee urges the Department of Defense to carefully balance requirements, risk, and cost when procuring commercial services, especially in circumstances where the Department requires higher standards than are generally available in the commercial marketplace. While commercial service providers can offer 

innovation, efficiencies, and cost savings, these benefits should not 

be to the detriment of security or other military unique standards. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(209) 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 

Subtitle A—Office of the Secretary of Defense and Related 

Matters 

Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense 

(sec. 901) 

The committee recommends a provision clarifying and expanding 

the responsibilities of the Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense. The committee notes the upcoming establishment 

of the Chief Management Officer position as required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 

114–328). Last year’s legislation established the role with the mission of managing the business operations of the Department, 

through the establishment of policies on, and supervision of, such 

operations. The Chief Management Officer was also charged with 

serving as the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on 

specified activities and programs, and given explicit authority to direct the secretaries of the military departments and the heads of 

all other elements of the Department with regard to business operations. 

The committee remains committed to an empowered and active 

Chief Management Officer, exercising these authorities across the 

Department to transform business operations of all components. 

The committee recommends this provision to create three areas of 

expanded authority for the Chief Management Officer, including: 

(1) Oversight, direction and control of the business-focused defense 

agencies and field activities; (2) The assumption of some Chief Information Officer roles for the purpose of federal statute and in 

business systems; and (3) Coordination of enterprise governance 

and utilization of data for management purposes. 

The committee notes that defense agencies and field activities require increased oversight in order to ensure effective and efficient 

performance. The current structure of assignment to staff principals within the Office of the Secretary of Defense has led to insufficient oversight for the agencies’ performance and for their ability 

to support the Department in core functions. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would assign to the Chief 

Management Officer (upon establishment of the position) the responsibility for oversight, direction and control of the business-support Defense Agencies and Field Activities identified by the Secretary of Defense by January 15, 2018. Of course, principal staff assistants aligned to these organizations would continue to be closely 

connected to their operations. The Secretary of Defense shall make 

arrangements for the transfer of these entities to be effected with 

minimal disruption to their functioning and broader support of the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
210 

Department. The Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the specified elements of this transfer. Within the provision, ‘Shared business services’ is meant to indicate those activities that constitute the business operations of the 

Department of Defense, and not those activities that are directly 

tied to specific technical missions (e.g., intelligence, threat response). 

The committee notes that the current Chief Information Officer 

is expected to perform roles ranging from traditional Chief Information Officer functions to warfighting capabilities like offensive 

cyber and technical operations. However, decisions related to business systems could be more effectively handed by the entity coordinating business management and reform across the Department. 

Therefore, the committee recommends the shifting of several major 

Chief Information Officer functions to the Chief Management Officer organization, and consolidation of the rest in a Chief Information Warfare Officer. 

Further, the committee notes that true transformation of the Department’s business operations will require the availability and use 

of large amounts of data from a number of diverse systems across 

the Department. The committee directs the Chief Management Officer to develop an enterprise-level plan for data governance for the 

Department, with a particular emphasis on the gathering and 

usage of data with clear management implications. Subject to the 

authority, direction and control of the Secretary of Defense, the 

Chief Management Officer shall have the authority to direct all Department elements to share their business operations and/or management-related data in order to inform the business transformation mission. 

The committee’s intent is not for the addition of large internal 

bureaucracy to manage these new responsibilities, and expects the 

Chief Management Officer to instead gather those personnel currently fulfilling these roles within the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Chief Information Officer organization. However, the 

committee acknowledges the overriding importance of fundamental 

business transformation across the Department, and expects the 

Department to use the direct hiring authority for management experts referenced elsewhere in this bill to encourage a robust capability aimed at improving business management across the enterprise. 

Realignment of responsibilities, duties, and powers of Chief 

Information Officer of the Department of Defense (sec. 

902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 142 of title 10, United States Code, concerning the Chief Information Officer (CIO), by elevating the role and realigning its authorities and responsibilities to two other officials. This provision 

would establish a Chief Information Warfare Officer (CIWO) who 

would assume responsibility for defense-wide information 

warfighting functions. The roles and responsibilities of the current 

CIO concerning business systems and statutory requirements not 

specified within the CIWO’s purview would fall to the Chief Management Officer (CMO) of the Department of Defense. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
211 

The CIWO would be a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed 

position that reports directly to the Secretary of Defense and is responsible for all matters relating to the information environment of 

the Department of Defense. The CIWO would have the authority 

to establish policy for and direct the secretaries of the military departments and the heads of all other elements of the Department 

on matters concerning: (1) Space and space launch systems; (2) 

Communications networks and information technology (other than 

business systems); (3) National Security Systems; (4) Information 

assurance and cybersecurity; (5) Electronic warfare and cyber warfare; (6) Nuclear command and control and senior leadership communications systems; (7) Command and control systems and networks; (8) The electromagnetic spectrum; (9) Positioning, navigation, and timing; and (10) Any other matters assigned to the Chief 

Information Officer of the Department of Defense, not relating to 

business systems or management, in section 2223 and 2224 of title 

10, United States Code, sections 11315 of title 40, United States 

Code, and sections 3506 and 3544 of title 44, United States Code. 

The provision would also establish the CIWO with the authority, 

direction, and control over the missions, programs, and organizational elements pertaining to the Information Assurance mission 

(formally the Information Directorate) of the National Security 

Agency. The provision would assign the CIWO with the authority, 

direction, and control over the Defense Information Systems Agency and with responsibilities for policy, oversight, guidance, and coordination for all Department matters relating to electromagnetic 

spectrum. 

The provision would specify that the authority of the CIWO to 

direct the secretaries includes: (1) Playing a significant and directive role in the decision processes for all annual and multi-year 

planning, programming, budgeting, and execution decisions, including the authority to realign relevant elements of the budget requests of the military departments; (2) Reviewing and approving 

any funding request or reprogramming request; (3) Ensuring that 

the military departments comply with Government and Department standards; (4) Reviewing and approving the appointment of 

any other employee who functions in the capacity of a Chief Information Officer or a Chief Information Warfare Officer for any component within the Department (except for the Chief Management 

Officer of the Department of Defense); and (5) Participating in all 

relevant meetings, management, and decision-making forums. The 

provision would also assign to the CIWO the authority to require 

the military departments to comply with U.S. Government and Department standards. 

The provision would establish the CIWO as the Principal Cyber 

Advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the Principal Department 

of Defense Space Advisor. The provision would also establish collaborative mechanisms with other relevant Department entities for 

developing and overseeing the execution of offensive and defensive 

information warfare strategies, plans, programs, and operations. 

The committee has concerns that the existing organizational construct and resourcing authorities within the Department of Defense 

for space, cyber, and information are not commensurate with the 

organizational structure and resourcing required to meet the deVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
212 

mands of 21st century warfare. Information is central to modern 

warfare, yet it is treated as an afterthought in a Department postured to man, train, and equip forces to operate in the land, air, 

and sea domains. As a result, the space and cyberspace domains 

and the overall information environment have failed to receive the 

dedicated focus and prioritization required to meet the demands of 

a rapidly changing battlefield centered on the transmittal, surety, 

exploitation, and dominance of information. 

Moreover, the committee believes that the existing authorities of 

the Chief Information Officer (CIO) are insufficient to address the 

multitude of management challenges across the Department of Defense information environment. Countless efforts across the Department of Defense are plagued by poorly enforced standards and 

a CIO position whose policy and guidance are largely considered as 

advisory by the Services. As a result, each Service continues to pursue disparate information technology and business systems efforts. 

In some instances, such as the Joint Information Environment, two 

of the Services have largely agreed to adopt standards for implementation, yet the Navy has only agreed to support the ‘‘spirit and 

intent’’ of this foundational effort for implementing a defendable 

Department-wide infrastructure. 

The information environment challenges do not end with the acquisition of information technology. Space and cyber are equally 

under-prioritized and require an organizational construct that recognizes information dominance as a critical element of warfighting. 

With respect to space, numerous studies over the past 2 decades 

have exposed issues with the programmatic decision-making that is 

fragmented across more than 60 offices in the Department of Defense. Funding for space programs within the Air Force is also near 

30-year lows, while the threats and our reliance on space are at 

their highest and growing. The Air Force was also unable to 

prioritize and fund $772.0 million worth of space priorities in its 

fiscal year 2018 budget request, opting instead to include those requirements on an unfunded priorities list. 

Similarly in cyber, the Cyber Mission Force is scheduled to 

achieve Full Operational Capability for manning and training. 

However, the funding necessary to equip that force has not been 

fully budgeted for by the Services. As a result, the Department of 

Defense is on the path to fielding a hollow cyber force: 6,200 

trained personnel who lack the tools required to protect, deter, and 

respond to malicious cyber behavior. The Services failed to 

prioritize a combined $700.0 million in their fiscal year 2018 budget requests, instead opting to shift those burdens to the unfunded 

requirements list. Some of the Services have also demonstrated an 

inability to manage their people within the Cyber Mission Force, 

which is especially alarming to the committee given the level of importance being placed on building the force. 

Until there is an official in the Department of Defense who can 

prioritize these missions, the committee is concerned that the priorities for space, cyber, and information will never receive the 

resourcing and senior level attention necessary to compete against 

the parochial interests of each individual Service. The Services 

should be postured to achieve dominance in their respective unique 

domains; however, tradeoffs should be considered against DepartVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00248 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
213 

ment-wide resourcing, not as a subset forced to compete against the 

parochial tendencies of each of the Services. 

The committee believes the establishment of the CIWO should 

require very few, if any, additional personnel. The committee believes personnel should be resourced from offices and personnel 

currently within the office of the CIO or among other offices, such 

as that of the Principal Department of Defense Space Advisor and 

Principal Cyber Advisor, currently scattered across the Department 

in various existing stovepipes. 

Clarification of the authority of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment with respect to 

service acquisition programs for which the service acquisition executive is the milestone decision authority 

(sec. 903) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 901 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the authority of 

the future Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment (USD (A&S)) under section 133b(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, with respect to service acquisition programs for which 

the service acquisition executive is the milestone decision authority. 

Executive schedule matters relating to Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (sec. 904) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (A&S) 

as an Executive Level III position. When the committee reorganized the office of Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Under 

Secretary for Research and Engineering (R&E) was established as 

an Executive Level II position, which is one step below a cabinet 

official, in order to prioritize innovation efforts which had become 

moribund in recent years. The other Under Secretaries in the Office of the Secretary of Defense are Executive Level III, which is 

appropriately one step below the Deputy Secretary of Defense. This 

aligns the Under Secretary of Defense for A&S with the level of the 

other Under Secretaries. 

Technical amendment (sec. 905) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 901(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) in order to repeal the section regarding service of the incumbent Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition and Technology relative to the position of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. 

Redesignation of Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness as Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Health (sec. 906) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 136 of title 10, United States Code, to redesignate Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness as the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Health and make necessary 

conforming amendments. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
214 

Qualifications for appointment and additional duties and 

powers of certain officials within the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (sec. 907) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 135 of title 10, United States Code, to require individuals appointed to the positions of Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Deputy Chief Financial Officer to have significant financial management service, which includes having previously 

served as the chief financial officer, deputy chief financial officer, 

or an equivalent executive-level position with direct authority for 

financial management in a large public- or private-sector organization that received an audit with an unqualified opinion on its financial statements. 

Five-year period of relief from Active Duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of the Armed 

Forces for appointment to Under Secretary of Defense 

positions (sec. 908) 

The committee includes a provision that would establish the requirement for a 5-year separation from Active Duty as a commissioned officer before serving in a position of Undersecretary of Defense. The current requirement currently exists for three of the 

Under Secretaries (Research and Engineering; Acquisition and 

Sustainment; and Policy). 

Redesignation of Principal Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense as Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense and related matters (sec. 909) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 137a of title 10, United States Code, to redesignate all Principal Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense as Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense and would increase the authorized number of 

Deputy Under Secretaries of Defense from five to six. This amendment reflects the elimination of subordinate Deputy Under Secretaries and reflects that these positions are the immediate and senior subordinate to the Under Secretaries of Defense. 

Additionally, this provision would designate the newly authorized 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering 

and the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment as two of the authorized positions, consistent with the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense reorganization provisions in the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public 

Law 114–328). 

Reduction of number and elimination of specific designations of Assistant Secretaries of Defense (sec. 910) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 138(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, to reduce the total 

number of authorized Assistant Secretaries of Defense from 14 to 

13, and eliminate specific designation for all but two. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
215 

Limitation of maximum number of Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Defense (sec. 911) 

The committee recommends a provision that would set the maximum number of authorized Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Defense to 46. 

Modification of definition of OSD personnel for purposes of 

limitation on number of Office of Secretary of Defense 

personnel (sec. 912) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 143(b) of title 10, United States Code, to include contractor 

personnel working in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) 

in the total number of OSD personnel, for purposes of adhering to 

the reduction in headquarters mandated by section 903(a) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public 

Law 114–328). 

Subtitle B—Organization of Other Department of Defense 

Offices and Elements 

Reduction in authorized number of Assistant Secretaries of 

the military departments (sec. 921) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3016(a), section 5016(a), and section 8016(a) of title 10, United 

States Code, to reduce the number of authorized Assistant Secretaries of each of the services by one. 

Qualifications for appointment of Assistant Secretaries of 

the military departments for financial management (sec. 

922) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 3016, 5016, and 8016 of title 10, United States Code, to require individuals appointed to the positions of Assistant Secretary 

of the military departments for financial management to have significant financial management service, which includes having previously served as the chief financial officer, deputy chief financial 

officer, or an equivalent executive-level position with direct authority for financial management in a large public- or private-sector organization that received an audit with an unqualified opinion on its 

financial statements. 

Subtitle C—Organization and Management of the 

Department of Defense Generally 

Reduction in limitation of number of Department of Defense 

SES positions (sec. 931) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1109(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) to reduce the number of Department of Defense Senior Executive Service positions from 1,260 to 

1,140. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
216 

Manner of carrying out reductions in major Department of 

Defense headquarters activities (sec. 932) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92) to require that the reductions to headquarters activities made pursuant to that section be carried out 

after a consideration of current manpower levels, historic manpower levels, mission requirements, and anticipated staffing needs 

of such headquarters activities necessary to meet national defense 

objectives. The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense will execute the reductions required by section 346 in a uniform, or so-called ‘‘salami-slice’’ manner, divorced from analysis 

and critical assessment of national defense objectives, and the differing relative responsibilities between headquarters, particularly 

the combatant commands. For example, the committee is aware 

that manpower levels at Pacific Command have actually decreased 

since 1975, even as the threats in that region have grown, resulting 

in the President in 2011 identifying the need to intensify the U.S. 

presence there, stating his goal that ‘‘the United States will play 

a larger and long-term role in shaping this region and its future.’’ 

The committee, consequently, believes it imperative that the Department assess manpower requirements critically, and use the 

headquarters reduction requirement of section 346 to redistribute 

resources, rather than to mindlessly meet a statutory requirement. 

Certifications on cost savings achieved by reductions in 

major Department of Defense headquarters activities 

(sec. 933) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92) to require that the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation certify mandated cost savings 

estimated for headquarters reductions. 

Direct hire authority for the Department of Defense for personnel to assist in business transformation and management innovation (sec. 934) 

The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 

Secretary of Defense the authority to appoint a small group of individuals to assist the Department in management innovation. The 

provision specifies that the appointments covered in this section 

must be completed on a term basis, specified at the time of the appointment, and that each must have experience in management 

and organizational change. 

The committee strongly encourages that this authority be used to 

create a small organization focused on business transformation 

across the Department of Defense, outside of the line management 

of defense agencies. The committee intends that these personnel be 

used to recommend opportunities to eliminate waste and inefficiency, reduce the cost of Department of Defense operations, and 

consolidate functions where appropriate. 

The committee expects this provision to be used in conjunction 

with section 913 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) and section 1111 of the NaVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00252 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
217 

tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 

114–92). 

Data analytics capability for support of enhanced oversight 

and management of the Defense Agencies and Department of Defense Field Activities (sec. 935) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Deputy Chief Management Officer (and successor positions) to establish and maintain a data analytics capability for oversight and 

management of the defense agencies and field activities. This capability would include an accurate tabulation of the expenditures by 

each of these entities on personnel, an accurate tabulation of personnel within each entity, and a clear mapping of the functions 

being performed by these agencies and the resources allocated 

against each. This capability would be informed by data gathered 

from the defense agencies and field activities, as well as elsewhere 

within the Department of Defense. An interim report on the 

standup of this capability would be required to be submitted to the 

congressional defense committees, as well as a final report due no 

later than December 31, 2020. 

Enhanced use of data analytics to improve acquisition program outcomes (sec. 936) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, acting through the Deputy Chief Management Officer (and successor positions), in coordination with the 

Armed Forces and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics (and successor positions), to establish a 

set of activities that use data analysis, measurement, and other 

evaluation-related methods to improve the acquisition outcomes of 

the Department of Defense and enhance organizational learning. 

Pilot programs on data integration strategies for the Department of Defense (sec. 937) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Chief Management Officer, to develop data integration strategies to address high priority 

management challenges of the Department. The committee notes 

that many of the challenges currently faced by the Department are 

driven by the lack of shared information and data governance for 

relevant actors. Challenges to address would include data related 

to the budget, to logistics management, and to personnel security 

and insider threat. The Secretary would be responsible for submitting a report on the outcomes of these pilot programs within 180 

days of the enactment of this act. 

Broadly, the committee encourages the Department to consider 

developing data strategies that cover all relevant components, to 

ensure that sharing of information occurs and that both collection 

and analysis of data are valued and contribute toward management 

of the component. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
218 

Background and security investigations for Department of 

Defense personnel (sec. 938) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to take actions to allow the Defense Security 

Service to conduct before October 1, 2020 all personnel background 

and security investigations adjudicated by the Consolidated Adjudication Facility of the Department of Defense (DOD). This provision is based on the committee’s judgement that the current situation of massive clearance delays has serious adverse effects on national security and must be addressed in order to avoid any further 

damage to DOD’s readiness. 

The background investigation process is broken. It is composed 

of decades-old security practices, is grossly inefficient, and has 

costs that have been rising steadily and substantially for years. In 

addition, persistent mismanagement and ill-considered changes to 

standards have resulted in a very large and rapidly growing backlog. In sum, the current situation has led to accumulation of huge 

indirect costs to customers like DOD; operational risks, as personnel are idled while waiting for clearances; and a degradation in 

workforce quality, as high-performing personnel with the best alternatives are unlikely to wait for many months to begin work for 

the U.S. Government. The committee lacks confidence that the current owner of the background investigation mission has the will, 

culture, or capability to effect vital reforms in current processes 

and practices. 

Current practices are mired in outdated methods and non-digital, 

non-automated technology. Expensive human investigative resources are consumed with fact checking and data collection functions (ripe candidates for automation) as opposed to investigating 

substantive issues about the actions and circumstances of prospective and current employees. 

A better model has been clear to policymakers for at least a decade: a ‘‘continuous evaluation’’ concept based on automated access 

to a wide array of digital sources and records. Constant access and 

reporting from these data sources has been demonstrated to turn 

up greater volumes of more serious issues than current practices; 

expensive human resources would then be devoted to investigating 

concerns arising from the continuous evaluation process. Derogatory information that crossed adjustable thresholds of seriousness 

would be automatically ‘‘pushed,’’ as alerts, to analysts for action. 

For current employees, information from modern insider threat 

programs would become an important component of the continuous 

evaluation process, providing information from counterintelligence, 

cybersecurity, human resources, physical security, and law enforcement databases and investigations. These continuous vetting techniques would eliminate the need for infrequent but expensive ‘‘periodic re-investigations’’ (PRs) that are mandated today—though 

under the current system, PRs are so infrequent that threats are 

missed for long periods. 

The executive branch made policy decisions starting a decade ago 

to shift to this continuous evaluation approach but has achieved little actual progress. One factor contributing to this inertia has been 

the position of the Security Executive Agent, a function assigned to 

the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). The Office of the DNI 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
219 

has supported the continuous evaluation (CE) model but only as an 

add-on or augmentation to existing practices: not as a substitute. 

While CE promises to be more effective and efficient than current 

practices, costs would soar if CE is conducted in addition to what 

is done today instead of serving as a true replacement. DOD is already paying over $1.0 billion annually for background 

investigations; the backlog exceeds 650,000 cases and is growing at 

a rate of 10,000–20,000 per month. The Government is not going 

to truly address this backlog unless it substitutes technology and 

smart risk-based decision-making for labor-intensive activities of 

questionable relative value. The committee is prepared to consider 

legislative change to investigative requirements applicable to the 

Department of Defense if the executive branch does not address 

this policy problem swiftly on its own. 

The committee believes that DOD must take back responsibility 

for background investigations of its employees and contractors and 

change how these investigations are conducted. The committee believes that this is the best way to ensure effective oversight by the 

congressional defense committees of this troubled program. At the 

same time, the committee believes it would be a grave mistake to 

import back into DOD the existing OPM organization, culture, and 

practices. A fresh start is needed that is built incrementally on existing CE initiatives and encompasses a phased transition of responsibility from OPM to DOD. 

The committee also fully realizes that there is no quick fix for 

the immense problems DOD faces and that the backlog and the 

cost of doing business could get worse before they can get better. 

The committee continues to have serious concerns about the ability 

of DOD to manage the development of a robust CE information 

technology (IT) capability. The committee also continues to be at 

least equally concerned about DOD’s ability to orchestrate the creation of an integrated, automated, enterprise-wide insider threat 

detection and analysis capability. The committee’s apprehension is 

that the Department’s leadership has not realized the level of resource commitment and time that will be involved in creating digital access and analysis capabilities to the data collected and held 

by all the different functional organizations—counterintelligence, 

personnel security, human resources, physical security, cybersecurity, law enforcement, intelligence, etc.—across the Services, combatant commands, Joint Staff, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and all the defense agencies and field activities. This is an 

organizational management challenge as well as a technical challenge of the first order. The committee expects the Department to 

take advantage of existing direct hiring authorities in order to 

build up the necessary investigative workforce to execute this mission. The committee also recognizes that the Department may need 

to consider establishing an appropriate funding mechanism to support this mission. The reference to DOD usage of existing commercial data within this provision is not meant to extend the Department’s authorities with regard to the handling and usage of personal data. 

The committee is committed to monitoring the Department’s 

progress in taking over this new mission and seeks to ensure that 

DOD has a robust implementation plan with clear targets for the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
220 

standup of these interrelated capabilities. DOD should also look, 

where possible, to take advantage of the work done across government to modernize the background investigation process. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Transfer of lead of Guam Oversight Council from the Deputy Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of the Navy 

(sec. 951) 

The committee includes a provision that would redesignate the 

Secretary of the Navy as the lead for the Guam Oversight Council. 

This would transfer the responsibility for the activities involving 

the relocation of forces, primarily Marines from Okinawa to Guam, 

from the Deputy Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of the Navy. 

Corrosion control and prevention executive matters (sec. 

952) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 903(a) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) to clarify the qualifications and position of a corrosion control and prevention executive (CCPE) of a military department. 

The committee remains very concerned that the resources and 

priorities given to corrosion control and prevention by the military 

departments are lessened when the duties of the corrosion executive are additive to that official’s other duties as assigned and performed. From an organizational perspective, the Departments of 

the Navy and Air Force have been most effective in corrosion control and prevention when they have had individuals in place whose 

primary responsibility was to perform the functions of the CCPE. 

The committee views the Department of the Army’s model of appointing a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, 

Logistics, and Technology as the CCPE and having action-officer 

level individuals assist in those duties as ineffective. The committee believes, however, that the CCPEs are most effective when 

they are provided resources that enable them to perform studies, 

analyses, inspections, and other duties as prescribed in section 903 

of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417). 

Items of Special Interest 

Comptroller General of the United States report on Department of Defense oversight of the defense agencies and 

Department of Defense field activities 

The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense is authorized 

to provide for the performance of a supply or service activity that 

is common to more than one military department by a single agency of the Department of Defense. Further, the Secretary of Defense 

is required to provide oversight of these agencies, known Defense 

Agencies and Field Activities (DAFA), by reviewing the services 

and supplies provided by the DAFA to ensure that there is a continuing need for each such agency and activity. The Secretary is 

also required to determine that the provision of those services and 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
221 

supplies by each DAFA, rather than by the military departments, 

is a more effective, economical, or efficient manner of providing 

those services and supplies, among other things (section 192 of title 

10, United States Code). Several of these agencies and activities 

have been established to support business operations, including the 

Defense Media Activity, Defense Human Resources Activity, and 

Defense Legal Services Agency. 

The committee is interested in understanding the scope and impact of DOD’s previous reviews of this fourth estate community. 

The committee is also interested in how the results of previous reviews were measured. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate: (1) The extent to which DOD has examined the continuing need for its DAFAs as required under section 192 of title 10, United States Code; (2) Potential duplication 

or overlap of services and supplies provided between the military 

departments and selected DAFAs; and (3) Potential improvements 

to more effectively assess the results of any reform initiatives within these DAFAs. 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to brief the Committee on Armed Services of the 

Senate not later than April 15, 2018, on preliminary findings of the 

evaluation with a final report to be due by June 30, 2018. 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Arctic 

The committee notes that the strategic importance of the Arctic 

continues to increase as the United States and other countries recognize the military significance of the Arctic’s sea lanes, choke 

points, and its potential for power projection into multiple regions. 

The committee also recognizes that the Department of Defense’s 

mission requirements in the Arctic are expected to grow, as increases in human and maritime activity bring heightened risk of 

maritime accidents, oil spills, illegal fishing and harvesting of other 

natural resources in the exclusive economic zone of the United 

States, and other potential threats or challenges to United States 

sovereignty. 

The committee notes that Russia has aggressively focused on the 

development of Arctic capabilities and has made significant investments in military infrastructure in the Arctic. The committee remains concerned that the current Department of Defense jurisdiction over the Arctic region presents operational seams between 

three geographic combatant commands and two functional combatant commands: U.S. Northern Command, U.S. European Command, and U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Strategic Command, and 

U.S. Transportation Command, with U.S. European Command 

holding the primary responsibility for the major adversary in the 

region, U.S. Pacific Command retaining operational control of U.S. 

forces located in Alaska, and U.S. Northern Command assigned as 

the Department’s advocate for Arctic capabilities. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to 

designate a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense with primary 

responsibilities for the Arctic region, in order to coordinate the formation of Arctic defense policy with relevant Department of Defense entities. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
222 

Arctic Region would have the responsibilities of: advocating for 

United States national security interests in the Arctic region; mitigating operational seams between relevant geographic and functional combatant commands in order to improve unity of effort; 

identifying any capability and resource gaps in the Arctic region 

and formulating plans to mitigate these gaps; identifying the actions by foreign nations which increase the threat to United States 

interests in the Arctic region; formulating plans to mitigate these 

actions; and planning military-to-military cooperation with partner 

nations that have mutual security interests in the Arctic region. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(223) 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $4.0 billion of fiscal year 

2018 funds authorized in division A of this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with normal reprogramming procedures. Transfers of funds between military personnel authorizations would not be counted toward the dollar limitation in this provision. 

Calculations for payments into Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund using single level percentage of 

basic pay determined on Armed Force-wide rather than 

Armed Forces-wide basis (sec. 1002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1465 of title 10, United States Code, to change the calculation 

of the single level percentage applied to basic pay with respect to 

the required monthly deposits into the Military Retirement Fund 

by the military services to a single rate for each military service, 

rather than the single aggregate normal cost method now used, in 

order to increase budgetary transparency with respect to the relative long-term costs associated with changes in end strength and 

benefits among the military services. The change in the method of 

calculation would be effective for contributions to the Fund beginning in fiscal year 2019. 

Certifications on audit readiness of the Department of Defense and the military departments, Defense Agencies, 

and other organizations and elements of the Department of Defense (sec. 1003) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense, in addition to the military departments, 

defense agencies, and other organizations and elements that are 

subject to a financial audit, to certify its financial statements as 

ready for audit by the September 30, 2017, deadline established by 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66), and annually each fiscal year thereafter, until the 

Department, or the relevant military department, defense agency, 

or other organization or element, obtains a qualified audit opinion 

on its full financial statements. The committee is concerned that almost 3 decades after the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–576) and with an estimated $7.4 billion invested in 

audit, audit readiness, and ERP efforts since 2012, the Department 

remains unable to obtain an opinion on its financial statements. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
224 

The committee defines audit ready/readiness as a defense agency’s, 

organization’s, or military department’s having in place the critical 

audit capabilities and associated infrastructure to successfully start 

and support a financial audit of its financial statements. The committee directs that the management assertion letters issued by the 

military departments, defense agencies, and defense organizations 

that receive audit opinions on their financial statements be used to 

determine compliance with this provision. The committee fully supports the Department’s focus on audit going forward but continues 

to believe in the importance of the Department certifying that it 

has met the deadline for audit readiness to account for the investment of taxpayer dollars in audit readiness activities since 2008. 

Failure to obtain audit opinion on fiscal year full financial 

statements of the Department of Defense (sec. 1004) 

The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the 

annual rate of basic pay for calendar year 2020 and for each year 

thereafter for each secretary of a military department who does not 

obtain an audit opinion on their service’s fiscal year 2018 financial 

statements. This requirement is consistent with section 1003(a) of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66). The committee does not consider a disclaimer of 

opinion to comply with Congress’ intent because a disclaimer of 

opinion is issued when the audited entity is unable to provide sufficient supporting evidence to enable the auditor to express an opinion. This provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to 

establish a team of private sector experts on financial audits to assess the Department’s progress and make recommendations for improvements to its process for achieving an opinion on its full financial statements. 

Improper payment matters (sec. 1005) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense to comply with recommendations made by 

the Comptroller General of the United States that it improve the 

method and procedures by which it estimates, identifies susceptible 

programs, and reduces improper payments. 

The committee is concerned, based on reports published by the 

Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) and the committee’s own research, that improper payments are currently 

under-reported (for example, the DOD IG report estimates an 8 

percent error rate as opposed to the 2–3 percent commonly referenced by the Department). Both the Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) and the DOD IG have reported that the Department’s 

methods for sampling and estimating improper payments is inadequate. The committee is also concerned that the Department only 

attempts to recover improper payments in the small sample population used to estimate the scale of improper payments—overpayments in the larger population are essentially written off. For example, only $5.5 million of the fiscal year 2014 travel overpayments were subject to recovery, indicating that DFAS did not take 

any effort to recapture around 99 percent of the overpayments from 

this program. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
225 

Financial operations dashboard for the Department of Defense (sec. 1006) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to establish a searchable 

database that contains key indicators of the financial performance 

of the Department of Defense, and is accessible across the government. The committee recognizes the value of transparency and the 

ability of information to drive effective and accountable government. The committee also recognizes that while the statutory language guiding the Department in its financial improvement efforts 

is primarily focused on the requirement for annual financial audits, 

Congress’ intent for requiring the Department to audit its financial 

statements is to ensure not only that the Department complies 

with its Constitutional and legal obligation to account for all taxpayer funds received and expended but also that Department leadership has available reliable financial information with which to 

make better program management and budgeting decisions. An 

auditable financial statement is simply the means by which the accuracy of the financial data being used in day-to-day and strategic 

decision making processes is validated. More importantly, the financial controls required to achieve and sustain a clean audit opinion reduce wasteful spending resulting from inefficiencies. For example, as evidence of quantifiable savings resulting from improved 

financial controls and reduced payment inefficiencies, the Marine 

Corps reported in 2008 that its efforts to achieve audit readiness 

yielded real mission value by generating enough savings to purchase either 1 additional Cobra attack helicopter, 3 M1A1 tanks, 

or 70 million rounds of rifle ammunition. Extrapolated across the 

entire Department of Defense, this experience of 1–2 percent savings points to a potential annual savings of billions of dollars available to fund critical national defense requirements (assuming budget top-line stability). Without the control environment that underpins auditability, it costs more to achieve our desired levels of military readiness. 

To facilitate the adoption of better financial controls and provide 

much-needed transparency on the cost of the Department’s financial operations, this dashboard would contain key indicators of the 

financial performance of the Department of Defense, to include outstanding accounts payable, abnormal accounts payable, outstanding 

advances, unmatched disbursements, abnormal undelivered orders, 

negative unliquidated obligations, Anti-Deficiency Act violations, 

interest penalty payments, improper payment amounts for each 

budget account, total costs deriving from payment delays, and actual savings realized through improvement initiatives. The database should include these data elements for the military departments, defense agencies, and all defense organizations subject to a 

financial audit, and it should permit a user to track financial performance over time for each defense organization individually and 

the Department of Defense cumulatively. The data elements should 

be reported monthly. 

This provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to report annually on a target savings and the actual mission value realized as a result of improvements to financial management and related cost-savings initiatives. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
226 

Comptroller General of the United States recommendations 

on audit capabilities and infrastructure and related 

matters (sec. 1007) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense to comply with recommendations made by 

the Comptroller General of the United States that it establish a 

consolidated corrective action plan (CAP) and a centralized monitoring and reporting process whereby it reports bi-monthly on the 

status of the CAPs of the military departments, defense agencies, 

and other organizations and elements of the Department. 

Subtitle B—Counterdrug Activities 

Extension and modification of authority to support a unified counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 

three years section 1021 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), as 

most recently amended by section 1013 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). Additionally, the provision would modify existing authorities to provide 

assistance to the Government of Colombia to address the emergence of new threats to peace and stability. 

The committee strongly supports the vital partnership between 

the United States and Colombia and notes the remarkable security 

gains the Government of Colombia has achieved over the last 15 

years and its contributions to regional security. The committee believes that an enduring security relationship between the United 

States and Colombia is essential to sustaining and building on 

these gains as the peace process and demobilization of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) proceeds. The committee 

also notes with concern reports of record yields of coca and the persistence and emergence of other illegally armed groups, ranging 

from terrorist organizations to drug trafficking organizations, that 

threaten peace, stability, and security. Finally, the committee urges 

the Secretary of Defense to continue to coordinate through interagency process to ensure that the Department’s security cooperation programs and authorities reflect the evolving security environment in Colombia and the region. 

Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards 

Policy of the United States on minimum number of battle 

force ships (sec. 1016) 

The committee recommends a provision that would codify at least 

a 355-ship Navy battle force as U.S. policy. The committee notes 

the Navy’s latest Force Structure Assessment (FSA), completed in 

December 2016, increased the battle force requirement from 308 

ships to 355 ships. This requirement includes inventory objectives 

by ship category, which the committee views as the optimal mix of 

platforms for the purposes of this provision. 

The committee further notes the latest Navy FSA concluded, 

‘‘[The 355-ship requirement] reflects an in-depth assessment of the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
227 

Navy’s force structure requirements—it also includes a level of 

operational risk that we are willing to assume based on the resource limitations under which the Navy must operate . . . To fully 

resource [Combatant Commander demands,] enduring missions, ongoing operations and setting the theater for prompt warfighting response, [the] Navy would require a 653-ship force.’’ 

Recognizing this unconstrained demand for 653 ships and recent 

testimony on the increasingly dangerous security environment, the 

committee believes the Navy’s requirement of 355 ships should be 

achieved and all options for doing so should be reviewed as soon 

as possible. 

The committee further believes that a clear policy statement on 

achieving the 355-ship objective, which could take at least 18 years 

according to an April 2017 Congressional Budget Office report, is 

warranted because of the long-term commitment required by current and future Congresses and administrations. 

Operational readiness of Littoral Combat Ships on extended 

deployment (sec. 1017) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend title 

10, United States Code and provide the Secretary of the Navy with 

additional flexibility to maintain Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) by 

allowing government or contractor personnel to conduct maintenance on LCS vessels operating on deployment regardless of ship 

locations. 

This provision would codify the authorities successfully employed 

in a pilot program authorized by section 1025 of the Carl Levin and 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291). 

The pilot program was conducted to evaluate maintenance options for LCS vessels on extended deployments from December 

2014 to September 2016. The Navy’s assessment of the pilot program, which was submitted in a March 2017 report to Congress 

found, ‘‘Based on the pilot program results, cost savings are expected to be notable. Even more importantly, the flexibility to provide timely maintenance in support of schedule changes and mission execution is crucial to long-term success of the LCS Fleet . . .’’ 

The committee concurs with the Navy’s assessment of the pilot 

program and recommends codifying the associated authorities in 

title 10, United States Code. 

Authority to purchase used vessels to recapitalize the Ready 

Reserve Force and the Military Sealift Command surge 

fleet (sec. 1018) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2218 of title 10, United States Code, to provide the Secretary 

of Defense with the authority to purchase used vessels as part of 

a program to recapitalize the Ready Reserve Force (RRF) and Military Sealift Command (MSC) surge fleet. In addition, the provision 

would provide the U.S. Navy with greater flexibility in using the 

National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) for such recapitalization 

purposes. 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) has developed a recapitalization strategy for RRF and MSC 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
228 

surge fleet vessels, consisting of building new construction vessels, 

extending the service lives of certain vessels already in the inventory, and acquiring used vessels, in order to maintain capacity at 

an acceptable level of risk. The committee further understands that 

such recapitalization is necessary because the current vessels in 

the inventory are reaching the limit of safe operation at an affordable cost. 

The committee notes that this provision would permit the Secretary of Defense to purchase vessels that have previously served 

in the U.S. Maritime Security Fleet, which is a component of the 

U.S. Maritime Security Program. The committee further notes that 

the DOD has requested this authority. 

The committee believes this provision is a prudent measure to 

ensure continued access to adequate U.S. military surge sealift. In 

addition, the committee recognizes that maintenance for and activations of any vessels added to the RRF inventory would be conducted in U.S. shipyards. 

Surveying ships (sec. 1019) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Chief of Naval Operations to conduct a force structure assessment 

for the purpose of establishing a surveying ship requirement and 

provide the results to the congressional defense committees not 

later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act. This 

assessment may be limited in scope to identifying a force structure 

assessment requirement for surveying ships. 

The committee notes the U.S. Navy currently has six surveying 

ships in service, but does not have a force structure assessment requirement for this class of ships because it is not included in the 

Navy battle force. The committee further notes surveying ships 

perform critical missions in support of fleet operations, including 

gathering much of the U.S. military’s ocean environment information. 

The committee further believes a greater number of these ships 

may be required as surveying ships continue to operate around the 

world with an expanding mission set. For example, in December 

2016 a Chinese navy ship illegally seized a U.S. Navy unmanned 

underwater vehicle, which was collecting oceanographic data, while 

operating with the USNS Bowditch (T–AGS–62) in the South 

China Sea. In addition, the newest surveying ship, USNS Maury 

(T–AGS–66), includes an innovative moon pool for deployment and 

retrieval of autonomous underwater vehicles. 

Accordingly, the committee urges the Chief of Naval Operations 

to review the full range of potential applications for surveying 

ships in conducting this force structure assessment. 

Pilot program on funding for national defense sealift vessels 

(sec. 1020) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of the Navy to establish a pilot program related to national 

defense sealift vessels for funds appropriated in fiscal years 2018 

and 2019. 

This pilot program would allow obligations and expenditures for 

the operation, maintenance, lease, or charter of national defense 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
229 

sealift vessels to be made from the National Defense Sealift Fund 

(NDSF) or Operations and Maintenance, Navy (OMN) appropriation accounts. 

This pilot program would also allow obligations and expenditures 

for the research and development relating to national defense sealift vessels to be made from the NDSF or Research, Development, 

Test & Evaluation, Navy (RDTEN) appropriation accounts. 

In addition, the pilot program would allow funds appropriated in 

the OMN or RDTEN appropriations for national defense sealift 

purposes to not be required to be deposited into the NDSF appropriation. 

The committee notes the NDSF was created in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102–484) 

to address sealift funding issues. While recognizing the importance 

of continuing to fund sealift requirements, the Department of the 

Navy, in coordination with the U.S. Transportation Command and 

the U.S. Maritime Administration, has proposed a more efficient 

funding mechanism. This provision would allow the Navy to conduct a pilot program to evaluate this alternative mechanism, which 

would use the OMN and RDTEN appropriations rather than the 

NDSF, to fund specified national defense sealift activities. 

The committee understands this pilot program is intended to preserve funding for sealift requirements while providing the Department of the Navy one fewer appropriations account to manage, prepare financial statements for, and address for financial auditability 

purposes. The committee further understands this pilot program 

seeks to streamline the funding flow by reducing reimbursable documents between Navy commands when a national defense sealift 

vessel is activated. 

The provision would require independent reports from the Secretary of the Navy, Commander of the U.S. Transportation Command, and Administrator of the U.S. Maritime Administration to 

be submitted to the congressional defense committees within 120 

days of completion of the pilot program. 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism 

Extension of prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States (sec. 

1031) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until 

December 31, 2018, the prohibition on the use of funds provided to 

the Department of Defense to transfer or release individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to 

the United States. 

Extension on prohibition on use of funds to construct or 

modify facilities in the United States to house detainees 

transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1032) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until 

December 31, 2018, the prohibition on the use of funds provided to 

the Department of Defense to construct or modify facilities in the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
230 

United States to house detainees transferred from United States 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

Extension on prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release to certain countries of individuals detained at 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

(sec. 1033) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until 

December 31, 2018, the prohibition on the use of funds provided to 

the Department of Defense to transfer or release individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to 

Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. 

Extension of prohibition on use of funds for realignment of 

forces at or closure of United States Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1034) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until 

December 31, 2021, the prohibition on the use of funds provided to 

the Department of Defense to close or abandon United States 

Naval Station, Guantanamo; to relinquish control of Guantanamo 

Bay to the Republic of Cuba; or to implement a material modification to the Treaty between the United States of America and Cuba 

signed at Washington, D.C. on May 29, 1934, that constructively 

closes United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay. 

Authority to transfer individuals detained at United States 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United 

States temporarily for emergency or critical medical 

treatment (sec. 1035) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

temporary transfer of individuals detained at United States Naval 

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the United States for necessary 

medical treatment that is not available at Guantanamo. 

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations 

Matters relating to the submittal of future-years defense 

programs (sec. 1041) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 221 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary 

of Defense to publish an unclassified electronic database on the 

Comptroller’s U.S. government restricted website for the future 

years defense program and, where applicable, a separate classified 

annex to the congressional defense committees, Congressional 

Budget Office, Congressional Research Service, and Government 

Accountability Office. The committee notes that this should be in 

accordance with existing guidance as set forth by Department of 

Defense Financial Management Regulation 7000.14–R to include 

that all electronic files include the source extensible markup language (XML) files to be embedded. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
231 

Department of Defense integration of information operations and cyber-enabled information operations (sec. 

1042) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a cross-functional task force to integrate across organizations of the Department of Defense responsible for information operations, military deception, public affairs, 

electronic warfare, and cyber operations to produce integrated 

strategy, planning, and budgeting to counter, deter, and conduct 

strategic information operations and cyber-enabled information operations. In carrying out the requirements of subsection (b)(1), the 

committee directs that the Secretary require the commander of 

each combatant command to develop specific plans to conduct information operations through cyberspace that could threaten those 

things, entities, resources, assets, and systems that the leaders of 

adversary countries value most highly, with the goal of establishing 

an effective deterrent to information operations and cyber attacks 

against the United States, its allies, and its interests. These capabilities and plans should be tailored to specific potential adversaries. Additionally, the provision would require the task force to 

review the Department of Defense Strategy for Operations in the 

Information Environment, dated June 2016, and submit to the congressional defense committees an implementation plan. Lastly, the 

provision would establish a Defense Intelligence Officer for Information Operations and Cyber Operations within the Department of 

Defense. 

Prohibition on lobbying activities with respect to the Department of Defense by certain officers of the Armed 

Forces and civilian employees of the Department within 

two years of separation from military service or employment with the Department (sec. 1043) 

The committee recommends a provision that would apply a 2- 

year limitation on certain officers and civilian employees of the Department of Defense from engaging in any lobbying activity with 

respect to issues involving the Department of Defense. 

Definition of ‘‘unmanned aerial vehicle’’ for the purposes of 

title 10, United States Code (sec. 1044) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

definition of an unmanned aerial vehicle as an aerial vehicle that 

is not controlled by a human being, but would not include a vehicle 

that is remotely piloted. 

Technical amendment relating to management of military 

technicians (sec. 1045) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make a technical modification to section 1053 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 981; 

10 U.S.C. 10216 note) by striking 20 percent and replacing it with 

12.6 percent. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
232 

Extension of prohibition on use of funds for retirement of 

legacy maritime mine countermeasures platforms (sec. 

1046) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

prohibition on use of funds for retirement of legacy maritime mine 

countermeasures platforms to include fiscal year 2018. 

The committee notes the Navy’s current plan to reach an initial 

operational capability of replacement mine countermeasures systems is not scheduled to occur until fiscal year 2020 at the earliest. 

However, the Navy’s latest Annual Long-Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels calls for the Avenger-class mine countermeasures ships to begin retiring in fiscal year 2019. 

The committee remains concerned a capability gap may result if 

current mine countermeasures systems are not maintained until 

operationally effective and suitable replacements are fielded in sufficient quantities. 

Sense of Congress on the basing of KC–46A aircraft outside 

the continental United States (sec. 1047) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress regarding the basing of KC–46A tanker aircraft 

outside of the continental United States. 

Authorization to procure up to six polar-class icebreakers 

(sec. 1048) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, 

in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, to enter into a contract or contracts for the procurement of up to six polar-class icebreakers, including both polar-class heavy icebreakers and polarclass medium icebreakers. The committee notes that section 3 of 

title 14, United States Code, states, ‘‘the Coast Guard shall be a 

service in the Department of Homeland Security.’’ 

As codified in a May 19, 2017 Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of the Navy and Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), the committee notes the Undersecretary of Management in the DHS serves as the Acquisition Decision Authority 

for the Polar Icebreaker Program and that this program is governed in accordance with DHS Acquisition Management Directive 

102–01 and Instruction 102–01–001. The committee believes maintaining authority, responsibility, and accountability with the Acquisition Decision Authority is essential to delivering icebreakers on 

cost and schedule. 

Accordingly, the committee believes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should be the single official provided 

with authorities, limitations, or other legislative direction related 

to the Polar Icebreaker Program. 

Subtitle F—Studies and Reports 

Assessment of global force posture (sec. 1061) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders, to conduct an 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
233 

assessment of the global force posture of the Armed Forces. The 

provision would also require the Secretary to submit a report on 

the assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives not later than the earlier of 180 

days after production of the 2018 National Defense Strategy or December 31, 2018. The committee believes that a number of factors 

have increased the importance of and need for forward-based U.S. 

military forces and capabilities, including the proliferation of new 

and more lethal anti-access/area denial capabilities of peer and 

near-peer threats, and increased vulnerability of air and sea lines 

of communication. Forward-based forces could provide increased 

deterrence and regional security and stability, and would have the 

capability to respond to both overt military aggression and to adversarial competition activities with tangible actions short of armed 

conflict. The ability of U.S. Armed Forces to respond in a timely 

manner and at an appropriate scale is increasingly constrained by 

growing threats to air and sea lines of communication, and likely 

requires a fundamental shift in the calculus regarding forward basing of U.S. military capabilities and force structure. 

The use by adversaries of major short- or no-notice military exercises as cover for military aggression, as well as the daily persistence of threats in areas such as the South China Sea, place a premium on having an adequate forward-based force presence. As our 

forces experienced in the opening phases of Operation Inherent Resolve, ad hoc creation of a headquarters for major military operations can result in confused and overly complicated command and 

control relationships, and fundamentally undermining holistic 

joint, combined, and multi-agency deliberate and contingency plans 

and operations. 

The committee believes the assessment must include a clear concept for command and control of both peacetime operations and 

wartime combat operations, whether through the use of existing 

combatant command headquarters and their respective component 

commands, or through the creation of stand-alone Joint Task Force 

headquarters. It must also ensure appropriate forward-based force 

structure and capabilities are in place and in a sufficient state of 

readiness. 

The committee expects the Department to assess and recommend 

the appropriate ratio of U.S.-based to forward-based forces, as well 

as apply the appropriate mix of forward-based force structure capabilities and end strength growth to respond to increased threats to 

the security of extended lines of communication, the proliferation 

of anti-access/area denial capabilities, and the emerging necessity 

to respond to adversarial competition activities occurring below the 

threshold of armed conflict. 

Army modernization strategy (sec. 1062) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to develop a comprehensive modernization 

strategy for the total Army. This strategy should explicitly address 

the Army’s vision, end-state, key objectives, war fighting challenges, and risks. It should be sufficiently descriptive to drive requirements, set priorities, identify opportunity costs, and establish 

acquisition timelines. The committee assesses that a comprehenVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00269 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
234 

sive strategy would give strategic purpose to existing acquisition 

programs. The strategy should provide the congressional defense 

committees an understanding of potential long-term costs beyond 

the future year defense program (FYDP) and aid in the decisionmaking process to terminate unneeded or underperforming programs. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit 

its modernization strategy to the congressional defense committees 

within 90 days after the enactment of this Act. 

The strategy shall describe how the Army intends on fighting 

and winning as part of a joint force engaged in combat across all 

operational domains. It should account for current trends and developments in weapons and equipment technologies. It should also 

account for the rapid pace potential peer adversaries are evolving 

new tactics and force design. Key is an understanding of what the 

Army will need to maintain command, control, communications, 

and sustainment of dispersed combat and combat support units in 

the face of electronic and cyber-attack. 

The committee is concerned the Army is not modernized to fight 

and win high-intensity combined arms, maneuver battle against a 

peer adversary. The committee is aware of specific capability gaps 

that would significantly affect Army maneuver forces’ freedom of 

action, mobility, lethality, and sustainment. 

The committee notes that the Army has published numerous 

strategies for specific programs such as small arms, tracked combat 

vehicles, wheeled vehicles, and aviation. Yet the Army does not 

possess an all-encompassing modernization strategy that provides 

purpose and priority to the above. Given the Army expends tens of 

billions of dollars each year on procurement, research, development, testing, and evaluation, the committee views a comprehensive Army modernization strategy as essential. 

The committee acknowledges the Army remains engaged in active operations across the world and accordingly has made readiness its first priority. However, the committee assesses modernization as requirement for readiness in the very near future. 

Report on Army plan to improve operational unit readiness 

by reducing the number of non-deployable soldiers assigned to operation units (sec. 1063) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees detailing the Army’s plan to improve operational 

unit readiness by reducing the number of non-deployable soldiers 

assigned to those units and replacing them with soldiers capable of 

worldwide deployment. The committee is concerned that 10 percent 

of soldiers in the Army’s operational units are currently nondeployable. This is resulting in units that are deploying to operational theaters with far less than 90 percent of their authorized 

personnel. 

The committee is also concerned that these levels of nondeployable soldiers assigned to operational units are negatively affecting training, training management efficiencies, equipment 

maintenance, small unit cohesion, and combat effectiveness. High 

levels of non-deployable soldiers may be affecting other measurable 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
235 

aspects of unit readiness such as training and maintenance of assigned equipment. 

The committee understands readiness is the Army’s first priority 

given the current national security situation. The committee assesses that, if the Army can improve the readiness of individual 

soldiers so that they may deploy and participate in all scheduled 

unit training, overall readiness rates will improve. 

Efforts to combat physiological episodes on certain Navy 

aircraft (sec. 1064) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to provide quarterly updates on the progress 

of the Navy’s Physiological Episode Team and their efforts to combat physiological episodes in F/A–18 Hornets and Super Hornets, 

EA–18 Growlers, and T–45 Goshawks. 

The committee is concerned by the continued prevalence of physiological episodes occurring in a number of Navy aircraft including 

F/A–18 Hornets and Super Hornets, EA–18 Growlers, and T–45 

Goshawks. The problems affecting the Naval Aviators and Naval 

Flight Officers flying these aircraft range in frequency and severity, but are consistent in their degradation of Naval Aviation safety 

and readiness. Physiological episodes, with apparent root causes in 

the environmental control systems and Onboard Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS), have been named Naval Aviation’s number 

one safety priority. While the committee understands Navy senior 

leadership is focused on the issue and a Physiological Episode 

Team (PET) has been in place since 2010 to try to solve the issues, 

the committee is concerned that no solutions have been found at 

the same time that recent events indicate the situation may be getting worse in legacy Hornets and T–45s. 

The committee is also concerned that while the Navy has repeatedly stated that their efforts to solve the problems are ‘‘resource 

unconstrained’’, it is unclear how much money and manpower is 

being expended on the effort. As funding for the engineering analysis and mitigation efforts comes from a variety of sources, it is difficult to get a clear picture of the total effort, inhibiting proper 

oversight and limiting analysis of where resources could potentially 

be added to further the effort. 

The committee is further concerned by the breakdown in communications within the Naval Aviation Enterprise, most especially between the engineers working the problem at Naval Air Systems 

Command (NAVAIR) and the aviators on the flight line. While a 

lot of good work was being done and data being created and analyzed, those efforts were not always being effectively communicated 

down to the flightline, where the dangers of physiological episodes 

are most acute. The committee urges the Navy to consider designating a single individual for each affected platform to act as the 

bridge between engineer and operator to ensure that a positive and 

frequent communication flow becomes a strength of the solution 

process. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

provide the committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House 

of Representatives quarterly updates on the Department’s efforts to 

mitigate and solve Naval Aviation’s number one safety priority. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
236 

The required updates shall contain, but may not be limited to, activities of the Naval Aviation Enterprise addressing physiological 

episodes over the course of the previous quarter; identified funding 

expended in support of such activities; any planned or executed 

changes to PET structure or processes; and planned activities for 

the next two upcoming quarters. 

Studies on aircraft inventories for the Air Force (sec. 1065) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to commission three studies to be submitted 

to the congressional defense committees in unclassified, and to the 

extent necessary, in classified versions to recommend future aircraft inventories and capability mixtures of Air Force aircraft no 

later than March 1, 2019. These studies would provide competing 

visions and alternatives for a future set of choices regarding Air 

Force aircraft capabilities and capacities. One study would be performed by the Secretary of the Air Force with the participation of 

the Director of the Office of Net Assessment in the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense. The second study would be performed by a 

federally funded research and development center. The third study 

would be conducted by a qualified independent, non-governmental 

institute, as selected by the Secretary of Defense. 

The committee believes two enduring tenets of our national security strategies over the years have served the United States well: 

(1) the United States will maintain sufficient military forces and 

capabilities to engage around the world to encourage peace and stability; and (2) in the event we do need to conduct military operations, the U.S. Armed Forces will do so away from U.S. territory 

in a fashion that puts adversary value structures at risk, as well 

as retain the ability to win more than one major regional conflict 

simultaneously. To accomplish both of these fundamental tenets, 

the committee believes the Air Force needs a set of robust, capable, 

and ready forces with a rotational base sufficient to sustain such 

operations. 

The committee also believes the Air Force currently lacks an understandable and sufficient aircraft inventory force-sizing rationale. 

Force structure is a direct determinant of the extent to which the 

national security strategy of the United States can be executed. Accordingly, the Air Force needs a logical, understandable, and easily 

articulated force-sizing approach that derives from the national defense strategy and that establishes a clear ability to trace strategy 

to task. 

Finally, the committee believes Air Force aircraft inventories 

should be planned and procured at levels necessary to support the 

fundamental tenets of our national security and national defense 

strategies, as opposed to allowing arbitrary budget restrictions to 

drive U.S. national security strategy. The emergence and re-emergence of near-peer competitors with advancing military technological capabilities and growing capacity, as well as increasingly capable regional threats, are steadily eroding the technological overmatch and military dominance the United States has singularly enjoyed since the end of the Cold War period. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
237 

Plan and recommendations for interagency vetting of foreign investments with potential impacts on national defense and national security (sec. 1066) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State 

and the Secretary of Treasury, to conduct an assessment and develop and present to Congress a plan for the Department of Defense and recommendations for other agencies for how certain foreign investments can be better vetted. The committee is concerned 

about the foreign use of investment tools and methods that work 

around existing vetting processes to gain access to critical technology or intellectual property. Such methods may also be used to 

deny the Department of Defense access to such technology once foreign control or influence has been established. In considering recommendations for other agencies, the Department may want to 

consider the following, in addition to other options: 

(1) Mandatory notification by foreign investors to the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States Government when making transactions in certain areas that are more 

likely to impair the ability of the Department to defend the 

Nation; 

(2) Expanded authority to unilaterally initiate reviews of 

such transactions; 

(3) The ability to suspend certain transactions during interagency vetting, if the transactions are likely to impair the ability of the Department to defend the Nation; and 

(4) Mechanisms for outside sources to provide input, as well 

as greater transparency in certain areas. 

The Department of Defense should provide the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives an 

interim report within 90 days and a final report within 180 days 

of the enactment of this Act. 

Report on authorities for the employment, use, and status of 

National Guard and Reserve technicians (sec. 1067) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau, the Chief of the Army Reserve, the Chief of the Air 

Force Reserve, and representatives of National Guard and Reserve 

technicians to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and House of Representatives by no later than April 1, 

2018, a report assessing the adequacy of current authorities for the 

employment, use, and status of military technicians, to include recommendations for statutory change. The purpose of the report 

would be to define the mission and requirements of military technicians, identify means to improve their management and administration, and identify means to enhance the capability of the Department of Defense to recruit and retain technicians. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
238 

Conforming repeals and technical amendments in connection with reports of the Department of Defense whose 

submittal to Congress has previously been terminated 

by law (sec. 1068) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make technical and conforming amendments related to Department of Defense reporting requirements that were terminated under section 

1080 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92) and section 1061 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). 

Annual reports on approval of employment or compensation 

of retired general or flag Officers by foreign governments for Emoluments Clause purposes (sec. 1069) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 908 of title 37, United States Code, to require the service secretaries to submit to certain congressional committees an annual 

report on approval of employment or compensation of retired general or flag officers by foreign governments for which the consent 

of Congress is required by article I, section 9 (the emoluments 

clause) of the Constitution. 

Annual report on civilian casualties in connection with 

United States military operations (sec. 1070) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on civilian casualties caused as a result of United 

States military operations during the preceding year. The report is 

to be delivered no later than May 1 of each year. 

Report on large-scale, joint exercises involving the air and 

land domains (Sec. 1071) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on large-scale, joint exercises involving the air 

and land domains. 

Department of Defense review of Navy capabilities in the 

Arctic region (sec. 1072) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to submit a report on the capabilities of the 

Navy in the Arctic region to the congressional defense committees 

not later than 180 days after the date of the enactments of this 

Act. 

Business case analysis on establishment of active duty association and additional primary aircraft authorizations 

for the 168th Air Refueling Wing (sec. 1073) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of the Air Force to conduct a business case analysis on 

the establishment of an active or classic association with the 168th 

Air Refueling Wing. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
239 

Report on Navy capacity to increase production of anti-submarine warfare and search and rescue rotary wing aircraft in light of increase in the size of the surface fleet 

to 355 ships. (Sec. 1074) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional defense committees, no later than September 15, 2017, on the capacity of the 

United States Navy to increase production of anti-submarine warfare and combat search and rescue rotary wing aircraft given the 

stated intent to increase the size of the fleet to 355 ships. 

The committee is aware that the Navy is currently performing an 

assessment for the fleet. The committee is also aware that much 

of the current fleet of MH–60 helicopters are approaching the end 

of their planned service life and will have to undergo a service life 

extension in the next few years which will take roughly thirty aircraft out of service annually. 

Given the anticipated growth of the fleet the committee assesses 

there will be an increased requirement for combat search and rescue and anti-submarine warfare helicopters. All of these requirements place future demand on the naval helicopter industrial base 

while the Navy’s procurement plan is imposing a gap in production 

between the ending of the latest MH–60R contract and procurement to fulfill future aircraft requirements. This gap will cause a 

loss of skilled labor and extensively impact the broader supply 

chain, driving the cost per airframe up significantly and unnecessarily. 

Subtitle G—Other Matters 

Protection against misuse of Naval Special Warfare Command insignia (sec. 1081) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 7882 to title 10, United States Code, to prohibit a person 

from using any covered Naval Special Warfare insignia in connection with any promotion, good, service, or other commercial activity 

when a particular use would be likely to suggest a false affiliation, 

connection, or association with, endorsement by, or approval of, the 

United States Government, the Department of Defense, or the Department of the Navy, and to authorize the Attorney General to 

initiate civil proceedings to prevent unauthorized use of such insignia. 

Collaborations between the Armed Forces and certain nonFederal entities on support of Armed Forces missions 

abroad (sec. 1082) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate on the contributions of qualified non-Federal 

entities to the effectiveness of the mission of the Department of Defense through the provision of private humanitarian, economic, and 

other non-lethal assistance from U.S. citizens in response to local 

needs identified by members of the Armed Forces in areas in which 

the Armed Forces are deployed abroad. Further, the provision 

would express the sense of the Senate that U.S. military commanders should collaborate with and, consistent with applicable 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
240 

laws and regulations, provide transportation, lodging, and other 

logistical support to qualified non-Federal entities to enhance missions of the Armed Forces abroad. Additionally, the provision would 

require the Secretary of Defense not later than 120 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act to conduct a review of guidance within the Department of Defense applicable to collaborations between 

military commanders and qualified non-federal Entities and, if determined as appropriate in light of the review, issue additional 

guidance within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

The committee is concerned that there is a lack of clarity on 

what constitutes appropriate interaction between Department of 

Defense personnel and qualified non-Federal entities. The committee believes the lack of clear, consistent guidance across the 

Armed Forces on such collaboration creates confusion for military 

commanders and could impede the ability of privately-funded qualified non-Federal entities to provide private assistance that would 

directly benefit the accomplishment of military objectives while 

also saving U.S. taxpayer funds. 

Federal charter for Spirit of America (sec. 1083) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend title 

36, United States Code, to establish a federal charter for Spirit of 

America. 

Reconsideration of claims for disability compensation for 

veterans who were the subjects of mustard gas or lewisite experiments during World War II (sec. 1084) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in consultation with the Secretary of 

Defense, to reconsider all claims for compensation under chapter 11 

of title 38, United States Code, that were denied before the date 

of the enactment of this Act, and make a disability determination 

in connection with full-body exposure to mustard gas or Lewisite 

during active military, naval, or air service during World War II. 

The provision would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs or 

the Secretary of Defense to presume that a veteran experienced 

full-body exposure to mustard gas or Lewisite, unless proven otherwise, when reconsidering a claim. 

Prize competition to identify root cause of physiological episodes on Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force training 

and operational aircraft (sec. 1085) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to establish a prize competition designed to accelerate identification of the root cause or causes of physiological episodes experienced in Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force training 

and operational aircraft. 

Exception to the interdepartmental waiver doctrine for 

cleanup of vehicle crashes (sec. 1086) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to expend funds to clean up vehicle crashes 

on another Federal department or agency’s property if the crash 

was the result of a Department of Defense activity. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
241 

Transfer of surplus firearms to Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety (sec. 1087) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 40728(h) of title 36, United States Code, by directing the Secretary of the Army to transfer no more than 10,000 surplus M1911 

and M1911A1 pistols to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The 

committee notes that all sales shall be at fair market value and all 

revenues from said sales, less transfer and storage costs, shall be 

returned to the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. 

Items of Special Interest 

355 ship build-up review 

The committee supports the Navy’s Force Structure Assessment 

requirement for 355 battle force ships. The committee is aware that 

the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John Richardson, published 

a white paper, The Future Navy, which calls for the Navy to 

achieve the 355 ship objective in the 2020s. 

Furthermore, the committee is aware that achieving the FSA 

battle fleet objective may require options other than solely relying 

on new-construction shipbuilding. The committee understands that 

the Navy is examining options to extend the service life of ships 

currently in the fleet and reactivate inactive ships. The committee 

believes it is important that Congress fully understand the business case analysis for these options and others which could grow 

the fleet. 

Therefore, not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 

Act, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to deliver a 

report to the congressional defense committees which shows a detailed business case analysis for each option to grow the battle fleet 

other than new construction. The report shall include business case 

analyses for service life extension and reactivation options. 

Arctic domain awareness 

The committee understands that current Department of Defense 

and commercial satellite constellations do not provide sufficient 

space coverage to offer consistent coverage of the Arctic and Polar 

regions. The committee further understands that the U.S. military 

currently faces significant challenges in its ability to operate in the 

Arctic region given these current communications, navigational, 

and domain awareness shortfalls. 

The committee notes that in December 2016, the Department of 

Defense issued the Report to Congress on Strategy to Protect 

United States National Security Interests in the Arctic Region, a 

report required by this committee in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (P.L. 114–92). The committee is encouraged that the Department intends to ‘‘engage public, private, 

and international partners to improve domain awareness in the 

Arctic,’’ but is concerned that, as the report identifies, ‘‘command 

and control of forces are challenged by limited satellite and terrestrial communications above 65 degrees north.’’ 

Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense to 

identify possible partnerships with commercial industry to meet 

immediate domain awareness and communications requirements in 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
242 

the Arctic, to include improved satellite imagery and communications, terrestrial communications, unmanned aerial systems, and 

other urgent, identified needs of the Department. 

Assessment of Navy capabilities to support U.S. Coast Guard 

and partner nations’ international maritime law enforcement activities 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee has expressed concern 

about the size of the Navy fleet and its effect on warfighting capability, and about the ability of the Navy to achieve the force derived 

from the Navy’s latest Force Structure Assessment. 

In peacetime, the Navy also is tasked with supporting other Government priorities, including law enforcement activities of the U.S. 

Coast Guard or allied nations. 

The committee is concerned that the Navy may not give adequate 

consideration to supporting these priorities. This may derive from 

having insufficient forces, but it could also be affected by insufficiently trained personnel or inadequate authorities. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in 

consultation with the Chief of Naval Operations, to provide an assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 2018. The assessment should address the following elements: 

(1) The Navy’s current capabilities and capacity to provide 

support to the U.S. Coast Guard or allied nations and their 

maritime law enforcement activities, including efforts to combat: 

(a) human trafficking; 

(b) illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing; and 

(c) other illicit activity at sea. 

(2) Technical coordination with partner nations and non-governmental organization to improve tracking and detection of 

vessels engaged in such activities; 

(3) Unfilled demand from the U.S. Coast Guard and allied 

nations for such support; 

(4) Limitations on the Navy’s ability to provide such support; 

and 

(5) Legislative proposals for mitigating these limitations. 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and 

Low Intensity Conflict 

The committee notes that section 922 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) included a number of reforms designed to enhance the role of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC) in providing for the oversight and advocacy of special operations forces (SOF). The Acting ASD SOLIC testified before the committee on May 4, 2017, that ‘‘In overseeing 

SOF acquisitions, technology, logistics, personnel, readiness, and 

talent management functions, SOLIC will be positioned to institutionalize these hard-learned lessons of contemporary conflicts. The 

‘Service secretary-like’ authorities in section 922 serve as a strategic linchpin, ensuring that we lock in these hard-won gains.’’ 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
243 

The committee believes the Department has made important 

progress in implementing these reforms, including by taking steps 

to emphasize the role of the ASD SOLIC in budgeting, programming, and personnel matters in recent months. However, the committee believes much more remains to be done to achieve the full 

intent of the provision. 

The committee remains mindful of the congressionally-directed 

reductions to headquarters staff, but continues to believe that the 

‘‘service secretary-like’’ mission of the ASD SOLIC should be more 

robustly resourced in order to rebalance the ASD SOLIC’s lines of 

effort and fulfill its mandate under title 10, United States Code. 

The committee also supports the ongoing review of the non-legally 

binding responsibilities currently assigned to the ASD SOLIC 

under Department guidance and looks forward to receiving recommendations for the divesture of any such responsibilities. Additionally, the committee strongly encourages the Department to consider reforms to the organizational structure of the office that 

would ensure a significantly increased emphasis on its responsibility to exercise its ‘‘service secretary-like’’ responsibilities with respect to U.S. Special Operations Command. 

Audit progress 

The committee is concerned that Department of Defense has not 

obtained an audit opinion on its full financial statements after over 

20 years of working to do so, as required by law. The Chief Financial Officer’s Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–576) mandates the preparation of audited annual financial statements for certain funds 

and accounts from executive agencies, including the Department. 

The Department of Defense is the only agency which has not received an unqualified (clean) audit opinion on their annual financial statements, which means that their statements were free of 

material misstatements and accord with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Defense Business Board, to 

study audit progress to date, specifically focusing on the organizational and individual incentives that could improve the Department’s standing. The committee hopes that this effort will produce 

actionable recommendations for the Department and for Congress 

to incentivize a clean audit across the Department of Defense. 

Budget Control Act Repeal 

The committee has ongoing concerns about the negative impact 

of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112–25) on the Department 

of Defense and other agencies that contribute to our national security and supports its unconditional repeal. 

Comptroller General of the United States review of the U.S. 

Navy’s approach to nuclear-powered aircraft carrier dismantlement and disposal 

The committee notes the Department of the Navy’s planning for 

the dismantlement and disposal of the ex-USS Enterprise includes 

options that have not been previously utilized for nuclear-powered 

warship disposal. In 2012, the ex-USS Enterprise was inactivated 

and began the process of defueling. In 2014, the Navy released a 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
244 

request for information to assess the potential of commercial dismantlement and disposal, based on the Navy’s assessment that the 

traditional means of nuclear-powered warship disposal at Puget 

Sound Naval Shipyard (PSNS) may not be viable for the ex-USS 

Enterprise. In November 2016, the Navy released a request for proposals (RFP) for partial commercial dismantlement and disposal. In 

February 2017, the Navy announced this RFP was cancelled. 

The committee understands current planning includes the evaluation of three alternatives: commercial recycling of the non-nuclear portions of the ex-USS Enterprise followed by reactor compartment packaging at PSNS, commercial recycling of the entire 

ship, and a disposal path decision at a later date. 

The committee is concerned with several aspects of the Navy’s 

approach to dismantlement and disposal of the ex-USS Enterprise, 

which will set a precedent for future nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, including: 

(1) Incomplete National Environmental Policy Act and Nuclear Regulatory Commission documentation necessary to 

evaluate the potential impacts associated with each alternative 

prior to preparing to award a contract; 

(2) Intention to fund the dismantlement incrementally using 

the Operations and Maintenance, Navy account; 

(3) Intention to award a contract for a project that could exceed the Acquisition Category II funding threshold without 

presenting the congressional defense committees with a contracting strategy, detailed cost estimate, or results of a formal 

decision review process; and 

(4) Projections of PSNS workload that do not clearly depict 

the government’s best estimate of future workload. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to submit to the congressional defense committees a 

report setting forth the results of a review no later than June 1, 

2018, with preliminary observations and recommendations due no 

later than March 1, 2018, on the Navy’s approach to dismantlement and disposal of the ex-USS Enterprise that shall include the 

following: 

(1) The extent to which each of the three alternatives comply 

with applicable statutes and regulations, as well as specific actions necessary to achieve such compliance prior to selecting a 

course of action or awarding an associated contract. 

(2) The pros and cons associated with the Navy’s proposed 

alternatives to dismantlement and disposal of the ex-USS Enterprise, including analyses of the contracting strategies, cost 

and schedule estimates, and impact on the workload and facilities at the Navy’s public shipyards. 

(3) The budgetary and program management implications of 

funding this effort using the Operations and Maintenance, 

Navy account, as compared to a procurement account (e.g., the 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy account and treating this 

project similar to an aircraft carrier refueling and complex 

overhaul). Include a review of the Navy’s intent to use an incremental funding approach, as compared to fully funding the 

effort. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
245 

(4) The extent to which this effort should be subject to acquisition reviews, program deliverables (e.g., a program cost and 

schedule baseline), and acquisition executive involvement in 

accordance with acquisition best practices and applicable guidance, including Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02. 

(5) The extent to which the Navy’s public shipyard workload 

estimates, including PSNS, depict the government’s best estimate of projected workload and is appropriately budgeted for 

in the Department of Defense future years defense program. 

(6) Other information regarding or related to the Navy’s dismantlement and disposal strategy for the ex-USS Enterprise 

that the Comptroller General determines to be of significant 

importance to the execution and oversight of this effort, as well 

as for the dismantlement and disposal of future nuclear aircraft carriers. 

The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to consider the 

results and recommendations of this Comptroller General review 

prior to selecting a course of action for the dismantlement and disposal of the ex-USS Enterprise and to keep the congressional defense committees informed of significant actions related to this effort. 

DUI prevention and rideshares 

The committee is encouraged by the Department’s continued efforts to reduce alcohol-related incidents generally and driving 

under the influence (DUI) in particular. For example, the Marine 

Corps’ ‘‘Protect What You’ve Earned’’ effort teaches Marines to consider the long-term benefits of responsible decision making. The 

committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to consider other 

innovative approaches to help further reduce the number of service 

member DUI incidents. Installation and unit-based car-pool and 

rideshare programs have the potential to reduce service member 

costs while also providing reliable and safe methods of transportation. New transportation technology has the potential to make 

these, and other, innovative approaches more accessible to military 

installations. 

Efficient use of non-tactical government owned transportation 

The committee notes that significant cost savings could be 

achieved through the more efficient use of non-tactical government 

owned mobility and transportation on military installations. Notably, the Department of Defense spends roughly $435.0 million each 

year for non-tactical passenger vehicles and light trucks, with a use 

rate of just seven percent. 

To address these inefficiencies, the committee encourages the 

Secretary of Defense to examine the Department’s approach to providing non-tactical transportation. New technologies and approaches should be utilized to meet department needs while also 

improving overall efficiency. The recent Department of Transportation Smart Cities Challenge provides useful insight to innovative 

approaches that might be beneficial to the Department of Defense. 

The committee also encourages the Secretary of Defense to 

incentivize military installations to partner with industry and local 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
246 

communities to explore mutually beneficial transportation opportunities. 

Encouraging Air Force Rescue Unit Associations 

The committee notes that United States Air Force rescue squadrons, including those in the reserve component, deliver critical combat and emergency support to military and civilian personnel in 

harm’s way, both at home and abroad. Whether called upon to provide combat search and rescue or to respond to a natural disaster, 

Air Force rescue squadrons are an adaptable and invaluable capability for the nation. 

The unique nature of the rescue mission lends itself well for a 

robust partnership between Active, Reserve, and National Guard 

rescue units. In particular, experience gained by National Guard 

units while performing their domestic duties, under title 32, United 

States Code, provides important opportunities to prepare units for 

success in combat environments. The committee believes that the 

significant experience residing in reserve component rescue squadrons should be better leveraged to benefit the Total Force. 

Issued in 2014, the report of National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force—a report required by the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (P.L. No. 112–239)—recommended forming additional associate units comprised of both active and reserve component personnel and equipment. As part of 

the House Report of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2017 (H. Rept. 114–537), the House of Representatives 

further encouraged the Air Force to consider forming associate 

units with the three Air National Guard combat search and rescue 

units in Alaska, California, and New York. 

The committee believes the Air Force should accelerate the creation of combat search and rescue associate units to promote efficiency, leverage Reserve Component expertise, improve readiness 

across the Total Force, and expand interoperability between Active 

and Reserve Components. 

Management of Special Access Programs 

The committee understands the necessity of protecting sensitive 

information in Special Access Programs (SAPs). Unfortunately, implementing such special protection risks creating information silos 

that may result in the duplication of efforts across programs and 

teams. The Office of the Secretary of Defense has undertaken efforts to address this challenge and ensure appropriate information 

sharing, while maintaining adequate security controls. The committee applauds these efforts, but is concerned about whether the 

Department has yet to achieve an appropriate balance among these 

concerns. 

Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary to review the rationalization efforts implemented to date to ensure that the Department of Defense policy results in granting access to special programs in a matter that will promote the goal of advancing mission 

capabilities across multiple SAPs, while maintaining appropriate 

security controls. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
247 

House of Representatives on the status of these efforts no later 

than December 1, 2017. 

National Guard Counterdrug Program 

The National Guard Counterdrug Program (NGCP) is a federally-funded program that provides military-specific skill-sets to law 

enforcement agencies and community-based organizations to address the supply and demand for illicit drugs. The timing and allocation of funding continues to be a limiting factor for the NGCP 

and impedes the effective sustainment of relationships with supported agencies and impacts the retention of highly-trained individuals. 

With such challenges in mind, the committee is interested in the 

allocation of resources to best support the Department of Defense 

(DOD) counternarcotics efforts. In October 2015, the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the National Guard had 

developed performance measures to report on its counterdrug program, but the information collected was not being used to evaluate 

and inform funding for state-level programs or oversee the 

counterdrug schools training. 

While the National Guard has developed its Threat Based Resource Model (TBRM) to determine the severity of the drug threat, 

and is using it to determine funding levels for each state within the 

counterdrug program, the committee is concerned that the states’ 

use of the funds has not produced results in line with each state’s 

counterdrug objectives. The committee would like to have a better 

understanding of how the NGCP allocates and expends resources 

in alignment with its stated objectives. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate the NGCP’s approach to resource allocation, to include the following: (1) A description of how the 

NGCP aligns with the Department of Defense’s overarching 

counter-narcotics objectives; (2) A description of how the National 

Guard determines funding and distribution percentages for each 

state in the TBRM; (3) An assessment of the extent to which funding for the National Guard counterdrug program is expended in accordance with approved state plans; and (4) An assessment of the 

extent to which the National Guard Counterdrug Program is 

achieving its stated objectives. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to brief the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than March 15, 2018, on preliminary findings 

of the evaluation with a final report to follow by June 30, 2018. 

National Guard role in enhanced border security 

The committee acknowledges an increased emphasis on enhancing our nation’s border security to address illegal immigration, illicit drug smuggling, human trafficking, and other criminal activities that threaten our national security. The committee notes there 

may be additional opportunities for National Guard units to conduct valuable unit and individual training events that would contribute to readiness as well as enhanced border security. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army and 

the Secretary of the Air Force to submit to the congressional deVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00283 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
248 

fense committees, in consultation with the Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau, the Commander of U.S. Northern Command and 

the Secretary of Homeland Security, a report by December 1, 2017, 

with recommendations on how the Army National Guard and Air 

National Guard could gain effective unit and individual training 

while also enhancing the border security capabilities of the continental United States. This report should contain a description of: 

the types of activities that would achieve such training and enhanced border security; the costs associated with such activities 

and the delineation of state and federal funding required; the potential impact on operations and personnel tempo for tasked units; 

any limitations of current operating authorities for each potential 

training activity; and any other information the Secretaries consider relevant. 

Navy strategic laydown and dispersal plan 

The committee is concerned that the Navy has not yet presented 

detailed plans for expanding the fleet to achieve the 355-ship force 

structure objective identified in December 2016. As the Navy develops such plans, the committee believes that the Navy should also 

define the appropriate Navy infrastructure including measures to 

ensure that risk to the fleet from natural or manmade catastrophes 

is effectively mitigated. 

The committee is aware that the Chief of Naval Operations promulgated OPNAV Instruction 3111.17A in May 2017 to set policy 

and establish responsibility for the design and assessment phases 

of the annual Navy Strategic Laydown and Dispersal (SLD) plan. 

The committee notes OPNAV Instruction 3111.17A includes direction to consider actions that would ‘‘limit risks associated with 

natural disasters or manmade catastrophes’’’ during the homeporting determination process. The committee believes that the 

Navy should include this direction as a key consideration in decisions regarding basing of capital ships, namely aircraft carriers and 

amphibious ships, particularly as these ship classes increase. 

The committee further notes OPNAV Instruction 3111.17A also 

includes direction to consider actions that would improve Operational Plan (OPLAN) and Contingency Plan (CONPLAN) response 

times. The committee believes that this direction should also be a 

key consideration in decisions regarding basing of capital ships. 

Northern Triangle human rights training 

The Committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to provide the congressional defense and foreign relations 

committees no later than June 30, 2018, a report on the extent to 

which U.S. assistance to police forces in the Northern Triangle 

builds professionalism and respect for human rights. The report 

should contain the following elements: (1) A description of the Department of Defense’s objectives in training police forces in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala; (2) An assessment of the extent 

to which the Department of Defense is achieving its objectives with 

respect to human rights and increased professionalism across police 

institutions; (3) An assessment of any plans to sustain efforts to 

train police forces in the Northern Triangle; and (4) Any other matVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00284 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
249 

ters deemed relevant by the Comptroller General of the United 

States. 

Plan on actions to address vulnerabilities arising from 

unencrypted aircraft transponders on military aircraft 

The committee recognizes the benefits to efficiency and effectiveness of the Department of Defense’s integration into the Next Generation Air Transportation System. However, the committee is extremely concerned with potential vulnerabilities to operations security, physical security, and cybersecurity of military aircraft 

equipped with existing and planned transponders that provide 

unencrypted real-time, or near real-time, information available in 

the public domain. 

The committee is also concerned that the deadline for Department of Defense aircraft to be equipped with new transponder 

equipment that provides further unencrypted information is currently January 1, 2020. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, to complete a plan that includes: 

(1) Actions that have been taken to mitigate the 

vulnerabilities discussed above; 

(2) Remaining actions to be taken and deadlines for completing those actions; 

(3) Identification of the primary Department of Defense official charged with overseeing the Department’s coordinated efforts on such plan, and a description of the roles and responsibilities of such official; and 

(4) Other actions the Secretary deems relevant. 

The Secretary of Defense shall provide a report on this plan to 

the congressional defense committees no later than December 31, 

2017. 

Report on infrastructure required to protect national security interests of the United States in the Arctic region 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to the 

congressional defense committees no later than June 30, 2018 a report on the requirements and investment plans for military infrastructure necessary to protect United States security interests in 

the Arctic region. The report should include the following: a review 

of the operational plan for the protection of United States national 

security interests in the Arctic region, including strategic and national assets; a description of United States military capabilities required to implement the operational plan, including types of forces, 

major weapons systems, and logistics required for operations in the 

Arctic region; a description of the installations, infrastructure, and 

deep water ports for deployment of assets required to support the 

operational plan; and an investment plan to establish the installations and infrastructure required to implement the operational 

plan. The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may 

include a classified annex. 

Report on initiatives for mitigating military pilot shortfalls 

The committee remains concerned with the increasing shortage 

of military pilots in the Armed Forces, particularly in the United 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
250 

States Air Force, who report leaving the Armed Forces due to various disincentives to continued service, and the attraction of larger 

salaries and increased control of their personal schedules offered by 

the major airline industry. At a June 6, 2017 hearing, senior Air 

Force leaders testified the Air Force was 1,500 pilots short, with 

fighter pilots comprising 1,300 of that shortfall. Forecasted trends 

also indicate Air Force pilot retention will worsen in future years 

as more commercial airline pilots reach mandatory retirement age. 

The Navy, Marine Corps, and Army are also seeing forecasted 

trends toward decreased aviator retention rates. While the services 

have continued to request additional bonus authorities and increased maximum allowed annual bonus amounts, some of which 

were authorized and appropriated by Congress in recent years, underlying quality of life, quality of service, and other disincentives 

to continued service remain. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, 

and Secretary of the Air Force, to provide to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives no 

later than March 1, 2018, a report on initiatives for mitigating pilot 

shortfalls. The report shall include, at a minimum, the following 

elements: 

(1) The viability of and resource requirements for increasing 

aviator production in each military service; 

(2) A comprehensive review of aviator manning requirements 

in each military service; 

(3) A comprehensive review of available aircraft fleet capacities for seasoning pilots to acceptable proficiency, currency, 

and experience levels; 

(4) Initiatives undertaken to improve the quality of service 

for aviators in the Armed Forces, to include elimination of tertiary non-flying training requirements, increased monthly flying time, and more effective training; 

(5) Initiatives undertaken to improve the quality of life of 

aviators in the Armed Forces, to include the review of disincentives to continued service caused by high rates of deployment, 

insufficient pay and allowances, family hardships, and other 

morale-based issues; 

(6) An assessment of the feasibility of developing a career 

track for Armed Forces aviators that would allow continuous 

flying duties, as opposed to tertiary assignments and duties required for promotion to senior officer ranks; 

(7) The potential for striking partnership agreements and 

memoranda of understanding with flight training universities, 

major airlines, or other entities to achieve synergies in satisfying national pilot demands; and 

(8) Other information the Secretary considers relevant. 

Trafficking of commodities 

The committee is concerned by the trafficking of people and illegal goods, particularly as it relates to the financing of terrorism, 

the empowerment of transnational organized crime organizations, 

and the destabilization of governments worldwide. The committee 

notes that in recent testimony, Admiral Kurt W. Tidd, USN, the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
251 

Commander of U.S. Southern Command, stated that in his area of 

responsibility, ‘‘Transregional and transnational threat networks 

are now the principal threat to regional security and stability,’’ but 

that their ‘‘interests, influence, capabilities, and reach extend beyond the responsibilities of any one Geographic or Functional Combatant Command, undercutting our national interests in multiple 

domains and many regions.’’ The possibility of witting or unwitting 

exploitation of these networks to harm the United States is a serious concern. 

Trafficking worldwide encompasses a number of goods, including 

drugs, people, weapons, antiquities, and tobacco. The committee 

notes with interest that some of these goods may not be illegal in 

and of themselves, but that their illicit movement provides significant revenue to transnational threat networks in areas such as the 

Northern Triangle of Central America, the U.S.-Mexico border, the 

Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and elsewhere, as was pointed out 

with respect to tobacco products in a 2015 interagency report entitled ‘‘The Global Illicit Trade in Tobacco: A Threat to National Security.’’ The committee is concerned by the illicit trade in tobacco 

and its propensity to fund transnational organized crime and terrorist groups. 

The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary of Defense 

(DOD), in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security, 

the Department of State, and other relevant departments and 

agencies, to provide a written update to the committee on the status of DOD’s support for efforts to combat trafficking in commodities, including tobacco. This update should include: (1) A description of the impact of trafficking in commodities on the national security of the United States, including the financing of transnational 

terrorism and crime organizations; (2) Current lines of effort in 

combating such trafficking; and (3) A description of DOD’s support 

for these lines of effort. 

The report, which may include a classified portion, on the current strategy and implementation of efforts to address the challenge posed by commodities trafficking, should be delivered not 

later than September 1, 2017. 

Unmanned maritime systems test and training range 

The committee believes that the Navy must increasingly leverage 

unmanned systems across all warfighting domains, but particularly 

on the sea surface and undersea. The committee understands that 

the Navy is funding development programs which would support 

warfighting concepts such as manned-unmanned teaming and 

multi-domain systems integration. The committee believes that the 

Navy may need to increase its test and training range infrastructure to provide adequate support for testing, experimenting and exercising with unmanned maritime systems. 

Therefore, not later than one year after the enactment of this 

Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall deliver to the congressional defense committees a report which evaluates potential approaches for 

dealing with increased demand for supporting unmanned maritime 

systems, including adding infrastructure at new locations or expanding existing infrastructure. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(253) 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Matters 

Pilot program on enhanced personnel management system 

for cybersecurity and legal professionals in the Department of Defense (sec. 1101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of an enhanced personnel management system for cybersecurity and legal professionals, applicable to new 

hires in those fields in pay grades GS–15 and below within the Department of Defense, commencing January 1, 2020. 

Inclusion of Strategic Capabilities Office and Defense Innovation Unit Experimental of the Department of Defense 

in personnel management authority to attract experts in 

science and engineering (sec. 1102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend certain existing personnel management authorities at the Department 

of Defense to include the Strategic Capabilities Office and the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental. The committee notes that 

these authorities have previously been established to allow certain 

scientific organizations within the Department to attract experts in 

science and engineering. The committee notes that these authorities have been implemented by these organizations to great effect 

and have helped significantly to improve the scientific and technical workforce of these organizations. Given this positive impact, 

the committee believes that such authorities should be extended to 

newly-formed scientific organizations in the Department of Defense. 

The committee notes that both the Strategic Capabilities Office 

and the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental receive administrative support through the Washington Headquarters Services 

(WHS). The committee expects that the Washington Headquarters 

Services will provide personnel, management, and other administrative support in most efficient manner possible to reduce bureaucratic delays, eliminate non-value added processes, and best support agility, flexibility, and missions that support technology innovation. 

Permanent authority for demonstration projects relating to 

acquisition personnel management policies and procedures (sec. 1103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1762 of title 10, United States Code, to provide a permanent 

authority for personnel programs for employees in the Department 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
254 

of Defense civilian acquisition workforce and supporting personnel 

assigned to work directly with that workforce. The provision would 

also increase the number of participants from 120,000 to 130,000 

to account for the increasing need to train individuals managing 

acquisition programs in cyber deterrence, detection, and response. 

Establishment of senior scientific technical managers at 

Major Range and Test Facility Base facilities and Defense Test Resource Management Center (sec. 1104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2358a of title 10, United States Code, to explicitly include the 

test and evaluation centers, defined as each facility of the Major 

Range and Test Facility Base, and the Defense Test Resource Management Center. Section 1122 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) established and 

codified the authority of the defense research laboratories to hire 

senior scientific technical managers classified above GS–15 of the 

General Schedule. The committee intended that this authority 

would be available to both defense research and development laboratories, as well as test and evaluation centers. However, the committee has learned that alternative interpretations within the Department of Defense have prevented the directors of test and evaluation centers from exercising this authority. 

Extension of temporary direct hire authority for domestic 

defense industrial base facilities, the major range and 

test facilities base (sec. 1105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend section 1125(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) through fiscal year 2019. 

Direct hire authority for financial management experts in 

the Department of Defense workforce (sec. 1106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the financial management hiring authority granted in section 1110 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–38) to those Department of Defense components not included in the military departments and defense agencies. 

Authority for wavier of requirement for a baccalaureate degree for positions in the Department of Defense on cybersecurity and computer programming (sec. 1107) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a 

briefing by the Secretary of Defense to the Committees on Armed 

Services for the Senate and the House of Representatives, no later 

than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the 

feasibility and advisability of the enactment into law of a wavier 

that would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive any requirement in law for the possession of a baccalaureate degree as a condition of appointment to a position with the primary duties of cyber 

security and computer programming. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
255 

Subtitle B—Government-Wide Matters 

Elimination of the foreign exemption provision in regard to 

overtime for Federal civilian employees temporarily assigned to a foreign area (sec. 1111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 5542 and 5544 of title 5, United States Code, to allow overtime pay equal to one and one-half times the hourly rate of basic 

pay for nonexempt Federal civilian employees assigned to temporary duty travel in exempt areas as defined by the Fair Labor 

Standards Act of 1938 (Public Law 75–718). 

One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation 

on premium pay and aggregate limitation on pay for 

Federal civilian employees working overseas (sec. 1112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1101 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), as most recently 

amended by section 1137 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), to extend through 2018 

the authority of heads of executive agencies to waive limitation on 

the aggregate of basic and premium pay of employees who perform 

work in an overseas location that is in the area of responsibility of 

the commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), or a location that was formerly in CENTCOM, but has been moved to an 

area of responsibility for the commander of U.S. Africa Command, 

in support of a military operation or an operation in response to 

a declared emergency. 

One-year extension of temporary authority to grant allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel on 

official duty in a combat zone (sec. 1113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1 

year the discretionary authority of the head of a federal agency to 

provide allowances, benefits, and gratuities comparable to those 

provided to members of the Foreign Service to an agency’s civilian 

employees on official duty in a combat zone. 

Items of Special Interest 

Direct hiring authorities 

The committee is disappointed that despite language authorizing 

direct hiring authorities provided in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the implementation of these policies has yet to take effect in many cases. The committee requests 

a status update no later than September 30, 2017, on the implementation of direct hire authorities provided for in the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114– 

328). 

Implementation of direct hiring authorities for military 

spouses 

The committee recognizes the unique challenges facing military 

spouses in maintaining suitable employment despite frequent 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
256 

moves between duty stations and other requirements of military 

work. In recent years, Congress has provided direct hiring authorities to assist military spouses in obtaining employment with the 

federal government. 

The committee understands that despite the authorization of special hiring authorities for military spouses, these authorities have 

not yet been sufficiently utilized and military family groups have 

received feedback that spouses still face great difficulty in navigating the federal hiring process in a timely manner and obtaining 

employment. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit no later than December 1, 2017, a report outlining 

the Department’s progress on the implementation of direct hiring 

authorities for military spouses. 

Industry fellowships for civilian contracting officers 

The committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense 

(DOD) to assign civilian contracting officers to industry fellowships 

by making use of Section 1104 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), which authorized the DOD, with the agreement of a private-sector organization 

and the consent of the employee, to arrange for the temporary assignment of a DOD employee to the private-sector organization, or 

from the private-sector organization to a DOD organization. The 

committee is concerned with the workforce development plans pertaining to civilian contracting officers, and using such an authority 

will assist in developing senior contracting officers with an aim at 

leveraging industry best practices and developing innovative better 

buying practices. 

Waiver of Long-Term Temporary Duty travel per diem rates 

The committee remains concerned that the Department of Defense has yet to implement the authority contained in section 1151 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 

(Public Law 114–328), authorizing the service secretaries to waive 

reduced per diem rates for meals and incidental expenses incurred 

during long-term temporary duty travel, when the secretary concerned, or appropriately delegated authority, determines that the 

reduced rates are insufficient to cover actual expenses under certain circumstances. The committee strongly urges the Department 

to implement this policy so that long-term temporary duty travelers in need of actual expense reimbursement may receive it. The 

committee believes that civilian public shipyard workers and others 

supporting enduring mission requirements play an important role 

and, therefore, the committee expects that critical work will not be 

interrupted in pursuit of savings. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(257) 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN 

NATIONS 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training 

Support of special operations for irregular warfare (sec. 

1201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the relevant Chief of 

Mission, to expend up to $10.0 million annually through fiscal year 

2021 to provide support to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, 

or individuals engaged in supporting or facilitating ongoing irregular warfare operations by U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF). 

The committee notes with concern that adversarial nations are 

becoming more aggressive in challenging U.S. interests and partnerships and destabilizing regional order through the use of asymmetric means that often fall below the threshold of traditional 

armed conflict, often referred to as the ‘‘grey zone.’’ The committee 

notes that the ability of U.S. SOF to conduct low-visibility, irregular warfare operations in politically sensitive environments make 

them uniquely suited to counter the malign activities of our adversaries in this domain. However, the committee is concerned that 

the Secretary of Defense lacks sufficient authority to provide support for irregular warfare operations by U.S. SOF to counter this 

growing threat and therefore believes that granting this authority 

will provide the Secretary with the necessary options and flexibility 

to achieve U.S. military objectives. 

Modification of authority on support of special operations 

to combat terrorism (sec. 1202) 

The Committee recommends a provision that would make modifications to section 127e of title 10, United States Code related to 

oversight responsibilities and reporting requirements. 

Modifications of certain authority in connection with reform of defense security cooperation programs and activities (sec. 1203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the 

programs sufficient to satisfy the requirement for institutional capacity building pursuant to section 333(c)(4) of title 10, United 

States Code. The provision would also modify the Ministry of Defense Advisor program under section 332 of title 10, United States 

Code. The committee continues to strongly believe that strengthening the institutional capacity of foreign security partners to more 

effectively manage and employ security forces is vital to the longterm success of Department of Defense security cooperation programs. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
258 

Global Security Contingency Fund matters (sec. 1204) 

The committee recommends a provision (sec. 1204) that would 

extend for two years section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, as amended, and make other 

modifications. 

Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (sec. 1205) 

The committee recommends a provision (sec. 1205) that would 

authorize the Secretary of Defense to operate the Defense Institute 

of International Legal Studies and would require the Secretary to 

conduct a comprehensive review of the mission, workforce, funding, 

and other support of the Institute. 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan 

Extension of Commanders’ Emergency Response Program 

and related authorities (sec. 1211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 31, 2019 the Commanders’ Emergency Response 

Program (CERP) in Afghanistan under section 1201 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112– 

81) as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). 

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

of Afghanistan (sec. 1212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 31, 2018 the authority under section 1222 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 

Law 112–238), as most recently amended by section 1213 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (114–328), 

to transfer defense articles being drawn down in Afghanistan and 

to provide defense services in connection with such transfers to the 

military and security forces of Afghanistan. The provision would 

also extend though fiscal year 2018 the exemption for excess defense articles (EDA) transferred from Department of Defense stocks 

in Afghanistan from counting toward the annual limitation on the 

aggregate value of EDA transferred under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Public Law 87–195). 

Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement 

of certain coalition nations for support provided to 

United States military operations (sec. 1213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for fiscal year 2018 the authority to make Coalition Support Funds (CSF) 

payments under section 1233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as amended. 

Under this section, the Secretary of Defense may use Coalition 

Support Funds to reimburse certain or designated nations for support provided to or in connection with U.S. military operations in 

Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria. 

As established in section 1218 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), reimburseVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00294 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
259 

ments under this section to Pakistan can only be made for certain 

activities meant to enhance the security situation in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and for counterterrorism. As noted in 

the Senate report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), the committee 

believes that stability in the region cannot be achieved without stability in Pakistan itself and that fostering a strong, stable, and secure Pakistan is consistent with the national security goals of the 

United States. The committee notes that these national security 

goals remain unchanged from one year ago and thus, the recommended provision would extend the separate authority for Pakistan created last year. 

The recommended provision would limit the total amount of 

funds that may be provided in fiscal year 2018 to $900.0 million. 

Of this total, the amount that could be provided to Pakistan would 

be limited to $700.0 million. The provision would also extend for 

1 year certain notifications and certification requirements relating 

to payments to Pakistan. The provision would also make $350.0 

million of this amount contingent upon certification from the Secretary of Defense that Pakistan is taking demonstrable steps 

against the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba in Pakistan. 

Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced in countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec. 1214) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 31, 2019 the authority in section 801(f) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–84), as most recently amended by section 1212 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 

114–328), to acquire products and services produced in countries 

along a major route of supply to Afghanistan. 

Extension of semiannual report on enhancing security and 

stability in Afghanistan (sec. 1215) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 15, 2020 the semiannual reporting requirement 

on enhancing security and stability in Afghanistan. 

Sense of Congress regarding the Afghan special immigrant 

visa program (sec. 1216) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that an additional 4,000 visas should be made 

available for principal aliens who are eligible for special immigrant 

status under the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 

1101 note) to prevent harm to the operations of the United States 

Government in Afghanistan. 

Special immigrant visas for Afghan allies (sec. 1217) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) to authorize an additional 4,000 special immigrant visas for Afghan allies. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
260 

Subtitle C—Matters Relating to Syria, Iraq, and Iran 

Modification of authority to provide assistance to counter 

the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (sec. 1231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authority under section 1236 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. 

‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2015 (Public Law 113–291; 128 Stat. 3559) to provide for infrastructure repair and renovation and small-scale construction of 

temporary facilities necessary to meet urgent operational or force 

protection requirements with a cost less than $4 million in Iraq. Construction, renovation or repair projects in excess of $1 million 

would not be carried out under this provision unless approved in 

advance by the Commander of U.S. Central Command, who shall 

notify in writing the congressional defense committees of that decision, including the justification for the project and its estimated 

cost at least 14 days in advance of the start of the project. Aggregate costs of construction, repair, and renovation projects carried 

out under this section in any fiscal year may not exceed $30 million. 

The committee supports the Department’s request for a more 

flexible small-scale construction authority with the objective of bolstering the force protection of Iraqi Security Forces and coalition 

advisers via the reconfiguration and development of new temporary 

fighting and defensive positions, the maintenance of roads and 

trails necessary for the conduct of military operations, and similar 

small-scale projects. The committee emphasizes this authority is 

not intended for the construction or reconstruction of infrastructure 

or other permanent facilities. 

Modification of authority to provide assistance to the vetted 

Syrian opposition (sec. 1232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authority under section 1209 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. 

‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2015 (Public Law 113–291; 128 Stat. 3541) by striking the prior approval reprogramming requirement and replacing it with a notification requirement before carrying out new initiatives. 

Additionally, the provision would modify the authority to provide 

for infrastructure repair and renovation and small-scale construction of temporary facilities necessary to meet urgent operational or 

force protection requirements with a cost less than $4 million in 

Syria. Construction or repair projects in excess of $1 million would 

not be carried out under this provision unless approved in advance 

by the Commander of U.S. Central Command, who shall notify in 

writing the congressional defense committees of that decision, including justification for the project and its estimated cost at least 

14 days in advance of the start of the project. The aggregate 

amount of construction and repair projects carried out under this 

section in any fiscal year may not exceed $10 million. 

The committee supports the Department’s request for a more 

flexible small-scale construction authority with the objective of bolstering the force protection of vetted Syrian partner forces and coalition advisers via the reconfiguration and development of new temVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00296 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
261 

porary fighting and defensive positions, the maintenance of roads 

and trails necessary for the conduct of military operations, and 

similar small-scale projects. The committee emphasizes this authority is not intended for the construction or reconstruction of infrastructure or other permanent facilities. 

Extension and modification of authority to support operations and activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through fiscal year 2018 the authority under section 1215 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 

Law 112–81) as amended, for the Secretary of Defense to support 

the operations and activities of the Office of Security Cooperation 

in Iraq (OSC–I). The provision would authorize the use of up to $42 

million in fiscal year 2018 to support OSC–I operations and activities. 

The section would limit the obligation and expenditure of more 

than 50 percent of the funds available to OSC–I until 30 days after 

the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State submit to the appropriate congressional committees the plan to transition the activities conducted by OSC–I but funded by the Department of Defense to another entity, or transition the funding of such activities 

to another source, as required in the joint explanatory statement 

to accompany the conference report on S. 2943 of the 114th Congress, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 

(Public Law 114–328). The committee supports the Department of 

Defense’s efforts to adjust the fiscal year 2018 budget request for 

the OSC–I to more accurately reflect annual requirements and 

looks forward to receiving the required plan for transition. Furthermore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to conduct an independent analysis of the required plan and 

submit to the appropriate congressional committees, within 180 

days of the Department of Defense and State submitting their plan, 

a report containing the results of the independent analysis. At a 

minimum, the independent analysis should compare and contrast 

the OSC–I with other Offices of Security Cooperation while considering any unique requirements for the OSC–I for fulfilling its mandate. 

The provision also clarifies OSC–I’s mandate to support strategic 

defense institution building and the professionalization of the security forces of, or associated with, the Government of Iraq, rather 

than providing tactical support. Such capacity building activities 

are critical for Iraq’s long-term stability to prevent the resurgence 

of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the emergence of successor 

organizations, and the growth of other destabilizing actors. 

Modification and additional elements in annual report on 

the military power of Iran (sec. 1234) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add additional elements to the annual report on the military power of Iran 

required under section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), to include additional 

information on Iran’s military use of civilian transportation infraVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00297 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
262 

structure and assets as well as transfers to and from Iran pertaining to nuclear, ballistic missile, chemical, biological, and advanced conventional weapons, and other identified technologies. 

The committee is deeply concerned about transfers to and from 

Iran of illicit technology, especially with respect to weapons programs that could potentially threaten the United States and its allies. It also remains deeply concerned by reports that Iran’s Islamic 

Revolutionary Guard Corps is using civilian transportation infrastructure and assets to further its destabilizing activities in the 

Middle East, including the ongoing conflict in Syria. 

Subtitle D—Matters Relating to the Russian Federation 

Extension of limitation on military cooperation between the 

United States and the Russian Federation (sec. 1241) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through fiscal year 2018 section 1232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) which 

prohibits funds authorized to be appropriated for the Department 

of Defense from being used for bilateral military-to-military cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation 

without certain certifications by the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, or unless certain waiver conditions are met. 

Extension of limitation on availability of funds relating to 

sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea (sec. 

1242) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through fiscal year 2018 the limitation under section 1234 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public 

Law 114–328) on the use of Department of Defense funds for activities to recognize the sovereignty of the Russian Federation over 

Crimea. 

Extension of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (sec. 

1243) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 31, 2019 the authority under section 1250 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 

Law 114–92) as amended by section 1237 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) for 

the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of 

State, to provide security assistance, including defensive lethal assistance, and intelligence support to military and other security 

forces of the Government of Ukraine. The provision would authorize the use of up to $500.0 million in fiscal year 2018 to provide 

security assistance to Ukraine. 

The provision would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of half 

of the funds authorized to be appropriated in fiscal year 2018 

under this authority until the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the Secretary of State, certifies that Ukraine has taken substantial action to make defense institutional reforms. The committee continues to believe that defense institutional reforms are 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
263 

critical to sustaining capabilities developed using security assistance provided under this and other authorities. 

The committee remains deeply concerned by the continuing aggression of Russia and Russian-backed separatists that violate 

ceasefire agreements. The committee continues to emphasize the 

importance of providing security assistance and intelligence support, including defensive lethal assistance, to the Government of 

Ukraine to build its capacity to defend its territory and sovereignty. 

Extension of authority on training for Eastern European national security forces in the course of multilateral exercises (sec. 1244) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through calendar year 2020 the authority under section 1251 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 

Law 114–92) for the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of 

the Secretary of State, to provide multilateral or regional training, 

and pay the incremental expenses of participating in such training, 

for countries in Eastern Europe that are a signatory to the Partnership for Peace Framework Documents but not a member of the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or became a NATO 

member after January 1, 1999. The provision would also amend 

section 1251 to allow the participation of non-military security 

forces in such training, and would make other technical and clarifying amendments. The committee notes the purpose of such training is to promote interoperability, improve the ability of participating countries to respond to external threats, including from hybrid warfare, and increase the ability of NATO to take collective action when required. 

Security assistance for Baltic nations for joint program for 

resiliency and deterrence against aggression (sec. 1245) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 

State, to provide security assistance of up to $100.0 million derived 

from amounts authorized to be appropriated for the European Deterrence Initiative in fiscal year 2018 to conduct or support a joint 

program of the Baltic nations to improve their resilience against 

and build their capacity to deter aggression by the Russian Federation. 

The committee believes that joint procurement could enable Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to strengthen security cooperation, improve key military capabilities, and realize cost savings through efficiencies of scale. However, the committee also recognizes joint 

procurement may not be feasible under certain circumstances. 

Therefore, the provision would define a joint program as either: (a) 

A program jointly agreed by the Baltic nations that builds interoperability among these countries; or (b) An agreement for the joint 

procurement by the Baltic nations of defense articles or defense 

services to improve resiliency and enhance deterrence of aggression 

by the Russian Federation. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
264 

Annual report on military and security developments involving the Russian Federation (sec. 1246) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add an element on hybrid warfare to the annual report on Russian military 

and security developments required under section 1245 of the Carl 

Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291), as most recently amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), including assessments of: (a) 

Russia’s information warfare strategy and capabilities, including 

the use of misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda in social 

and traditional media; (b) Russia’s financing of political parties, 

think tanks, media organizations, and academic institutions; (c) 

Russia’s malicious cyber activities; (d) Russia’s use of coercive economic tools, including sanctions, market access, and differential 

pricing, especially in energy exports; and (e) Russia’s use of criminal networks and corruption to achieve political objectives. 

Annual report on attempts of the Russian Federation to provide disinformation and propaganda to members of the 

Armed Forces by social media. (sec. 1247) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require to 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees no later than March 31 of each year a report on attempts 

by the Russian Federation, or any foreign person acting as an 

agent of or on behalf of the Russian Federation, during the preceding year to knowingly disseminate Russian Federation-supported disinformation or propaganda, through social media applications or related Internet-based means, to members of the Armed 

Forces with probable intent to cause injury to the United States or 

advantage the Government of the Russian Federation. 

Support of European Deterrence Initiative to deter Russian 

aggression (sec. 1248) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the United States, together with NATO allies and other European partners, should demonstrate its resolve 

and ability to meet its commitments under Article V of the North 

Atlantic Treaty through appropriate military exercises with an emphasis on participation of U.S. forces based in the continental 

United States and testing strategic and operational logistics and 

transportation capabilities. Not later than March 1, 2018, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report providing analysis of the 

challenges to the United States’ ability to flow significant forces 

from the continental United States to the European theater in the 

event of a major contingency and the Department of Defense’s 

plans, including the conduct of military exercises, to address these 

challenges. 

Sense of Congress on the European Deterrence Initiative 

(sec. 1249) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the European Deterrence Initiative will bolVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00300 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
265 

ster efforts to deter further Russian aggression and that investments that support the security and stability of Europe and further 

develop European security capabilities are in the long-term national security interests of the United States. 

Enhancement of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (sec. 

1250) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1250 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (PL 114–92) to include treatment of wounded Ukrainian soldiers in the United States in medical treatment facilities as part 

of the Secretarial Designee Program as appropriate security assistance and intelligence support under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. 

Sense of Congress on importance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Intelligence Fusion Center (sec. 1251) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the collocation of the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO) Intelligence Fusion Center with U.S. European Command’s Joint Intelligence Analysis Complex provides the 

optimal solution to intelligence and operational requirements while 

fostering critical diplomatic relationships, and is the most efficient 

configuration of the intelligence enterprise. 

Subtitle E—Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region 

Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative (sec. 1261) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to establish the Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative and provide the necessary guidelines and authorities for the 

Department of Defense to execute and implement it. The recommended provision would outline the stated objective of the initiative, the authorized activities, and funding authorities to be 

used. The recommended provision would also ensure that the Department of Defense retains a maximum amount of flexibility in 

carrying out the initiative. 

To ensure the security and prosperity of the region, and to enhance U.S. military power in the region, the United States must 

demonstrate that it intends to remain a significant guarantor of security through targeted funding to realign our force posture, improve operationally relevant infrastructure, fund additional exercises, pre-position equipment, and build capacity with our allies 

and partners. 

During his testimony before the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services on April 27, 2017, Admiral Harry B. Harris, Jr., Commander of United States Pacific Command, stated that, ‘‘this effort 

will reassure our regional partners and send a strong signal to potential adversaries of our persistent commitment to the region.’’ As 

the initiative evolves in the coming years, the committee expects to 

work closely with the Department to make this initiative a reality 

and secure the freedom and prosperity of the region for another 

generation. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
266 

Expansion of military-to-military engagement with the government of Burma (sec. 1262) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Section 1253 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 

113–291) to remove certain restrictions on military-to-military engagement with Burma. As currently written, the underlying legislation limits engagements with Burma to matters concerning 

human rights, the rule of law, humanitarian and disaster relief, 

English language training, medical and health training, and defense institutional reform. 

The recommended provision would expand authorized engagements to include the understanding of security issues, adherence to 

international training standards, training on maritime domain 

awareness and peacekeeping operations, and combating illegal trafficking and migration. These changes would help shape and assist 

ongoing reform efforts in Burma and assist in the pursuit of U.S. 

national security objectives in the country. 

Agreement supplemental to Compact of Free Association 

with Palau (sec. 1263) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Congressional approval necessary to bring the September 2010 

Compact Review Agreement (CRA) with Palau and its appendices 

into force, while authorizing and approving necessary modifications 

to the outdated funding schedule that was included in the 2010 

Agreement. The recommended provision would clarify that the 

funding the Department of the Interior has provided Palau from 

2011 to 2017 fulfills a portion of the financial commitments of the 

United States under the CRA. Finally, the recommended provision 

would extend the statutory authority allowing the U.S. Government to provide certain grants to Palau specified in prior legislation. This provision would, along with funding to implement the 

Agreement, have a significant impact on our defense relationship 

with Palau, and would provide a measurable advantage in our strategic posture in the western Pacific Ocean. 

Under the 2010 Agreement, the United States committed to pro- vide a total of $215.75 million in assistance to Palau from 2011 

through 2024. Adding in the $13.25 million planned to be provided 

in fiscal year 2010 while negotiations were ongoing, the total commitment of the United States amounts to $229 million. Although 

the Agreement has had bipartisan support and the previous administration proposed legislation annually from 2011 through 2017 to 

fund commitments made under the Agreement and bring it into 

force, Congress did not enact the necessary legislation. Instead, 

Congress provided limited annual authority and discretionary funding for Palau as a stop-gap measure, totaling $105.1 million. These 

annual appropriations leave the United States with a remaining 

$123.9 million commitment to Palau. The Administration’s budget 

request for fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Defense includes 

the $123.9 million for the remaining funding commitment to Palau. 

Palau gained its independence and established diplomatic relations with the United States in 1994 with the entry into force of 

the United States-Palau Compact of Free Association, which afVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00302 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
267 

firmed each nation’s shared commitment to mutual security and 

Palau’s economic development, and provided the United States 

with responsibility for Palau’s defense as well as options to access 

defense sites in Palau for 50 years. 

As a sovereign and freely associated state in the western Pacific, 

Palau carries significant foreign policy and national security significance for the United States. The Compact provides the United 

States military special access to Palau’s land, water, and air space 

along with the critical authority to deny the same access to military forces and personnel of other nations as appropriate. This 

agreement gives the U.S. military critical access and influence in 

an increasingly contested region. 

The 1994 Compact does not have a termination date and the majority of its provisions remain in force. The financial assistance provisions of the 1994 Compact, however, expired on September 30, 

2009. Therefore, the recommended provision, along with related appropriations, would allow the U.S. Government to continue its targeted financial assistance to Palau so that Palau will have a path 

toward budgetary self-reliance. 

As required by the Compact, the United States and Palau conducted a review on the 15th anniversary of the Compact beginning 

in 2009 and subsequently signed the Compact Review Agreement 

in September 2010. This agreement calls for $229 million in U.S. 

assistance to Palau through 2024, thereby enabling Palau to transition to reliance on withdrawals from its trust fund from 2025 

through 2044. 

Workforce issues for relocation of Marines to Guam (sec. 

1264) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority for visas to be granted to individuals performing work on 

facilities related to the relocation of Marines to Guam from 2019 

to 2023. The number of new visas that could be granted for this 

specific purpose is limited to 4000. 

The committee notes that the limited workforce availability on 

Guam is not sufficient to perform the planned work for the Department of Defense and, if these visas are not provided, the projects 

would be delayed and the costs increased by almost $900.0 million. 

United States policy with respect to freedom of navigation 

operations and overflight beyond the territorial seas 

(sec. 1265) 

The committee recommends a provision that would declare that 

it is the policy of the United States to fly, sail, and operate 

throughout the oceans, seas, and airspace of the world wherever 

international law allows. The recommended provision would also 

make a number findings regarding freedom of navigation for lawabiding parties, the commitment of the United States to freedom 

of navigation, and other things. The recommended provision would 

also direct the Secretary of Defense to implement the stated policy 

by planning and executing routine and regular naval presence missions and freedom of navigation operations throughout the world 

and throughout the year. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
268 

Sense of Congress on the importance of the rule of law in 

the South China Sea (sec. 1266) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express a 

sense of Congress on the importance of maintaining the rule of law 

in the South China Sea. The committee notes that certain activities 

by China have recently called into question its commitment to the 

rule of law, and furthermore are continuing to destabilize the security of the region. Such actions directly threaten the national security interests of the United States. The committee also notes that 

a United Nations arbitral tribunal declared in July 2016 that 

China has no legal basis to claim rights to the resources within its 

nine-dash line, invalidating the assertions of the Chinese government. The tribunal also went on to outline a number of actions that 

China had recently taken that were unlawful and created a serious 

risk of collision. These actions are alarming to the committee. 

These concerns are only compounded by the fact that the United 

States has taken only limited actions or operations in the last several months to ensure freedom of navigation and overflight in the 

South China Sea. As the United States has the unique capabilities 

to carry out such activities, the committee is concerned that the absence of such sends a signal to the Chinese government that their 

actions will go uncontested. The committee urges the United States 

government to play a vital role in securing the South China Sea 

and ensuring freedom of navigation. 

Sense of Congress on the importance of the relationship between the United States and Japan (sec. 1267) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the United States and Japan are indispensable partners and that our security alliance will continue to ensure a secure and prosperous region and world. The committee 

notes that the Government of Japan remains committed to our bilateral security relationship and that it is making all necessary 

contributions and actions to maintain our alliance. 

The committee also notes that certain threats in the Asia-Pacific 

region have been increasing recently and that countering those 

threats will depend even more on a strong partnership between our 

two countries. In recognition of these evolving regional dynamics 

and of Japan’s unwavering commitment, the committee urges the 

Administration to make clear, unequivocal statements regarding 

our security relationship with Japan and about Japan’s territorial 

integrity. 

Sense of Congress on the importance of the United States alliance with the Republic of Korea (sec. 1268) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the United States should reaffirm its commitment to defending our allies in Northeast Asia and support ongoing efforts to strengthen its alliance with the Republic of Korea. 

The committee notes that North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs violate multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions 

and have destabilized the Korean peninsula and the entire AsiaPacific region by committing provocations against South Korea and 

other countries. The conduct of the government of North Korea 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
269 

poses an imminent threat to the United States and the rest of the 

world. The committee recommends that the United States increase 

pressure on North Korea and strengthen its alliance with the Republic of Korea in order to counter the threat posed by the North 

Korean regime. The committee also supports efforts to deepen trilateral coordination and cooperation between the United States, the 

Republic of Korea, and Japan. 

Sense of Congress on extended deterrence for the Korean 

Peninsula and Japan (sec. 1269) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the nuclear and missile program of North 

Korea is one of the most dangerous national security threats facing 

the United States today, and thus the Nuclear Posture Review to 

be completed this year should fully consider the perspectives of key 

allies and partners in East Asia, including the Republic of Korea 

and Japan. 

Defense partnership between the United States and Taiwan 

(sec. 1270) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the United States should strengthen and enhance its partnership and strategic cooperation with Taiwan. The 

recommended provision notes the commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96–8) and to the ‘‘Six Assurances’’’ originally 

expressed by President Reagan. The committee notes that both the 

United States and Taiwan should work toward mutual security objectives through regular transfers of defense articles and services, 

assistance in building an effective air defense capability, and participation in multilateral training activities. The recommended provision would also request a report by the Secretary of Defense regarding reestablishing port of call exchanges between the United 

States and Taiwan. 

Naval port of call exchanges between the United States and 

Taiwan (sec. 1270A) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to reestablish regular ports of call by the 

United States at suitable ports in Taiwan. The recommended provision would also direct the Secretary to allow United States Pacific 

Command to receive ports of call by Taiwan. 

Program to enhance Taiwan’s undersea warfare capabilities 

(sec. 1270B) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to implement a program of technical assistance to support efforts by Taiwan to develop indigenous undersea 

warfare capabilities. The committee notes that Taiwan’s current 

fleet of submarines is several decades old, hampering Taiwan’s 

ability to conduct missions and training for their sailors. The committee believes that assistance from the United States on undersea 

capabilities, to include vehicles and sea mines, would bolster Taiwan’s self-defense. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
270 

Invitation of Taiwan military forces to participate in joint 

military exercises (Sec. 1270C) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to invite Taiwan to participate in a ‘‘Red Flag’’ 

exercise. The committee notes that the Department of Defense conducts several Red Flag exercises annually, including at Eielson Air 

Force Base in Alaska and at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The 

recommended provision would require an invitation to Taiwan for 

one of these exercises within one year. 

Report on military exchanges between senior officers and 

officials of the United States and Taiwan (Sec. 1270D) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on military exchanges between the United States 

and Taiwan. The committee notes that Section 1284 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114– 

328) recommended that the Secretary carry out a program of exchanges to improve military to military relations between the 

United States and Taiwan. The committee notes that these recommendations have not yet been acted upon. Accordingly, the recommended provision requires the report to include a list of actions 

taken to implement last year’s recommendations, as well as a description of future plans to do so. The recommended provision 

would also require an explanation if no action have been taken 

thus far or no future plans have been made. 

Subtitle F—Reports 

Submittal of Department of Defense Supplemental and Cost 

of War Execution Reports on a quarterly basis (sec. 

1271) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1221(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163; 10 U.S.C. 113 note) to require the 

Department of Defense to submit the Cost of War Execution report 

45 days after the end of each fiscal quarter. The committee is concerned about the time and cost necessary for the Department to 

produce these reports. The average cost to the Department to 

produce the monthly reports is about $180,000 and they are usually late. By reducing the number of reports required the committee hopes to alleviate the Department and the taxpayers of 

these burdens. 

The committee notes that the original intent of these reports, 

and the former requirement that the Government Accountability 

Office would review them, was to urge the Department to create a 

process for reporting on the cost of the wars using accounting systems to directly pull information as necessary. The committee is 

encouraged that this process is now in place and running relatively 

smoothly. By changing the frequency of these reports the committee expects to receive these reports on time and with same detail that they currently include, since the Department will have 

more time to create them. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
271 

Consolidation of reports on United States Armed Forces, civilian employees, and contractors deployed in support 

of Operation Inherent Resolve and Operation Freedom’s 

Sentinel (sec. 1272) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report, 30 days after the enactment of the Act and every 

90 days thereafter, on the total number of U.S. Department of Defense personnel deployed in support of Operation Inherent Resolve 

(OIR) and Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (OFS), including members 

of United States Armed Forces, Department of Defense civilians, 

and Department of Defense contractors. Additionally, this provision 

would repeal section 1224 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). 

Subtitle G—Others Matters 

Modification of availability of funds in Special Defense Acquisition Fund for precision guided munitions (sec. 

1281) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 114 of title 10, United States Code to change the current requirement that of the amount available in the Special Defense Acquisition Fund, $500.0 million may only be used to procure and 

stock precision guided munitions. The committee recommends a 

change to the available obligation authority in the Special Defense 

Acquisition Fund, requiring that 20 percent of such funds must be 

used on precision guided munitions and associated support equipment and services. 

Precision guided munitions, for the purpose of this requirement, 

is defined as a guided munition intended to precisely hit a specific 

target, whether fired from air, sea, surface, or are man-portable. 

Use of funds in the United States for certain United StatesIsrael anti-tunnel cooperation activities (sec. 1282) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authority under section 1279 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), as amended by the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public 

Law 114–328), for the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with 

the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, to 

carry out research, development, test, and evaluation, on a joint 

basis with Israel, to establish anti-tunnel capabilities to detect, 

map, and neutralize underground tunnels that threaten the United 

States or Israel. The provision would provide that of the amount 

contributed by the United States for activities under section 1279 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 

(Public Law 114–92), not less than 50 percent of such amount shall 

be used for research, development, test, and evaluation activities 

for purposes of such section in the United States. 

The committee continues to support the anti-tunnel cooperation 

program with Israel and notes the potential benefits to support efforts to: restrict the flow of drugs, including heroin and fentanyl, 

under our southern border; protect forward deployed troops; and 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
272 

secure Israel’s borders. The committee encourages the department 

to fully utilize the authorities provided in section 1279 and seek opportunities to maximize anti-tunnel research, development, test, 

and evaluation cooperation with Israel. 

Foreign military sales letters of request for pricing and 

availability (sec. 1283) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense implementing agency for a foreign military 

sale (FMS) to consult with the relevant US commercial entities involved in the sale before delivering a formal pricing and availability response to the foreign customer. If the commercial entity 

believes the price is not accurate, then the commercial entity and 

the implementing agency should each provide a justification for the 

differences to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency within 30 

days of being notified of the discrepancy by the commercial entity. 

Sense of Congress reaffirming strategic partnerships and allies (sec. 1284) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Congress that United States allies and partners are 

critical to defending peace and prosperity throughout the world. 

Budget Items 

Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative 

The budget request included $3.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (SAG 4GTD), of which $150.0 million was for the 

Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. The committee recommends 

an increase of $350.0 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance 

Initiative. 

Items of Special Interest 

Enhanced assistance and cooperation for Afghanistan by 

the Government of India 

The committee is concerned by the current stalemate in Afghanistan, and believes that the United States should leverage the capabilities of allies and partners to more effectively secure regional 

stability and security. The committee believes that the United 

States needs to recommit to the fight in Afghanistan and that 

India, as a major defense partner of the United States and a contributor to regional security, has a critical role to play in this effort. 

The committee notes that on February 9, 2017, General John W. 

Nicholson, Commander of U.S. Forces—Afghanistan, testified before the committee that ‘‘With over $2.0 billion development aid executed since 2002, and another $1.0 billion pledged in 2016, India’s 

significant investments in Afghan infrastructure, engineering, 

training, and humanitarian issues will help develop Afghan human 

capital and long-term stability.’’ Further, the committee notes that 

General Nicholson highlighted significant short-term materiel and 

training needs within the Afghan Air Force (AAF), and has personVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00308 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
273 

ally urged India to provide this targeted support to meet urgent 

gaps. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to enhance trilateral cooperation 

between the Governments of Afghanistan, India, and United States 

for the purposes of strengthening the sovereignty and security of 

Afghanistan. In doing so, the committee expects that any increase 

in investment and assistance pursuant to this trilateral cooperation 

would take into account the mutual priorities of the three respective governments. This assistance could include logistical support; 

joint training; combined military planning; threat analysis; intelligence, materiel, and maintenance support for Afghan National 

Defense and Security Forces for humanitarian assistance, disaster 

relief, security assistance, and any other areas deemed appropriate. 

The committee believes that India, as a regional partner to Afghanistan and a major defense partner of the United States, is 

well-suited to assist the Government of Afghanistan to improve the 

security of Afghanistan and the broader region, and can work on 

a trilateral basis with the United States and Afghanistan to do so. 

The committee also believes that timely actions by the Indian government to fill identified needs in Afghanistan would significantly 

benefit the short- and long-term security and stability of the region. 

Importance of soft power tools in the Asia-Pacific region 

The committee notes that continued engagement by the United 

States in the Asia-Pacific region is critical to maintaining security 

and stability in the region. In addition to assessing current force 

posture and investing in hard power assets, the committee notes 

the importance of soft power tools, including independent academic 

institutions like Fulbright University Vietnam and others in the region. The Committee believes these institutions are an important 

element of our Asia-Pacific strategy, and can help build the workforce and bolster the capabilities that our regional allies need—including in cyber defense and cyber-supportive information technology infrastructure and training—to counter ongoing security 

threats. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to 

support efforts by the Department of State and other U.S. actors 

to ensure that all appropriate tools of U.S. soft power are being 

fully utilized. 

Institutionalizing Advise and Assist Lessons Learned 

U.S. military personnel have been actively engaged as part of 

Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) in advising and assisting Iraqi 

Security Forces and vetted Syrian forces to counter the Islamic 

State of Iraq and the Levant since late 2014. In Afghanistan, the 

U.S. still has more than 8,000 military forces, many of which are 

focused on advising and assisting the Afghan National Defense and 

Security Forces as part of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (OFS). The 

committee notes that the Department of Defense’s (DOD) approach 

to advising and assisting partner nation forces has evolved over 

time, transitioning from a larger U.S. military presence to now relying on a more limited number of U.S. forces on the ground. For 

example, the current approach in Syria uses a small footprint with 

a significant presence of special operations forces and reliance on 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
274 

key enablers such as air support, airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), and logistics. DOD continues to 

draw personnel from across the military services, including from 

conventional combat units, to serve as advisors in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has previously 

identified challenges DOD has faced in supporting advising missions, such as selecting and training advisor personnel, balancing 

advising activities with other missions, and maintaining the readiness of units that provide advisors. The committee is aware of ongoing efforts to develop new capabilities, such as the Army’s effort 

to develop advise and assist brigades. Given these past challenges, 

and the emphasis that current military strategy continues to place 

on the importance of advising partner security forces to counter 

global threats, it remains essential for DOD to take steps to ensure 

that it: (1) has an effective approach for selecting, training, and utilizing advisor personnel in ongoing operations; and (2) continues 

the development of a long-term strategy that institutionalizes successful advise and assist approaches to ensure U.S. forces are positioned to effectively execute similar missions in the future. Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to evaluate the following issues: 

1. What are the key characteristics of DOD’s approach to planning for, training, and utilizing U.S. military personnel to advise 

and assist partner forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria? 

2. What challenges, if any, has DOD faced in providing and utilizing U.S. military personnel to carry out their assigned advise 

and assist missions? 

3. What challenges, if any, has DOD faced in providing air support, ISR, logistics, or other key enabling capabilities for advise 

and assist missions? 

4. To what extent has DOD assessed and institutionalized lessons from OIR, OFS, and other advise and assist missions past and 

present, to identify and implement necessary changes to doctrine, 

training, and force structure to support ongoing and future advise 

and assist missions? 

5. Any other issues the Comptroller General determines appropriate. 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General to provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services not 

later than November 1, 2017, on the Comptroller General’s preliminary findings and submit a final report to the congressional defense committees on a date agreed to at the time of the briefing. 

NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence 

The committee is concerned by provocative information operations campaigns conducted by the Russian Federation that seek to 

undermine the United States, our allies, and the NATO alliance. 

The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities received 

testimony that describes Russia’s ‘‘mastery of the tools of information warfare’’ and public information campaigns and propaganda. 

The committee is aware that the NATO Strategic Communication Center of Excellence is a multi-national and NATO-accredited 

international military organization based in Riga, Latvia. The CenVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00310 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
275 

ter of Excellence works to enhance the strategic communications 

capabilities within the NATO alliance and allied nations by providing comprehensive analyses, timely advice, and practical support to the alliance. 

The committee is concerned that while the Center of Excellence’s 

work on strategic communications and the information environment is highly relevant to the United States, U.S. European Command in particular, the United States does not have a full-time employee seconded to the NATO Strategic Communication Center of 

Excellence. 

Therefore, the Committee urges the Secretary of Defense to assign appropriate personnel to the NATO Strategic Communication 

Center of Excellence. 

Report on the military capabilities of Hezbollah 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the Director of National Intelligence, submit to the congressional defense committees a report setting forth an assessment of 

the military capabilities of Hezbollah in Lebanon. The report shall 

include: (1) a detailed assessment of the capabilities of conventional 

and non-conventional forces of Hezbollah in Lebanon and (2) a detailed assessment of the operational performance of Hezbollah 

forces in Syria, including its military cooperation with Syrian and 

Iranian military and paramilitary entities and with armed forces 

and intelligence entities of the Russian Federation. The Secretary 

shall submit the report to the congressional defense committees no 

later than April 1, 2018. If the report is submitted in a classified 

form, the report shall be accompanied by an unclassified executive 

summary. 

Security strategy for Great Lakes region of Africa 

The committee notes that Africa’s Great Lakes sub-region continues to be plagued by decades of instability and armed conflict resulting from porous borders, competition for resources, weak governance, territorial disputes, and the continued existence and 

growth of extremist and terrorist groups in the region. The United 

States, United Nations, European Union, and the African Union 

have been engaged in operations aimed at addressing these threats 

and improving stability in the region. With Operation Observant 

Compass (OOC) ending, it is imperative that the Department of 

Defense remain engaged in the region through continued cooperation with regional security forces, sharing of intelligence, and multilateral exercises to increase regional capacity to combat shared 

threats. The committee notes that following the disestablishment of 

OOC and the retrograde of forces from the African Union Regional 

Task Force from the affected areas, there are reports that the 

Lord’s Resistance Army is increasing attacks against local populations. The committee understands and supports the Department’s 

decision to transition its efforts from OOC to a broader regional engagement strategy. However, the tenuous regional security situation underscores the need to develop and implement a strategy to 

maintain regional engagement and arrest further deterioration of 

the security situation as soon as possible. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
276 

As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the committee on its strategy to combat security 

threats in the African Great Lakes sub-region. The briefing shall, 

at a minimum, include: (1) an identification and assessment of the 

primary security threats in the region, (2) a plan for engagement 

with appropriate security forces in the region, with a focus on 

building capacities and cooperation with the United States and encouraging interoperability between countries in the region, (3) an 

assessment of the U.S. and partner nation force structure necessary to mitigate regional security threats, sustain engagement, 

and maintain the ability to respond to contingencies, and (4) an account of any agreements between the U.S. and countries of the region for use of facilities, if required, and (5) any other matters the 

Secretary of Defense deems appropriate. 

Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative 

The committee continues to strongly support efforts under the 

Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative aimed at enhancing 

the capabilities of regional partners to more effectively exercise 

control over their maritime territory and to deter adversaries. The 

committee notes that to date, the Department of Defense has utilized the authority under section 1263 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), as 

amended, to support specified partner capacity-building efforts in 

the region, to include the provision of training, sustainment support, and participation in multilateral engagements. The committee 

further notes that section 1241 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) included a significant reform of the security cooperation authorities available to 

the Department intended to enhance the ability of the Department 

to respond to evolving security challenges with flexible authorities 

related to the provision of training, equipment, and other support 

to foreign security partners with mutual security interests and objectives. 

Of particular note, section 1241 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) provides the 

Secretary of Defense with a permanent, global authority to provide 

training, equipment, and sustainment support to build the capacity 

of foreign security partners to perform counterterrorism operations, 

counter-weapons of mass destruction operations, counter-illicit trafficking operations, counter-transnational organized crime operations, maritime and border security operations, military intelligence operations, and operations or activities that contribute to 

an international coalition operation determined by the Secretary to 

be in the national interest of the United States. 

Additionally, sections 1241 through 1247 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) included numerous other authorities intended to enhance security cooperation activities, including authorizing military-to-military exchanges and operational support to friendly foreign countries to enable ongoing operations. The committee believes these security cooperation authorities provide the Department with enhanced flexibility to operate effectively in a continuously evolving and complex 

global security environment. The committee further believes that 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
277 

these authorities are particularly relevant to the security environment in South Asia and Southeast Asia and directs the Department to make use of the full complement of security cooperation 

authorities available to the Department, particularly those under 

section 1241 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), to enhance the capabilities of foreign security partners in the region to protect mutual security interests. 

To this end, the committee directs the Department to continue 

with the Maritime Security Initiative through the title 10 authorities for security cooperation established in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). In 

addition, the committee believes that, consistent with new authorities, the Secretary should expand the Department’s efforts under 

the Maritime Security Initiative to encompass additional countries, 

including Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Burma. In addition, the Secretary should also include India among the countries eligible for 

payment of incremental expenses in connection with training under 

the Initiative. 

Southeast Asia terrorism 

The committee is concerned with the rise of violent extremist 

groups in Southeast Asia and the affiliation of those terrorist 

groups to the Islamic State. The committee is concerned that, as 

U.S. counterterrorism operations in the U.S. Central Command 

area of responsibility exert increased pressure on the Islamic State 

and affiliated networks, foreign fighters from Southeast Asia will 

return to their countries of origin and continue terrorist activities. 

The committee urges the Commanders of U.S. Pacific Command 

and U.S. Special Operations Command—Pacific to strengthen collaboration with regional partners to combat this growing threat 

through a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy. 

Transformation of the Kosovo Security Forces to the Kosovo 

Armed Forces 

The committee supports continued U.S. assistance to the Kosovo 

Security Force as it makes the gradual transition to a multi-ethnic 

army for the Republic of Kosovo. Kosovo’s long-term security is 

deeply rooted in its political and security relationships with the 

United States, NATO, and other international partners. These relationships are underwritten by shared democratic values and adherence to the rule of law. Therefore, the committee believes it is critical that the transformation of the Kosovo Security Forces to the 

Kosovo Armed Forces take place through an inclusive and transparent process that complies with Kosovo’s constitution, respects of 

the rights and concerns of all of Kosovo’s citizens, promotes regional security and stability, and supports Kosovo’s aspirations and 

eventual full membership in NATO. 

U.S.-India defense cooperation 

The committee is pleased to see progress in the U.S.-India defense partnership. The positive adjustment of U.S. export controls 

for defense articles sold to India is in accordance with section 

1292(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
278 

2017 (Public Law 114–328) that required an assessment regarding 

such an adjustment. Furthermore, the United States and India 

have continued to refine their annual Exercise Malabar, which has 

benefited from the recent inclusion of Japan. The committee supports the exercise’s consistent focus on maritime patrol, reconnaissance scenarios, and anti-submarine warfare operations. 

Even so, the committee is concerned by a growing gap between 

the overarching goals of the bilateral defense relationship and the 

Department’s implementation of these objectives. The Joint Strategic Vision (JSV) agreed to by the United States and India in 2015 

codified a common commitment to maritime awareness and freedom of navigation as overarching defense missions. The key body 

in the Department of Defense implementing and coordinating defense cooperation with India is the 2012 Defense Technology and 

Trade Initiative (DTTI). Its six ‘‘pathfinder’’ initiatives are (1) development of a chemical-biological protective ensemble for troops; 

(2) development of mobile electric hybrid power stations; (3) a nextgeneration small unmanned aircraft; (4) a roll-on/roll-off intelligence and surveillance module for transport aircraft; (5) digital 

helmet-mounted displays; and (6) the joint biological tactical detection system. While the Committee supports all of these initiatives, 

it is concerned that several of these projects lack focus and are underdeveloped, and therefore urges the Department to prioritize elements of the DTTI that most closely align with the JSV. 

Compounding this concern is the Department’s delay in complying with a requirement in section 1292(a)(1)(B) of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114– 

328) to designate an individual within the Department to coordinate and expedite bilateral defense cooperation. The committee believes that appointing such an individual would bring a refined approach to prioritizing defense cooperation and aligning it with missions like maritime awareness and anti-submarine warfare, and 

eventually joint naval patrol of the Indian Ocean. 

Moreover, the committee is aware that key defense cooperation 

agreements have not been completed, namely the Communications 

Capability and Security Agreement and the Basic Exchange and 

Cooperation Agreement for Geospatial Intelligence. The Department has approached negotiation of these agreements with consistency and good faith, as evidenced in the successful signing of the 

Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement with India earlier 

this year. The committee commends both the Department and the 

Ministry of Defense for this progress, and hopes to see similar 

agreement with the two outstanding documents as well. 

Finally, looking ahead to the future of the U.S. Major Defense 

Partnership with India, the committee encourages the Department 

to work closely with India in the cyber and space operating domains at appropriate strategic, operational, and tactical levels. As 

a rising economic power and key security partner, it is the committee’s judgment that India deserves a seat at the table as the U.S. 

works with our other key allies and partners to increase resiliency, 

strengthen deterrence, and secure superiority in both operating domains. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
279 

Therefore, the committee requests that the Secretary of Defense 

brief the committee not later than 180 days after the enactment of 

this Act on the following elements: 

(1) Confirmation that the Secretary has appointed an individual in fulfillment of statutory requirement under Sec. 

1292(a)(1)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act 

FY2017 (Public Law 114–328); 

(2) Recommendation on which DTTI initiatives the Secretary 

intends to prioritize in alignment with the Joint Strategic Vision, and whether new initiatives are needed to match the 

common importance that both countries give to increasing maritime domain awareness; 

(3) Update on the state of outstanding defense cooperation 

agreements with India; and 

(4) State of trilateral discussions for future Malabar Exercises, specifically whether the Department and the Ministry of 

Defense have discussed with Japan the integration of seaborne 

terrorism and joint naval patrol exercises into Malabar. 

Ukrainian wounded warriors 

The committee understands that in June 2015, the Secretary of 

Defense approved the use of the Secretarial Designee program and 

Emergency and Extraordinary Expense funding to pay costs arising 

from the medical and rehabilitative treatment at military medical 

treatment facilities of wounded Ukrainian soldiers who could not 

receive the necessary specialized medical treatment in Ukraine. 

Costs covered included inpatient care, transportation, lodging, 

meals, and incidental expenses relating to the movement and medical treatment of the wounded Ukrainian soldiers. The committee 

understands that eight wounded Ukrainian soldiers were successfully assisted through this program. The committee recognizes that 

providing this specialized care enhances military operational medical force readiness through the performance of combat-related 

medical procedures that help ensure physicians and other providers 

maintain critical readiness skillsets. 

The committee is concerned that the expenses of medical coverage for additional wounded Ukrainian soldiers approved under 

the Secretarial Designee program only extends to inpatient care, 

and the Ukrainian government is required to fund all remaining 

costs. In light of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, the Ukrainian 

government is unable to reimburse these costs, creating difficulty 

in bringing any additional wounded soldiers to the United States 

for the care they desperately need. 

Russia’s persistent military aggression in Ukraine continues to 

inflict grievous injuries on Ukrainian soldiers, who require medical 

treatment that cannot be performed in country. The committee 

supports the Department of Defense’s efforts through the Secretarial Designee program to provide medical and rehabilitative assistance in military medical treatment facilities in the United 

States to Ukrainian soldiers wounded in defense of their country 

and strongly encourages the Department to fund to the extent 

practicable both the medical and non-medical costs it previously 

covered for future cases. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
280 

United States commitment to the NATO alliance 

The committee believes the NATO alliance remains vital for protecting U.S. national security interests, facilitating transatlantic 

security cooperation, and promoting peace and stability in Europe 

and around the world. As threats to the common security of the 

United States and our NATO allies grow more severe and more 

complex, the committee believes it is essential that the United 

States maintain an ironclad commitment to upholding its obligations under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which declares 

that ‘‘an armed attack against one or more [NATO allies] shall be 

considered an attack against them all.’’ 

The committee honors the contributions of our NATO allies to 

U.S. national security. In response to the September 11th terrorist 

attacks, which killed 2,600 Americans and 135 citizens of NATO 

countries, our NATO allies invoked Article 5 of the North Atlantic 

Treaty for the first time in history. NATO troops fought side by 

side with U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and over 1,000 of them made 

the ultimate sacrifice. The committee honors the sacrifices of our 

NATO allies sharing the burden of collective security. 

At the same time, the committee continues to urge NATO allies 

to uphold their obligations under Article 3 of the North Atlantic 

Treaty to ‘‘maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack’’ by honoring the pledge made at the 

Wales Summit in September 2014 to reach the goal of spending 2 

percent of GDP on defense by 2024. It is also critical that NATO 

allies continue to coordinate defense investments to both improve 

deterrence against Russian aggression and terrorist organizations 

and more appropriately balance defense spending across the alliance. The committee is encouraged that, according to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, defense budgets across Europe 

and Canada increased by 3.8 percent in 2016, or by approximately 

$10.0 billion. Given the threat on NATO’s eastern flank, the committee is gratified that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania each plan to 

spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense in 2018. 

The NATO alliance defends not only the common security of the 

United States and our NATO allies, but our common values as 

well. That is why the committee is increasingly concerned about indications of the erosion of democratic institutions in certain NATO 

member states, including Hungary, Turkey, and Poland. The committee believes it is important for all NATO allies to uphold their 

obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, which commits NATO 

allies to ‘‘safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization 

of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual 

liberty and the rule of law.’’ 

Venezuelan military cooperation 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a report on military cooperation between the Government of 

Venezuela with Cuba, Iran, and Russia, entities designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the United States, and persons considered to be regional militant groups hostile to the United States 

but not otherwise designated as foreign terrorist organizations by 

the United States. The report shall include descriptions of the following: (1) Cooperation on military intelligence and counterintelVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00316 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
281 

ligence operations; (2) Cooperation in illicit drug trafficking operations; (3) Cooperation in cyber and information operations; (4) Cooperation with transnational criminal organizations; (5) Weapons 

and technology transfers to and from either party and the impact 

that such transferred weapons have upon either party’s military capabilities; and (6) Estimates of the types and amounts of support, 

including funding, lethal and non-lethal supplies, and training provided. 

The Secretary shall submit the report to the congressional defense committees no later than April 1, 2018. If the report is submitted in a classified form, the report shall be accompanied by an 

unclassified executive summary. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(283) 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT 

REDUCTION 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 

1301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would define the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, define the funds as authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this Act, and authorize 

CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3 fiscal years. 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $324.6 million, the amount of the budget request, for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(285) 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Programs 

Working capital funds (sec. 1401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for the defense working capital funds at the levels 

identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 

1402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, at 

the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defensewide (sec. 1403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, 

Defense-wide, at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D 

of this Act. 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1405) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the Defense Health Program activities at the levels 

identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile 

Authority to dispose of certain materials from and to acquire additional materials for the National Defense 

Stockpile (sec. 1411) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

National Defense Stockpile (NDS) Manager to dispose of up to $9.0 

million of excess materials in order to acquire two new materials 

and rare earth elements (REE) that have been identified by the Department of Defense (DOD) as essential to meet military requirements. The committee notes these REE acquisitions would alleviate 

DOD supply chain vulnerability and mitigate the risk of foreign reliance for REE and critical materials. Specifically, the two materials and REE are electrolytic manganese metal and antimony. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
286 

Additionally, the committee recognizes the strategic value of the 

NDS and its critical material locations across the United States: 

Alabama, Arizona, California, Indiana, Nevada, New Jersey, New 

York, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and West 

Virginia. 

Subtitle C—Chemical Demilitarization Matters 

Acquisition reporting on major chemical demilitarization 

programs of the Department of Defense (sec. 1421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense’s major chemical demilitarization programs 

to report separately under the Acquisition Category 1 (ACAT 1) 

system in order to enhance transparency. 

Subtitle D—Armed Forces Retirement Home 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1431) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an appropriation of $64.3 million from the Armed Forces Retirement 

Home Trust Fund for fiscal year 2018 for the operation of the 

Armed Forces Retirement Home. 

Armed Forces Retirement Home matters (sec. 1432) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1513A, 1517(e)(2), and 1518 of the Armed Forces Retirement 

Home (AFRH) Act of 1991 (24 U.S.C. 413a, 417(e)(2), and 418 respectively) to transfer oversight responsibilities of the AFRH from 

the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to the 

Secretary of Defense. Additionally, the provision would amend section 1516 of such Act (24 U.S.C. 416) to provide the Department 

more flexibility in selecting members of the Advisory Council of the 

AFRH. Finally, the provision would amend section 1517(b) of such 

Act (24 U.S.C. 417(b)) to clarify that the administrator of the 

AFRH serves at the pleasure of the Secretary of Defense. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

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

Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health 

Care Center, Illinois (sec. 1441) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer $115.5 million from the Defense 

Health Program to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of 

Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund, created by 

section 1704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) for the operations of the Captain 

James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center. 

Enhancement of database of emergency response capabilities of the Department of Defense (sec. 1442) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1406 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
287 

for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364; 120 Stat. 2436; 10 

U.S.C. 113 note) to enhance the database of emergency response 

capabilities of the Department of Defense by adding the requirement to track the cyber capabilities of the National Guard and Reserve in the requirement to capture emergency response capabilities that the Department of Defense may be able to provide in support of the National Response Plan’s Emergency Support Function. 

The Department of Defense would also be required to establish, 

maintain, and keep current the database at least once every 2 

years. 

Items of Special Interest 

Agro-terrorism 

A Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak in the United States has the 

potential to cause upwards of $200 billion in damages to our food 

production economy. When American and allied forces took control 

of al Qaeda harbor sites in the caves of Afghanistan in 2002, 

among the thousands of documents they discovered were U.S. agricultural documents and al Qaeda training manuals targeting agriculture. The Committee is concerned about the potential for our adversaries to use Foot and Mouth Disease or another foreign animal 

disease in an attempt to cause serious harm to the food security 

and economy of the United States. 

The committee directs the Department of Defense, in consultation with the Department of Agriculture, to brief the committee on 

the threats associated with the introduction of Foot and Mouth Disease or another foreign animal disease in an attempt to cause serious harm to the food security and economy of the United States, 

and our ability to respond to such threats. 

Assessment of designating a Joint Chemical-Biological Defense Logistics Distribution Center 

The committee recognizes that in fiscal year 2006, Congress 

urged the Secretary of the Army to designate the U.S. Army Pine 

Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, as the Center of Industrial and Technical 

Excellence for Chemical and Biological Defense. 

The committee hereby directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the feasibility of designating a Joint Chemical-Biological Defense Logistics Distribution Center to consolidate the Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear sustainment functions 

and provide enhanced military readiness to the warfighter. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit an 

assessment to the congressional defense committees not later than 

December 1, 2017. 

Domestic production of Scandium 

Given the planned initiation and production in the United States 

within the next 5 years of as much as 100 metric tons of Scandium, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing 

on the potential defense and industrial uses of Scandium to the 

congressional defense committees by December 1, 2017. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
288 

Fiscal stability of the National Defense Stockpile 

The committee notes that the funds within the National Defense 

Stockpile (NDS) Transaction Fund have been significantly depleted 

due to the lack of excess materials available for disposal. The Fund 

was designed to allow for the sale of excess materials, from which 

the funds in turn could be used to acquire emergent strategic and 

critical materials for national defense requirements. While this 

process has been ongoing since just after World War II, the value 

of the available inventory designated as excess is no longer sufficient to acquire the strategic and critical material requirements 

identified by the President as necessary. 

The committee believes the current manager of the NDS, the Defense Logistics Agency office for Strategic Materials (DLA–SM), is 

hampered in its acquisition strategy due to the lack of funds available for procurement of materials. The committee has observed 

that the DLA–SM must determine which materials are most critical for acquisition, leaving other material requirements unfunded. 

The committee notes that even after managing resources in this 

cost-prohibitive environment, the fund will likely become insolvent 

within the next 3–7 years. 

Additionally, the committee strongly encourages the Department 

to make use of existing authorities under Section 303 of the Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. 2093) to enter into commitments 

to purchase strategic and critical materials required to meet the 

defense, industrial, and essential civilian needs of the United 

States from domestic producers and domestic producers that the 

Department believes are likely to initiate commercial production of 

such materials within the next five years. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 

coordination with the NDS manager, to provide a briefing to the 

congressional defense committees no later than January 31, 2018, 

on the plan to develop and implement a funding strategy for sustaining a robust NDS inventory when current funds in the transaction fund are depleted. This strategy should include the incorporation of acquisition requirements for strategic and critical materials though the discretionary appropriations process. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(289) 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional Appropriations 

Purpose (sec. 1501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish this 

title and make authorization of appropriations available upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in addition to 

amounts otherwise authorized in this Act. 

Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would designate authorization of appropriations in this section as overseas contingency 

operations as directed in section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced 

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. 

Procurement (sec. 1503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriation for procurement activities at the levels 

identified in section 4102 of division D of this Act. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriation for research, development, test, and evaluation activities at the levels identified in section 4202 of division 

D of this Act. 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1505) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for operation and maintenance activities 

at the levels identified in section 4302 of division D of this Act. 

Military personnel (sec. 1506) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for military personnel activities at the 

levels identified in section 4402 of division D of this Act. 

Working capital funds (sec. 1507) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the defense working capital funds at 

the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
290 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defensewide (sec. 1508) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the Drug Interdiction and CounterDrug Activities, Defense-wide at the levels identified in section 

4502 of division D of this Act. 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of 

the Department of Defense identified in section 4502 of division D 

of this Act. 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1510) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the Defense Health Program activities 

identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. 

Subtitle B—Financial Matters 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would state that the 

amounts authorized to be appropriated in this title are in addition 

to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by this Act. 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1522) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $3.5 billion of overseas contingency operation funding authorized for fiscal year 2018 in this 

title to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with normal 

reprogramming procedures. This transfer authority would be in addition to the authority provided to the Secretary elsewhere in this 

Act. 

Subtitle C—Other Matters 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

amounts authorized for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund 

(ASFF) for fiscal year 2018 continue to be subject to the conditions 

specified in subsections (b) through (g) of section 1513 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181), as amended. The provision would extend the authority 

under subsection 1532(b) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ 

McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 

(Public Law 113–291) to accept certain equipment procured using 

the ASFF and to treat such equipment as Department of Defense 

stocks. The provision would also extend the goal of using $25.0 million to support, to the extent practicable, the efforts of the Government of Afghanistan to promote the recruitment, training, and integration of Afghan women into the Afghan National Defense and 

Security Forces. The provision would also require that products 

published or issued by an inspector general relating to the overVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00326 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
291 

sight of the ASFF be prepared in accordance with certain quality 

standards. 

Budget Items 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency 

The budget request included $2.3 billion for Operations and 

Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), Overseas Contingency Operations, for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, of which $1.0 

billion is for Coalition Support Funds (CSF). 

The committee notes that elsewhere in this Act is a provision 

that would limit the total amount of CSF that may be provided in 

fiscal year 2018 to $900.0 million. Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $100.0 million to CSF. 

Transfer of European Reassurance Initiative 

The budget request included $4.8 billion in the Overseas Contingency Operations account for the European Reassurance Initiative 

(ERI), of which $214.3 million was for Military Personnel, $2.27 billion was for Operation and Maintenance, $1.87 billion was for Procurement, $64.1 million was for Research, Development, Test, and 

Evaluation, $306.9 million was for Military Construction, and $50.1 

million was for Revolving and Management Funds. 

In the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and annexation 

of Crimea and escalating threats against NATO allies in Eastern 

Europe, the ERI was designed to reverse major reductions in U.S. 

military presence. Due to arbitrary budget caps in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112–25), this timely U.S. response through 

the ERI was only possible by including those funds in the Overseas 

Contingency Operations (OCO) account. However, the committee 

has long been concerned the ERI does not properly belong in the 

OCO account and should be transferred to the base defense budget 

as soon as possible without negatively impacting ongoing U.S. efforts to reassure allies and re-establish deterrence. 

Military and civilian leaders of the Department of Defense have 

consistently identified Russia as a top threat to U.S. national security interests. Substantial and sustained investment in U.S. military presence in Europe will be required to improve the capability, 

capacity, and agility of U.S. forces to address Russian conventional, 

nuclear, and hybrid threats from the Arctic region to Eastern Europe to the Mediterranean. In short, providing credible deterrence 

against Russian aggression is not a contingent requirement, but an 

enduring requirement. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a transfer of these activities from the ERI in the OCO account to the European Deterrence 

Initiative as part of the base defense budget to fully support U.S. 

military presence in Europe, facilitate efficient planning and execution, and ensure budgetary transparency. The committee recommends a transfer of $214.3 million from Military Personnel, 

$2.12 billion from Operation and Maintenance, $1.87 billion from 

Procurement, $64.1 million from Research, Development, Test, and 

Evaluation, $306.9 million from Military Construction, and $50.1 

million from Revolving and Management Funds for a total of $4.63 

billion from the OCO account to the respective base accounts. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(293) 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, 

AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Space Activities 

Air Force Space Command (sec. 1601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Commander of Air Force Space Command serve a term of at least 

6 years. 

The committee is concerned that numerous organizational impediments impede the ability of the Department of Defense to meet 

the national security space challenges of the 21st century. 

Numerous studies over the past 2 decades have concluded that 

DoD space leadership responsibilities are fragmented and defused. 

The committee believes that extending the tenure of the Commander of Air Force Space Command will partially address some 

of the challenges undermining the development, deployment, and 

employment of our National Security Space capabilities. Similar to 

the continuity of leadership employed by the Navy’s Nuclear Propulsion Program and the Navy Strategic Systems Program, the 

committee believes that Air Force space programs, which similarly 

require enhanced technical and operational focus, will benefit from 

the sustained leadership. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee also proposes the creation 

of the Chief Information Warfare Officer (CIWO). Among its numerous information and cyber-related roles and responsibilities, the 

CIWO would have the authority to establish policy for, and direct, 

the secretaries of the military departments and the heads of all 

other elements of the Department of Defense relating to space and 

space launch systems. The CIWO would also assume the role of the 

Principal Department of Defense Space Advisor. 

Air Force space contractor responsibility watch list (sec. 

1602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish and 

maintain a contractor responsibility watch list (CRWL) for Air 

Force space programs. The CRWL would include contractors with 

histories of poor performance on space procurement or research, development, test, and evaluation program contracts. The provision 

would authorize the Commander of Air Force Space and Missile 

Systems Center to place a contractor on the CRWL upon determining that the ability of the contractor to perform Air Force space 

contracts has been called into question by: (1) Poor performance or 

award fee scores below 50 percent; (2) Financial concerns; (3) Felony or civil judgments; or (4) Security or foreign ownership and 

control issues. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
294 

The provision would also make the Commander of Air Force 

Space and Missile Systems Center responsible for determining 

which contractors to place on the watch list, whether an entire 

company or a specific division should be included, and when to remove a contractor from the list. 

The provision would prohibit the Air Force Space and Missile 

Systems Center from soliciting an offer from, awarding a contract 

to, executing an engineering change proposal with, or exercising an 

option on any Air Force space program with a contractor included 

on the CRWL without the prior approval of the Commander of Air 

Force Space and Missile Systems Center. It would also prohibit a 

prime contractor on an Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center contract from entering into a subcontract valued in excess of 

$3.0 million or 5 percent of the prime contract value with a contractor included on the CRWL without the prior approval of the 

Commander of Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center. 

The provision would also establish a process for a contractor to 

submit to the Commander of Air Force Space and Missile Systems 

Center a written request for removal from the watch list, including 

evidence that the contractor has resolved the issue that was the 

basis for inclusion on the list. 

The Commander of Air Force Space Command should notify the 

congressional defense committees of each instance an entity is either added or removed from the CRWL. 

The committee believes that the Air Force space acquisition community lacks the tools necessary to effectively hold contractors accountable for poor performance. The space acquisition community 

has a finite number of contractors, involves numerous multi-billion 

dollar programs, and has a history of cost overruns and schedule 

delays. Program offices typically manage contractor performance 

via modifications to award fees or in the most extreme cases 

through debarment of a contractor. Because of this small contractor 

base, it is not uncommon for contractors who perform poorly on one 

program to win contracts for similar work in other programs. The 

committee believes that, if used effectively, the CRWL would provide the Air Force space acquisition community with an additional 

tool for enhanced accountability and better contractor performance. 

The committee notes that there is precedence for this action. The 

National Reconnaissance Office has maintained and effectively utilized its own CRWL to hold its contractors accountable and to notify Congress of serious programmatic issues. If instituted similarly 

at the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, the CRWL will 

provide to the space acquisition community additional critical tools 

for ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent effectively by appropriately 

dis-incentivizing contractors’ poor performance. 

The committee believes the unique nature of satellite acquisition 

programs and the relatively small size of the satellite industrial 

base make the utilization of a CRWL particularly important. 

Presidential National Voice Conferencing system (sec. 1603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate 

disparate program elements of the Presidential and National Voice 

Conferencing (PNVC) system under the Air Force Program Executive Officer, who has been given overall responsibility for the sysVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00330 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
295 

tem. The PNVC system, which is a ground segment component of 

the Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite system, is designed to give the President the ability to execute time-sensitive 

conference discussions with his advisors under the most stressing 

environments, including those associated with the employment of 

nuclear forces either before or after an attack. Currently, the components of the PNVC system are executed by different agencies, 

and hence its overall budget is fragmented. This provision would 

consolidate this fragmented structure under the Air Force. The 

committee believes that it is important that the authority for this 

effort be aligned with accountability under the Air Force. Given the 

importance of this nuclear command, control, and communications 

acquisition and the delays encountered to date due to its fragmented structure, reporting shall follow guidelines for an Acquisition Category 1 system. 

Limitation on use of funds for Delta IV launch vehicle (sec. 

1604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Air Force from obligating funds to maintain infrastructure, system 

engineering, critical skills, base and range support, depreciation, or 

sustainment commodities for the Delta IV launch vehicle unless 

the Secretary of the Air Force certifies to the congressional defense 

committees that the Air Force plans to launch a satellite procured 

by the Air Force on a Delta IV launch vehicle within 3 years of that 

certification. 

The committee understands that while the Air Force no longer 

has plans to utilize the Delta IV launch vehicle, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) will rely on the Delta IV to meet its 

heavy lift requirements for the foreseeable future. While the committee advocated for the Delta IV launch vehicle to eliminate its 

reliance on the Atlas V, the Air Force has insisted that it no longer 

intends to utilize the Delta IV. Given that the Air Force no longer 

requires the Delta IV, the committee believes that the Air Force 

should not be responsible for the significant costs associated with 

maintaining the capability for the NRO. 

The committee is concerned that with the decision to phase out 

the Delta IV, the Air Force and the NRO have both underestimated 

the cost and technical risk in replacing the unique heavy lift capability required to meet NRO requirements. 

Policy of the United States with respect to classification of 

space as a combat domain (sec. 1605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would state that it 

is the policy of the United States to develop, procure, field, and 

maintain an integrated system of assets in response to the increasingly contested nature of the space operating domain to: (1) ensure 

the resilience of capabilities at every level of orbit in space; (2) 

deter or deny an attack on capabilities at every level of orbit in 

space; and (3) defend the territory of the United States, its allies, 

and its deployed forces across all operating domains. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
296 

Launch support and infrastructure modernization (sec. 

1606) 

The committee understands that in calendar year 2017, Eastern 

Launch and Test Range plans to support 35 space launches, with 

an expected increase to 48 launches annually in the next few years. 

This represents tremendous growth from the 7 to 18 launches seen 

annually in previous years. 

The committee also understand that not only is the tempo of 

space launches increasing, but the number, type, and providers of 

space launch vehicles and activities are also growing to fulfill the 

national objective of a competitive domestic space launch industry. 

Then-Commander of U.S. Air Force Space Command, General 

John Hyten, issued in March 2016 his ‘‘Commander’s Intent on 

Range Support to Commercial Space Launch’’ to increase the Department of Defense’s ability to provide efficient space launch and 

range support to civil and commercial space launch providers. 

The committee is concerned that, despite increased efficiencies in 

space launch due to better liaison between defense, civil, and commercial space launch providers, full-scale space launch operations 

are limited by decaying range infrastructure on both the Eastern 

and Western Test and Launch Ranges. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

carry out a program to modernize space launch infrastructure and 

improve space launch activities, to include processing and launch 

of national security space vehicles, in the Eastern and Western 

Test and Launch Ranges. 

Subtitle B—Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related 

Activities 

Extension of authority to engage in commercial activities as 

security for intelligence collection activities (sec. 1611) 

The Committee recommends a provision that would extend by 3 

years the authority under section 431 of title 10, United States 

Code. 

Subtitle C—Cyber Warfare, Cybersecurity, and Related 

Matters 

Policy of the United States on cyberspace, cybersecurity, 

and cyber warfare (sec. 1621) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

policy of the United States with respect to matters pertaining to 

cyberspace, cybersecurity, and cyber warfare. 

The committee has long expressed its concern with the lack of an 

effective strategy and policy for addressing cyber threats and cyber 

deterrence. The National Defense Authorization Act has included 

numerous provisions over the past few years that directed the executive branch to define and develop the policies and strategies necessary to improve the structure, capability, roles, and responsibilities of our national cyber efforts. The committee has also placed 

a strong emphasis on the need for developing a comprehensive 

cyber deterrence strategy. Unfortunately, the committee believes 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
297 

the responses to those requests have been insufficient and not commensurate with the threat we face in the cyber domain. 

Cyber posture review (sec. 1622) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of National 

Intelligence, the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of State, to conduct 

a cyber posture review. The purpose of the review would be to clarify U.S. cyber deterrence policy and strategy for the near term by 

conducting a comprehensive review of the cyber posture of the 

United States for the next 5 to 10 years. A report on the results 

of the review would be due no later than March 1, 2018, in unclassified and classified forms as necessary. 

The provision would also state that it is the sense of Congress 

that the United States should respond to all cyber attacks and to 

all significant cyber intrusions by imposing costs on those responsible that exceed any benefit that the attacker or intruder may 

have hoped to gain. 

The Department of Defense Science Board Task Force on Cyber 

Deterrence asserted in a report released in February 2017, that, for 

‘‘at least the coming five to ten years, the offensive cyber capabilities of our most capable potential adversaries are likely to far exceed the United States’ ability to defend and adequately strengthen 

the resilience of its critical infrastructures.’’ As a result the Board 

concluded that ‘‘bolstering the U.S. cyber deterrence posture must 

be an urgent priority.’’ 

The committee has long advocated for a robust cyber deterrence 

policy and has been disappointed in the level of seriousness and 

priority afforded to developing a deterrence framework by prior administrations. The committee encourages the new administration 

to immediately prioritize the development of a cyber deterrence 

strategy that emphasizes both deterrence by denial and deterrence 

by consequence imposition. 

Modification and clarification of requirements and authorities relating to establishment of unified combatant command for cyber operations (sec. 1623) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

requirements and authorities germane to the establishment of a 

unified combatant command for cyber operations, mandated by section 167b(a) of title 10, United States Code. The recommended provision would: (1) Direct that the elevation of United States Cyber 

Command to a unified combatant command occur before the Cyber 

Mission Force reaches full operational capability; (2) Clarify the 

functions of cyber command to make them align with Department 

of Defense policy; and (3) Refine the command and control responsibilities of the Cyber Command Commander. 

The committee notes that on May 9, 2017, the Commander of 

United States Cyber Command testified that the Cyber Mission 

Force is scheduled to be fully operational by the end of fiscal year 

2018. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
298 

Annual assessment of cyber resiliency of nuclear command 

and control system (sec. 1624) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Commander of the United States Strategic Command and the Commander of the United States Cyber Command to jointly conduct an 

annual assessment of the cyber resiliency of the nuclear command 

and control system. The assessment would evaluate the sufficiency 

and resiliency of the nuclear command and control system for operation through a cyber attack and would develop recommendations 

for mitigating the concerns of the Commanders born from this assessment. 

The provision would require the Commanders to jointly submit 

to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for submission to the 

Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, Communications System (‘‘the Council’’), a report on the assessment. The Council would also submit the report and any comments it feels appropriate to the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Defense would submit to the congressional defense committees the report along with the Council’s and the Secretary of 

Defense’s comments. The provision would sunset 10 years after the 

date of enactment. 

In a report released in February 2017, the Department of Defense Science Board Task Force on Cyber Deterrence recognized 

that ‘‘nuclear forces and supporting infrastructure require sustained and comprehensive assessments of their ability to operate in 

the face of a major state’s cyber attack.’’ Consistent with the annual requirements for the nuclear stockpile assessment to the 

President and Congress, the Board concluded that the ‘‘cyber security and resilience of U.S. nuclear forces (especially nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3)) is of equal and parallel 

importance.’’ 

Strategic Cybersecurity Program (sec. 1625) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, acting through the Director of the National 

Security Agency, to establish the Strategic Cybersecurity Program 

(SCP). The program would execute continual red-teaming reviews 

of: (1) Offensive cyber systems; (2) Long-range strike systems; (3) 

Nuclear deterrent systems; (4) National security systems; and (5) 

Critical infrastructure of the Department of Defense. The SCP 

would also be responsible for assessing the cybersecurity adequacy 

of acquisition plans for proposed systems and infrastructure in 

order to ensure the effectiveness of these covered systems. The provision would provide for this effort up to $100.0 million of the funding authorized to be appropriated in fiscal year 2018 for the Information Systems Security Program. 

In a report released in February 2017, the Department of Defense Science Board Task Force on Cyber Deterrence concluded 

that ‘‘[b]usiness as usual will not be adequate to provide a high degree of confidence that systems essential to offensive cyber, longrange strike, and nuclear deterrence are resilient (end-to-end) 

against top tier cyber attack. A sustained independent red team capability, backed by top-notch analytics and supported by intelligence assessments, is needed. It is vital that such a red team be 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
299 

independent from the mission owner of the systems it is evaluating.’’ 

Consistent with the Board’s findings, the committee believes that 

the SCP should be a ‘‘sustaining effort over decades with top-notch 

leaders and technologically diverse staff’’ and modeled on the nuclear ballistic missile submarine security program. The program 

should: include the emulation of top tier adversaries and an expanded consideration of threats; inform and be informed by intelligence collection requirements; and include a full range of countermeasure development. 

The committee is aware that each of the Services is developing 

Cyber Protection Teams (CPTs) to defend department systems and 

networks. The committee believes that CPT capacity is limited and 

will be required to assess, defend, and triage a variety of threats 

of different degrees of severity. The CPT construct is also both 

flexible and deployable. However, the committee believes that certain systems of critical importance require specialized capability 

and evaluation independence from the mission owner. Therefore, 

the committee recommends the development of an elite independent red-teaming capability to continuously assess the information assurance of the Department of Defense’s most significant networks and critical infrastructure. 

The committee is also aware that the Cyber Resiliency of Weapons Systems program is working to identify vulnerabilities in current and existing weapons systems. The committee anticipates that 

the Strategic Cybersecurity Program and the Cyber Resiliency of 

Weapons Systems program will work closely together to prioritize 

their respective work based on the most critical cybersecurity needs 

of the Department of Defense. 

Evaluation of agile acquisition of cyber tools and applications (sec. 1626) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Commander of U.S. Cyber Command to conduct an evaluation of 

alternative methods for developing, acquiring, and maintaining 

software-based cyber tools and applications for Cyber Command 

and for the cyber component commands of the Armed Forces. The 

goal of the evaluation is to identify a set of practices that will increase the speed and effectiveness of developing capabilities to 

match the speed at which the operational cyber environment 

changes, in peacetime and during a conflict. 

The provision would specifically require consideration of the 

Agile Acquisition and related models that are widely used in leading software and information technology companies and recommended by the Defense Digital Service. 

The committee has been concerned for many years about the inability of the Department of Defense (DOD), despite congressional 

encouragement, to propose and adopt an acquisition model tailored 

to the unique and demanding cyber mission in DOD. DOD cyber 

forces must react almost instantly to constant changes in the operational environment in defended cyberspace, the global Internet, 

and adversary networks, as well as in adversaries’ tools and tactics. Tool and application development must be rapid and tightly 

coupled to users and operators, but must also be disciplined and reVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00335 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
300 

peatable. Industry best practices provide mature models for DOD 

to adopt. 

Report on cost implications of terminating dual-hat arrangement for Commander of United States Cyber Command (sec. 1627) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Commander of United States Cyber Command to provide to the 

congressional defense committees a report that identifies the costs 

associated with developing the capabilities required to meet the requirements outlined in section 1642(b)(2)(C) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328). 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 

(Public Law 114–328) included a provision that prohibited the Secretary of Defense from taking action to end the ‘‘dual-hat arrangement’’ until the Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff jointly determine and certify to the appropriate committees of 

Congress that ending that arrangement would not pose unacceptable risks to the military effectiveness of Cyber Command. The provision also required the establishment of conditions-based criteria, 

including the achievement of full operational capability of the cyber 

mission force and the development of: (1) Robust operational infrastructure; (2) Robust command and control systems and processes; 

(3) The tools and weapons used in cyber operations; (4) Capabilities 

to enable intelligence collection and operational preparation of the 

environment for cyber operations; and (5) Capabilities to train 

cyber operations personnel, test cyber capabilities, and rehearse 

cyber missions. 

The committee believes any decision to separate Cyber Command 

and the National Security Agency should be conditions-based. The 

committee also believes that the funding associated with separating the ‘‘dual-hat arrangement’’ will be a multiyear sustained effort. The committee notes that the fiscal year 2018 budget request 

failed to include the funding necessary to resource the separation 

of the ‘‘dual-hat arrangement.’’ The committee looks to Cyber Command to estimate the funding required to meet the conditions identified in section 1642(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) and intends to closely 

monitor future budget submissions and the cost, schedule, and performance of key cyber programs to ensure that Cyber Command is 

appropriately resourced prior to any decision to end the ‘‘dual-hat 

arrangement.’’ 

Modification of Information Assurance Scholarship Program (sec. 1628) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2200a of title 10, United States Code, to formally designate the 

Department of Defense Cybersecurity Scholarship Program, and to 

require that not less than 5 percent of the funding allocated to the 

program each year be reserved for the pursuit of an associate degree. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense, by 

no later than September 30, 2018, to provide a plan to the congressional defense committees for reinvigoration of the program. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
301 

Measuring compliance of components of Department of Defense with cybersecurity requirements for securing industrial control systems (sec. 1629) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to update its cyber scorecards to ensure that 

the Secretary measures each component of the Department of Defense in its progress towards securing the industrial control systems of the Department against cyber threats. 

Exercise on assessing cybersecurity support to election systems of States (sec. 1630) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to incorporate the cybersecurity of elections 

systems of the States as a component of the Cyber Guard Exercise. 

Report on various approaches to cyber deterrence (sec. 

1630A) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prepare a report on various approaches to 

cyber deterrence. 

The committee believes that our national security is at great 

risk. The cyber threats we face from Russia, China, North Korea, 

and Iran are growing in sophistication and scale. According to the 

Department of Defense Science Board’s Task Force on Cyber Deterrence, ‘‘The cyber threat to U.S. critical infrastructure is outpacing 

efforts to reduce pervasive vulnerabilities, so that for the next decade at least the United States must lean significantly on deterrence to address the cyber threat posed by the most capable U.S. 

adversaries. It is clear that a more proactive and systematic approach to U.S. cyber deterrence is urgently needed.’’ 

The committee remains concerned by the executive branch’s lack 

of urgency and failure to address the foundational legal and policy 

questions required to formulate an effective deterrence strategy. 

The committee believes the Nation cannot afford to fall another 

decade behind the cyber threats that are proliferating exponentially. As the Defense Science Board report states, a ‘‘proactive and 

systematic approach’’ is necessary. 

In light of the inherent complexities of cyber deterrence and this 

issue’s relatively nascent theoretical foundations, the committee believes that the Department of Defense should complete a robust 

competitive analysis with three strategic objectives: (1) To identify, 

define, and explain the various theoretical approaches to cyber deterrence; (2) To present the strengths and weaknesses of each approach relative to the threat and to one another; and (3) To present 

a recommended cyber deterrence doctrine for the United States as 

well as a dissenting alternative if necessary. 

Further, as the Secretary completes this report, the committee 

encourages the Secretary to consider past efforts that have leveraged creative approaches to difficult problems. For example, when 

President Eisenhower needed to formulate a comprehensive government strategy for dealing with an emerging Soviet challenger, 

he commissioned his ‘‘Solarium Project,’’ which tasked three separate expert ‘‘task forces’’—each with the same information but operating with different philosophies and under different constraints— 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
302 

to investigate and to recommend a strategy for U.S. engagement 

with the Soviet Union. We believe approaches like the ‘‘Solarium 

Project’’ may prove to be useful models for this report. 

Prohibition on use of software platforms developed by 

Kaspersky Lab (sec. 1630B) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit any 

component of the Department of Defense from using, whether directly or through work with or on behalf of another element of the 

United States Government, from using any software platform developed, in whole or in part, by Kaspersky Lab or any entity of 

which Kaspersky Lab has a majority ownership. 

Subtitle D—Nuclear Forces 

Collection, storage, and sharing of data relating to nuclear 

security enterprise (sec. 1631) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require data 

sharing between the Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) with respect to cost, programmatic, and technical data 

relating to programs and projects of the nuclear security enterprise. 

The committee notes that this provision not only concerns the 

sharing of such data between the DOE/NNSA and DOD but also 

within each agency so that the U.S. Government-funded pool of 

data is common to the nuclear enterprise. Data developed by taxpayer dollars belong to the U.S. Government, and data collected by 

any one government organization should be shared—especially 

with respect to developing accurate cost estimates of future programs to assist in developing engineering designs and requirements. It is incumbent upon senior government officials as stewards of taxpayer dollars to promote data sharing and to ensure that 

all procedural hurdles and classifications are overcome. 

The committee notes that the Atomic Energy Act does not restrict data sharing between organizations. Section 2163 of title 42, 

United States Code, explicitly allows the sharing of data between 

organizations as long as the Department of Defense designee has 

determined security requirements are met. 

Establishment of procedures for implementation of Nuclear 

Enterprise Review (sec. 1632) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to issue a final Department of Defense Instruction no later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 

Act for the 2014 Nuclear Enterprise Review. The committee believes that a formal DOD Instruction will institutionalize a process 

that has served the Department well so far in addressing concerns 

initially documented by the 2014 Nuclear Enterprise Review. 

Procurement authority for certain parts of intercontinental 

ballistic missiles (sec. 1633) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Department of Defense to buy intercontinental ballistic missile 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
303 

parts pursuant to contracts entered into under section 1645(a) of 

the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291). 

Execution and programmatic oversight of nuclear command, control, and communications programs (sec. 1634) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the Department of Defense 

(DOD), or any successor with primary responsibility for nuclear 

command, control, and communications (NC3), in coordination with 

the Under Secretary of Defense of Acquisition and Sustainment, to 

develop a database of acquisition program metrics on DOD NC3 acquisition systems not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

of this Act. 

NC3 systems connect the President to his advisors and ultimately enable force direction of the nuclear forces, making its modernization a key national priority. The committee is concerned 

about the management of more than 100 separate NC3 systems 

fragmented between the Department of the Air Force, the Department of the Navy, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. This 

fragmentation has led to delays in critical capabilities. Section 

171(a) of title 10, United States Code, created the Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, and Communications Systems (the Council), with the CIO acting as Executive 

Secretary, to provide oversight of these systems, but much work remains to be done. 

Furthermore, the committee is concerned that the Council has 

neglected long-term planning in favor of addressing crises as they 

arise. The Council is currently required to provide an annual report 

to the congressional defense committees on its recent activities and 

the activities proposed under the current future years defense program, along with details on current programs and threats. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Council to add to its annual 

report to Congress, beginning in 2019, a section on its 10-year plan 

for acquisition, modernization, and sustainment. The plan should 

cover schedule, cost, risk, system-level integration, and surety. 

Finally, the committee values the work of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in reviewing the progress and challenges 

facing NC3 acquisition and programs. The committee therefore directs the Comptroller General of the United States to continue assessment of these programs, as well as the progress developing and 

implementing an overall NC3 architecture, and to brief the congressional defense committees on the results on an annual basis 

from fiscal years 2018 to 2022 with periodic updates as agreed to 

with the GAO. In particular, the Comptroller General should provide, as the GAO has for space systems, a brief periodic summary 

of the acquisition status of selected NC3 programs that are below 

Acquisition Category I, which are not normally tracked in the Selected Acquisition Reporting database. The Comptroller General 

should pay particular attention to the recent efforts that the Air 

Force has taken to consolidate NC3 acquisition at the Air Force 

Nuclear Weapons Center, the allocation of staff and secure facilities to stand up this acquisition effort, and the general implemenVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00339 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
304 

tation of NC3 activities and organizations outlined in Air Force 

Program Action Directive D16–01, dated August 2, 2016. 

Further, the Comptroller General should consult with the congressional defense committees each year as he or she determines 

the scope and timing of each annual review. Each review may include, as the Comptroller General deems appropriate, the insights 

of both DOD and non-DOD entities that have relevant NC3 knowledge. The Comptroller General should, as part of periodic reporting, notify the congressional defense committees of any issues with 

the assistance of these entities that may delay or hinder data gathering and reporting. 

Measures in response to noncompliance of the Russian Federation with its obligations under the INF Treaty (sec. 

1635) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

research and development program on a dual-capable groundlaunched missile with a maximum range of 5,500 kilometers, in 

order to close the capability gap opened by the Russian violation 

of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. 

U.S. officials have been aware of possible violations by the Russian Federation of the INF Treaty since 2008. The U.S. Government did not raise the issue with Russian officials until 2013, and 

it did not brief NATO on the subject until 2014. Since 2013, senior 

U.S. officials, including the President, the Secretary of State, and 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have raised the violations with their Russian counterparts, but there is no evidence that 

Russia is moving toward compliance with the treaty. The 2017 Department of State report titled, ‘‘Adherence to and Compliance with 

Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and 

Commitments,’’ concluded that Russia remains in violation of its 

obligations under the INF Treaty. 

It is not in the national security interests of the United States 

to refrain from doing any research and development into such military capabilities while Russian capabilities are developed, advanced, produced, and deployed, and no other country in the world 

is bound by the treaty. The committee does not intend for the 

United States to enter into violation of the INF Treaty. The committee notes that research and development, without testing, would 

not constitute a violation of the treaty. 

While a missile with advanced capabilities may be preferable 

once the technology has matured, the most practicable solution in 

the near-term may be modification of an existing missile system for 

ground-launch. Accordingly, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees evaluating existing U.S. missile systems for modification to intermediate range and ground-launch, including Tomahawk, Standard Missile-3, Standard Missile-6, Long-Range StandOff Cruise Missile, and Army Tactical Missile System. The system 

may be operated by whichever military service deemed most appropriate by the Secretary of Defense but should be suitable for deployment by the Commanders of U.S. European Command and 

U.S. Pacific Command. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
305 

The report should be submitted to the congressional defense committees no later than 120 days after enactment of this Act. 

Certification that the Nuclear Posture Review addresses deterrent effect and operation of United States nuclear 

forces in current and future security environment (sec. 

1636) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the Secretary of Defense certify that the new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) being conducted by the Department of Defense addresses: (1) The ability of the current U.S. nuclear posture to deter current and future nuclear-armed adversaries; (2) The ability of the 

United States to operate in a major regional conflict that involves 

nuclear weapons; (3) The ability and preparedness of forward-deployed members of the Armed Forces to operate in a nuclear environment; and (4) Weapons, equipment, and training not currently 

part of U.S. nuclear posture that would fill any gaps in those capabilities. 

The provision would also require the Secretary to certify that the 

NPR addresses all the above interests for the projected security environment and U.S. nuclear posture over the next 10 years and 

identify any actions that could be taken by the Secretary of Defense or the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration to decrease the risk posed by additional changes in 

the security environment in the future. 

The provision would also state the sense of the Congress on the 

importance of the timely modernization of U.S. nuclear forces in 

order to maintain a flexible and resilient force. 

Plan to manage Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment System and multi-domain sensors (sec. 1637) 

The committee recommends a provision that, not later than 1 

year after the date of the enactment of this Act, would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force to manage the missile element of the Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment (ITWAA) system 

as a weapon system consistent with Air Force Policy Directive 10– 

9, ‘‘Lead Command Designation and Responsibilities for Weapon 

Systems,’’ dated March 8, 2007. 

In addition, the Secretary of the Air Force should include a longterm plan to integrate and manage all available sensors for multidomain exploitation against modern and emergent threats. 

Certification requirement with respect to strategic radiation hardened trusted foundry (sec. 1638) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to certify to the congressional defense committees that a strategic radiation hardened trusted foundry will be 

operational not later than December 31, 2020. The microelectronic 

components supplied by such a foundry will be necessary for the 

successful and timely completion of the Ground-Based Strategic 

Deterrent and the Long-Range Stand-off Missile programs. It is the 

committee’s understanding that there is one remaining trusted 

foundry capable of meeting future requirements of these systems. 

The committee is concerned about the health of the industrial base 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
306 

for such specialized components and will continue to track this 

issue closely. 

In addition to the certification, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees on the Department of Defense’s plan to ensure an operational foundry by 2020. This plan should be developed in coordination with the Department’s long-term strategy for trusted and assured microelectronics and should take into consideration future 

opportunities for coordinating acquisition of strategic radiation 

hardened microelectronics across the Services and programs. 

The report should be submitted no later than February 28, 2018. 

Requirements for Nuclear Posture Review (sec. 1639) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to fully incorporate into the Nuclear Posture 

Review (NPR) input and views from other government agencies, including the Department of Energy, the Department of State, and 

the National Nuclear Security Administration. The provision would 

also require the Secretary of Defense to submit the NPR in its entirety to the congressional defense committees and provide an unclassified version to the public. 

Sense of Congress on Nuclear Posture Review (sec. 1640) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Congress that the Nuclear Posture Review should take 

into account treaty obligations of the United States, and should examine the tools required to sustain the stockpile stewardship program under section 4201 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 

U.S.C. 2521). 

Subtitle E—Missile Defense Programs 

Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system and Israeli 

Cooperative Missile Defense Program co-development 

and co-production (sec. 1651) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize not 

more than $92.0 million for the Missile Defense Agency to provide 

to the Government of Israel to procure Tamir interceptors for the 

Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system through co-production of such interceptors in the United States. Before disbursing 

the funding for Iron Dome to the Government of Israel, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment must certify that the March 

5, 2014, bilateral international agreement concerning Iron Dome, 

as amended, is being implemented. 

The provision would also authorize $120.0 million for the Missile 

Defense Agency to provide to the Government of Israel for the procurement of the David’s Sling Weapon System and $120.0 million 

for the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor program, including for coproduction of parts and components in the United States by U.S. 

industry. The funds for the David’s Sling Weapon System may be 

disbursed after the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment certifies that the Government of Israel has demonstrated successful completion of certain milestones required by 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
307 

the research, development, and technology agreement and the bilateral co-production agreement; that the funds will be matched on 

a one-for-one basis or in an amount that otherwise meets best efforts; and that the level of co-production of parts and components 

in the United States is not less than 50 percent. Additionally, the 

committee directs United States and Government of Israel representatives from the David’s Sling Weapon System Affordability 

Working Group to jointly brief the committee no later than October 

1, 2017, on the drivers of production costs, cost reduction initiatives, and efforts to achieve co-production efficiencies for the David’s Sling program. 

The funds for the Arrow 3 Upper Tier program may be disbursed 

after certain conditions, which include the completion of two successful flight tests at a test range in the United States and certification from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 

Sustainment that the United States has entered into a bilateral 

agreement with the Government of Israel. That agreement must 

establish: (1) The terms of co-production of parts and components; 

(2) Transparency on the Israeli requirement for the number of 

interceptors and batteries; (3) Technical milestones for co-production and procurement; (4) A joint affordability working group to 

consider cost reduction initiatives; and (5) Joint approval processes 

for third-party sales. 

The committee acknowledges that the September 14, 2016, 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States 

and Israel commits $500.0 million in U.S. funding for cooperative 

missile defense programs annually beginning in fiscal year 2019 

and ending in fiscal year 2028. According to the MOU, the United 

States and Israel jointly understand that any U.S. funds provided 

for such programs should be made available according to separate 

bilateral agreements for the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow 

3 weapon systems, and should maximize co-production of parts and 

components in the United States at a level equal to or greater than 

50 percent of U.S.-appropriated funds for production. Additionally, 

Israel commits not to seek additional missile defense funding from 

the United States for the duration of the MOU, except in exceptional circumstances as may be jointly agreed by the United States 

and Israel. The committee expects to receive annual updates on all 

cooperative defense programs, as delineated in the MOU, to include 

progress reports and spending plans, as well as the top-line figures 

of the Israel Missile Defense Organization budget. 

Development of persistent space-based sensor architecture 

(sec. 1652) 

The committee recommends a provision that would, unless otherwise directed or recommended by the Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR), require the Director of the Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA) to develop using sound acquisition practices a highly reliable and cost-effective persistent space-based sensor architecture 

capable of supporting the ballistic missile defense system. The Director of the Missile Defense Agency should ensure that rigorous 

testing of the space-based sensor architecture is conducted before 

final production decisions or operational deployment. The spacebased sensor architecture should provide functions such as: (1) conVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00343 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
308 

trol of increased raid sizes; (2) precision tracking of threat missiles; 

(3) fire-control-quality tracks of evolving threat missiles; (4) enabling launch-on-remote and engage-on-remote capabilities; (5) discrimination of warheads; (6) effective kill assessment; (7) an enhanced shot doctrine; (8) integration with the command, control, 

battle management, and communication program of the ballistic 

missile defense system, (9) integration with all other elements of 

the current ballistic missile defense system, including the Terminal 

High Altitude Area Defense, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, and Patriot Air and Missile Defense Systems; (10) and any additional functions the BMDR finds to be appropriate. 

The committee recognizes that the current space-based missile 

defense sensor architecture is in need of further development and 

advancement and notes that, in order to counter the growing threat 

from North Korea and Iran, the United States should invest in a 

space-based sensor architecture to strengthen homeland defense. 

To that end, the committee recommends the authorization of 

MDA’s request of $27.5 million on its Unfunded Requirements List 

to support the development of a space-based sensor architecture. 

The committee notes that while developing the space-based sensor 

architecture, the Director of MDA should design the program so as 

to avoid, to the extent possible, the acquisition and program management missteps that occurred in the past on similar programs. 

Because of the high cost to develop and deploy any system in space, 

the committee recommends that, as MDA generates cost estimates 

for the space-based sensor architecture, it should utilize either: (1) 

the GAO cost-estimating and assessment guide (GAO–09–3SP) or 

(2) the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) operating 

and support cost-estimating guide. 

Ground-based interceptor capacity and Fort Greely missile 

field infrastructure requirements (sec. 1653) 

The committee supports the efforts of the Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA) and the Department of Defense to complete the emplacement of 44 Ground Based Interceptors (GBIs) by the end of 2017 

and to improve the overall reliability and performance of the GBI 

fleet and the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system. The committee notes that MDA has made critical improvements to the existing kill vehicles of some of the GBI fleet in order to address deficiencies demonstrated in flight tests. The committee encourages 

MDA’s development of the Redesigned Kill Vehicle (RKV) to further address reliability concerns in the existing fleet and to enhance the warfighter’s shot doctrine. Additionally, the committee 

encourages the Department to continue its efforts to complete a 

Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR), as directed by the January 27, 2017 Presidential Memorandum on Rebuilding the U.S. 

Armed Forces and section 1684 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (P.L. 114–328). As the threat from adversaries’ missiles becomes more sophisticated and complex, the 

committee acknowledges that expanding the GBI fleet beyond 44 is 

just one option for addressing such a threat, but would need to consider where additional GBIs could be deployed and the infrastructure costs to do so. The committee will evaluate any recommendaVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00344 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
309 

tions for expanding or modifying the current program of record for 

homeland missile defense put forward by the BMDR. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that, unless 

otherwise directed by the BMDR, directs the Secretary of Defense 

to increase the number of GBIs by up to 28, and execute any requisite construction to ensure that Missile Fields 1 and 2 at Fort 

Greely, or any other alternative missile fields, are capable of supporting and sustaining additional GBIs. The Secretary shall additionally identify a ground-based interceptor stockpile storage site 

for up to 14 GBIs. 

The committee recognizes that an increase to GBIs at Fort 

Greely, or elsewhere, requires significant planning. Therefore, the 

committee directs the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to 

submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than 90 

days after the enactment of this act, a report on options to increase 

the capacity by up to 100 GBIs of the ground-based midcourse defense element of the ballistic missile defense system, including an 

identification of potential sites, a cost-benefit analysis of such sites, 

a description of the additional infrastructure and components needed, along with a cost and schedule estimate, to increase the number of ground-based interceptors configured with the RKV, or other 

designs, at Fort Greely, Alaska, or other locations. This report 

should also include the benefit of supplementing ground-based midcourse defense elements, with other more distributed elements, for 

homeland defense. 

Sense of the Senate on the state of United States missile defense (sec. 1654) 

The committee recommends a provision that expresses the sense 

of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should use the Ballistic 

Missile Defense Review (BMDR) to consider accelerating the development of technologies that will increase the capacity, capability, 

and reliability of the ground-based midcourse defense element of 

the ballistic missile defense system and that, upon completion of 

the BMDR, to the extent practicable and with sound acquisition 

practices, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency should accelerate the development, testing, and fielding of such capabilities as 

they are prioritized in the BMDR, to include the redesigned kill vehicle, the multi-object kill vehicle, the C3 booster, a space-based 

sensor layer, boost phase sensor and kill technologies, and additional ground-based interceptors. The provision also states that it 

is essential for the Department of Defense and the Missile Defense 

Agency to follow a ‘‘fly before you buy’’ approach before final production decisions or operational deployment. 

Sense of the Senate and report on ground-based mid-course 

defense testing (sec. 1655) 

The committee recommends a provision that expresses the sense 

of the Senate that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) should increase funding to homeland missile defense testing and continue to 

flight test the ground-based midcourse defense system at least once 

each fiscal year. The committee directs the Director of the Missile 

Defense Agency to submit a report to the congressional defense 

committees that includes a revised missile defense testing camVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00345 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
310 

paign that accelerates the development and deployment of new 

missile defense technologies. This revised testing campaign should 

specifically review the acceleration of the redesigned kill vehicle, 

the multi-object kill vehicle, the configuration-3 booster, unmanned 

aerial vehicles that utilize directed energy, and a space-based missile defense sensor architecture. 

Items of Special Interest 

Airborne boost phase laser missile defense demonstration 

The committee directs the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, unless otherwise recommended by the Ballistic Missile Defense 

Review, to rapidly develop and demonstrate an airborne boost 

phase intercept capability for missile defense. Existing technologies 

should be adapted to demonstrate this capability. The concept of 

operation for this demonstration should be developed in cooperation 

with the U.S. Pacific Command to address emerging threats and 

heightened tensions in the Asia-Pacific region. 

AN/TPY–2 detection and cueing capability 

The committee notes the increased level of ballistic missile development, testing, and, in some cases, use by specific countries in the 

Pacific and Middle Eastern regions. More sophisticated missile 

technologies, combined with growing missile quantities and mobility, are increasing the threat to not only our forward deployed personnel but also the homeland. Hostile missile launches and testing 

programs that threaten U.S. personnel and partners and allies like 

Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Turkey require a more robust forward 

presence of early detection, cueing, and discrimination capabilities 

to detect and eliminate these constantly evolving threats. 

The committee notes that the AN/TPY–2 radars currently forward deployed in the U.S. Central and Pacific Command areas of 

responsibility have successfully provided early detection and cueing 

capability for 11 years and could serve as a template for future expansion of ballistic missile defense (BMD) capabilities, both as a 

stand-alone sensor or as part of a larger BMD system such as a 

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery. 

The Secretary of Defense has been tasked to ‘‘initiate a new Ballistic Missile Defense Review to identify ways of strengthening missile-defense capabilities, rebalancing homeland and theater defense 

priorities and highlighting priority funding areas.’’ The committee 

encourages the Army to strongly consider fiscal year 2019 and fiscal year 2020 funding for additional AN/TPY–2 radar acquisitions, 

in either Forward Base or Terminal Mode, to meet the growing 

global and regional need. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief 

the congressional defense committees by September 1, 2017 on 

plans to provide additional forward deployed radar detection and 

cueing capabilities. This briefing shall include: (1) an analysis of regional missile threats; (2) any specific capabilities needed for operations in a nuclear environment; (3) near-term alternatives for addressing threats; and (4) timelines to deploy additional assets and 

the budget needed to fund these additional capabilities. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
311 

Assistance of U.S. Special Operations Command to U.S. 

Forces-Korea for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction 

Under the Unified Command Plan, the U.S. Special Operations 

Command is tasked with synchronizing the plans of the geographic 

commands to Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD). U.S. 

Special Operations Forces (SOF) also have exquisite, but limited, 

capabilities to secure and render safe WMDs. The U.S. Forces– 

Korea are responsible for deterring and countering threats from 

North Korea, including its stockpiles of chemical, biological, and 

nuclear weapons. The committee understands that North Korea’s 

chemical and biological weapons stockpiles are large and stored in 

numerous heavily fortified sites. 

In the event of a contingency, the committee understands that 

special operations and conventional ground forces, including the 

Second Infantry Division, will be tasked with securing such stockpiles and sites. However, it is not clear to the committee how U.S. 

SOF would synchronize its highly specialized CWMD skills within 

a larger military campaign designed to secure the significant number of WMD sites in North Korea involving conventional forces. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Commanders of the U.S. 

Forces–Korea and U.S. Special Operations Command to submit a 

plan for synchronizing skills and expertise of conventional and special operations forces with respect to securing North Korean WMD 

sites. As part of this plan, the committee directs the Commander 

of U.S. Forces—Korea to describe current deficiencies and shortfalls that should inform changes to operational planning (within 

Korea and the U.S. Government) and training and equipping of its 

forces to secure North Korean WMD sites, if directed. The committee directs that the plan be delivered to the congressional defense committees not later than February 28, 2018. 

Cobra Dane radar system improvements 

The committee is aware of the critical sensor coverage that the 

Cobra Dane radar provides to the Ballistic Missile Defense System 

in the tracking of threatening ballistic missiles, as well as its role 

in space surveillance and identification of space objects. The committee understands that the Cobra Dane radar was initially fielded 

in 1976 and today confronts growing sustainment and obsolescence 

challenges. Additionally, the committee supports the deployment of 

the Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) for improved persistent long-range midcourse discrimination, precision tracking, 

and hit assessment of threat ballistic missiles, but it acknowledges 

that the LRDR is not a one-for-one replacement for the Cobra Dane 

radar. In addition, the committee understands that as the Air 

Force’s new space fence radar becomes operational in 2020, it will 

not need the capabilities of the Cobra Dane radar for space surveillance. Nevertheless, the committee is concerned about the lack of 

a comprehensive and credible plan for cost-effective investments in 

technology refresh to maximize Cobra Dane’s reliability and minimize life cycle costs. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, 

in coordination with the Director of the Missile Defense Agency 

and the Commander of U.S. Northern Command, to submit to the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
312 

congressional defense committees concurrently with the fiscal year 

2019 budget request, a report on the long-term operation and 

sustainment of Cobra Dane. The report should characterize Cobra 

Dane’s current operational availability and sustainment challenges 

and include a detailed comparison of the capabilities of the LRDR 

and the Cobra Dane radar, to include the unique capabilities of 

each radar, the common capabilities of each radar, and the advantages and disadvantages of each radar’s location. It should also include a plan, with an associated cost estimate and funding profile 

across the future years defense program, for meeting the military’s 

requirements through alternative radar solutions or the continued 

operation and maintenance of the Cobra Dane radar. Plans for 

sustainment of the Cobra Dane radar should address obsolescence 

challenges and expediting and smoothing investments in priority 

refresh projects, such as transmitter group replacement, automated 

data processing equipment rehost, and traveling wave tube redesign in fiscal year 2019 and over the future years defense program. 

Finally, the report should outline the costs, and how they will be 

shared, to maintain operational access and sustainment of Shemya 

Island, on which the radar resides. 

Commercial Geospatial-Intelligence Imagery 

The committee applauds the National Geospatial-Intelligence 

Agency’s (NGA) leadership in acquiring new sources of commercial 

geospatial-intelligence data and services as part of its combat support mission. As part of this leadership function, the committee directs the NGA to submit a report to the congressional defense committees and the House and Senate Select Intelligence Committees 

on acquiring new and non-traditional sources of geospatial-intelligence, including but not limited to new commercial satellite imagery and data of various kinds, commercial airborne imagery and 

data, and other geospatial-intelligence-related products and services the Director determines are relevant to its mission. 

Comptroller General review of very low frequency/low frequency terminals 

The committee supports the efforts of the Department of Defense 

to modernize and replace legacy very low frequency/low frequency 

(VLF/LF) communications terminals and related infrastructure, 

which provide to the President and military commanders a secure 

and survivable beyond line of sight communication pathway for 

strategic forces. The committee is concerned, however, about the 

progress and health of this modernization effort. Maintaining this 

capability has become even more important because of the recent 

emergence of diverse and complex threats to satellite-based communications systems. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to conduct an assessment of the Department of Defense’s efforts to improve nuclear command, control, and communications by modernizing VLF/LF terminals and related infrastructure. This assessment should include: (1) Information about the 

current health of the VLF/LF network, including operational and 

sustainment challenges; (2) An update on the progress of acquisition programs; (3) The potential costs and benefits of requiring the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
313 

military services to adopt a common VLF/LF terminal or waveform; 

(4) The extent to which the Department of Defense is considering 

greater use of non-satellite radio frequencies, including but not limited to VLF/LF, to support nuclear command, control, and communications; and (5) Any other issues that the Comptroller General 

considers appropriate. In addition to obtaining information from 

relevant Department of Defense organizations, this assessment 

may include, as the Comptroller General deems appropriate, the 

insights of non-Department of Defense organizations, including federally funded research and development centers, university affiliated research centers, contractors, and industry groups. 

The Comptroller General shall brief the congressional defense 

committees on the results of this assessment no later than May 31, 

2018. 

Conventional Prompt Strike 

The committee is encouraged by the continued commitment of 

the Department of Defense to the Conventional Prompt Strike 

(CPS) activity shown in the budget request. In written testimony 

to the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 4, 2017, General 

John Hyten, Commander, U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), 

emphasized his support for development and deployment of CPS as 

the Department of Defense’s ‘‘leading technology maturation effort 

in the realm of hypersonics.’’ General Hyten further stated that 

STRATCOM ‘‘foresee[s] an operational need for a CPS capability by 

the mid-2020s.’’ 

The committee therefore urges the Department to proceed to a 

Milestone A decision consistent with section 1688 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114– 

328). The committee is concerned that a delay of a Milestone A decision would delay investment in long lead items or test technologies that may be required to attain an operational capability. 

The committee supports the Department’s approach of maturing 

and demonstrating key technologies needed by both land- and seabased CPS systems. The committee notes that the CPS integrated 

master plan required by the Senate report accompanying S. 2943 

(S.R. 114–255) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 addressed test facility infrastructure for ground testing 

and flight testing, but it failed to address the potential future need 

for underwater launch test facilities. The committee recognizes that 

the Department has not yet made a decision that would determine 

testing needs, but it remains concerned that failure to adequately 

consider all potential requirements could lead to needless cost and 

schedule delays in a future program of record. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 

Director of Navy Strategic Systems Programs, to provide a briefing 

to the congressional defense committees no later than February 28, 

2018, that includes an assessment of the adequacy of sites in the 

Navy inventory to support underwater launch testing for a CPS capability, should the need arise. 

Counter unmanned aerial systems capabilities 

The committee recognizes that adversaries continue to procure 

low-cost Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and have armed them 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
314 

for military purposes in conflict areas like Iraq and Syria. The 

United States must meet this threat by expanding its capability to 

protect military personnel, military installations, and critical infrastructure. The committee believes that UAS threats will only increase overseas and domestically and that additional resources are 

necessary to meet Joint Urgent Operational Needs Statements. 

Significant advances in directed energy in recent years has proven that this technology is effective against the entire find, fix, 

track, target, engage and assess UAS kill chain. The committee 

notes that this technology has been demonstrated at recent military exercises such as a live-fire exercise at White Sands Missile 

Range and the U.S. Army’s Maneuver Fires Integration Exercise 

(MFIX) and is ready to be operationalized. The committee is aware 

of the Marine Corps intent to procure five compact high energy 

laser weapon systems for deployment for counter-UAS purposes 

and commends the Marine Corps for its forward-thinking. 

High energy laser and high powered microwave weapon systems 

offer a game-changing capability that augment existing kinetic solutions and can also help break the cost disparity of using expensive kinetic weapons and interceptors against low-cost drones. The 

committee encourages the military services to continue their efforts 

to develop, procure, and deploy directed energy counter-UAS capabilities as appropriate. 

Expand capacity and capabilities of the ICCAE with focus 

on data sciences, machine learning, artificial intelligence, modeling & war gaming, and intelligence integration 

The Committee notes that the Intelligence Community Centers 

for Academic Excellence (ICCAE) have demonstrated ongoing support for the intelligence community in several areas, in particular 

the recruitment of a more diverse set analysts, collectors and other 

intelligence community staff. The ICCAE program has effectuated 

a strategy for recruitment that includes STEM related training, 

critical language requirements, and cultural immersion that underlie students’ primary areas of study. Additionally, the Committee 

notes that the intelligence community requires staff who possess 

fundamental knowledge and critical skills in the data sciences, machine learning, artificial intelligence, computer vision, 

computationally efficient modeling techniques, empirically driven 

war gaming applications, and operational intelligence integration. 

The Committee believes these are key areas where expanded capacity, capability, research, and training would directly benefit the IC, 

while directly supporting the Objectives of the ICCAE program. 

Fill rate of billets for United States Cyber Command 

The committee directs the Commander of United States Cyber 

Command to track the rates at which the Services fill the personnel billets for United States Cyber Command, the Joint Force 

Cyber Headquarters of each of the Services, and the Cyber Mission 

Forces. The Commander shall compare these fill rates to averages 

for other joint assignments, component command assignments, and 

combat units. The Commander shall also track the degree to which 

the Services are assigning officers and enlisted personnel to repeat 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
315 

tours in cyber headquarters and operational forces and to other positions that rely on and sustain the skills and knowledge acquired 

during tours at Cyber Command, Joint Force Cyber Headquarters, 

and Cyber Mission Forces. The committee directs that a brief summary of these statistics, and any other related metrics the Commander chooses to include, be provided annually to the congressional defense committees in documentation supporting the budget 

request for the duration of the current Future Years Defense Program. 

Importance and use of United States Federal Aviation Administration licensed spaceports 

The committee continues to recognize the unique importance of 

United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) licensed 

spaceports and, when appropriate, encourages the use of such 

spaceports and launch and range complexes for mid-to-low inclination orbits or polar high-inclination orbits in support of national security space priorities. The committee recognizes that these federally licensed, non-federally owned launch facilities, including the 

Pacific Spaceport Complex—Alaska (PSCA), the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and Oklahoma Air & Space Port, are 

available to meet the requirements for the national security space 

program from the Department of Defense (DOD), Air Force Space 

Command, Operationally Responsive Space Office, and Missile Defense Agency. The committee notes that such spaceports improve 

the resiliency of U.S. launch infrastructure and help ensure consistent access to space to support national security space priorities. 

The PSCA has supported numerous launches for Air Force Space 

Command including specific national security launches. It remains 

the only commercial polar launch range available in the United 

States. A state-of-the-industry spaceport on Kodiak Island, Alaska, 

PSCA provides access to space for vital government and commercial interests. The committee supports the Missile Defense Agency’s 

plan to conduct tests of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense 

(THAAD) system from the PSCA and encourages the Department, 

where appropriate, to consider expanding the use of federally-licensed, non-federally owned launch facilities to conduct national security launches and U.S. and foreign missile tests. 

The Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) at Wallops Island, 

Virginia provides medium-class and small-class launch capabilities 

for the Department. It has launched numerous missions for DOD 

with its agency partners, Air Force Space Command, the Operationally Responsive Space Office, and MDA. MARS provides assured/responsive access to mid-to-low inclination orbits for payloads 

up to 15,300 lbs. The committee supports the Air Force/National 

Reconnaissance Office’s planned launch of the L–111 mission from 

MARS by the end of 2018 and encourages the DOD, where appropriate, to consider expanding the use of federally-licensed, non-federally owned launch facilities to conduct national security launches 

and missile tests. The Oklahoma Air & Space Port, near Bums 

Flat, Oklahoma, is the only space port in the United States to have 

a civilian FAA approved Space Flight Corridor in the National Airspace System. This Space Flight Corridor is unique because it is 

not within Military Operating Areas or within restricted airspace, 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
316 

which provides an operational capability for space launch operations and associated industries specialized in space-related activities. 

The committee believes that these three facilities can be used, 

when appropriate, to support the national security space program. 

Increased procurement of low-cost ballistic missile targets 

The committee continues to encourage the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to use threat representative targets in its flight tests, to 

the maximum extent possible, in order to prove our Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) is capable of defending against increasingly complex threat missiles. The committee is aware of potential target technologies that could provide flexibility, reduce 

cost, and improve schedule performance in meeting BMDS test objectives. Lower cost targets that are reliable and meet mission requirements could enable MDA to potentially procure more targets 

and test more frequently. Therefore, the committee directs MDA to 

complete an assessment that would consider the integration of low 

cost targets into the flight test plans for the BMDS. 

Intelligence support to U.S. Strategic Command 

The committee directs the Commander of the U.S. Strategic 

Command and the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency 

(DIA) to review nuclear intelligence support to the U.S. Strategic 

Command. The review should take into account recent DIA policies 

that require senior intelligence analysts currently at the Command 

to rotate to different assignments in support of other commands. 

While such a policy is admirable for its career broadening effects, 

it can be detrimental to the highly specialized areas of support, 

namely nuclear forces intelligence, to the U.S. Strategic Command, 

where resident analysts’ skills take years to replace. Given Russia’s 

recent nuclear force modernization, having these long-term analysts at U.S. Strategic Command to inform the Commander on the 

long-term trends of such modernization is critical to our deterrence 

posture. 

The Commander of U.S. Strategic Command and the Director of 

the DIA shall submit to the congressional defense and intelligence 

committees a report on this review no later than February 28, 

2018. 

Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense interoperability 

The committee notes, following the U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) 

alliance decision, the recent deployment of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery to the ROK to protect U.S. 

and allied forces against the rapidly escalating ballistic missile 

threat from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. While the 

committee fully supports this deployment and the Missile Defense 

Agency’s plans to test the THAAD and Patriot systems together in 

a series of simulated engagements in fiscal year 2018, it remains 

concerned about the lack of interoperability and coordination between THAAD and other critical forward-deployed integrated air 

and missile defense systems such as Patriot. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
317 

Therefore, unless otherwise directed or recommended by the Ballistic Missile Defense Review, the committee directs the Secretary 

of Defense, within 120 days of enactment of this Act, to provide a 

report to the congressional defense committees on the benefits of 

achieving full interoperability between the THAAD and Patriot 

weapon systems. The report shall include an estimated schedule for 

integration, resources required, and any recommendations the Secretary sees fit to improve the integration of the two systems. The 

report shall be delivered in an unclassified form but may include 

a classified annex. 

Positioning, Navigation, and Timing alternate sources 

The Department of Defense is reliant on Positioning, Navigation, 

and Timing (PNT) for a cross cutting range of military platforms 

and capabilities. Recognizing the importance of PNT, the committee strongly supports efforts by the Department’s PNT Oversight Council to enhance PNT resilience and encourages the council 

to move quickly to deploy an alternate source of time and location 

with the ability to deliver time globally relative to United States 

Naval Observatory/Coordinated Universal Time. The committee encourages the PNT Oversight Council to utilize Department of Defense as well as commercial satellites systems to focus on technologies with high readiness levels that can be fielded rapidly and 

at reduced cost. 

Replacement of National Airborne Operations Center aircraft 

The Secretary of the Air Force is beginning an analysis of alternatives on the replacement of the National Airborne Operations 

Center in anticipation of a Milestone A decision. The committee is 

concerned that the replacement fleet may lower the mission capability. Upon completion of the analysis, the Secretary of the Air 

Force, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, shall provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on the conclusions of the analysis and the Air Force’s planned 

course of action on the replacement of the fleet. 

Report on Electromagnetic Pulse Attack Commission findings and recommendations 

The committee notes that the Commission to Assess the Threat 

to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack was 

established in the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), Title XIV, and reestablished again in fiscal year 2006 to identify steps that should 

be taken by the United States to better protect its military and civilian systems from electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. The EMP 

Commission was charged with assessing the nature and magnitude 

of potential high-altitude EMP threats to the United States from 

all potentially hostile states or non-state actors, the vulnerability 

of U.S. military and civilian systems to an EMP attack, the capability of the United States to repair and recover from damage inflicted by an EMP attack, and the feasibility and cost of hardening 

select military and civilian systems against EMP attack. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
318 

Since its establishment, the EMP Commission produced multiple 

reports and briefings that included findings and recommendations 

for the Department of Defense. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the committee on its assessment of the military findings and recommendations provided 

by the EMP Commission. The briefing shall, at a minimum, include: (1) An identification and assessment of the published findings and recommendations by the EMP Commission; (2) Actions 

taken on each of those findings and recommendations; and, (3) Recommended way ahead for the Department of Defense with regards 

to protection of military systems against EMP attack. 

Reusable Launch Vehicles 

The committee is aware of the recent successful re-launch of an 

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle-class launch vehicle previously 

used to deliver a payload to orbit. With nearly every U.S. launch 

company moving toward full or partial reusability of boosters, the 

committee recognizes that the potential to reuse launch vehicles for 

orbital space launch may significantly reduce the cost and improve 

the reliability of space launch in the national security, civil, and 

commercial space sectors. 

The committee recommends that the Air Force move rapidly to 

establish procedures to evaluate, certify, and leverage reusability 

technologies in order to meet national security space requirements. 

To this end, performance and excess margin beyond what is required to carry out a given national security space missions should 

not be withheld by the government, and booster recovery should be 

encouraged when possible. 

The committee recommends that the government establish a 

process to evaluate and potentially certify reusable launch systems. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to brief 

the committee not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 

Act on the Department’s activities to evaluate and utilize reusable 

launch vehicles for use in national security space missions. 

Sea-based X-Band Radar 

As the Director of the Missile Defense Agency evaluates the possible locations that would be best suited for a future home port of 

the Sea-based X–Band Radar (SBX) as required by section 1684 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (P.L. 

114–92), the Director should consult with the Secretary of the Navy 

to avoid home port sites for the SBX that could negatively impact 

U.S. naval operations, including ship and submarine maintenance 

activities at the public shipyards. 

Simultaneous strategic missile system flight tests 

The committee supports efforts by both the Navy and the Air 

Force to conduct realistic flight tests of their respective strategic 

missile systems. These rigorous flight test programs are critical to 

ensuring the reliability of the Nation’s nuclear forces and for strategic messaging regarding our credibility. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide 

a report to the congressional defense committees containing a plan 

for the Air Force to carry out a simultaneous test of at least two 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
319 

Minuteman III LGM–31 missiles. In addition to the simultaneous 

launch itself, such a test would demonstrate: (1) The ability of 

planners to deconflict multiple launches and warhead reentries; (2) 

The capability of test and tracking assets to accommodate multiple 

simultaneous launches and reentries; and (3) The resolve of the 

United States to ensure a robust and credible deterrent. 

The report should be submitted no later than February 28, 2018. 

Space Launch Automated Flight Safety and Termination 

Systems 

The committee believes implementation of the Automated Flight 

Safety and Termination System may support and enable an increased launch cadence at the federal ranges. 

Therefore the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, 

in consultation with the Administrator of National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration, to provide a report no later than December 

31, 2017 to the congressional defense committees, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and the House 

Space, Science, and Technology Committee on a strategy to transition to Automated Flight Safety and Termination Systems at the 

Eastern and Western ranges by 2022. 

This report should consider whether to exclude systems certified 

before enactment of this Act or when transition to automated systems is not in the best interest of the U.S. Government. This report 

shall also include an assessment of impacts to safety of both personnel involved with space launch activities and the general public 

not involved in such activities. 

Staffing for nuclear command, control, and communications 

acquisition 

The committee applauds the recent steps taken by the U.S. Air 

Force to centralize responsibility for the nuclear command, control, 

and communications (NC3) enterprise in order to reduce fragmentation and increase accountability. 

Modernization of the NC3 enterprise is a key national priority, 

and the committee remains concerned that there is little margin for 

error. Any delay or deferment of the existing programs poses unacceptable risk. 

The committee received testimony in a Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on June 7, 2017, from General Robin Rand, 

Commander, Global Strike Command, on efforts to get the Nuclear 

Weapons Center and the Program Executive Office for NC3 50 to 

60 additional acquisition professionals to adequately oversee these 

programs. Therefore, the committee requests a briefing on the Air 

Force plan to fully staff the acquisition oversight of NC3 consistent 

with this testimony not later than 180 days after the enactment of 

this Act. 

Training for cyber mission forces 

The Secretary of Defense in fiscal year 2013 directed the stand 

up of the Cyber Mission Forces (CMF) and provided funds for U.S. 

Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) and the service cyber components 

to establish the teams and fund the training of personnel and 

units. The funding provided by the Secretary for training covered 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
320 

fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2016. During this period of central 

funding, the Services, under the supervision of CYBERCOM, the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Staff, were supposed to come to an agreement on a joint, federated training program funded by the Services for training of the CMF. This federated training program was to be an equitable division of labor 

that avoided duplication and built on the expertise of each service. 

The committee is concerned that the Services were not able to come 

to an agreement on a joint training program for the CMF for the 

budget submission for fiscal year 2018. The committee expects this 

issue to be resolved in the current budget planning cycle for fiscal 

year 2019 and expects to be kept informed of progress towards this 

goal in the coming months. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(321) 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Summary and explanation of funding tables 

Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It includes funding authorizations for the construction and operation of military 

family housing as well as military construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure accounts that fund military construction, 

environmental cleanup, and other activities required to implement 

the decisions in base closure rounds. 

The tables contained in this Act provide the project-level authorizations for the military construction funding authorized in Division B of this Act and summarize that funding by account. 

The fiscal year 2018 budget requested $10.4 billion for military 

construction and housing programs. Of this amount, $8.7 billion 

was requested for military construction, $1.4 billion for the construction and operation of family housing, and $255.9 million for 

base closure activities. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations for 

military construction, housing programs, and base closure activities 

totaling $10.5. The total amount authorized for appropriations reflects the committee’s continuing commitment to invest in the recapitalization of DOD facilities and infrastructure. However, the 

committee is concerned with the cost of some projects and has 

withheld authorization of those projects until such time as better 

analysis can be performed to determine the requirements and 

lower cost alternatives. Furthermore, the committee is concerned 

with cost increases and schedule delays on previous projects that 

appear to be the result of failure to properly manage these projects. 

Therefore the committee has included a number of provisions to ensure better management and accountability. 

The committee also notes that the budget request includes funding for some projects beyond what can be executed in fiscal year 

2018. While the committee includes the full authorization for these 

projects, it has provided only the increment of funding expected to 

be executed in the coming fiscal year. 

Short title (sec. 2001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would designate division B of this Act as the ‘‘Military Construction Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2018.’’ 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
322 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be 

specified by law (sec. 2002) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military construction projects, land acquisition, family housing projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program as of October 1, 2022, or the date of enactment 

of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2023, whichever is later. 

Effective date (sec. 2003) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide an effective date for titles XXI through XXVII and title XXIX of October 

1, 2017 or the date of enactment of this Act. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(323) 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$1.1 billion for military construction and $183.0 million for family 

housing for the Army for fiscal year 2018. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$1.1 billion for military construction and $152.0 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2018. 

The budget request included $31.0 million for 22 homes on Kwajalein. There are currently 18 military families on Kwajalein. This 

project, and a planned phase 2 which would include an additional 

30 homes for $37.0 million, would result in 52 homes at an average 

cost of $1.3 million. The committee does not include the authorization of this project. The committee also has withheld authorization 

of the funding for the new confinement facility at Joint Base LewisMcChord pending a review of capacity and requirements throughout the military prison system. 

The committee recognizes the significant unfunded military construction and family housing requirements identified by the Chief 

of Staff of the Army and has included an additional $68.8 million 

for many of these projects, including authorization of a new Enlisted Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and an air traffic control tower at Fort Benning, Georgia. Further details on projects authorized can be found in section 2101 and section 4601 of this Act. 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction project for the active component of the Army 

for fiscal year 2018. The authorized amount is listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Army for fiscal year 2018. This provision would also authorize 

funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing 

management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Army authorized for construction for 

fiscal year 2018. This provision would also provide an overall limit 

on the amount authorized for military construction and family 

housing projects for the active component of the Army. The state 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
324 

list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2014 project (sec. 2104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public 

Law 113–66) for construction of an airfield operations complex at 

Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, to include a standby generator capacity of 1,000 kilowatts. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2015 project (sec. 2105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B of Public 

Law 113–291) for construction of a command and control facility at 

Fort Shafter, Hawaii, to include construction of 15 megawatts of redundant power generation. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2014 

project (sec. 2106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public 

Law 113–66) for one project in Kyoga-Misaki, Japan, until October 

1, 2018, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds 

for military construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 

projects (sec. 2107) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B of Public 

Law 113–291) for four projects until October 1, 2018, or the date 

of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is later. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(325) 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$1.6 billion for military construction and $85.0 million for family 

housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2018. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$1.6 billion for military construction and $43.0 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2018. 

The budget request includes $60.0 million for the purchase of 4 

acres adjacent to the Navy Yard. The committee does not include 

authorization for this project. The budget request also includes 

$40.9 million for family housing units on Guam. The committee 

does not include authorization for this project pending the results 

of a review of policies involving accompanied versus unaccompanied tours required elsewhere in this act. The committee further 

notes the identified lack of available workforce on Guam to perform 

this work absent approval of a new visa program for construction 

workers. 

The committee recognizes the significant unfunded military construction and family housing requirements identified by the Chief 

of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps and 

has included an additional $459.4 million for many of these 

projects including authorization of a pier replacement in San Diego; 

an F–35 simulator facility at Miramar, California; and a force protection entry control point at Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. Further details 

on projects authorized can be found in section 2201 and section 

4601 of this Act. 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 

year 2018. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Navy for fiscal year 2018. This provision would also authorize 

funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing 

management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to improve existing family housing units of 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
326 

the Department of the Navy in an amount not to exceed $36.3 million. 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Department of the Navy authorized 

for construction for fiscal year 2018. This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military construction and family housing projects for the active components of 

the Navy and the Marine Corps. The state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 

location. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 

projects (sec. 2205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would further extend the authorization contained in section 2201 of the Military 

Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of 

Public Law 113–66), for three projects until October 1, 2018, or the 

date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 

projects (sec. 2206) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B of Public 

Law 113–291), for two projects until October 1, 2018, or the date 

of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is later. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(327) 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $1.7 billion for military construction and $85.0 million for family 

housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2018. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $2.2 billion for military construction and $85.0 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2018. 

The committee recognizes the significant unfunded military construction and family housing requirements identified by the Chief 

of Staff of the Air Force and has included an additional $265.5 million for many of these projects, including authorization of a fire rescue center at Altus Air Force Base and an Airmen dormitory at Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas. Further details on projects authorized can be found in section 2301 and section 4601 of this Act. 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Air 

Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2018. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Air Force for fiscal year 2018. This provision would also authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Air Force to improve existing family housing units 

of the Department of the Air Force in an amount not to exceed 

$80.6 million. 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 

family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for construction 

for fiscal year 2018. This provision would also provide an overall 

limit on the amount authorized for military construction and family 

housing projects for the active component of the Air Force. The 

state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
328 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2017 projects (sec. 2305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2301(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public 

Law 114–328) for the construction of a gate complex at the installation at Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, to include the construction of a visitor control center, a traffic check house, an emergency power generator system, and a transfer switch. 

This provision would also modify the authorization contained in 

section 2301(b) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public Law 114–328) for the purchase of 142 hectares of land on Tinian in the Northern Mariana 

Islands. 

Additionally this provision would modify the authorization contained in section 2902 of the Military Construction Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public Law 114–328) for the 

construction of a parking apron and taxiway at Chabelley Airfield, 

Djibouti, to include the construction of paved shoulders, hangar 

pads, and a cargo apron. 

Finally, this provision would modify the authorization contained 

in section 4601 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public Law 114–328) to strike the 

project title ‘‘Consolidated Corrosion Facility add/alter’’ and insert 

‘‘Consolidated Communication Facility add/alter’’. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 

projects (sec. 2306) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2301 of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B of Public Law 113–291) 

for two projects until October 1, 2018, or the date of the enactment 

of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2019, whichever is later. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(329) 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $3.1 billion for military construction for the defense agencies for 

fiscal year 2018. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $2.6 billion for military construction for fiscal year 2018. 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the defense agencies for fiscal 

year 2018. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out energy resilience and conservation projects. The budget request included $150.0 million for the 

Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program (ERCIP). 

The committee recommends an increase of $26.5 million to allow 

for power upgrades and standby generation at SCSC Wallops Island, Virginia; central energy plant upgrades at Fort Jackson, 

South Carolina; and an IH Water Project at NSA South Potomac, 

MD. 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 

2403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the military construction and family housing 

projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction for fiscal year 2018. This provision would also provide an overall limit on 

the amount authorized for military construction and family housing 

projects for the defense agencies. The state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each 

location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2017 project (sec. 2404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authority contained in section 2401(b) of the Military Construction 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public Law 

114–328) for the construction of the Sembach Elementary/Middle 

School Replacement at Kaiserslautern, Germany to allow the construction of an elementary school. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
330 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 

projects (sec. 2405) 

The committee recommends a provision that would further extend the authorization contained in section 2401 of the Military 

Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of 

Public Law 113–66), as amended by the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public Law 114– 

328), for three projects until October 1, 2018, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for the military construction for 

fiscal year 2019, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 

projects (sec. 2406) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B of Public 

Law 113–291) for nine projects until October 1, 2018, or the date 

of enactment of an act authorizing funds for the military construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is later. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(331) 

TITLE XXV—INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $154.0 million for military construction in fiscal year 2018 

for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program. The committee recommends the requested 

amount. 

Subtitle A—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security 

Investment Program 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an amount 

equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized in section 

2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due to the United 

States for construction previously financed by the United States. 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations of $154.0 million for the U.S. contribution to the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2018. 

Subtitle B—Host Country In-Kind Contributions 

Republic of Korea funded construction projects (sec. 2511) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to accept four military construction projects 

totaling $105.5 million from the Republic of Korea as in-kind contributions. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2017 projects (sec. 2512) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2511 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public 

Law 114–328) for the construction of the 8th Army Correctional Facility at Camp Humphreys, Republic of Korea, to include a level 1 

correctional facility and a utility and tool storage building. 

The provision would also modify the authorization contained in 

section 2511 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public Law 114–328) for the renovation 

of the Special Operations Forces (SOF) Operations Facility at K– 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
332 

16 Air Base, Republic of Korea, to include a renovation of an operations administrative area. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(333) 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES 

FACILITIES 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $575 million for military construction in fiscal year 2018 

for facilities for the National Guard and reserve components. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$850 million for military construction in fiscal year 2018 for facilities for the National Guard and reserve components. The detailed 

funding recommendations are contained in the state list table included in this report. 

The committee recognizes the significant unfunded military construction and family housing requirements identified by the military service chiefs and has included as additional $276.8 million for 

many of these projects including authorization of an Army reserve 

center at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington and a maintenance facility at Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusetts. Further details on projects authorized can be found in the tables in 

this title and section 4601 of this Act. 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorization of 

Appropriations 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army National Guard for fiscal year 2018. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal year 

2018. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine 

Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2018. The authorized amounts are 

listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
334 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air National Guard for fiscal 

year 2018. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for fiscal 

year 2018. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the reserve component military construction 

projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2018 in this Act. 

This provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount 

authorized for military construction projects for each of the reserve 

components of the military departments. The state list contained in 

this report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at 

each location. 

Subtitle B—Other Matters 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2015 project (sec. 2611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorizations contained in section 2602 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B of Public 

Law 113–291) for construction of an Army Reserve Center in 

Starkville, Mississippi to allow for the acquisition of approximately 

15 acres of land. 

Extension of authorizations for certain fiscal year 2014 

projects (sec. 2612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in sections 2602, 2604, and 2605 of the 

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public Law 113–66) for three projects until October 1, 

2018 or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for 

military construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2015 

projects (sec. 2613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in sections 2602 and 2604 of the Military 

Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B of 

Public Law 113–291) for two projects until October 1, 2018 or the 

date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is later. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(335) 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND 

CLOSURE ACTIVITIES 

Summary and explanation of tables 

The budget request included $255.9 million for the ongoing cost 

of environmental remediation and other activities necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005 Base 

Realignment and Closure rounds. The committee recommends 

$255.9 million for these efforts. The detailed funding recommendations are contained in the state list table included in this report. 

Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and 

closure activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account (sec. 2701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for ongoing activities that are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, 

and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. 

Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and 

closure (BRAC) round (sec. 2702) 

The committee remains opposed to another base realignment and 

closure (BRAC) round. Our military is entering a period of growth 

and modernization with a focus on increasing the overall readiness 

of the force. The committee must understand what our future force 

structure will look like—its size and composition, how it will train, 

and the infrastructure required to sustain it—before we consider 

another BRAC round. Our nation cannot afford to spend precious 

resources that are needed to improve readiness on another BRAC 

round, given funds are still being appropriated for prior BRAC 

rounds. The committee is also concerned that the Secretary of Defense has yet to provide the force structure plan, the infrastructure 

inventory, and the assessment of infrastructure necessary to support the force structure that were required to be prepared under 

section 2815 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). This congressionally directed report with requirements based on our military’s ability to deter and 

defeat future threats is necessary in order to evaluate any future 

base realignment and closure round. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(337) 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military 

Family Housing Changes 

Authority to use expiring funds for certain military construction projects (sec. 2801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funds that would otherwise expire to be used for the sole purpose 

of the expansion of a cemetery, in the case of the Army, and for 

the enhancement of installation security, in the case of the Navy, 

by purchasing property that is voluntarily offered for sale. 

Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation 

and maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas outside the United States (sec. 2802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to use operation and maintenance funds for limited construction projects in certain areas outside the United 

States. 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration 

Authority to use energy cost savings for energy resilience, 

mission assurance, and weather damage repair and prevention measures (sec. 2811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2912 of title 10, United States Code, to allow energy savings 

funds to be used for weather damage, mission assurance, and energy resilience. 

Modification of unspecified minor military construction 

project authority to cover correction of deficiencies that 

are threats to installation resilience (sec. 2812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2805(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, to include both safety risks and military mission risks. 

Land exchange valuation of property with reduced development that limits encroachment on military installations 

(sec. 2813) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 159 of title 10, United States Code, in order to ensure that 

properties where development has been voluntarily restrained for 

the purpose of protecting military installations are fairly valued as 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
338 

part of any land swap between the Department of Defense and a 

public or private landowner. 

Treatment of storm water collection systems as utility systems (sec. 2814) 

The committee includes a provision that amend section 2688(i)(1) 

of title 10, United States Code, to include storm water treatment 

systems in the definition of utility systems. 

Access to military installations by transportation network 

companies (sec. 2815) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 346 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2017 (Public Law 114–328) to include transportation network companies to the list of transportation companies that are allowed, 

with proper clearance, to access military installations for the purposes of transporting military personnel to and from the base. 

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances 

Land conveyance, Natick Soldier Systems Center, Massachusetts (sec. 2821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to use competitive procedures to convey the 

parcels of real property consisting of approximately 98 acres located in the vicinity of Hudson, Wayland, and Needham, Massachusetts, that are the sites of military family housing supporting 

military personnel assigned to the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Systems Center. 

Land conveyance, Army and Air Force exchange service 

property, Dallas, Texas (sec. 2822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to allow the Army and Air Force Exchange 

Service to convey to an entity all right, title, and interest of the 

United States in and to a parcel of real property consisting of approximately 7.857 acres located at 8901 Autobahn Drive, Dallas, 

Texas. 

Land conveyances, certain former peacekeeper ICBM facilities in Wyoming (sec. 2823) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

conveyance, at no cost to the Air Force, of the missile alert facility 

and launch control center at the Quebec #1 Missile Alert Facility 

for the Peacekeeper ICBM facilities of the 190 Missile Group at 

F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming to the Wyoming Department 

of State Parks and Cultural Resources. 

Land exchange, Naval Industrial Ordnance Reserve Plant, 

Sunnyvale, California (sec. 2824) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of the Navy to convey to an entity all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the parcel of real property comprising Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant (NIROP) located 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
339 

in Sunnyvale, California in exchange for property interests that 

meet the readiness requirements of the Department of the Navy, 

as determined by the Secretary. This provision would restrict the 

Secretary from making such a conveyance until after submitting an 

assessment to the congressional defense committees of the feasibility and advisability of transferring, in whole or in part, functions 

currently performed at NIROP to real property already in the Navy 

inventory and involved in supporting the fleet ballistic missile program. 

Land exchange, Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Texas 

(sec. 2825) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of the Navy to convey to an entity all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the parcel of real property consisting of 44 acres known as Peary Place Transmitter Site in 

Nueces County associated with the Naval Air Station Corpus 

Christi, Texas. 

Subtitle D—Project Management and Oversight Reforms 

Project management oversight reforms 

The committee is concerned with the number of construction 

projects that are experiencing significant schedule delays and cost 

increases. The recent notification that the Hospital at Fort Bliss, 

Texas would cost an additional $250.0 million because of ‘‘omissions’’ and ‘‘design errors’’ is just one example of poor management 

of these projects with little to no accountability for those responsible. With other significant projects planned, including a new facility for the National Geospatial Agency and a hospital replacement 

at Fort Leonard Wood, it is essential that the Secretary of Defense 

ensure the proper oversight and management of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers and Navy Facilities Command and, if these organizations are not able to consistently deliver projects on budget 

and on schedule, seek alternatives. Therefore the committee recommends a number of provisions that would increase transparency 

on the causes and individuals responsible for significant cost increases and schedule delays and would advance contracting with 

outside organizations if problems continue. 

Notification requirement for certain cost overruns and 

schedule delays (sec. 2831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary 

of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees of any 

military construction or military family housing project that has a 

cost overrun or a schedule delay of 25 percent or more. 

Limited authority for private sector supervision of military 

construction projects in event of extensive overruns or 

project delays (sec. 2832) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2851(a) of title 10, United States Code, to allow the Secretary 

of Defense to arrange for private sector direction or supervision of 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
340 

projects where the Chief of Engineers or the Commander of the 

Naval Facilities Engineering Command had cost overruns or 

project delays of more than 5 percent on at least 10 percent of the 

projects for which either was responsible in the most recent fiscal 

year. 

Annual report on cost overruns and schedule delays (sec. 

2833) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary 

of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees an 

annual report on military construction projects and military family 

housing projects that had cost overruns or schedule delays of 5 percent or more. 

Report on design errors and omissions related to Fort Bliss 

hospital replacement project (sec. 2834) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on design errors and omissions related to the hospital replacement project at Fort Bliss, Texas. The report should 

identify ‘‘design errors’’ and ‘‘omissions’’ that led to the $245.0 million cost increase for the replacement project and identify the organization and individual responsible for the design errors and omissions. Additionally, the report describe the actions taken by the 

Secretary of Defense to hold such organizations and individuals responsible for the errors and omissions. This report should be due 

no later than December 1, 2017. 

Additionally, this provision would prohibit the obligations of 

funds appropriated for the replacement project at Fort Bliss from 

being utilized until the report is submitted and a written certification is submitted outlining the steps taken to mitigate such overruns in the future of this project. 

Report on cost increase and delay related to USSTRATCOM 

command and control facility project at Offutt Air Force 

Base (sec. 2835) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the 16-month schedule delay and 10 percent 

cost increase related to the United States Strategic Command command and control facility project at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. The report should include the name of the organizations 

and/or persons responsible for the delay and cost increase as well 

as a description of actions that the Secretary has taken to hold 

such individuals or organizations accountable for these problems. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Annual Department of Defense energy management reports 

(sec. 2841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2925 (a) of title 10, United States Code, to ensure the Department of Defense distinguishes between planned and unplanned 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
341 

power outages and establishes critical mission resilience metrics in 

the installation energy report. 

Aggregation of energy efficiency and energy resilience 

projects in life cycle costs (sec. 2842) 

The committee recommends a provision that would ensure the 

Department of Defense’s energy projects consider life cycle costs. 

Authority of the Secretary of the Air Force to accept lessee 

improvements at Air Force Plant 42 (sec. 2843) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Air Force to permit the lessee of Air Force Plant 

42 to make improvements to the plant or facility as necessary for 

the development or production of military weapons systems, munitions, components, or supplies. 

Prohibition on use of funds for Kwajalein project (sec. 2844) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of funds to pursue the proposed 2-phase 52-home family housing project for 18 military personnel on Kwajalein. The committee 

is concerned that the project would cost $1.3 million per unit. 

Therefore, the committee does not include authorization for the Department to proceed with this project, including planning and design. 

The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to explore 

alternative structures, such as those used by U.S. contractors on 

Kwajalein, that are a fraction of the price and can be used in similar remote locations where construction costs are prohibitively expensive. 

Energy resilience (sec. 2845) 

The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) Ensure 

the readiness of the armed forces for their military missions by 

making energy security and resilience the focus of the Department’s energy policy; (2) Require energy security and resilience in 

the cost-benefit analysis for the procurement of energy; and (3) 

Pursue projects that provide power directly to a military facility or 

installation in the event of an outage. 

The committee continues to be very concerned over the growing 

threat of cyberattacks, physical attacks, electro magnetic pulse 

events, weather-related outages, and their collective risk on readiness. 

For example, the committee notes that a lack of resilience caused 

a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) to lose its feed during a mission, 

causing a terrorist target to escape. Furthermore, a deliberate 

power outage at Incirlik Air Base left the Air Force without a grid 

power supply for almost a week, significantly reducing the number 

of airstrikes flown in support of the Syria mission. 

Additionally, the Department has informed the committee of an 

increasing trend in utility outages on military installations—both 

domestic and abroad—notably 127 in fiscal year 2015 that lasted 

8 hours or longer. The majority of the outages were caused by a 

lack of resilience, costing the Department over $179,000 each day. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
342 

The committee notes that a growing number of the Department’s 

missions, whether RPA sorties or cyber, are fought from its installations. Therefore, an enhanced policy of energy resilience is necessary to improve the Department’s readiness. 

Consideration of energy security and energy resilience in 

awarding energy and fuel contracts for military installations (sec. 2846) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2922a of title 10, United States Code, to ensure the Secretary 

concerned prioritizes energy security and resilience when considering energy or fuel contracts for military installations. 

Requirement to address energy resilience in exercising utility system conveyance authority (sec. 2847) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2688(g) of title 10, United States Code, that would require that 

utility systems be managed and operated in a manner consistent 

with energy resilience requirements and metrics. 

In-kind lease payments; prioritization of utility services that 

promote energy resilience (sec. 2848) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2667(c) of the title 10, United States Code, to prioritize energy 

resilience as in-kind consideration. 

Disclosure of beneficial ownership by foreign persons of 

high security space leased by the Department of Defense 

(sec. 2849) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense to identify the beneficial owner of potential 

high security leased space. If any beneficial owner of such space is 

a foreign entity, the Department would be required to notify the 

tenant so that appropriate precautions could be taken. 

Items of Special Interest 

Bachelor Enlisted Quarters conditions 

The committee has concerns that the conditions of some Bachelor 

Enlisted Quarters (BEQs) across the military services have fallen 

below a desirable level of habitability. The committee recognizes 

that the scarcity of military construction (MILCON) funding and a 

requirement to spend limited resources on emerging missions has 

caused the Services to make difficult decisions. However, the failure to construct new BEQs has created a situation where aging 

buildings are requiring increasing amounts of Facilities 

Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (FSRM) funds in 

order to keep BEQs functioning, which is increasing the degradation of other installation infrastructure because of insufficient 

FSRM funds for routine maintenance. Furthermore, some 

servicemembers are required to reside in BEQs that fail to meet 

necessary standards, impacting work performance, morale, and retention rates. The committee strongly encourages the Secretaries of 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
343 

the Services to increase the prioritization of their BEQs when considering MILCON submissions. 

Joint Test and Training Operations Center 

The committee commends the Army and the Air Force for establishing the Joint Test and Training Operations Center (JTTOC) at 

White Sands Missile Range (WSMR). The JTTOC de-conflicts 

schedules between high-demand testing and training missions in 

the region. The JTTOC has increased real-time capability and airspace availability, making more effective use of the ranges, restricted airspace, and other airspace units. The committee applauds the progress made to-date and encourages the Army and Air 

Force to continue working together to create new efficiencies and 

optimize the use of WSMR’s zero-to-infinity airspace and surrounding airspace. 

Life cycle construction materials 

The committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense to 

make infrastructure and military construction investments based 

on life cycle cost analyses that demonstrate the lowest overall longterm costs needed to procure, install, maintain, and replace each 

project relative to the longest extension of service life. Such project 

materials may include, for example, low-logistics materials and 

structural systems for rapid force projection; infrastructure materials such as beams, girders, decking, and pilings for port and pier 

facilities construction; bridge construction, including rapidly 

deployable lightweight bridges; building construction on installations, such as cross-laminated timber; forward operating base 

(FOB) and contingency base construction; maritime and air shipping, including composite maritime shipping containers, vessels 

and high-speed boats, such as the Mark V Special Operations 

Craft; additive manufacturing using cellulose-reinforced thermoplastics; and materials for ballistic and blast protection for installations, FOBs, and contingency bases. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense committees 

with a briefing on the use of these materials to reduce life cycle 

costs. 

Lincoln Laboratory 

The committee recognizes the critical role that Lincoln Laboratory plays in conducting research and developing technologies that 

address critical national security challenges. The committee notes 

that the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2017 

(Public Law 114–328) included $40.0 million, as requested by the 

Air Force, for the planning and design of two military construction 

projects to support the recapitalization of facilities to support Lincoln Laboratories. The committee understands that the Air Force 

intends to award an architectural and engineering contact for the 

design of these facilities by early October 2017 and encourages the 

Air Force to maintain this schedule, in order to support construction of the Advanced Microelectronics Integration Facility currently 

programmed for fiscal year 2019. 

The committee commends the Secretary of the Air Force for programming these investments and for committing to the recapitalVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00379 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
344 

ization of the facilities and Lincoln Laboratory. The committee supports these important recapitalization efforts in order to keep the 

Department of Defense and the military services at the cutting 

edge of technology. 

Major range and test facility bases 

The committee remains concerned that while the Department of 

Defense’s major range and test facility bases (MRTFBs) have unspecified minor military construction authority up to $6.0 million, 

based on section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, the Department has yet to adequately exercise and use its authority. 

Furthermore, the committee notes section 2806 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114– 

328) amended the Defense Laboratory Modernization Pilot Program to specifically include MRTFBs. Under this pilot program, the 

funding limitation is $150.0 million and the authority currently expires at the end of fiscal year 2020. 

Accordingly, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to consider and use existing authorities to the maximum extent practicable, in order to make the appropriate infrastructure 

improvements necessary for the vital missions conducted at 

MRTFBs. 

Review of DOD utility privatization 

The committee notes that Department of Defense (DOD) installations serve as platforms from which the Department employs forces 

across the full spectrum of military operations. To accomplish their 

missions, these installations rely on the use of utilities systems, 

such as the equipment, fixtures, pipes, wires, and other structures 

used in the distribution of electric power and natural gas; the 

treatment and distribution of water; and the collection and treatment of wastewater. However, historically, military installations 

have been unable to upgrade and maintain reliable utility systems 

fully due to inadequate funding and competing installation management priorities. 

In 1997, DOD decided that utility privatization (UP) was the preferred method for improving utility systems and services because 

privatization would allow installations to benefit from private sector financing and efficiencies. With private sector financing, installations could more quickly obtain major upgrades to their utility 

systems and pay for these improvements over time. Moreover, privatization of certain functions allows military commanders to focus 

on core defense missions and functions by relieving them of activities that can be done more efficiently and effectively by others. 

Prior Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports have identified challenges with DOD’s UP efforts. In 2005, the GAO identified several management weaknesses in DOD’s implementation of 

the UP program. In 2006, GAO reported that DOD’s progress in 

implementing the UP program had been slower than expected and 

management concerns remained. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate DOD’s UP program. The GAO review 

should assess the extent to which: (1) DOD has fully identified its 

priorities for privatization and achieved its UP goals; (2) The miliVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00380 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
345 

tary services have complied with existing DOD requirements when 

implementing UP projects; (3) DOD has experienced any challenges 

in awarding and executing UP contracts; (4) DOD measures the 

performance of the UP contracts and whether or not DOD complies 

with industry standards; and (5) DOD has developed a means to 

have reasonable assurance the privatized utilities’ operators are 

addressing reliability concerns and potential cyber threats to industrial control systems or other utilities’ systems equipment. 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to brief the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives not later than February 

28, 2018, on preliminary findings of the Comptroller General’s evaluation with a final report to be completed by March 30, 2018. 

Unified Facilities Criteria for elevator design 

Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) and Unified Facilities Guide 

Specifications (UFGS) provide guidance for the design and construction of facilities and the acquisition of building system components by the Department of Defense. In general, the UFC and 

UFGS system relies, to the maximum extent practicable, upon commercial best practices. The committee is concerned that recent Departmental guidance in elevator design departs from these practices by prohibiting the use of machine roomless elevator designs 

and equipment that are widely and increasingly utilized in the private sector. 

The committee is also concerned that the guidance provides generally for construction specifications that depart markedly from established model building codes. The committee is unaware of any 

data regarding operational, safety, or other considerations that 

would recommend against the use of machine roomless elevator designs and equipment. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that UFC and UFGS guidance on elevator design 

reflects current commercial best practices and that such guidance 

permits the Department to acquire contemporary building transportation systems widely available on the market, unless the Secretary certifies that data are available demonstrating that there 

are operational or safety considerations. 

Window fall prevention 

The Committee recognizes the risks of unintentional falls from 

windows in military family housing. According to the Safe Kids 

Worldwide 2015 Report to the Nation; Protecting Children in Your 

Home, about 8 children under age 5 die each year from falling out 

a window, and more than 3,300 are injured seriously enough to go 

to the hospital. Deaths and injuries often occur when children push 

against window screens or climb onto furniture located near to an 

open window. There have been a number of injuries and at least 

one death from children falling from windows in military housing. 

As such, the committee urges the Department of Defense to update its Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) for Family Housing (UFC 

4–711–01) to require that all new and existing residential buildings 

have corrosion-resistant screens that meet the ANSI/SMA6001 

specifications for at least Medium loads, or successor standard; or 

that windows shall be equipped with window fall prevention 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
346 

screens, guards, or other devices that comply with ASTM F2006 or 

ASTM F2090, or a successor standard. 

The Committee also urges DOD to: (1) Specify that military 

housing privatization partners shall be required to include window 

fall prevention screens, guards, or other devices for military housing and shall not be allowed to seek waivers or exemptions; (2) 

Conduct an oversight program to ensure that all military housing 

be equipped with window fall prevention screens, guards, or other 

devices; and (3) Establish an awareness campaign that educates 

families on window fall risks and window fall prevention measures. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(347) 

TITLE XXIX—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 

OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize one 

Army military construction project for fiscal year 2018 for overseas 

contingency operations. The authorized amounts are listed on an 

installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Air 

Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2018 for overseas contingency operations. The authorized amounts are listed on 

an installation-by-installation basis. 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 2903) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for military construction in the overseas contingency 

operations account for fiscal year 2018. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2015 

projects (sec. 2904) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 4602 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B of Public 

Law 113–291) for two projects until October 1, 2018, or the date 

of enactment of an act authorizing funds for the military construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is later. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(349) 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

Overview 

Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy defense 

activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2018, including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 

equipment; research and development; nuclear weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses necessary to carry 

out the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act 

(Public Law 95–91). This title authorizes appropriations in three 

categories: (1) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA); 

(2) defense environmental cleanup; and (3) other defense activities. 

The committee recommends a provision allocating funding consistent with the funding allocations in section 4701. 

The committee notes that the severity of the event at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) necessitates biannual briefings to the 

congressional defense committees on actions taken towards bringing WIPP toward full operational status, including key milestones, 

status of any capital projects under Department of Energy Order 

413.1, as well as obligations and expenditures. The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to review these 

biannual updates and report to the congressional defense committees on significant findings and trends. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to continue its ongoing evaluation of the Hanford Waste 

Treatment Plant in the areas of cost-schedule performance, technology readiness levels, contractor assurance system, and other 

areas to be mutually agreed upon, and the committee further directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide a 

briefing to the congressional defense committee no later than February 28, 2018. 

Finally, section 3137 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) requires a 5-year assessment by a joint committee of the National Academies of Science 

and the National Academy of Public Administration of the report, 

‘‘Governance and Management of the Nuclear Security Enterprise: 

Report to Congress,’’ December 30, 2016. The joint panel has endorsed three overarching themes of review: (1) clarifying roles, responsibilities, authorities, and accountability; (2) mitigating burdensome practices; and (3) enabling change to be achieved and susVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00385 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
350 

tained. While the joint committee can assess the first two items, 

item (3) requires the NNSA to development a methodology not only 

to track implementation but also to assess whether the recommendation has met the objectives it was intended to achieve. 

The committee directs the Administrator of the NNSA to report no 

later than February 28, 2018, on the implementation of a methodology similar to that developed by the Department of Defense’s Office of Cost Analysis and Program Estimation, which not only 

tracks implementation of recommendations of the Department’s 

Nuclear Enterprise Review but also determines whether the recommendations have achieved the change they were intended to 

achieve. This methodology should be of assistance to the joint committee in its review of item (3). 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriation of funds for the activities of the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. 

Defense environmental cleanup (sec. 3102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriation of funds for the Department of Energy’s defense environmental clean-up activities. 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriation of funds for the Department of Energy’s other defense activities. 

Nuclear energy (sec. 3104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriation of funds for the Department of Energy’s nuclear energy activities. 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Assessment and development of prototype nuclear weapons 

of foreign countries (sec. 3111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate section 2660 of title 50, United States Code, (Design and use of prototypes of nuclear weapons for intelligence purposes) and incorporate 

its functions into section 2538b of title 50, United States Code 

(Stockpile Responsiveness Program). Both programs were created 

in part to exercise all capabilities required to design, develop, engineer, produce, and deploy nuclear weapons, but only the latter has 

received funding through the appropriations process. The committee strongly supports this mission and supports the request of 

the National Nuclear Security Administration to combine the two 

programs into one fully-funded program. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
351 

Use of funds for construction and project support activities 

relating to MOX facility (sec. 3112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Energy to carry out construction and project support 

activities for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) 

with any funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made 

available for such purposes for fiscal year 2018. 

The Secretary may waive this requirement to carry out construction and project support activities related to the MFFF project if 

the Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees: (1) 

The commitment of the Secretary to remove plutonium intended to 

be disposed of in the MOX facility from South Carolina and ensure 

a sustainable future for the Savannah River Site and (2) Certification that an alternative option exists for carrying out the plutonium disposition program for the same amount of plutonium identified that was to be disposed of in the MOX facility is completed 

meeting the requirements of National Nuclear Security Administration Business Operating Procedure ‘‘BOP–03.07, Analysis of Alternatives’’ dated March 14, 2016; details of any required statutory 

or regulatory changes to complete the alternative option, and that 

the total lifecycle cost, consistent with Government Accountability 

Office cost estimating and assessment best practices as found in 

GAO–09–3SP ‘‘GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide,’’ that 

the alternative option would be less than half of the estimated remaining lifecycle cost of the mixed-oxide fuel program, estimates 

that should be of comparable accuracy. 

Repeal, consolidation, and modification of reporting requirements (sec. 3113) 

The committee recommends modifying certain National Nuclear 

Security Administration reporting requirements to streamline such 

requirements for efficiency or eliminate requirements for programs 

that no longer exist. 

National Nuclear Security Administration personnel system 

(sec. 3114) 

The committee recommends a provision that would adapt the pay 

banding and performance-based pay adjustment demonstration 

project carried out by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) since 2008 into a permanent alternative personnel 

system. 

Annual reports on unfunded priorities of National Nuclear 

Security Administration (sec. 3115) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) to submit to the congressional defense committees, no later 

than 10 days after the date on which the budget for each fiscal 

year is submitted to Congress, a list, in priority order, of the unfunded requirements for the NNSA. The committee notes that section 222a of title 10, United States Code, requires the service chiefs 

and the commanders of the combatant commands to submit to Congress a list of unfunded requirements. The NNSA has not followed 

this practice but is a vital component to the safety and security of 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
352 

the United States. Each requirement in the list shall include a 

summary description of the priority, including the objectives to be 

achieved if such priority is funded and the additional amount of 

funds recommended. 

Budget Items 

National Nuclear Security Administration research and development certification and safety 

The budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) included $196.8 million for research and development certification and safety. The committee notes that these programs constitute the current investment in technology maturation 

for future systems, such as the interoperable warhead series, and 

also support the subcritical experiments necessary for stockpile 

stewardship and management. In order to meet anticipated needs 

in this program, the committee recommends an increase of $20.9 

million in research and development certification and safety for a 

total of $217.7 million. 

Enhanced capabilities for subcritical experiments 

The budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration included $50.8 million for enhanced capabilities for subcritical experiments. The committee notes that funding at this level is 

not expected to allow for completion of the radiography project on 

time in 2024. This capability is necessary to obtain experimental 

results in support of stockpile stewardship and management as 

well as modern configuration changes to support the sustainment 

program schedule. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in enhanced capabilities for subcritical experiments for a total of $65.8 million. 

National Nuclear Security Administration enhanced surety 

The budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) included $39.7 million for enhanced surety. The 

committee notes that the NNSA reduced funding for this program 

in order to support other NNSA priorities. Investment in this area 

is necessary to meet technology maturation goals, and to meet future stockpile requirements and insertion opportunities, such as 

the interoperable warhead series. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $12.3 million in enhanced surety for a 

total of $52.0 million. 

Stockpile Responsiveness Program 

The budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) included $40.0 million for the Stockpile Responsiveness Program. The committee strongly supports this program and 

recommends an increase of $10.0 million in Stockpile Responsiveness for a total of $50.0 million. This program is necessary to exercise the spectrum of capabilities required to develop and manufacture nuclear weapons to ensure that the U.S. nuclear deterrent remains secure, reliable, credible, and responsive. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
353 

Inertial confinement facility operations 

The budget request for the National Nuclear Security Adminis- tration (NNSA) included $334.8 million for inertial confinement fusion and high yield facility operations and target production. Increased shot rates across inertial confinement facilities would better support the Science, Advanced Simulation and Computing, and 

Directed Stockpile Work programs. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million in facility operations and target production for a total of $346.8 million. These operations are 

necessary for the successful execution of the NNSA Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan. 

National Nuclear Security Administration additive manufacturing 

The budget request for the National Nuclear Security Adminis- tration (NNSA) included $12.0 million for additive manufacturing. 

The committee notes that additive manufacturing has the potential 

to decrease production schedules, design cycles, and production 

costs for NNSA projects. Further research and investment in infrastructure is necessary to understand how additive manufacturing 

can be applied in this field. Therefore, the committee recommends 

an increase of $12.0 million in additive manufacturing for a total 

of $24.0 million. 

National Nuclear Security Administration component manufacturing development 

The budget request for the National Nuclear Security Adminis- tration (NNSA) included $38.6 million for component manufacturing development within the advanced manufacturing development program. The committee notes that the NNSA decreased 

funding for this program from prior years in order to support other 

NNSA priorities. The committee believes that immediate investment in this program will improve production efficiency and support component insertion in current and future systems. In order 

to restore funding to prior year levels, the committee recommends 

an increase of $36.4 million in component manufacturing development for a total of $75.0 million. 

National Nuclear Security Administration deferred maintenance 

The budget request for the National Nuclear Security Adminis- tration (NNSA) included $360.0 million for maintenance and repair 

of facilities and $427.3 million for recapitalization. The committee 

notes the risks and inefficiencies for both safety and programs 

posed by the poor condition of NNSA facilities and infrastructure 

across the nuclear enterprise. Therefore, in order to reduce the 

backlog of deferred maintenance, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million to maintenance and repair of facilities for 

a total of $410.0 million and an increase of $100.0 million in recapitalization for a total of $527.3 million. 

Defense Nuclear Security deferred maintenance 

The budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) included $687.0 million for Defense Nuclear SecuVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00389 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
354 

rity operations and maintenance. The committee notes that facilities operated by the Defense Nuclear Security enterprise face a 

similar challenge with deferred maintenance to that of the rest of 

the NNSA enterprise. Therefore, to speed up execution of critical 

security infrastructure projects, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in operations and maintenance for a total of 

$692.0 million. 

International nuclear security program 

The budget request for the National Nuclear Security Adminis- tration (NNSA) included $337.1 million for global material security. 

To support the ongoing efforts of the NNSA, the committee recommends an increase of $100.0 million in global material security 

for a total of $437.1 million. This program directly supports the 

International Atomic Energy Agency with technical expertise, 

works with international governments to detect and deter nuclear 

smuggling, and prevents nuclear and radiological material from 

being used against the United States and its interests. The additional funding shall be apportioned as follows: $20.0 million for 

international nuclear security; $20.0 million for radiological security; and $60.0 million for nuclear smuggling detection. 

Nonproliferation and arms control 

The budget request for the National Nuclear Security Adminis- tration (NNSA) included $129.7 million for nonproliferation and 

arms control. To support the ongoing efforts by the NNSA, the committee recommends an increase of $70.3 million in nonproliferation 

and arms control for a total of $200.0 million. The threat of global 

nuclear proliferation continues to grow, and this program is vital 

to reducing the risk of nuclear and dual-use materials proliferation, 

equipment, and technology, while playing an essential role in supporting arms control treaty and agreement implementation. The 

additional funding shall be apportioned as follows: $60.3 million for 

nuclear verification and $10.0 million for international nuclear 

safeguards. 

Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication facility 

The budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) contained $270.0 million in nonproliferation construction for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF). 

According to the budget request, this funding is for activities in 

support of a decision to terminate the MFFF project in fiscal year 

2018. 

The committee is disappointed in the lack of progress made on 

MFFF despite repeated concerns regarding its cost and management expressed by Congress, the Government Accountability Office, and other independent groups. The Department of Defense’s 

failure to provide an updated performance baseline for MFFF as directed in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92) and its failure to submit the owner’s 

agent report as directed by the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328) are particularly troubling. Meanwhile, the committee is concerned by the lack of specificity in the proposed dilute and disposal alternative despite direcVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:11 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 026141 PO 00000 Frm 00390 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR125.XXX SR125

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
355 

tion to address several aspects of this approach in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) 

and report language accompanying S. 2943, the Senate-passed 

version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2017 (Public Law 114–328). Furthermore, the committee is concerned that, if the MFFF project is terminated at a later date, 

NNSA has not yet considered what the MFFF complex would be 

used for in lieu of its current mission. 

In light of the failure of the Department of Energy to substantiate the viability of its alternative to MFFF, the committee recommends an additional $80.0 million in nonproliferation construction for the MFFF for a total of $350.0 million, and it directs the 

Department of Energy to continue construction. Additional measures pertaining to MFFF are contained in title 31 of this Act. 

Naval Reactors deferred maintenance 

The budget request for Naval Reactors included $466.9 million 

for operations and infrastructure. The committee notes that Naval 

Reactors owns aging and excess facilities that pose safety and program risks and environmental liabilities. Therefore, in order to increase the pace of remediation, dismantlement, and disposal of inactive Naval Reactors facilities and to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog in operational facilities, the committee recommends 

an increase of $38.0 million in Naval Reactors operations and infrastructure for a total of $504.9 million. 

Items of Special Interest 

Common financial reporting 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to periodically review, on a biannual basis beginning in fiscal year 2018 and through 2022, the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) financial integration efforts and to report to 

the congressional defense committees on NNSA’s progress in implementing a common financial reporting system as required in the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public 

Law 114–328). The committee has an interest in understanding 

NNSA’s experience with financial integration and in ensuring that 

efforts to complete this integration are effective. The committee directs the first of the Comptroller General’s reviews to examine the 

National Nuclear Security Administration’s efforts to integrate financial systems at its Y–12 National Security Complex and Pantex 

Plant as part of the effort to combine the two sites’ management 

and operating contracts. 

Competition in contracting 

The committee believes competition is essential to efficient and 

effective use of taxpayer resources. However, the committee is concerned that unpredictability in contracting schedules of the Department of Energy (DOE), including the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA), could negatively affect competition. Specifically, and with particular respect to large contracts for management and operations (M&O), decontamination and decommissioning (D&D), and remediation, the committee is concerned that 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
356 

qualified entities may be less willing to undertake the expenses 

necessary to participate in a process that is prone to delay and reconsideration. Such an eventuality does not serve the interests of 

the Department or the taxpayer. The committee’s concerns are amplified by the value of contracts planned for the next decade, which 

is expected to be around $60.0 billion. Accordingly, the committee 

encourages both DOE and NNSA to improve the stability and reliability of its schedule for releasing draft requests for proposals, requests for proposals, and awarding contracts. Further, the committee directs the Secretary of Energy to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees, not later than 60 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act, on the schedule of major contract 

awards and procurements expected in the next 18 months funded 

under Atomic Energy Defense Activities. 

Comptroller General review of high explosives capability 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to review the National Nuclear Security Administration’s 

(NNSA) high-explosives (HE) capability. The committee recognizes 

that HE are a vital nuclear weapons component and that it is critical that NNSA maintain both a robust research and development 

(R&D) program as well as a production capability. Maintaining this 

capability across multiple NNSA sites, while perhaps necessary, is 

an expensive and potentially risky undertaking. Accordingly, the 

committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to: 

(1) identify all Department of Energy (DOE) and NNSA HE R&D 

and production capabilities specific to nuclear weapons, the justification for these sites, and what is known about the costs to 

maintain them; (2) examine DOE’s projected requirements for HE 

capabilities to support the stockpile and work for others; (3) compare these requirements to current capabilities to identify any gaps 

or duplication in these capabilities; and 4) assess how NNSA plans 

for its HE capability and the extent to which it manages this capability as a strategic material. 

The Comptroller General of the United States should provide to 

the congressional defense committees a briefing within 270 days of 

the enactment of this Act with a full report to follow. 

Comptroller General review of Kansas City Plant capabilities 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to review the Kansas City Plant’s staffing plans and capabilities to meet national security requirements. The Comptroller 

General shall provide an update of the review to the congressional 

defense committees no later than February 28, 2018, with a final 

report to follow. 

The National Nuclear Security Administration’s Kansas City 

Plant is responsible for producing non-nuclear components for Life 

Extension Programs (LEPs). The Kansas City Plant, which is currently producing components for two LEPs, will soon see its requirements double to accommodate four LEPs. Its timely production of components for Sandia National Laboratories is essential for 

maintaining LEP schedules. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
357 

Comptroller General review of plutonium oxide feedstock 

production capacity 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to assess the Department of Energy’s (DOE) current capacity and plans to meet the feedstock production needs of the plutonium disposition program, including the status of the Advanced Recovery and Integrated Extraction System (ARIES) and whether 

there are any potential alternatives to ARIES for feedstock production not later than May 1, 2018. 

The DOE’s approaches for disposing of excess defense plutonium 

require that nuclear weapons pits from dismantled U.S. nuclear 

weapons are disassembled and that weapons-grade plutonium from 

these pits is converted into plutonium oxide feedstock. In 2012, 

DOE canceled plans for constructing a stand-alone facility where 

this work would take place and determined it would rely on existing facilities, particularly the Plutonium Facility 4 (PF–4) at Los 

Alamos National Lab (LANL), to accomplish feedstock production. 

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) operates 

the ARIES project, which is the technology development and demonstration project for disassembling pits and converting the resulting plutonium into oxide, within PF–4. However, in a 2009 report, 

NNSA concluded that the ARIES project at LANL would not be a 

viable option to perform the entire pit disassembly and conversion 

mission. Moreover, NNSA stated that the ARIES project would be 

unable to sustain the annual output of plutonium oxide feedstock 

necessary to support plutonium disposition through the mixed 

oxide fuel option. NNSA reached this conclusion in part because 

the nuclear weapons research and production missions that occupy 

most of the space at PF–4 take precedence over other priorities at 

the facility. 

More recently, an independent assessment of DOE’s options for 

plutonium disposition published by Aerospace in April 2015 concluded that the production of plutonium oxide feedstock was a 

major risk factor for increasing costs. Aerospace did not assess the 

adequacy of the existing and proposed facilities to support the 

physics, chemistry, and metallurgical processes required for plutonium disposition. However, GAO’s reporting on this subject in 2010 

noted that there were a number of key technologies for pit disassembly and conversion that had not attained an appropriate 

technology readiness level. 

Given the importance of feedstock production to the success of 

U.S. plutonium disposition efforts, as well as the cost implications 

of delays to feedstock production, the committee is concerned that 

DOE may not have produced adequate plans for feedstock production. Specifically, the committee is concerned that the current capacity of the ARIES project, as well as the earlier planned use of 

H canyon for feedstock production, may not be sufficient to meet 

the needs of the plutonium disposition program and that competing 

priorities for space at PF–4 may interfere with feedstock production 

efforts. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
358 

National Nuclear Security Administration arms control research and development plan 

The committee notes that Annex I, Section N of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) provides for the long-term presence of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Iran 

using modern technologies. This section allows the IAEA to utilize 

internationally accepted modern technologies for inspection and 

verification of Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA. 

The committee included an increase of $70.3 million above the 

President’s budget request for National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) nonproliferation and arms control, for a total of 

$200.0 million. 

The committee directs the NNSA to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on planned and potential research 

and development of technologies to detect proliferation of nuclear 

material which can be used for verification of Iran’s compliance 

with the JCPOA. The briefing should include information on what 

amount of funding would be required to support significant advances and breakthroughs in technology development before the 

end of calendar year 2023. 

National Nuclear Security Administration plutonium strategy 

Since 2008, the Nuclear Weapons Council has had a requirement 

to be able to produce between 50 and 80 plutonium pits per year 

by 2030 in order to meet deterrence requirements and national requirements related to the creation of a responsive nuclear infrastructure. In section 3112 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ 

McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 

(Public Law 113–291), Congress enacted a number of milestone pit 

production requirements to ensure the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) is making adequate progress to achieve the 

goal established by the Nuclear Weapons Council, culminating with 

the requirement to demonstrate the capability to produce 80 pits 

per year in 2027. 

The committee strongly supports the actions NNSA has taken to 

repurpose existing facilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory in 

pursuit of these requirements. By more economically using laboratory space, NNSA has developed a plan that it expects will eventually provide it with the capability to produce about 30 plutonium 

pits per year. Despite the important progress that has been made 

to resurrect this critical capability, the committee remains concerned about NNSA’s plans to achieve the additional pit production 

capacity necessary for the long-term viability of the Nation’s nuclear deterrent. 

In February 2016, the Administrator of the NNSA testified that 

NNSA was conducting an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) to evaluate infrastructure options associated with achieving the required 

pit production level of up to 80 pits per year by 2030. In May 2017, 

the Administrator indicated that this AoA is expected to be complete in the summer of 2017. The committee strongly encourages 

NNSA to complete the AoA within the Administrator’s estimated 

timeframe. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
359 

While the committee appreciates the testimony of the Administrator that the AoA may not be ‘‘necessarily dispositive,’’ the committee expects the results of the AoA to evaluate and resolve most 

of the essential matters relating to how NNSA plans to achieve the 

required level of pit production. The committee believes NNSA 

must develop an actionable strategy that represents the most effective way to achieve the required level of capability, within the 

available schedule and at an appropriate cost, and it believes that 

progress must be made before these three requirements come into 

competition with each other. 

Pantex material staging facility 

The National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) Pantex 

plant uses a 60-year-old facility to store and stage special nuclear 

material. The committee understands that efforts are underway to 

develop a new material staging area to facilitate workflow as well 

as secure special nuclear material that is awaiting final disposition. 

However, while the NNSA has begun a process to validate requirements for such a facility and expects that to be accomplished by the 

end of fiscal year 2017, it has not scheduled a start date for an 

Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) of such a facility, nor has it identified an anticipated completion date. In addition, the committee understands that there may be opportunities for the NNSA to work 

with the Air Force and the Corps of Engineers as the Air Force replaces its aging weapons storage areas, which will have similar design and construction requirements. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Administrator of the 

NNSA to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, 

to be submitted no later than February 28, 2018, with the validated requirements and the start and end dates of the AoA, as well 

as an account of how it will utilize, if possible, the design and construction expertise being developed for the replacement of the Air 

Force weapons storage areas. 

Requirement for update on progress on interoperable warhead 

The committee supports the efforts of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to design and produce the first interoperable warhead (IW–1), which is an important piece of the modernization plan for the U.S. nuclear stockpile. However, while the 

NNSA’s internal independent cost estimates for the IW–1 assume 

spending in fiscal year 2019, NNSA’s Stockpile Stewardship and 

Management Plan does not propose to begin work until 2020. The 

committee is concerned that the misalignment of plans within 

NNSA could lead to delays in the program. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator of the NNSA 

to provide an annual briefing to the congressional defense committees, beginning in fiscal year 2018 and no later than February 28th 

of each year, addressing whether the design and production of IW– 

1 remains on schedule; whether NNSA will be ready for an accelerated start should the Nuclear Weapons Council give authorization 

for Phase 6.2 by fiscal year 2020; and whether activities supporting 

the design and production are proceeding on schedule and will be 

available. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
360 

The committee also directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to brief the congressional defense committees no 

later than February 28, 2018, with a report to follow, on NNSA’s 

progress on the IW–1. GAO’s review shall also cover NNSA’s planning and program management for the infrastructure, equipment, 

and personnel needed to complete the IW–1. 

Requirements for managing schedules for analyses of alternatives for projects of the National Nuclear Security Administration 

The Comptroller General of the United States issued a report in 

August 2016 titled ‘‘NNSA Needs to Clarify Requirements for Its 

Plutonium Analysis Project at Los Alamos,’’ which found that the 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) ‘‘has spent billions of dollars designing and partially constructing several one-ofa-kind major capital asset projects only to later reassess alternatives for each project in the wake of significant cost increases 

and schedule delays.’’ The same report found that in some cases, 

the NNSA failed to identify key requirements for projects before beginning design work on a major project. In particular, the revised 

Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) facility 

project may not be able to support the requirement mandated by 

the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) to 

demonstrate the capability to produce 80 plutonium pits per year 

by 2027, because ‘‘NNSA only tasked the CMRR project with replacing analysis equipment used in an aging facility’’ and did not 

include a pit production-related parameter. 

Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office report found 

that the revised CMRR project schedule did not meet best practices 

because it only included near-term work ending in 2017 and did 

not include all necessary work activities. The Department of Energy (DOE) updated its guidance ‘‘Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets’’ (DOE O. 413.3B) in 

May 2016 to direct that all major capital projects include an integrated master schedule, but NNSA has not followed that practice. 

The committee is concerned that the facility produced by the revised CMRR project will not have the capacity for the legal requirements for pit production, and may continue to fall short of best 

practices for schedule and project management. 

The committee therefore directs the Administrator of the NNSA 

to submit to the congressional defense committees a report that includes an integrated master schedule for the revised CMRR project 

and updated key performance parameters and program-specific requirements for the same project, including anticipated needs to 

support pit production in the completed facility. 

The report should be submitted no later than February 28, 2018. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant planning 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Energy 

(DOE) lacks a strategic plan for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’s 

(WIPP) transuranic (TRU) waste disposal mission that would include an analysis of whether the facility’s existing disposal space 

is sufficient for existing and likely future TRU waste and whether 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
361 

future expansion of the facility will be necessary. The committee 

notes that the National Nuclear Security Agency’s (NNSA) Plutonium Disposition Program, radioactive waste cleanup projects 

across the country, and ongoing nuclear modernization efforts depend on the availability of disposal space at the WIPP. In addition 

to the need for plans to account for the physical space limitations 

at WIPP, long-term planning is also required to ensure that future 

requirements and plans are consistent with the statutory disposal 

limit established in the 1992 WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, which 

was carefully negotiated between the State of New Mexico, the Department of Energy, and the Congress. DOE may need to excavate 

more storage at WIPP as early as 2026 and has already begun reviewing potential changes to the method it uses to count waste volumes that, if approved, would allow WIPP to accept more TRU 

waste. DOE, however, lacks complete information on the future volume of TRU waste it will need to dispose of and has not developed 

a plan or timeline for completing the regulatory approvals and construction tasks needed to ensure that WIPP can continue to support all of DOE’s critical missions in 2026 and beyond. 

Therefore, to ensure that NNSA’s Plutonium Disposition Program and other cleanup projects have accurate and up-to-date information on whether WIPP will be able to accept additional TRU 

waste, the committee directs the Secretary of Energy to develop a 

strategic plan for disposing of its TRU Waste that includes: (1) an 

analysis of WIPP’s need for additional disposal space to dispose of 

the waste currently accounted for in its Annual TRU Waste Inventory Report as well as waste likely to be sent to WIPP but not yet 

in the inventory; (2) a plan for expanding WIPP’s disposal space 

based on this analysis, including a timeline for completing the necessary regulatory approvals and construction tasks before WIPP’s 

remaining disposal space is filled; and (3) a timeline for implementing DOE’s preferred method for changing the way in which 

waste volumes disposed of at WIPP are counted and an analysis of 

the extent to which this change will allow for additional volumes 

of waste to be disposed of at WIPP without exceeding the statutory 

limit. The Secretary of Energy should submit this strategic plan to 

the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after 

the date of the enactment of this Act. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(363) 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

Authorization (sec. 3201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize funding for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board at $30.6 

million consistent with the budget request. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(365) 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would re-authorize 

certain aspects of the Maritime Administration. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(367) 

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. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(369) 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2018 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BASE BUDGET 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051) 

DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY ............................................ 4,149,894 887,174 5,037,068 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ............................................... 2,519,054 1,514,570 4,033,624 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ........................................... 2,423,608 1,931,402 4,355,010 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY .................................. 1,879,283 885,552 2,764,835 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................................. 6,469,331 1,491,332 7,960,663 

JOINT IMPROVISED-THREAT DEFEAT FUND .............................. 14,442 14,442 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ............................................. 15,056,235 5,154,008 20,210,243 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ............................................. 3,420,107 69,400 3,489,507 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC .................................. 792,345 42,500 834,845 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY ................................. 19,903,682 4,850,800 24,754,482 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY .................................................. 8,277,789 1,218,069 9,495,858 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ............................................. 2,064,825 59,803 2,124,628 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .................................... 15,430,849 5,139,437 20,570,286 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ....................................... 2,296,182 48,000 2,344,182 

SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................... 3,370,775 107,328 3,478,103 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ......................... 1,376,602 1,376,602 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................... 19,603,497 452,399 20,055,896 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .............................................. 4,835,418 611,150 5,446,568 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND ............................. 99,795 99,795 

UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................... 0 1,870,600 1,870,600 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE I--PROCUREMENT ....................................... 113,983,713 26,333,524 140,317,237 

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ................... 9,425,440 480,912 9,906,352 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY .................... 17,675,035 378,455 18,053,490 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ........................ 34,914,359 1,224,318 36,138,677 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ....................... 20,490,902 1,167,608 21,658,510 

OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE .................................... 210,900 210,900 

UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................... 0 64,100 64,100 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND 

EVALUATION ........................................................................ 82,716,636 3,315,393 86,032,029 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
370 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2018 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ....................................... 38,945,417 1,261,823 40,207,240 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES ............................... 2,906,842 73,024 2,979,866 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ....................................... 7,307,170 182,923 7,490,093 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ........................................ 45,439,407 761,181 46,200,588 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ........................ 6,933,408 46,891 6,980,299 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES ................................ 1,084,007 1,084,007 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ........................... 278,837 1,077 279,914 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ............................... 39,429,232 2,133,433 41,562,665 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ............................ 3,267,507 59,800 3,327,307 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .......................................... 6,939,968 203,700 7,143,668 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE .................... 34,709,717 74,000 34,783,717 

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS .......................................... 1,452,686 1,452,686 

UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................... 0 1,411,595 1,411,595 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .......... 188,694,198 6,209,447 194,903,645 

TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL 

MILITARY PERSONNEL .............................................................. 133,881,636 –154,913 133,726,723 

MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS 7,804,427 16,000 7,820,427 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL .......................... 141,686,063 –138,913 141,547,150 

TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND ......................................................... 1,586,596 50,100 1,636,696 

CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION ........................... 961,732 961,732 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ............... 790,814 790,814 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ..................................... 336,887 336,887 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................... 33,664,466 33,664,466 

NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND .......................................... 509,327 7,000 516,327 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS .................... 37,849,822 57,100 37,906,922 

TOTAL, DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS .................................................................................. 564,930,432 35,776,551 600,706,983 

DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

ARMY ....................................................................................... 920,394 18,500 938,894 

NAVY ........................................................................................ 1,616,665 426,904 2,043,569 

AIR FORCE ............................................................................... 1,738,796 228,330 1,967,126 

DEFENSE-WIDE ......................................................................... 3,114,913 –501,450 2,613,463 

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD .......................................................... 210,652 83,500 294,152 

AIR NATIONAL GUARD .............................................................. 161,491 26,000 187,491 

ARMY RESERVE ....................................................................... 73,712 58,600 132,312 

NAVY RESERVE ........................................................................ 65,271 65,271 

AIR FORCE RESERVE ............................................................... 63,535 108,700 172,235 

NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM ................................. 154,000 154,000 

SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ..................................... 8,119,429 449,084 8,568,513 

FAMILY HOUSING 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
371 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2018 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

CONSTRUCTION, ARMY ............................................................ 182,662 –31,000 151,662 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY ................................... 346,625 346,625 

CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ........................... 83,682 –40,875 42,807 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS .. 328,282 328,282 

CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE .................................................... 85,062 85,062 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ........................... 318,324 318,324 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE .................... 59,169 59,169 

IMPROVEMENT FUND ............................................................... 2,726 2,726 

SUBTOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING .................................................. 1,406,532 –71,875 1,334,657 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE 

ARMY ....................................................................................... 58,000 58,000 

NAVY ........................................................................................ 143,644 143,644 

AIR FORCE ............................................................................... 54,223 54,223 

SUBTOTAL, BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ..................... 255,867 255,867 

TOTAL, DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS .................................................................................. 9,781,828 377,209 10,159,037 

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUBFUNCTION 051) ................................................................... 574,712,260 36,153,760 610,866,020 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053) 

DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS 

ENERGY PROGRAMS 

NUCLEAR ENERGY ................................................................... 133,000 133,000 

SUBTOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS .............................................. 133,000 133,000 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES ............................................................... 10,239,344 273,600 10,512,944 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ................................. 1,793,310 250,297 2,043,607 

NAVAL REACTORS .................................................................... 1,479,751 38,000 1,517,751 

FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES ........................................ 418,595 418,595 

SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 13,931,000 14,492,897 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES .................................................... 815,512 815,512 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL ..................................... 30,000 30,000 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP ...................................... 5,537,186 5,537,186 

SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................... 6,382,698 6,382,698 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS ....... 20,446,698 561,897 21,008,595 

INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATION 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
372 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2018 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

DEFENSE FACILITIES NUCLEAR SAFETY BOARD ...................... 30,600 30,600 

SUBTOTAL, INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATION 30,600 30,600 

TOTAL, DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS ............................................................................. 20,477,298 561,897 21,039,195 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053) ............................................................................ 20,477,298 561,897 21,039,195 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNDING, BASE BUDGET REQUEST .................................................................................. 595,189,558 36,715,657 631,905,215 

NATIONAL DEFENSE OCO BUDGET REQUEST 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051) 

PROCUREMENT 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY ............................................ 424,686 424,686 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ............................................... 559,283 559,283 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ........................................... 1,191,139 1,191,139 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY .................................. 193,436 193,436 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................................. 405,575 405,575 

JOINT IMPROVISED-THREAT DEFEAT FUND .............................. 483,058 483,058 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ............................................. 157,300 157,300 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ............................................. 152,373 152,373 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC .................................. 225,587 225,587 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY .................................................. 220,059 220,059 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ............................................. 65,274 65,274 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .................................... 740,778 740,778 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ....................................... 395,400 395,400 

SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................... 2,256 2,256 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ......................... 501,509 501,509 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................... 4,008,887 4,008,887 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .............................................. 518,026 15,900 533,926 

UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................... 0 –1,870,600 

SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT ...................................................... 10,244,626 –1,854,700 8,389,926 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ................... 119,368 119,368 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY .................... 130,365 130,365 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ........................ 135,358 135,358 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ....................... 226,096 226,096 

UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................... 0 –64,100 –64,100 

SUBTOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION .................................................................................... 611,187 –64,100 547,087 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
373 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2018 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ....................................... 16,126,403 16,126,403 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES ............................... 24,699 24,699 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ....................................... 108,111 108,111 

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND .................................. 4,937,515 4,937,515 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ........................................ 5,875,015 5,875,015 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ........................ 1,116,640 1,116,640 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES ................................ 23,980 23,980 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ........................... 3,367 3,367 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ............................... 10,266,295 10,266,295 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ............................ 58,523 58,523 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .......................................... 15,400 15,400 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE .................... 7,712,080 256,300 7,968,380 

UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................... 0 –2,121,300 –2,121,300 

SUBTOTAL,OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ............................. 46,268,028 –1,865,000 44,403,028 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

MILITARY PERSONNEL .............................................................. 4,276,276 –214,300 4,061,976 

SUBTOTAL,MILITARY PERSONNEL ............................................ 4,276,276 –214,300 4,061,976 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND ......................................................... 148,956 –50,111 98,845 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ............... 196,300 196,300 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ..................................... 24,692 24,692 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................... 395,805 395,805 

COUNTER-ISLAMIC ISIS TRAIN & EQUIP FUND ........................ 1,769,000 1,769,000 

SUBTOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................... 2,534,753 –50,111 2,484,642 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

ARMY ....................................................................................... 139,700 –15,700 124,000 

NAVY ........................................................................................ 18,500 –18,500 

AIR FORCE ............................................................................... 478,030 –270,830 207,200 

DEFENSE-WIDE ......................................................................... 1,900 –1,900 

SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ..................................... 638,130 –306,930 331,200 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050) OCO 

BUDGET REQUEST ............................................................... 64,573,000 –4,355,141 60,217,859 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050) ........... 659,762,558 32,360,516 692,123,074 

MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XIV—ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME (FUNCTION 

600) ..................................................................................... 64,300 64,300 

MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS) 

TITLE X—GENERAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY ............................. [4,000,000 ] [4,000,000 ] 

TITLE XV—SPECIAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY ............................ [3,500,000 ] [3,500,000 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
374 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2018 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

SUMMARY DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES 

COMMITTEE 

NATIONAL DEFENSE (050) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY, BASE BUDGET (051) ..... 574,712,260 36,153,760 610,866,020 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) ............................ 20,477,298 561,897 21,039,195 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ..................................... 64,573,000 –4,355,141 60,217,859 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050) ............................................. 659,762,558 32,360,516 692,123,074 

OTHER DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS PROGRAMS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED 

SERVICES COMMITTEE OR ALREADY AUTHORIZED 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) 

DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES .................................. 37,000 37,000 

INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: DISPOSAL OF DOD REAL PROPERTY ...... 9,000 9,000 

INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: LEASE OF DOD REAL PROPERTY ........... 37,000 37,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) ........... 83,000 0 83,000 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053) 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM ........ 118,000 118,000 

SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) ......... 118,000 0 118,000 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) 

OTHER DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS .......................................... 7,855,000 7,855,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ..................... 7,855,000 0 7,855,000 

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS 

(050) ...................................................................................... 8,056,000 0 8,056,000 

DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) 

NATIONAL DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS (050) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY (051) ............................. 574,795,260 36,153,760 610,949,020 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) ............................ 20,595,298 561,897 21,157,195 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ......................................... 7,855,000 7,855,000 

TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION, 

050 ........................................................................................ 603,245,558 36,715,657 639,961,215 

NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS, CURRENT LAW (CB0 BASELINE) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) 

CONCURRENT RECEIPT ACCRUAL PAYMENTS TO THE MILITARY 

RETIREMENT FUND ................................................................ 7,496,000 7,496,000 

REVOLVING, TRUST AND OTHER DOD MANDATORY ................... 1,333,000 1,333,000 

OFFSETTING RECEIPTS ............................................................... –1,889,000 –1,889,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) ........... 6,940,000 0 6,940,000 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053) 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
375 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2018 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION 

PROGRAMS AND OTHER ........................................................ 1,273,000 1,273,000 

SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) ......... 1,273,000 0 1,273,000 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) 

RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION TRUST FUND ................ 59,000 59,000 

PAYMENT TO CIA RETIREMENT FUND AND OTHER .................... 514,000 514,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ..................... 573,000 0 573,000 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS (050) ..... 8,095,000 0 8,095,000 

DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) 

DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY (051) ............................. 581,735,260 36,153,760 617,889,020 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) ............................ 21,868,298 561,897 22,430,195 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ......................................... 8,428,000 8,428,000 

TOTAL, BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) ...................... 612,031,558 36,715,657 648,747,215 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(377) 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
378 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT. 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 

2 UTILITY F/W AIRCRAFT .............................................................................................. 4 75,115 4 75,115 

4 MQ–1 UAV ................................................................................................................. 2 30,206 10 100,000 12 130,206 

UFR: ER Improved Gray Eagle Air Vehicles ..................................................... [10 ] [100,000 ] 

ROTARY 

5 HELICOPTER, LIGHT UTILITY (LUH) ............................................................................ 13 108,383 13 108,383 

6 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN .......................................................................... 48 725,976 2 39,000 50 764,976 

UFR: Procures remanufactured AH64Es .......................................................... [2 ] [39,000 ] 

7 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN (AP) .................................................................. 0 170,910 0 170,910 8 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD ................................................................... 13 374,100 9 273,700 22 647,800 

UFR: Procures AH–64E ..................................................................................... [9 ] [273,700 ] 

9 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIB NEW BUILD (AP) ........................................................... 0 71,900 0 71,900 

10 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) ....................................................................... 48 938,308 48 938,308 11 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) (AP) ............................................................... 0 86,295 0 86,295 12 UH–60 BLACK HAWK A AND L MODELS .................................................................... 36 76,516 36 76,516 13 CH–47 HELICOPTER .................................................................................................. 6 202,576 4 246,564 10 449,140 

UFR: New Build MH–47G aircraft .................................................................... [4 ] [246,564 ] 

14 CH–47 HELICOPTER (AP) .......................................................................................... 0 17,820 0 17,820 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
379 

15 MQ–1 PAYLOAD (MIP) ............................................................................................... 0 5,910 10 16,000 10 21,910 

UFR: Procures of Common Sensor Payloads ................................................... [10 ] [16,000 ] 

16 UNIVERSAL GROUND CONTROL EQUIPMENT (UAS) ................................................... 0 15,000 0 15,000 17 GRAY EAGLE MODS2 ................................................................................................. 0 74,291 0 74,291 

18 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP) ............................................................................ 0 68,812 0 29,475 0 98,287 

UFR: Procures of Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) upgrades ............................ [0 ] [29,475 ] 

19 AH–64 MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 238,141 0 238,141 

20 CH–47 CARGO HELICOPTER MODS (MYP) ................................................................ 0 20,166 0 20,166 21 GRCS SEMA MODS (MIP) .......................................................................................... 0 5,514 0 5,514 

22 ARL SEMA MODS (MIP) ............................................................................................. 0 11,650 0 11,650 23 EMARSS SEMA MODS (MIP) ...................................................................................... 0 15,279 0 15,279 24 UTILITY/CARGO AIRPLANE MODS ............................................................................... 0 57,737 0 57,737 25 UTILITY HELICOPTER MODS ....................................................................................... 0 5,900 0 5,900 26 NETWORK AND MISSION PLAN .................................................................................. 0 142,102 0 142,102 27 COMMS, NAV SURVEILLANCE .................................................................................... 0 166,050 0 166,050 28 GATM ROLLUP ............................................................................................................ 0 37,403 0 37,403 29 RQ–7 UAV MODS ....................................................................................................... 0 83,160 5 131,000 5 214,160 

UFR: Procures Shadow V2 BLK III systems ..................................................... [5 ] [131,000 ] 

30 UAS MODS ................................................................................................................. 0 26,109 9 320 9 26,429 

UFR: Procures OSRVT systems ......................................................................... [9 ] [320 ] 

GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 

31 AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 0 70,913 0 70,913 32 SURVIVABILITY CM .................................................................................................... 0 5,884 0 5,884 

33 CMWS ........................................................................................................................ 0 26,825 24 25,000 24 51,825 

UFR: Limited Interim Missile Warning System (LIMWS) Quick Reaction Capability ......................................................................................................... [24 ] [25,000 ] 

34 COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) .................................................. 0 6,337 24 25,000 24 31,337 

UFR: CIRCM B-Kits .......................................................................................... [24 ] [25,000 ] 

OTHER SUPPORT 

35 AVIONICS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 7,038 0 7,038 36 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 47,404 0 47,404 37 AIRCREW INTEGRATED SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 0 47,066 0 47,066 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
380 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

38 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL .............................................................................................. 0 83,790 0 1,115 0 84,905 

UFR: Airspace Information System shelter and Alternate Workstation ........... [0 ] [1,115 ] 

39 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 0 1,397 0 1,397 

40 LAUNCHER, 2.75 ROCKET ......................................................................................... 0 1,911 0 1,911 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY .................................................................. 170 4,149,894 97 887,174 267 5,037,068 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 

1 LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD) ....................................................... 0 140,826 0 140,826 2 MSE MISSILE ............................................................................................................. 93 459,040 147 650,041 240 1,109,081 

UFR: Additional MSE missiles ......................................................................... [147 ] [650,041 ] 

3 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INC 2–I .................................................... 0 57,742 0 –19,000 0 38,742 

Available prior year funds ............................................................................... [0 ] [–19,000 ] 

AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 

5 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 998 94,790 106 10,070 1,104 104,860 

UFR: Procures maximum Hellfire missile ........................................................ [106 ] [10,070 ] 

6 JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MSLS (JAGM) ........................................................................ 824 178,432 0 –45,000 824 133,432 

Excess due to delays ....................................................................................... [0 ] [–45,000 ] 

ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 

8 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY ..................................................................... 525 110,123 373 147,365 898 257,488 

UFR: Procures additional Javelin ..................................................................... [373 ] [147,365 ] 

9 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 1,156 85,851 1,156 85,851 

10 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY (AP) ................................................................................ 0 19,949 0 19,949 11 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ............................................................................... 4,458 595,182 0 14,500 4,458 609,682 

UFR: Tooling and practice rounds ................................................................... [0 ] [14,500 ] 

12 MLRS REDUCED RANGE PRACTICE ROCKETS (RRPR) .............................................. 3,306 28,321 576 6,330 3,882 34,651 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
381 

UFR: Funds Reduced Range Practice Rockets ................................................ [576 ] [6,330 ] 

MODIFICATIONS 

15 PATRIOT MODS .......................................................................................................... 0 329,073 47 167,454 47 496,527 

UFR: Procures additional ELES ........................................................................ [47 ] [167,454 ] 

16 ATACMS MODS ........................................................................................................... 0 116,040 75 69,400 75 185,440 

UFR: Additional ATACMS .................................................................................. [75 ] [69,400 ] 

17 GMLRS MOD .............................................................................................................. 0 531 0 531 

18 STINGER MODS .......................................................................................................... 0 63,090 576 28,800 576 91,890 

UFR: Maximizes Stinger ................................................................................... [576 ] [28,800 ] 

19 AVENGER MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 62,931 0 62,931 

20 ITAS/TOW MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 3,500 0 3,500 21 MLRS MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 138,235 32 48,882 32 187,117 

UFR: Procures M270A1 MLRS launchers ......................................................... [32 ] [48,882 ] 

22 HIMARS MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................ 0 9,566 0 9,566 

AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 

27 HIMARS ...................................................................................................................... 0 0 32 435,728 32 435,728 

UFR: Procures HIMARS launchers .................................................................... [32 ] [435,728 ] 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

23 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 18,915 0 18,915 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

24 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS ............................................................................................. 0 5,728 0 5,728 

26 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................... 0 1,189 0 1,189 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ..................................................................... 11,360 2,519,054 1,964 1,514,570 13,324 4,033,624 PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

1 BRADLEY PROGRAM .................................................................................................. 0 0 0 111,000 0 111,000 

UFR: Recap 1 Infantry Battalion Set of M2A4 ................................................ [0 ] [111,000 ] 

2 ARMORED MULTI PURPOSE VEHICLE (AMPV) ........................................................... 42 193,715 42 193,715 

MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

4 STRYKER (MOD) ........................................................................................................ 0 97,552 0 695,500 0 793,052 

UFR: Second SBCT set of 30mm ..................................................................... [0 ] [347,500 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
382 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

UFR: Stryker ECP .............................................................................................. [0 ] [348,000 ] 

6 BRADLEY PROGRAM (MOD) ....................................................................................... 0 444,851 0 444,851 

7 M109 FOV MODIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 0 64,230 0 64,230 8 PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) .............................................................. 59 646,413 59 646,413 9 IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88A2 HERCULES) ............................................... 16 72,402 0 122,000 16 194,402 

UFR: Procures one ABCT set of HERCULES (M88A2) ...................................... [0 ] [122,000 ] 

10 ASSAULT BRIDGE (MOD) ........................................................................................... 0 5,855 0 5,855 

11 ASSAULT BREACHER VEHICLE ................................................................................... 7 34,221 0 60,000 7 94,221 

UFR: Procures Assault Breacher Vehicles, Combat Dozer Blades, Full Width 

Mine Plows .................................................................................................. [0 ] [60,000 ] 

12 M88 FOV MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 4,826 0 4,826 

13 JOINT ASSAULT BRIDGE ............................................................................................. 27 128,350 27 128,350 14 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) .......................................................................................... 0 248,826 0 221,000 0 469,826 

UFR: Completes the first Brigade set of Trophy (NDI APS) for Abrams w/ 

ERI OCO (1 APS Set) ................................................................................... [0 ] [221,000 ] 

15 ABRAMS UPGRADE PROGRAM ................................................................................... 20 275,000 0 561,000 20 836,000 

UFR: Recapitalization of 29 Abrams tanks to M1A2SEPv3 ............................ [0 ] [561,000 ] 

WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 

18 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN (7.62MM) .................................................................. 0 1,992 0 2,350 0 4,342 

UFR: Procures additional ................................................................................. [0 ] [2,350 ] 

19 MULTI-ROLE ANTI-ARMOR ANTI-PERSONNEL WEAPON S .......................................... 0 6,520 0 20,000 0 26,520 

UFR: Procures M3E1 light weight Carl Gustaf weapon systems .................... [0 ] [20,000 ] 

20 MORTAR SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 0 21,452 0 13,050 0 34,502 

UFR: Procures M121 120mm Mortars ............................................................. [0 ] [13,050 ] 

21 XM320 GRENADE LAUNCHER MODULE (GLM) ........................................................... 0 4,524 0 799 0 5,323 

UFR: Procures M320A1 40mm Grenade Launchers ......................................... [0 ] [799 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
383 

23 CARBINE .................................................................................................................... 0 43,150 0 13,987 0 57,137 

UFR: Procures M4A1 carbines ......................................................................... [0 ] [13,987 ] 

24 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION ................................................ 0 750 0 10,000 0 10,750 

UFR: Accelerate CROWS modifications ............................................................ [0 ] [10,000 ] 

25 HANDGUN ................................................................................................................... 0 8,326 0 378 0 8,704 

UFR: Procures Modular Handgun Systems ...................................................... [0 ] [378 ] 

MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 

26 MK–19 GRENADE MACHINE GUN MODS ................................................................... 0 2,000 0 2,000 27 M777 MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 3,985 0 85,787 0 89,772 

UFR: Funds M777 lightweight towed howitzers .............................................. [0 ] [85,787 ] 

28 M4 CARBINE MODS ................................................................................................... 0 31,315 0 31,315 

29 M2 50 CAL MACHINE GUN MODS ............................................................................. 0 47,414 0 5,256 0 52,670 

UFR: Procures M2A1 .50cal machine .............................................................. [0 ] [2,350 ] UFR: Procures Mk93 MG mounts, M2A1 .50cal MGs, M205 tripods .............. [0 ] [2,906 ] 

30 M249 SAW MACHINE GUN MODS .............................................................................. 0 3,339 0 3,339 31 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN MODS ........................................................................ 0 4,577 0 6,582 0 11,159

UFR: Procures M192 tripods, M240B 7.62mm, M240L 7.62mm, Gun Optics [0 ] [6,582 ] 

32 SNIPER RIFLES MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................ 0 1,488 0 1,488 33 M119 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................... 0 12,678 0 12,678 

34 MORTAR MODIFICATION ............................................................................................. 0 3,998 0 3,998 35 MODIFICATIONS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) .................................................... 0 2,219 0 2,219 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

36 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) ................................................................... 0 5,075 0 2,713 0 7,788 

UFR: Procures M150 Rifle Combat Optic (RCO); M68 Close Combat Optics 

(CCO) ........................................................................................................... [0 ] [2,713 ] 

37 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (WOCV-WTCV) ............................................................ 0 992 0 992 39 SMALL ARMS EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER ENH PROG) ...................................................... 0 1,573 0 1,573 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ................................................................ 171 2,423,608 0 1,931,402 171 4,355,010 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

1 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 39,767 0 7,225 0 46,992 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
384 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

UFR: Additional ammunition ............................................................................ [0 ] [7,225 ] 

2 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 46,804 0 14,900 0 61,704 

UFR: Additional ammunition ............................................................................ [0 ] [14,900 ] 

3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 10,413 0 90 0 10,503 

UFR: Additional ammunition ............................................................................ [0 ] [90 ] 

4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 62,837 0 8,890 0 71,727 

UFR: Additional ammunition ............................................................................ [0 ] [8,890 ] 

5 CTG, 20MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 8,208 0 8,208 

6 CTG, 25MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 8,640 0 31,862 0 40,502 

UFR: Additional ammunition ............................................................................ [0 ] [31,862 ] 

7 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 76,850 0 2,150 0 79,000 

UFR: Additional ammunition ............................................................................ [0 ] [2,150 ] 

8 CTG, 40MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 108,189 0 17,191 0 125,380 

UFR: Additional ammunition ............................................................................ [0 ] [17,191 ] 

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

9 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 57,359 0 2,506 0 59,865 

UFR: Additional ammunition ............................................................................ [0 ] [2,506 ] 

10 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 49,471 0 3,109 0 52,580 

UFR: Additional mortar .................................................................................... [0 ] [3,109 ] 

11 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES .................................................................................... 0 91,528 0 18,192 0 109,720 

UFR: Additional 120mm ................................................................................... [0 ] [18,192 ] 

TANK AMMUNITION 

12 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, ALL TYPES ............................................. 0 133,500 0 40,300 0 173,800 

UFR: Additional Tank cartridge ....................................................................... [0 ] [40,300 ] 

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

13 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 105MM, ALL TYPES ........................................... 0 44,200 0 44,200 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
385 

14 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................ 0 187,149 0 159,181 0 346,330 

UFR: Additional ammunition ............................................................................ [0 ] [159,181 ] 

15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982 ..................................................................... 480 49,000 0 233,500 480 282,500 

UFR: Excalibur .................................................................................................. [0 ] [233,500 ]

16 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL ............................................. 0 83,046 0 80,722 0 163,768 

UFR: Additional PGK, prop charges, artillery fuzes ......................................... [0 ] [48,601 ] UFR: Required to execute simultaneous OPLAN .............................................. [0 ] [32,121 ] 

MINES 

17 MINES & CLEARING CHARGES, ALL TYPES ............................................................... 0 3,942 0 3,050 0 6,992 

UFR: Additional ammunition ............................................................................ [0 ] [3,050 ] 

ROCKETS 

19 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................ 0 5,000 0 61,881 0 66,881 

UFR: Additional rockets, grenades .................................................................. [0 ] [61,881 ] 

20 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 0 161,155 0 68,087 0 229,242 

UFR: Additional APKWS .................................................................................... [0 ] [68,087 ] 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

21 CAD/PAD, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................. 0 7,441 0 7,441 

22 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................ 0 19,345 0 2,261 0 21,606 

UFR: Additional munitions ............................................................................... [0 ] [2,261 ] 

23 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 0 22,759 0 25,361 0 48,120 

UFR: Additional ammunition ............................................................................ [0 ] [25,361 ] 

24 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES .................................................................................................. 0 2,583 0 829 0 3,412 

UFR: Additional signal munitions .................................................................... [0 ] [829 ] 

25 SIMULATORS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 0 13,084 0 450 0 13,534 

UFR: Additional signal munitions .................................................................... [0 ] [450 ] 

MISCELLANEOUS 

26 AMMO COMPONENTS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 0 12,237 0 12,237 27 NON-LETHAL AMMUNITION, ALL TYPES ..................................................................... 0 1,500 0 150 0 1,650 

UFR: Non-Lethal Hand Grenade Munitions ...................................................... [0 ] [150 ] 

28 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (AMMO) .................................................................... 0 10,730 0 3,665 0 14,395 

UFR: Additional ammunition ............................................................................ [0 ] [3,665 ] 

29 AMMUNITION PECULIAR EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 16,425 0 16,425 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
386 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

30 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION (AMMO) ........................................................ 0 15,221 0 15,221 

PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT 

32 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 0 329,356 0 100,000 0 429,356 

UFR: Upgrade at GOCO Army ammuntion plants ........................................... [0 ] [100,000 ] 

33 CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATION ........................................................ 0 197,825 0 197,825 34 ARMS INITIATIVE ........................................................................................................ 0 3,719 0 3,719 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ....................................................... 480 1,879,283 0 885,552 480 2,764,835 OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 

1 TACTICAL TRAILERS/DOLLY SETS .............................................................................. 0 9,716 25 1,155 25 10,871 

UFR: Provides self-haul capability to Engineer Construction Units ............... [25 ] [1,155 ] 

2 SEMITRAILERS, FLATBED: .......................................................................................... 0 14,151 0 27,000 0 41,151 

UFR: Procures 100 % of equipment shortage in Europe for M872 ............... [0 ] [27,000 ] 

3 AMBULANCE, 4 LITTER, 5/4 TON, 4X4 ...................................................................... 0 53,000 0 15,593 0 68,593 

UFR: Procures HMMWV ambulances ................................................................ [0 ] [15,000 ] UFR: Support increased end-strength ............................................................. [0 ] [593 ] 

4 GROUND MOBILITY VEHICLES (GMV) ........................................................................ 0 40,935 0 40,935 6 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ................................................................................ 2,110 804,440 2,110 804,440 

7 TRUCK, DUMP, 20T (CCE) ......................................................................................... 0 967 0 967 8 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) .............................................................. 0 78,650 0 185,222 0 263,872 

UFR: Procures vehicles .................................................................................... [0 ] [185,222 ] 

9 FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIP ................................................... 0 19,404 0 19,404 

10 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ......................................................... 0 81,656 31 7,443 31 89,099

UFR: Procures Forward Repair Systems (FRS) ................................................ [31 ] [7,443 ] 

11 PLS ESP ..................................................................................................................... 0 7,129 0 52,675 0 59,804 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
387 

UFR: Provides transportion of ammunition and break-bulk cargo ................. [0 ] [52,675 ] 

13 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS ...................................................... 0 43,040 0 43,040 14 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP .............................................................................. 0 83,940 0 107,727 0 191,667 

UFR: Additional Buffalo and MMPV ................................................................. [0 ] [107,727 ] 

NON-TACTICAL VEHICLES 

16 HEAVY ARMORED SEDAN ........................................................................................... 0 269 0 269 17 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 1,320 0 1,320 18 NONTACTICAL VEHICLES, OTHER ............................................................................... 0 6,964 0 6,964 

COMM—JOINT COMMUNICATIONS 

19 WIN-T—GROUND FORCES TACTICAL NETWORK ........................................................ 0 420,492 0 –420,492 0 0 

Early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–420,492 ] 

20 SIGNAL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .......................................................................... 0 92,718 0 92,718 21 TACTICAL NETWORK TECHNOLOGY MOD IN SVC ....................................................... 0 150,497 0 150,497 22 JOINT INCIDENT SITE COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY ............................................... 0 6,065 0 6,065 23 JCSE EQUIPMENT (USREDCOM) ................................................................................. 0 5,051 0 5,051 

COMM—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

24 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE WIDEBAND SATCOM SYSTEMS .............................................. 0 161,383 0 161,383 25 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... 0 62,600 0 62,600 26 SHF TERM .................................................................................................................. 0 11,622 0 11,622 28 SMART-T (SPACE) ...................................................................................................... 0 6,799 0 6,799 29 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC—GBS ..................................................................................... 0 7,065 0 11,000 0 18,065 

UFR: Procures Global Broadcast Systems ....................................................... [0 ] [11,000 ] 

31 ENROUTE MISSION COMMAND (EMC) ....................................................................... 0 21,667 0 21,667 

COMM—COMBAT SUPPORT COMM 

33 MOD-IN-SERVICE PROFILER ...................................................................................... 0 70 0 70 

COMM—C3 SYSTEM 

34 ARMY GLOBAL CMD & CONTROL SYS (AGCCS) ........................................................ 0 2,658 0 2,658 

COMM—COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 

36 HANDHELD MANPACK SMALL FORM FIT (HMS) ......................................................... 0 355,351 0 355,351 37 MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) ................................................. 0 25,100 0 25,100 38 RADIO TERMINAL SET, MIDS LVT(2) .......................................................................... 0 11,160 0 11,160 40 TRACTOR DESK .......................................................................................................... 0 2,041 0 2,041 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
388 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

41 TRACTOR RIDE ........................................................................................................... 0 5,534 0 8,200 0 13,734 

UFR: Procurement of Offensive Cyber Operations ........................................... [0 ] [8,200 ] 

42 SPIDER APLA REMOTE CONTROL UNIT ...................................................................... 0 996 0 996 43 SPIDER FAMILY OF NETWORKED MUNITIONS INCR ................................................... 0 4,500 0 2,358 0 6,858 

UFR: Procures SPIDER INC 1A systems ........................................................... [0 ] [2,358 ] 

45 TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND PROTECTIVE SYSTEM .......................................... 0 4,411 0 4,411 46 UNIFIED COMMAND SUITE ......................................................................................... 0 15,275 0 15,275 

47 FAMILY OF MED COMM FOR COMBAT CASUALTY CARE ........................................... 0 15,964 0 15,964 

COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 

49 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................... 0 9,560 0 9,560 50 DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION INITIATIVE ............................................................... 0 4,030 0 4,030 

INFORMATION SECURITY 

54 COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (COMSEC) .................................................................. 0 107,804 0 23,278 0 131,082 

UFR: Security Data System and End Cyrptographic Units .............................. [0 ] [23,278 ] 

55 DEFENSIVE CYBER OPERATIONS ............................................................................... 0 53,436 4 8,000 4 61,436 

UFR: Funds Deployable DCO Systems for COMPO 2&3 Cyber Protection 

Teams .......................................................................................................... [4 ] [8,000 ] 

56 INSIDER THREAT PROGRAM—UNIT ACTIVITY MONITO .............................................. 0 690 0 690 57 PERSISTENT CYBER TRAINING ENVIRONMENT .......................................................... 0 4,000 0 4,000 

COMM—LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS 

58 BASE SUPPORT COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................... 0 43,751 0 43,751 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

59 INFORMATION SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 0 118,101 0 118,101 

60 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .......................................... 0 4,490 0 4,490 61 HOME STATION MISSION COMMAND CENTERS (HSMCC) .......................................... 0 20,050 0 20,050 62 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM ............................................ 0 186,251 0 186,251 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
389 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

65 JTT/CIBS-M ................................................................................................................ 0 12,154 0 7,600 0 19,754 

UFR: Procures critical spare parts .................................................................. [0 ] [7,600 ] 

68 DCGS-A (MIP) ............................................................................................................ 0 274,782 0 –150,000 0 124,782 

Changing tactical requirements ...................................................................... [0 ] [–150,000 ] 

70 TROJAN (MIP) ............................................................................................................. 0 16,052 0 13,160 0 29,212 

UFR: Procures TROJAN SPIRIT .......................................................................... [0 ] [13,160 ] 

71 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) (MIP) ................................................................ 0 51,034 0 51,034 72 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING AND COLL(CHARCS) ..................................................... 0 7,815 0 76 0 7,891 

UFR: Provides CI/HUMINT Automated Reporting and Collection System capabilities ...................................................................................................... [0 ] [76 ] 

73 CLOSE ACCESS TARGET RECONNAISSANCE (CATR) .................................................. 0 8,050 0 8,050 74 MACHINE FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRANSLATION SYSTEM-M ......................................... 0 567 0 567 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

76 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR ................................................................. 0 20,459 0 20,459 77 EW PLANNING & MANAGEMENT TOOLS (EWPMT) ...................................................... 0 5,805 0 5,805 78 AIR VIGILANCE (AV) ................................................................................................... 0 5,348 0 5,348 

81 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES .......................................... 0 469 0 469 82 CI MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................... 0 285 0 285 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 

83 SENTINEL MODS ........................................................................................................ 0 28,491 12 72,000 12 100,491 

UFR: Procures additional Sentinal Radars ...................................................... [12 ] [72,000 ] 

84 NIGHT VISION DEVICES ............................................................................................. 0 166,493 50 65,005 50 231,498 

New night vision testing devices .................................................................... [50 ] [2,500 ] UFR: Accelerates fielding of the LTLM ............................................................ [0 ] [15,749 ] UFR: AN/PVS–14 Night Vision Goggles ........................................................... [0 ] [5,414 ] UFR: Enhanced Night Vision Goggles .............................................................. [0 ] [4,608 ] UFR: Security Force Assistance Bde ................................................................ [0 ] [36,734 ] 

85 SMALL TACTICAL OPTICAL RIFLE MOUNTED MLRF .................................................... 0 13,947 0 2,150 0 16,097 

UFR: Procures Small Tactical Optical Rifle Mounted laser range finder ....... [0 ] [2,150 ] 

87 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS ................................................... 0 21,380 0 577,283 0 598,663 

UFR: IFPC/Avernger Battalions and Warn Suites ............................................ [0 ] [577,283 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
390 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

88 FAMILY OF WEAPON SIGHTS (FWS) ........................................................................... 0 59,105 0 59,105 89 ARTILLERY ACCURACY EQUIP ................................................................................... 0 2,129 0 2,129 91 JOINT BATTLE COMMAND—PLATFORM (JBC-P) ........................................................ 0 282,549 0 120,422 0 402,971 

UFR: Replenishes Joint Battle Command- Platform ....................................... [0 ] [120,422 ] 

92 JOINT EFFECTS TARGETING SYSTEM (JETS) .............................................................. 0 48,664 0 48,664 93 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR) .................................................................................. 0 5,198 0 5,198 94 COMPUTER BALLISTICS: LHMBC XM32 ..................................................................... 0 8,117 0 8,117 95 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM .............................................................................. 0 31,813 0 20,700 0 52,513 

UFR: Procures Mortar Fire Control systems (M95, M96) ................................. [0 ] [20,700 ] 

96 COUNTERFIRE RADARS .............................................................................................. 0 329,057 0 64,200 0 393,257 

UFR: Procures AN/TPQ–53 Counterfire Target Acquisition Radar System ...... [0 ] [64,200 ] 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS 

97 FIRE SUPPORT C2 FAMILY ........................................................................................ 0 8,700 0 4,758 0 13,458 

UFR: Additional Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) ..... [0 ] [4,758 ] 

98 AIR & MSL DEFENSE PLANNING & CONTROL SYS .................................................... 0 26,635 0 96,978 0 123,613 

UFR: Supports fielding (AMD) mission command assets to a Army Corps 

HQ ................................................................................................................ [0 ] [96,978 ] 

100 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE SUPPORT (LCSS) ................................................................. 0 1,992 0 1,992 101 NETWORK MANAGEMENT INITIALIZATION AND SERVICE ............................................ 0 15,179 0 15,179 102 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) ....................................................................... 0 132,572 0 4,819 0 137,391 

UFR: Tactical Mission Command Equipment .................................................. [0 ] [4,819 ] 

103 GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM-ARMY (GCSS-A) .............................................. 0 37,201 0 37,201 104 INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPP .......................................... 0 16,140 0 16,140 105 RECONNAISSANCE AND SURVEYING INSTRUMENT SET ............................................. 0 6,093 0 19,755 0 25,848 

UFR: Procures Engineer Instrument Set Field Reconnaissance and Survey 

Kits ............................................................................................................... [0 ] [19,755 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
391 

106 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (ENFIRE) ...................................................................... 0 1,134 0 1,459 0 2,593 

UFR: Support Security Force Assistance Bde .................................................. [0 ] [1,459 ] 

ELECT EQUIP—AUTOMATION 

107 ARMY TRAINING MODERNIZATION ............................................................................. 0 11,575 0 11,575 108 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP ..................................................................... 0 91,983 0 –15,000 0 76,983 

Accelerate commercial IT solutions ................................................................. [0 ] [–15,000 ] 

109 GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEMS FAM ........................................... 0 4,465 0 4,465 110 HIGH PERF COMPUTING MOD PGM (HPCMP) ............................................................ 0 66,363 0 66,363 111 CONTRACT WRITING SYSTEM .................................................................................... 0 1,001 0 1,001 112 RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYS (RCAS) .................................................... 0 26,183 0 26,183 

ELECT EQUIP—AUDIO VISUAL SYS (A/V) 

113 TACTICAL DIGITAL MEDIA .......................................................................................... 0 4,441 0 4,441 

114 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (SURVEYING EQUIPMENT) ................................................... 0 3,414 0 13,000 0 16,414 

UFR: Accelerate procurement of Global Positioning System-Survey ............... [0 ] [3,000 ] UFR: Procures Automated Integrated Survey Instrument (AISI) systems ........ [0 ] [10,000 ] 

ELECT EQUIP—SUPPORT 

115 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (C-E) .......................................................................... 0 499 0 499 116 BCT EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................................ 0 25,050 0 25,050 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

185 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 4,819 0 4,819 

CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 

117 PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................... 0 1,613 0 1,613 

118 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT (FNLE) ............................................................ 0 9,696 0 9,696 120 CBRN DEFENSE ......................................................................................................... 0 11,110 0 11,110 

BRIDGING EQUIPMENT 

121 TACTICAL BRIDGING .................................................................................................. 0 16,610 0 16,610 

122 TACTICAL BRIDGE, FLOAT-RIBBON ............................................................................ 0 21,761 28 22,000 28 43,761 

UFR: Procures Bridge Erection Boats .............................................................. [28 ] [22,000 ] 

124 COMMON BRIDGE TRANSPORTER (CBT) RECAP ....................................................... 0 21,046 112 50,400 112 71,446 

UFR: Procure Common Bridge Transporters .................................................... [112 ] [50,400 ] 

ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 

125 HANDHELD STANDOFF MINEFIELD DETECTION SYS-HST ........................................... 0 5,000 0 5,600 0 10,600 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
392 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

UFR: Procures hand held mine detectors ........................................................ [0 ] [5,600 ] 

126 GRND STANDOFF MINE DETECTN SYSM (GSTAMIDS) ................................................ 0 32,442 0 10,820 0 43,262 

UFR: Equipment for 15th and 16th ABCT ....................................................... [0 ] [10,820 ] 

127 AREA MINE DETECTION SYSTEM (AMDS) .................................................................. 0 10,571 0 10,571 128 HUSKY MOUNTED DETECTION SYSTEM (HMDS) ........................................................ 0 21,695 0 2,400 0 24,095 

UFR: Procures Husky Mounted Detection System ............................................ [0 ] [2,400 ] 

129 ROBOTIC COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM (RCSS) ........................................................... 0 4,516 5 15,100 5 19,616 

UFR: Procures M160s ....................................................................................... [5 ] [15,100 ] 

130 EOD ROBOTICS SYSTEMS RECAPITALIZATION ........................................................... 0 10,073 211 11,000 211 21,073 

UFR: Procures the Talon 5A robot ................................................................... [211 ] [11,000 ] 

131 ROBOTICS AND APPLIQUE SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 0 3,000 0 3,000 133 REMOTE DEMOLITION SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 0 5,847 44 1,192 44 7,039 

UFR: Procures Radio Frequency Remote Activated Munitions ........................ [44 ] [1,192 ] 

134 < $5M, COUNTERMINE EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 1,530 0 1,530 135 FAMILY OF BOATS AND MOTORS ............................................................................... 0 4,302 0 4,302 

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

136 HEATERS AND ECU’S ................................................................................................. 0 7,405 0 9,056 0 16,461 

UFR: Procures Improved Environmental Control Units .................................... [0 ] [9,056 ] 

137 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT ........................................................................................... 0 1,095 0 1,095 

138 PERSONNEL RECOVERY SUPPORT SYSTEM (PRSS) .................................................. 0 5,390 0 5,390 139 GROUND SOLDIER SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 0 38,219 0 9,808 0 48,027 

UFR: Procures NETT Warrior ............................................................................. [0 ] [9,808 ] 

140 MOBILE SOLDIER POWER .......................................................................................... 0 10,456 0 1,562 0 12,018 

UFR: Procures ISPDS-C systems for a Security Forces Assistance Bde ......... [0 ] [1,562 ] 

142 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 0 15,340 0 14,440 0 29,780 

UFR: BCT support equipment .......................................................................... [0 ] [14,440 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
393 

143 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM ........................................ 0 30,607 0 30,607 144 FAMILY OF ENGR COMBAT AND CONSTRUCTION SETS ............................................. 0 10,426 0 9,736 0 20,162 

UFR: Engineering equipment ........................................................................... [0 ] [9,736 ] 

PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT 

146 QUALITY SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 6,903 0 6,903 147 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & WATER ...................................................... 0 47,597 0 47,597 

MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 

148 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL ..................................................................................... 0 43,343 0 43,343 

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 

149 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS .......................................................... 0 33,774 0 21,591 0 55,365 

UFR: Shop equipment ...................................................................................... [0 ] [21,591 ] 

150 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MAINT EQ) ....................................................................... 0 2,728 0 954 0 3,682 

UFR: Additional equipment for growing Army ................................................. [0 ] [954 ] 

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 

151 GRADER, ROAD MTZD, HVY, 6X4 (CCE) .................................................................... 0 989 48 14,730 48 15,719 

UFR: Procures 48 Graders for the 16th ABCT ................................................. [48 ] [14,730 ] 

152 SCRAPERS, EARTHMOVING ........................................................................................ 0 11,180 0 11,180 

155 ALL TERRAIN CRANES ............................................................................................... 0 8,935 2 3,000 2 11,935 

UFR: Procures cranes to support bridging assets .......................................... [2 ] [3,000 ] 

157 HIGH MOBILITY ENGINEER EXCAVATOR (HMEE) ....................................................... 0 64,339 0 20,560 0 84,899 

UFR: Procures HMEE for the 16th ABCT ......................................................... [0 ] [20,560 ] 

158 ENHANCED RAPID AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION CAPAP ................................................ 0 2,563 0 2,563 160 CONST EQUIP ESP ..................................................................................................... 0 19,032 0 70,679 0 89,711 

UFR: Procures Engineer Mission Module—Water Distributors and 31 Vibratory Rollers .................................................................................................. [0 ] [7,000 ] UFR: Procures T9 Dozers and Armor Kits ........................................................ [0 ] [63,679 ] 

161 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (CONST EQUIP) ................................................................. 0 6,899 0 10,012 0 16,911 

UFR: Procures 2 Vibratory Plate Compactors (VPC) for the 16th ABCT ......... [0 ] [10,012 ] 

RAIL FLOAT CONTAINERIZATION EQUIPMENT 

162 ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP ........................................................................................... 0 20,110 0 20,110 

163 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL) .................................................................... 0 2,877 0 2,877 

GENERATORS 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
394 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

164 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP ..................................................................... 0 115,635 380 27,210 380 142,845 

UFR: Additional equipment for growing Army ................................................. [380 ] [27,210 ] 

165 TACTICAL ELECTRIC POWER RECAPITALIZATION ....................................................... 0 7,436 0 7,436 

MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

166 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS ............................................................................................... 0 9,000 15 1,635 15 10,635 

UFR: Procures additonal 5K LCRTF ................................................................. [15 ] [1,635 ] 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

167 COMBAT TRAINING CENTERS SUPPORT .................................................................... 0 88,888 0 88,888 168 TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM .............................................................................. 0 285,989 0 285,989 

169 CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINER .......................................................................... 0 45,718 0 45,718 170 AVIATION COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER ....................................................... 0 30,568 0 30,568 171 GAMING TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF ARMY TRAINING .......................................... 0 5,406 0 5,406 

TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT (TMD) 

172 CALIBRATION SETS EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 5,564 0 5,564 173 INTEGRATED FAMILY OF TEST EQUIPMENT (IFTE) ..................................................... 0 30,144 0 30,144 174 TEST EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION (TEMOD) ............................................................ 0 7,771 0 525 0 8,296 

UFR: Test Equipment Modernization systems (TEMOD) .................................. [0 ] [525 ] 

OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

175 M25 STABILIZED BINOCULAR .................................................................................... 0 3,956 0 3,956176 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................... 0 5,000 0 5,000 0 10,000 

UFR: Support 10 initiatives per year ............................................................... [0 ] [5,000 ] 

177 PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (OPA3) ..................................................................... 0 60,047 0 60,047 178 BASE LEVEL COMMON EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 0 13,239 0 13,239 179 MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA–3) ....................................................... 0 60,192 0 60,134 0 120,326 

UFR: Additional support equipment ................................................................ [0 ] [60,134 ] 

180 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (OTH) ......................................................................... 0 2,271 0 2,271 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
395 

181 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR USER TESTING ................................................................. 0 5,319 0 5,319 182 TRACTOR YARD .......................................................................................................... 0 5,935 0 5,935 185 BETSS-C COMPACT PAYLOADS .................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 186 INTELLIGENT REMOTE IMAGING SPECTOMETER—GROUND SYSTEM ........................ 0 0 0 8,600 0 8,600 

UFR: Development of six focal plan arrays ..................................................... [0 ] [8,600 ] 

187 FORCE PROVIDER EXPEDITIONARY ............................................................................ 0 0 12 27,700 12 27,700 

UFR: Procures Force Providers Battle-loss and components for RESET ......... [12 ] [27,700 ] 

188 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK EXT SERV ............................................... 0 0 230 132,250 230 132,250 

UFR: Procures HEMTTS ..................................................................................... [230 ] [132,250 ] 

189 FIRE PROTECTION TYPE I ..................................................................................... 0 0 9 54 9 54 

UFR: Procures Fire Protection Type 1 sets ...................................................... [9 ] [54 ] 

OPA2 

184 INITIAL SPARES—C&E .............................................................................................. 0 38,269 0 –23,940 0 14,329 

Early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–23,940 ] 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ....................................................................... 2,110 6,469,331 1,218 1,491,332 3,328 7,960,663 JOINT IMPROVISED-THREAT DEFEAT FUND NETWORK ATTACK 

1 RAPID ACQUISITION AND THREAT RESPONSE ........................................................... 0 14,442 0 14,442 

TOTAL JOINT IMPROVISED-THREAT DEFEAT FUND ................................................... 0 14,442 0 0 0 14,442 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 

2 F/A–18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET .................................................................................. 14 1,200,146 10 739,000 24 1,939,146 

UFR: Additional F/A–18 E/F Super Hornets ..................................................... [10 ] [739,000 ] 

3 F/A–18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET (AP) .......................................................................... 0 52,971 0 52,971 4 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV ........................................................................................ 4 582,324 6 800,000 10 1,382,324 

UFR: Additional F–35C .................................................................................... [6 ] [800,000 ] 

5 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV (AP) ................................................................................ 0 263,112 0 263,112 

6 JSF STOVL .................................................................................................................. 20 2,398,139 4 525,600 24 2,923,739 

UFR: Additional F–35B .................................................................................... [4 ] [525,600 ] 

7 JSF STOVL (AP) .......................................................................................................... 0 413,450 0 413,450 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
396 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

8 CH–53K (HEAVY LIFT) ............................................................................................... 4 567,605 2 280,200 6 847,805 

UFR: Additional CH–53K .................................................................................. [2 ] [280,200 ] 

9 CH–53K (HEAVY LIFT) (AP) ....................................................................................... 0 147,046 0 147,046 

10 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) ................................................................................................. 6 677,404 6 562,464 12 1,239,868 

Multi-year savings ........................................................................................... [0 ] [–10,000 ] UFR: Additional MV–22/V–22 .......................................................................... [2 ] [180,464 ] UFR: Additional MV–22B ................................................................................. [4 ] [392,000 ] 

11 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) (AP) ......................................................................................... 0 27,422 0 27,422 

12 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) .............................................................................. 22 678,429 7 220,500 29 898,929 

UFR: Additional AH–1Z .................................................................................... [7 ] [220,500 ] 

13 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) (AP) ...................................................................... 0 42,082 0 42,082 16 P–8A POSEIDON ........................................................................................................ 7 1,245,251 6 1,011,000 13 2,256,251 

UFR: Additional P–8A Poseidon ....................................................................... [6 ] [1,011,000 ] 

17 P–8A POSEIDON (AP) ................................................................................................ 0 140,333 0 140,333 

18 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE ................................................................................................. 5 733,910 5 733,910 19 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE (AP) ......................................................................................... 0 102,026 0 102,026 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

22 KC–130J .................................................................................................................... 2 129,577 4 342,700 6 472,277 

UFR: Additional KC–130J ................................................................................. [4 ] [342,700 ] 

23 KC–130J (AP) ............................................................................................................ 0 25,497 0 25,497 

24 MQ–4 TRITON ............................................................................................................ 3 522,126 3 522,126 25 MQ–4 TRITON (AP) .................................................................................................... 0 57,266 0 57,266 26 MQ–8 UAV ................................................................................................................. 0 49,472 0 49,472 27 OTHER SUPPORT AIRCRAFT ....................................................................................... 0 0 4 59,200 4 59,200 27 STUASL0 UAV ............................................................................................................. 0 880 0 880 

UFR: Procure additional aircraft ...................................................................... [4 ] [59,200 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
397 

71 C–40A AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT ............................................................................. 0 0 2 215,000 2 215,000 

UFR: Procure additional aircraft ...................................................................... [2 ] [215,000 ] 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

30 AEA SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 0 52,960 0 52,960 

31 AV–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 43,555 0 43,555 32 ADVERSARY ............................................................................................................... 0 2,565 0 2,565 33 F–18 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 1,043,661 62 81,100 62 1,124,761 

UFR: ALQ–214 USMC Retrofit .......................................................................... [28 ] [65,100 ] UFR: ALR–67 Retrofit A-KITS and Partial B-Kits ............................................ [34 ] [16,000 ] 

34 H–53 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 38,712 0 38,712 

35 SH–60 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 95,333 0 95,333 36 H–1 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 101,886 0 101,886 37 EP–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 7,231 0 7,231 38 P–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 700 0 700 39 E–2 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 97,563 0 97,563 40 TRAINER A/C SERIES ................................................................................................. 0 8,184 0 8,184 41 C–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 18,673 0 18,673 42 C–130 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 83,541 0 83,541 43 FEWSG ....................................................................................................................... 0 630 0 630 44 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C SERIES ............................................................................... 0 10,075 0 10,075 45 E–6 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 223,508 0 223,508 46 EXECUTIVE HELICOPTERS SERIES ............................................................................. 0 38,787 0 38,787 47 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ..................................................................................... 0 8,304 0 8,30448 T–45 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 148,071 0 148,071 49 POWER PLANT CHANGES ........................................................................................... 0 19,827 0 19,827 50 JPATS SERIES ............................................................................................................ 0 27,007 0 27,007 51 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 146,642 0 146,642 52 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES ................................................................................... 0 123,507 0 123,507 53 COMMON DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM .................................................................... 0 2,317 0 2,317 54 ID SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 0 49,524 0 49,524 55 P–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 18,665 0 18,665 56 MAGTF EW FOR AVIATION .......................................................................................... 0 10,111 0 10,111 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
398 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

57 MQ–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................ 0 32,361 0 32,361 59 V–22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY ............................................................................ 0 228,321 0 228,32160 F–35 STOVL SERIES .................................................................................................. 0 34,963 0 34,963 61 F–35 CV SERIES ........................................................................................................ 0 31,689 0 31,689 62 QRC ........................................................................................................................... 0 24,766 0 24,766 63 MQ–4 SERIES ............................................................................................................ 0 39,996 0 39,996 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

64 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 1,681,914 0 299,744 0 1,981,658 

UFR: C–40A Spares ......................................................................................... [0 ] [12,600 ] UFR: CH–53K Spares ....................................................................................... [0 ] [7,500 ] UFR: F–35B Spares .......................................................................................... [0 ] [91,000 ] UFR: Fund to max executable .......................................................................... [0 ] [168,000 ] UFR: KC–130J Spares ...................................................................................... [0 ] [12,844 ] UFR: UC–12W Spares ...................................................................................... [0 ] [7,800 ] 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP & FACILITIES 

65 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 388,052 0 17,500 0 405,552 

UFR: F/A–18C/D Training Systems .................................................................. [0 ] [17,500 ] 

66 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................. 0 24,613 0 24,613

67 WAR CONSUMABLES .................................................................................................. 0 39,614 0 39,614 68 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ................................................................................. 0 1,463 0 1,463 69 SPECIAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 48,500 0 48,500 70 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 1,976 0 1,976 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 87 15,056,235 113 5,154,008 200 20,210,243 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
399 

1 TRIDENT II MODS ...................................................................................................... 0 1,143,595 0 1,143,595 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

2 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................... 0 7,086 0 7,086 

STRATEGIC MISSILES 

3 TOMAHAWK ................................................................................................................ 34 134,375 34 134,375 

TACTICAL MISSILES 

4 AMRAAM .................................................................................................................... 120 197,109 0 12,000 120 209,109 

UFR: Munitions Wholeness ............................................................................... [0 ] [12,000 ] 

5 SIDEWINDER .............................................................................................................. 185 79,692 185 79,692 

6 JSOW .......................................................................................................................... 0 5,487 0 5,487 7 STANDARD MISSILE ................................................................................................... 117 510,875 117 510,875 8 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB II ........................................................................................ 90 20,968 90 20,968 

9 RAM ........................................................................................................................... 60 58,587 60 48,000 120 106,587 

UFR: Additional RAM BLK II ............................................................................. [60 ] [48,000 ] 

10 JOINT AIR GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) ......................................................................... 0 3,789 0 3,789 13 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS (SOPGM) .............................................. 19 3,122 0 9,400 19 12,522 

UFR: AGM–176A Griffin Missile Qualifications ............................................... [0 ] [9,400 ] 

14 AERIAL TARGETS ........................................................................................................ 0 124,757 0 124,757 15 OTHER MISSILE SUPPORT ......................................................................................... 0 3,420 0 3,420 16 LRASM ....................................................................................................................... 25 74,733 25 74,733 

MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

17 ESSM ......................................................................................................................... 30 74,524 30 74,524 19 HARPOON MODS ........................................................................................................ 0 17,300 0 17,300 

20 HARM MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 183,368 0 183,368 21 STANDARD MISSILES MODS ...................................................................................... 0 11,729 0 11,729 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

22 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................. 0 4,021 0 4,021 23 FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON ........................................................................ 0 46,357 0 46,357 

ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

25 ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 47,159 0 47,159 

TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

26 SSTD .......................................................................................................................... 0 5,240 0 5,240 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
400 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

27 MK–48 TORPEDO ....................................................................................................... 17 44,771 17 44,771 28 ASW TARGETS ............................................................................................................ 0 12,399 0 12,399 

MOD OF TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

29 MK–54 TORPEDO MODS ............................................................................................ 0 104,044 0 104,044 

30 MK–48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS ................................................................................ 0 38,954 0 38,954 31 QUICKSTRIKE MINE .................................................................................................... 0 10,337 0 10,337 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

32 TORPEDO SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 70,383 0 70,383 33 ASW RANGE SUPPORT ............................................................................................... 0 3,864 0 3,864 

DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION 

34 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 3,961 0 3,961 

GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

35 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS .................................................................................... 0 11,332 0 11,332 

MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

36 CIWS MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 72,698 0 72,698 

37 COAST GUARD WEAPONS .......................................................................................... 0 38,931 0 38,931 38 GUN MOUNT MODS .................................................................................................... 0 76,025 0 76,025 39 LCS MODULE WEAPONS ............................................................................................ 110 13,110 110 13,110 40 CRUISER MODERNIZATION WEAPONS ........................................................................ 0 34,825 0 34,825 41 AIRBORNE MINE NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS ............................................................ 0 16,925 0 16,925 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

43 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 110,255 0 110,255 

TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 807 3,420,107 60 69,400 867 3,489,507 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
401 

1 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 34,882 0 34,882 2 JDAM .......................................................................................................................... 2,492 57,343 2,492 57,343 3 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 0 79,318 0 79,318 4 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 0 14,112 0 14,112 5 PRACTICE BOMBS ...................................................................................................... 0 47,027 0 47,027 6 CARTRIDGES & CART ACTUATED DEVICES ............................................................... 0 57,718 0 57,718 7 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ..................................................................... 0 65,908 0 65,908 8 JATOS ......................................................................................................................... 0 2,895 0 2,895 

10 5 INCH/54 GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................... 0 22,112 0 22,112

11 INTERMEDIATE CALIBER GUN AMMUNITION .............................................................. 0 12,804 0 12,804 12 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................. 0 41,594 0 41,594 13 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO ................................................................... 0 49,401 0 49,401 14 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ............................................................................... 0 9,495 0 9,495 16 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ....................................................................... 0 3,080 0 3,080 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

20 MORTARS ................................................................................................................... 0 24,118 0 25,500 0 49,618 

UFR: Additional 60mm Full Range Practice Rounds ...................................... [0 ] [11,000 ] UFR: Additional 81mm Full Range Practice Rounds ...................................... [0 ] [14,500 ] 

23 DIRECT SUPPORT MUNITIONS ................................................................................... 0 64,045 0 64,045

24 INFANTRY WEAPONS AMMUNITION ............................................................................ 0 91,456 0 91,456 29 COMBAT SUPPORT MUNITIONS .................................................................................. 0 11,788 0 11,788 32 AMMO MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................. 0 17,862 0 17,862 33 ARTILLERY MUNITIONS .............................................................................................. 0 79,427 0 17,000 0 96,427 

UFR: Additional training rounds ...................................................................... [0 ] [17,000 ] 

34 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 5,960 0 5,960 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ........................................................ 2,492 792,345 0 42,500 2,492 834,845 SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE SHIPS 

1 OHIO REPLACEMENT SUBMARINE (AP) ..................................................................... 0 842,853 0 842,853 

OTHER WARSHIPS 

2 CARRIER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM .......................................................................... 1 4,441,772 0 –300,000 1 4,141,772 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
402 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

Unjustified cost growth ................................................................................... [0 ] [–300,000 ] 

4 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE .................................................................................... 2 3,305,315 2 3,305,315 

5 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE (AP) ............................................................................ 0 1,920,596 0 1,173,000 0 3,093,596 

3rd FY20 SSN or SIB expansion ...................................................................... [0 ] [450,000 ] Additional EOQ funding Blk V MYP ................................................................. [0 ] [750,000 ] NSBDF Savings ................................................................................................. [0 ] [–27,000 ] 

6 CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS .................................................................................... 0 1,604,890 0 1,604,890 

7 CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS (AP) ............................................................................ 0 75,897 0 75,897 8 DDG 1000 .................................................................................................................. 0 223,968 0 –50,000 0 173,968 

Unjustified cost growth ................................................................................... [0 ] [–50,000 ] 

9 DDG–51 ..................................................................................................................... 2 3,499,079 1 1,559,000 3 5,058,079 

Available prior year funds ............................................................................... [0 ] [–225,000 ] Procure 1 additional DDG–51 .......................................................................... [1 ] [1,750,000 ] UFR: SSEE Inc F for DDG ................................................................................. [0 ] [34,000 ] 

10 DDG–51 (AP) ............................................................................................................. 0 90,336 0 300,000 0 390,336 

EOQ for FY18–22 MYP contract ...................................................................... [0 ] [300,000 ] 

11 LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP ............................................................................................ 1 636,146 0 –40,000 1 596,146 

Unit price adjustment ...................................................................................... [0 ] [–40,000 ] 

AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS 

12 LX(R) OR LPD–30 ...................................................................................................... 0 0 1 1,000,000 1 1,000,000 

Incremental funding for LX(R) or LPD–30 ...................................................... [1 ] [1,000,000 ] 

15 LHA REPLACEMENT .................................................................................................... 0 1,710,927 0 1,710,927 

AUXILIARIES, CRAFT AND PRIOR YR PROGRAM COST 

18 TAO FLEET OILER ...................................................................................................... 1 465,988 1 465,988 

19 TAO FLEET OILER (AP) .............................................................................................. 0 75,068 0 75,068 20 TOWING, SALVAGE, AND RESCUE SHIP (ATS) ........................................................... 1 76,204 1 76,204 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
403 

23 LCU 1700 .................................................................................................................. 1 31,850 1 31,850 24 OUTFITTING ................................................................................................................ 0 548,703 0 –38,200 0 510,503 

Post-delivery funds early to need .................................................................... [0 ] [–38,200 ] 

25 SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR .................................................................................... 3 212,554 5 297,000 8 509,554 

Quantity unit price adjustment ....................................................................... [0 ] [–15,000 ] UFR: 5 additional Ship-to-Shore Connector .................................................... [5 ] [312,000 ] 

26 SERVICE CRAFT ......................................................................................................... 0 23,994 0 39,000 0 62,994 

UFR: Berthing barge ........................................................................................ [0 ] [39,000 ] 

29 COMPLETION OF PY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS ........................................................ 0 117,542 0 117,542 30 ESB ............................................................................................................................ 0 0 1 661,000 1 661,000 

Procure additional ESB .................................................................................... [1 ] [661,000 ] 

32 CABLE SHIP ............................................................................................................... 0 0 1 250,000 1 250,000 

Procure cable ship ........................................................................................... [1 ] [250,000 ] 

TOTAL SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY ....................................................... 12 19,903,682 9 4,850,800 21 24,754,482 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY SHIP PROPULSION EQUIPMENT 

3 SURFACE POWER EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 0 41,910 0 41,910 4 HYBRID ELECTRIC DRIVE (HED) ................................................................................ 0 6,331 0 –6,331 0 0 

Unjustified cost growth ................................................................................... [0 ] [–6,331 ] 

GENERATORS 

5 SURFACE COMBATANT HM&E .................................................................................... 0 27,392 0 27,392 

NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT 

6 OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 65,943 0 65,943 

OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT 

8 SUB PERISCOPE, IMAGING AND SUPT EQUIP PROG ................................................. 0 151,240 0 29,000 0 180,240 

UFR: 3 Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical Systems ................................ [0 ] [29,000 ] 

9 DDG MOD ................................................................................................................... 0 603,355 0 603,355 

10 FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................... 0 15,887 0 15,887 11 COMMAND AND CONTROL SWITCHBOARD ................................................................. 0 2,240 0 2,240 12 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE ....................................................................................................... 0 30,287 0 30,287 14 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 17,293 0 17,293 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
404 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

15 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 0 27,990 0 27,990 16 VIRGINIA CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 0 46,610 0 46,610 17 LCS CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 47,955 0 –42,600 0 5,355 

Procurement ahead of need ............................................................................ [0 ] [–42,600 ] 

18 SUBMARINE BATTERIES ............................................................................................. 0 17,594 0 17,594 

19 LPD CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 61,908 0 61,908 21 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP .................................................................... 0 15,812 0 15,812 22 DSSP EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................................... 0 4,178 0 4,178 23 CG MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................. 0 306,050 0 306,050 24 LCAC .......................................................................................................................... 0 5,507 0 5,507 25 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 0 55,922 0 55,922 26 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 96,909 0 96,909 27 CHEMICAL WARFARE DETECTORS ............................................................................. 0 3,036 0 3,036 28 SUBMARINE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM ......................................................................... 0 10,364 0 10,364 

REACTOR PLANT EQUIPMENT 

29 REACTOR POWER UNITS ............................................................................................ 0 324,925 0 324,925 30 REACTOR COMPONENTS ............................................................................................ 0 534,468 0 534,468 

OCEAN ENGINEERING 

31 DIVING AND SALVAGE EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 10,619 0 10,619 

SMALL BOATS 

32 STANDARD BOATS ...................................................................................................... 0 46,094 0 46,094 

PRODUCTION FACILITIES EQUIPMENT 

34 OPERATING FORCES IPE ............................................................................................ 0 191,541 0 191,541 

OTHER SHIP SUPPORT 

36 LCS COMMON MISSION MODULES EQUIPMENT ......................................................... 0 34,666 0 34,666 37 LCS MCM MISSION MODULES ................................................................................... 0 55,870 2 28,900 2 84,770 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
405 

Procurement ahead of need ............................................................................ [0 ] [–5,100 ] UFR: Additional MCM USV ............................................................................... [2 ] [34,000 ] 

39 LCS SUW MISSION MODULES .................................................................................... 0 52,960 0 52,960

40 LCS IN-SERVICE MODERNIZATION ............................................................................. 0 74,426 0 84,000 0 158,426 

UFR: LCS modernization for increased lethatlity ............................................ [0 ] [84,000 ] 

LOGISTIC SUPPORT 

42 LSD MIDLIFE & MODERNIZATION .............................................................................. 0 89,536 0 89,536 

SHIP SONARS 

43 SPQ–9B RADAR ......................................................................................................... 0 30,086 0 30,086 

44 AN/SQQ–89 SURF ASW COMBAT SYSTEM ................................................................. 0 102,222 0 102,222 46 SSN ACOUSTIC EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 287,553 0 27,000 0 314,553 

UFR: 3 Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical Systems ................................ [0 ] [27,000 ] 

47 UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................. 0 13,653 0 13,653 

ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

49 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE SYSTEM ............................................................... 0 21,449 0 21,449 50 SSTD .......................................................................................................................... 0 12,867 0 12,867 51 FIXED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 0 300,102 0 300,102 

52 SURTASS .................................................................................................................... 0 30,180 0 10,000 0 40,180 

UFR: 1 Additional ............................................................................................. [0 ] [10,000 ] 

ELECTRONIC WARFARE EQUIPMENT 

54 AN/SLQ–32 ................................................................................................................ 0 240,433 0 240,433 

RECONNAISSANCE EQUIPMENT 

55 SHIPBOARD IW EXPLOIT ............................................................................................ 0 187,007 0 40,000 0 227,007 

UFR: 3 SSEE Increment F and Paragon/Graywing .......................................... [0 ] [40,000 ] 

56 AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS) .............................................................. 0 510 0 510 

OTHER SHIP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

58 COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY .................................................................. 0 23,892 0 4,000 0 27,892

UFR: CEC IFF Mode 5 Acceleration .................................................................. [0 ] [4,000 ] 

60 NAVAL TACTICAL COMMAND SUPPORT SYSTEM (NTCSS) ......................................... 0 10,741 0 10,741 61 ATDLS ........................................................................................................................ 0 38,016 0 38,016 62 NAVY COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NCCS) ..................................................... 0 4,512 0 4,512 63 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ................................................................... 0 31,531 0 31,531 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
406 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

64 SHALLOW WATER MCM .............................................................................................. 0 8,796 0 8,796 65 NAVSTAR GPS RECEIVERS (SPACE) .......................................................................... 0 15,923 0 15,923 66 AMERICAN FORCES RADIO AND TV SERVICE ............................................................ 0 2,730 0 2,730 67 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP .................................................................... 0 6,889 0 6,889 

AVIATION ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

70 ASHORE ATC EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 0 71,882 0 71,882 71 AFLOAT ATC EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................... 0 44,611 0 44,611 77 ID SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 0 21,239 0 21,239 78 NAVAL MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 0 11,976 0 1,000 0 12,976 

UFR: Munitions Wholeness ............................................................................... [0 ] [1,000 ] 

OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

80 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 0 32,425 0 32,425 81 DCGS-N ...................................................................................................................... 0 13,790 0 13,790 

82 CANES ........................................................................................................................ 0 322,754 0 322,754 83 RADIAC ...................................................................................................................... 0 10,718 0 10,718 84 CANES-INTELL ............................................................................................................ 0 48,028 0 48,028 85 GPETE ........................................................................................................................ 0 6,861 0 6,861 86 MASF .......................................................................................................................... 0 8,081 0 8,081 87 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM TEST FACILITY .................................................................... 0 5,019 0 5,019 88 EMI CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION ............................................................................. 0 4,188 0 4,188 89 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 105,292 0 105,292 

SHIPBOARD COMMUNICATIONS 

90 SHIPBOARD TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................. 0 23,695 0 23,695 91 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION ...................................................................... 0 103,990 0 103,990 92 COMMUNICATIONS ITEMS UNDER $5M ..................................................................... 0 18,577 0 18,577 

SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
407 

93 SUBMARINE BROADCAST SUPPORT ........................................................................... 0 29,669 0 29,669 94 SUBMARINE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................... 0 86,204 0 86,204 

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

95 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................... 0 14,654 0 14,654 96 NAVY MULTIBAND TERMINAL (NMT) .......................................................................... 0 69,764 0 69,764 

SHORE COMMUNICATIONS 

97 JOINT COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT ELEMENT (JCSE) ............................................... 0 4,256 0 4,256 

CRYPTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT 

99 INFO SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ............................................................. 0 89,663 0 12,000 0 101,663

UFR: Crypto modernization .............................................................................. [0 ] [12,000 ] 

100 MIO INTEL EXPLOITATION TEAM ................................................................................ 0 961 0 961 

CRYPTOLOGIC EQUIPMENT 

101 CRYPTOLOGIC COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP .................................................................. 0 11,287 0 11,287 

OTHER ELECTRONIC SUPPORT 

110 COAST GUARD EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 36,584 0 36,584 

SONOBUOYS 

112 SONOBUOYS—ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 173,616 0 173,616 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

113 WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 0 72,110 0 72,110 114 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 108,482 0 108,482 

115 ADVANCED ARRESTING GEAR (AAG) ......................................................................... 0 10,900 0 10,900 116 METEOROLOGICAL EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 0 21,137 0 21,137117 DCRS/DPL .................................................................................................................. 0 660 0 660 118 AIRBORNE MINE COUNTERMEASURES ...................................................................... 0 20,605 0 20,605 119 AVIATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 34,032 0 34,032

SHIP GUN SYSTEM EQUIPMENT 

120 SHIP GUN SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 5,277 0 5,277 

SHIP MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT 

121 SHIP MISSILE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 272,359 0 272,359 122 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 73,184 0 73,184 

FBM SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

123 STRATEGIC MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIP ........................................................................ 0 246,221 0 246,221 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
408 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

124 SSN COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEMS ............................................................................. 0 129,972 0 20,000 0 149,972 

UFR: 3 Submarine Warfare Federated Tactical Systems ................................ [0 ] [20,000 ] 

125 ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 23,209 0 23,209 

OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

126 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP .................................................................. 0 15,596 0 15,596 127 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 5,981 0 5,981

OTHER EXPENDABLE ORDNANCE 

128 SUBMARINE TRAINING DEVICE MODS ....................................................................... 0 74,550 0 74,550 130 SURFACE TRAINING EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 83,022 0 83,022 

CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

131 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 5,299 0 5,299 132 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS ..................................................................................... 0 2,946 0 2,946 133 CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE EQUIP .................................................................. 0 34,970 0 34,970 134 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 2,541 0 2,541 

135 TACTICAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................. 0 19,699 0 19,699 136 AMPHIBIOUS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 0 12,162 0 12,162 137 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 2,748 0 2,748 138 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION ........................................................................................ 0 18,084 0 18,084 139 PHYSICAL SECURITY VEHICLES ................................................................................. 0 1,170 0 1,170 

SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

141 SUPPLY EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................. 0 21,797 0 21,797 143 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 5,572 0 5,572 144 SPECIAL PURPOSE SUPPLY SYSTEMS ....................................................................... 0 482,916 0 482,916 

TRAINING DEVICES 

146 TRAINING AND EDUCATION EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 0 25,624 0 25,624 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
409 

COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

147 COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 59,076 0 –7,900 0 51,176 

Consolidate requirements Navy Enterprise Resource Planning ...................... [0 ] [–4,200 ] Consolidate requirements Navy ePS ................................................................ [0 ] [–3,700 ] 

149 MEDICAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 4,383 0 4,383 151 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 2,030 0 2,030 152 OPERATING FORCES SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................. 0 7,500 0 7,500 153 C4ISR EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 0 4,010 0 4,010 

154 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 0 23,644 0 23,644 155 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 101,982 0 19,000 0 120,982 

UFR: Port Security Barriers for Ship Repair Facilities .................................... [0 ] [19,000 ] 

156 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 0 19,789 0 19,789 

OTHER 

160 NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE SERVICE ................................................................ 0 104,584 0 104,584 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

162 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 23,707 0 1,000,000 0 1,023,707 

Classified Project 0428 ................................................................................... [0 ] [1,000,000 ] 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

161 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 278,565 0 278,565 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ........................................................................ 0 8,277,789 2 1,218,069 2 9,495,858 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

1 AAV7A1 PIP ................................................................................................................ 0 107,665 0 107,665 

2 AMPHIBIOUS COMBAT VEHICLE 1.1 .......................................................................... 26 161,511 26 161,511 3 LAV PIP ...................................................................................................................... 0 17,244 0 17,244 

ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS 

4 EXPEDITIONARY FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ................................................................... 0 626 0 626 5 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT TOWED HOWITZER .................................................................. 0 20,259 0 20,259 6 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM ............................................................ 0 59,943 0 59,943 7 WEAPONS AND COMBAT VEHICLES UNDER $5 MILLION ........................................... 0 19,616 0 19,616 

OTHER SUPPORT 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
410 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

8 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 0 17,778 0 17,778 

GUIDED MISSILES 

10 GROUND BASED AIR DEFENSE .................................................................................. 0 9,432 0 9,432 11 JAVELIN ...................................................................................................................... 222 41,159 222 41,159 12 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW ............................................................................................... 0 25,125 0 25,125 

13 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-H) ................................................... 0 51,553 0 51,553 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 

16 COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (C ...................................... 0 44,928 0 44,928 

REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 

17 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 0 33,056 0 33,056

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 

20 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & ELEC) ............................................................. 0 17,644 0 20,200 0 37,844 

UFR: Night Optics for Sniper Rifle .................................................................. [0 ] [20,200 ] 

21 AIR OPERATIONS C2 SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 0 18,393 0 18,393

RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

22 RADAR SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 0 12,411 0 12,411 

23 GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR (G/ATOR) ....................................................... 3 139,167 3 139,167 24 RQ–21 UAS ................................................................................................................ 4 77,841 4 77,841 

INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

25 GCSS-MC ................................................................................................................... 0 1,990 0 1,990 

26 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 0 22,260 0 22,260 27 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 55,759 0 10,120 0 65,879 

UFR: CI and HUMINT Equipment Program ...................................................... [0 ] [10,120 ] 

29 UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS (INTEL) ............................................................................ 0 10,154 10 13,500 10 23,654 

UFR: Long Endurance Small UAS .................................................................... [10 ] [13,500 ] 

30 DCGS-MC ................................................................................................................... 0 13,462 0 13,462 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
411 

31 UAS PAYLOADS .......................................................................................................... 0 14,193 0 14,193 

OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 

35 NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE NETWORK (NGEN) .................................................. 0 98,511 0 98,511 36 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES ............................................................................ 0 66,894 0 7,104 0 73,998 

UFR: Full Spectrum Cyber Operations DMSS ................................................... [0 ] [7,104 ] 

37 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 0 186,912 0 186,912 

38 RADIO SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 0 34,361 0 34,361 39 COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS ................................................................. 0 54,615 0 54,615 40 COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT ............................................................. 0 44,455 0 44,455 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

41 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 4,214 0 4,214 

ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLES 

42 COMMERCIAL CARGO VEHICLES ............................................................................... 0 66,951 0 66,951 

TACTICAL VEHICLES 

43 MOTOR TRANSPORT MODIFICATIONS ......................................................................... 0 21,824 0 21,824 44 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ................................................................................ 527 233,639 527 233,639 

45 FAMILY OF TACTICAL TRAILERS ................................................................................ 0 1,938 0 1,938 46 TRAILERS ................................................................................................................... 0 10,282 0 10,282 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

48 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT .............................................................. 0 1,405 0 1,405 50 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 0 1,788 0 1,788 

51 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED ................................................................................. 0 9,910 0 9,910 52 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 5,830 0 5,830 53 EOD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 0 27,240 0 27,240 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

54 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 53,477 0 53,477 

GENERAL PROPERTY 

56 TRAINING DEVICES .................................................................................................... 0 76,185 0 8,879 0 85,064 

UFR: ITESS-II Force on Force Training System ................................................ [0 ] [8,879 ] 

58 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 0 26,286 0 26,286 59 FAMILY OF INTERNALLY TRANSPORTABLE VEH (ITV) ................................................ 0 1,583 0 1,583 

OTHER SUPPORT 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
412 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

60 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 7,716 0 7,716 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

62 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 35,640 0 35,640 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ................................................................... 782 2,064,825 10 59,803 792 2,124,628 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL FORCES 

1 F–35 .......................................................................................................................... 46 4,544,684 14 1,760,000 60 6,304,684 

UFR: Procure additional F–35As ...................................................................... [14 ] [1,760,000 ] 

2 F–35 (AP) .................................................................................................................. 0 780,300 0 780,300 

2a O/A-X LIGHT ATTACK FIGHTER .................................................................................. 0 0 0 1,200,000 0 1,200,000 

O/A-X Light Attack Fighter .............................................................................. [0 ] [1,200,000 ] 

TACTICAL AIRLIFT 

3 KC–46A TANKER ........................................................................................................ 15 2,545,674 2 400,000 17 2,945,674 

UFR: Procure KC–46 ........................................................................................ [2 ] [400,000 ] 

OTHER AIRLIFT 

4 C–130J ...................................................................................................................... 0 57,708 3 162,100 3 219,808 

Technical adjustments ..................................................................................... [3 ] [102,000 ] UFR: C–130J simulators .................................................................................. [0 ] [60,000 ] 

6 HC–130J .................................................................................................................... 2 198,502 1 100,000 3 298,502 

UFR: Procures HC–130s ................................................................................... [1 ] [100,000 ] 

8 MC–130J .................................................................................................................... 5 379,373 12 1,230,000 17 1,609,373 

UFR: Procure MC–130J WST ............................................................................ [0 ] [30,000 ] UFR: Procures MC–130s .................................................................................. [12 ] [1,200,000 ] 

9 MC–130J (AP) ............................................................................................................ 0 30,000 0 30,000 

MISSION SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
413 

12 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/C ............................................................................................... 6 2,695 6 2,695 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

14 TARGET DRONES ........................................................................................................ 42 109,841 42 109,841 

17 MQ–9 ......................................................................................................................... 0 117,141 0 117,141 

17a COMPASS CALL .......................................................................................................... 0 0 0 108,173 0 108,173 

Technical adjustment ...................................................................................... [0 ] [108,173 ] 

STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 

18 B–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 96,727 0 96,727 19 B–1B ......................................................................................................................... 0 155,634 0 –34,000 0 121,634 

Excess funding ................................................................................................. [0 ] [–34,000 ] 

20 B–52 .......................................................................................................................... 0 109,295 0 109,295 21 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES .................................................... 0 4,046 0 4,046 

TACTICAL AIRCRAFT 

22 A–10 .......................................................................................................................... 0 6,010 4 103,000 4 109,010 

UFR: A–10 Wings ............................................................................................. [4 ] [103,000 ] 

23 F–15 .......................................................................................................................... 0 417,193 0 417,193 24 F–16 .......................................................................................................................... 0 203,864 0 203,864 25 F–22A ........................................................................................................................ 0 161,630 0 161,630 26 F–22A (AP) ................................................................................................................ 0 15,000 0 15,000 27 F–35 MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................................ 0 68,270 0 68,270 28 INCREMENT 3.2B ....................................................................................................... 72 105,756 72 105,756 30 KC–46A TANKER ........................................................................................................ 0 6,213 0 6,213 

AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 

31 C–5 ............................................................................................................................ 0 36,592 0 36,592 32 C–5M ......................................................................................................................... 0 6,817 0 6,817 33 C–17A ........................................................................................................................ 0 125,522 0 125,522 34 C–21 .......................................................................................................................... 0 13,253 0 13,253 35 C–32A ........................................................................................................................ 0 79,449 0 79,449 36 C–37A ........................................................................................................................ 0 15,423 3 191,300 3 206,723 

UFR: Procure C–37B ........................................................................................ [3 ] [191,300 ] 

37 C–130J ...................................................................................................................... 0 10,727 0 –10,727 0 0 

Technical adjustments ..................................................................................... [0 ] [–10,727 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
414 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

TRAINER AIRCRAFT 

38 GLIDER MODS ............................................................................................................ 0 136 0 136 

39 T–6 ............................................................................................................................ 0 35,706 0 35,706 40 T–1 ............................................................................................................................ 0 21,477 0 21,477 41 T–38 .......................................................................................................................... 0 51,641 0 51,641 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

42 U–2 MODS ................................................................................................................. 0 36,406 0 36,406 

43 KC–10A (ATCA) .......................................................................................................... 0 4,243 0 4,243 44 C–12 .......................................................................................................................... 0 5,846 0 5,846 45 VC–25A MOD ............................................................................................................. 0 52,107 0 52,107 46 C–40 .......................................................................................................................... 0 31,119 0 31,119 47 C–130 ........................................................................................................................ 0 66,310 0 29,800 0 96,110 

Propulsion improvement .................................................................................. [0 ] [26,800 ] UFR: Procures AC–130J AGM–114 Cape ......................................................... [0 ] [3,000 ] 

48 C–130J MODS ............................................................................................................ 0 171,230 0 10,727 0 181,957 

Technical adjustments ..................................................................................... [0 ] [10,727 ] 

49 C–135 ........................................................................................................................ 0 69,428 0 69,428 50 OC–135B ................................................................................................................... 0 23,091 0 23,091 

51 COMPASS CALL MODS ............................................................................................... 0 166,541 0 –63,573 0 102,968 

Technical adjustment ...................................................................................... [0 ] [–108,173 ] UFR: Avionics Viability Program (AVP) upgrades ............................................ [0 ] [10,000 ] UFR: Expected disconnect in air vehicle ......................................................... [0 ] [10,000 ] UFR: Mission and support equipment ............................................................. [0 ] [24,600 ] 

52 COMBAT FLIGHT INSPECTION (CFIN) ......................................................................... 0 495 0 495 53 RC–135 ..................................................................................................................... 0 201,559 0 201,559 

54 E–3 ............................................................................................................................ 0 189,772 0 189,772 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
415 

55 E–4 ............................................................................................................................ 0 30,493 0 30,493 56 E–8 ............................................................................................................................ 0 13,232 0 13,232 57 AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM ........................................................... 0 164,786 0 164,786 58 FAMILY OF BEYOND LINE-OF-SIGHT TERMINALS ....................................................... 0 24,716 0 6,637 0 31,353 

UFR: Family of Advance Beyond Line of Sight-Terminals ............................... [0 ] [6,637 ] 

59 H–1 ............................................................................................................................ 0 3,730 0 8,500 0 12,230 

UFR: UH–1N Safety Enhancements ................................................................. [0 ] [8,500 ] 

60 H–60 .......................................................................................................................... 0 75,989 0 75,989 61 RQ–4 MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 43,968 0 39,600 0 83,568 

UFR: Replace RQ–4 TFT Antennas .................................................................. [0 ] [39,600 ] 

62 HC/MC–130 MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 0 67,674 0 67,674 

63 OTHER AIRCRAFT ....................................................................................................... 0 59,068 0 59,068 65 MQ–9 MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 264,740 0 264,740 66 CV–22 MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 60,990 0 60,990 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

67 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 0 1,041,569 0 1,041,569 

COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

68 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP ............................................................... 0 75,846 0 75,846 69 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ................................................................................. 0 8,524 0 8,524 71 T–53A TRAINER ......................................................................................................... 0 501 0 501 

POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT 

72 B–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 447 0 447 73 B–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 38,509 0 38,509 74 B–52 .......................................................................................................................... 0 199 0 199 75 C–17A ........................................................................................................................ 0 12,028 0 12,028 78 RC–135 ..................................................................................................................... 0 29,700 0 29,700 

79 F–15 .......................................................................................................................... 0 20,000 0 20,000 80 F–15 .......................................................................................................................... 0 2,524 0 2,524 81 F–16 .......................................................................................................................... 0 18,051 0 18,051 82 F–22A ........................................................................................................................ 0 119,566 0 119,566 83 OTHER AIRCRAFT ....................................................................................................... 0 85,000 0 85,000 85 RQ–4 POST PRODUCTION CHARGES ......................................................................... 0 86,695 0 86,695 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
416 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

86 CV–22 MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 4,500 0 4,500 

INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 

87 INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIVENESS .................................................................................. 0 14,739 0 14,739

88 C–130J ...................................................................................................................... 0 102,000 0 –102,100 0 –100 

Technical adjustments ..................................................................................... [0 ] [–102,000 ] 

WAR CONSUMABLES 

89 WAR CONSUMABLES .................................................................................................. 0 37,647 0 37,647 

OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES 

90 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ................................................................................. 0 1,339,160 0 1,339,160 

92 OTHER AIRCRAFT ....................................................................................................... 0 600 0 600 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

93 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 53,212 0 53,212 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................................... 188 15,430,849 39 5,139,437 227 20,570,286 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT—BALLISTIC 

1 MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQ-BALLISTIC ...................................................................... 0 99,098 0 20,000 0 119,098 

UFR: (NUC) TE Replacement Disconnect ......................................................... [0 ] [20,000 ] 

TACTICAL 

2 JOINT AIR-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE ................................................................... 360 441,367 360 441,367 3 LRASM0 ..................................................................................................................... 15 44,728 0 17,000 15 61,728 

UFR: Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) .................................................. [0 ] [17,000 ] 

4 SIDEWINDER (AIM–9X) .............................................................................................. 310 125,350 310 125,350 

5 AMRAAM .................................................................................................................... 205 304,327 205 304,327 6 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ................................................................................... 399 34,867 399 34,867 7 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ........................................................................................... 5,039 266,030 5,039 266,030 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
417 

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 

8 INDUSTR’L PREPAREDNS/POL PREVENTION .............................................................. 0 926 0 926 

CLASS IV 

9 ICBM FUZE MOD ....................................................................................................... 0 6,334 0 6,334 

10 MM III MODIFICATIONS .............................................................................................. 0 80,109 0 11,000 0 91,109 

UFR: (NUC) Upgrade Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network (MEECN) (MMPU) ................................................................................ [0 ] [11,000 ] 

11 AGM–65D MAVERICK ................................................................................................. 0 289 0 289

13 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ...................................................................... 0 36,425 0 36,425 14 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ........................................................................................... 0 14,086 0 14,086 

MISSILE SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

15 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 0 101,153 0 101,153 

SPECIAL PROGRAMS 

20 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAMS .................................................................................... 0 32,917 0 32,917

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

21 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 708,176 0 708,176 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................................................ 6,328 2,296,182 0 48,000 6,328 2,344,182 SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE SPACE PROGRAMS 

1 ADVANCED EHF .......................................................................................................... 0 56,974 0 56,974 

2 AF SATELLITE COMM SYSTEM ................................................................................... 0 57,516 0 57,516 3 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS ......................................................................................... 0 28,798 0 28,798 4 FAMILY OF BEYOND LINE-OF-SIGHT TERMINALS ....................................................... 0 146,972 0 12,528 0 159,500 

UFR: Family of Advance Beyond Line of Sight-Terminals ............................... [0 ] [12,528 ] 

5 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER SATELLITES(SPACE) ............................................................... 0 80,849 0 80,849 6 GPS III SPACE SEGMENT ........................................................................................... 0 85,894 0 85,894 7 GLOBAL POSTIONING (SPACE) ................................................................................... 0 2,198 0 2,198 8 SPACEBORNE EQUIP (COMSEC) ................................................................................ 0 25,048 0 25,048 

10 MILSATCOM ................................................................................................................ 0 33,033 0 33,033 11 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH CAPABILITY ............................................................ 0 957,420 0 957,420 12 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH(SPACE) ........................................................... 3 606,488 3 606,488 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
418 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

13 SBIR HIGH (SPACE) ................................................................................................... 0 981,009 0 73,800 0 1,054,809 

UFR: SBIRS equipment .................................................................................... [0 ] [73,800 ] 

14 SBIR HIGH (SPACE) (AP) ........................................................................................... 0 132,420 0 132,420 

15 NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM ...................................................................................... 0 6,370 0 6,370 16 SPACE MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 37,203 0 21,000 0 58,203 

UFR: Fix Enterprise Space Battle Management Command & Control (BMC2) [0 ] [21,000 ] 

17 SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM SPACE ........................................................................... 0 113,874 0 113,874 

SPARES 

18 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 0 18,709 0 18,709 

TOTAL SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .............................................................. 3 3,370,775 0 107,328 3 3,478,103 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 

1 ROCKETS .................................................................................................................... 0 147,454 0 147,454 

CARTRIDGES 

2 CARTRIDGES .............................................................................................................. 0 161,744 0 161,744 

BOMBS 

3 PRACTICE BOMBS ...................................................................................................... 0 28,509 0 28,509 

4 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 329,501 0 329,501 5 MASSIVE ORDNANCE PENETRATOR (MOP) ................................................................ 0 38,382 0 38,382 6 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .............................................................................. 10,330 319,525 10,330 319,525 7 B61 ............................................................................................................................ 30 77,068 30 77,068 8 B61 (AP) .................................................................................................................... 0 11,239 0 11,239 

OTHER ITEMS 

9 CAD/PAD .................................................................................................................... 0 53,469 0 53,469 

10 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (EOD) ................................................................... 0 5,921 0 5,921 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
419 

11 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 678 0 678 12 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................................................... 0 1,409 0 1,409 13 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 5,047 0 5,047 

FLARES 

15 FLARES ...................................................................................................................... 0 143,983 0 143,983 

FUZES 

16 FUZES ........................................................................................................................ 0 24,062 0 24,062 

SMALL ARMS 

17 SMALL ARMS ............................................................................................................. 0 28,611 0 28,611 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE .............................................. 10,360 1,376,602 0 0 10,360 1,376,602 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 

1 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 15,651 0 1,100 0 16,751 

UFR: Set the Theater initiative, PACOM .......................................................... [0 ] [1,100 ] 

CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 

2 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE ...................................................................................... 0 54,607 0 54,607 

3 CAP VEHICLES ........................................................................................................... 0 1,011 0 1,011 4 CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES ................................................................................. 0 28,670 0 28,670 

SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 

5 SECURITY AND TACTICAL VEHICLES ......................................................................... 0 59,398 0 10,610 0 70,008 

UFR: Set the Theater initiative, PACOM .......................................................... [0 ] [10,610 ] 

6 SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES .................................................................................... 0 19,784 0 19,784

FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 

7 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE VEHICLES ................................................................ 0 14,768 0 14,768 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

8 MATERIALS HANDLING VEHICLES .............................................................................. 0 13,561 0 4,200 0 17,761 

UFR: Set the Theater (StT) PACOM .................................................................. [0 ] [4,200 ] 

BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 

9 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV & CLEANING EQUIP ............................................................. 0 3,429 0 13,230 0 16,659 

UFR: Set the Theater (StT) PACOM .................................................................. [0 ] [13,230 ] 

10 BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT VEHICLES ................................................................. 0 60,075 0 449 0 60,524 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
420 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

UFR: Set the Theater (StT) PACOM .................................................................. [0 ] [449 ] 

COMM SECURITY EQUIPMENT(COMSEC) 

11 COMSEC EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................. 0 115,000 0 8,000 0 123,000 

UFR: Cyber Squadron Initiative ....................................................................... [0 ] [8,000 ] 

INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 

13 INTERNATIONAL INTEL TECH & ARCHITECTURES ...................................................... 0 22,335 0 22,335 14 INTELLIGENCE TRAINING EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 5,892 0 5,892 15 INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 34,072 0 34,072 

ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 

16 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS ................................................................... 0 66,143 0 57,200 0 123,343 

UFR: Cyber Squadron Initiative (WSCR) .......................................................... [0 ] [8,000 ] UFR: Deployable Radar Approach Control ....................................................... [0 ] [33,000 ] UFR: D-ILS Procurement .................................................................................. [0 ] [16,200 ] 

17 NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM .................................................................................... 0 12,641 0 12,641 

18 BATTLE CONTROL SYSTEM—FIXED ........................................................................... 0 6,415 0 1,400 0 7,815 

UFR: Battle Control System (BCS) Tech Refresh ............................................ [0 ] [1,400 ] 

19 THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................... 0 23,233 0 23,233 20 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST .......................................................................... 0 40,116 0 30,000 0 70,116 

UFR: Installation and Notification Warning System (INWS) (ANG) ................. [0 ] [30,000 ] 

21 STRATEGIC COMMAND AND CONTROL ...................................................................... 0 72,810 0 72,810 22 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN COMPLEX .............................................................................. 0 9,864 0 9,864 23 MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 0 15,486 0 15,486

25 INTEGRATED STRAT PLAN & ANALY NETWORK (ISPAN) ............................................ 0 9,187 0 9,187 

SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 

26 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 0 51,826 0 6,300 0 58,126 

UFR: AFSPC Cyber Request for CMF Initial Skills Training (IST) Pipeline ...... [0 ] [6,300 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
421 

27 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & CONTROL SYS ................................................................... 0 3,634 0 3,634 28 MOBILITY COMMAND AND CONTROL ......................................................................... 0 10,083 0 10,083 29 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM ................................................................. 0 201,866 0 201,866 30 COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ...................................................................................... 0 115,198 0 115,198 31 MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMM N ............................................................ 0 292 0 292 32 WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE (WAS) ............................................................................ 0 62,087 0 62,087 33 C3 COUNTERMEASURES ............................................................................................ 0 37,764 0 37,764 34 GCSS-AF FOS ............................................................................................................. 0 2,826 0 2,826 35 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE ACCOUNTING AND MGMT SYSTEM ........................................ 0 1,514 0 1,514 36 THEATER BATTLE MGT C2 SYSTEM ........................................................................... 0 9,646 0 9,646 37 AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CTR-WPN SYS ................................................................ 0 25,533 0 25,533 

AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS 

40 BASE INFORMATION TRANSPT INFRAST (BITI) WIRED ............................................... 0 28,159 0 28,159 41 AFNET ........................................................................................................................ 0 160,820 0 195,600 0 356,420 

UFR: ARAD Enterprise Software ....................................................................... [0 ] [26,000 ] UFR: Inst Processing Nodes in FY18 ............................................................... [0 ] [169,600 ] 

42 JOINT COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT ELEMENT (JCSE) ............................................... 0 5,135 0 5,135 43 USCENTCOM .............................................................................................................. 0 18,719 0 18,719 

ORGANIZATION AND BASE 

44 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 0 123,206 0 123,206 

45 COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER LOCATER ..................................................................... 0 3,004 0 3,004 46 RADIO EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 0 15,736 0 15,736 47 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 5,480 0 5,480 48 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 0 130,539 0 130,539

MODIFICATIONS 

49 COMM ELECT MODS .................................................................................................. 0 70,798 0 70,798 

PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 

51 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 52,964 0 84,700 0 137,664 

UFR: Battlefield Airman Combat Equipment ................................................... [0 ] [83,700 ] UFR: Procure Parachute Phantom Oxygen System .......................................... [0 ] [1,000 ] 

DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS HANDLING EQ 

52 MECHANIZED MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP ................................................................ 0 10,381 0 10,381 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
422 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

53 BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 0 15,038 0 15,038 54 ENGINEERING AND EOD EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 26,287 0 26,287 55 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 0 8,470 0 36,680 0 45,150 

UFR: Basic Expeditionary Airfield Resources spare requirements in support 

of the Set the Theater, PACOM ................................................................... [0 ] [36,680 ] 

56 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 28,768 0 28,768 

SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 

58 DARP RC135 .............................................................................................................. 0 25,985 0 25,985 

59 DCGS-AF .................................................................................................................... 0 178,423 0 178,423 61 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 0 840,980 0 840,980 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

62 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 16,601,513 0 16,601,513 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

64 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 26,675 0 2,930 0 29,605 

UFR: Basic Expeditionary Airfield Resources spare requirements in support 

of the Set the Theater, PACOM ................................................................... [0 ] [2,930 ] 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .............................................................. 0 19,603,497 0 452,399 0 20,055,896 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD 

42 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD ........................................................................................... 20 36,999 20 36,999 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, NSA 

41 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ............................................... 0 5,938 0 5,938 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS 

45 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS .......................................................................................... 0 10,529 0 10,529 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
423 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

7 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY ........................................................................... 0 24,805 0 24,805 8 TELEPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 0 46,638 0 46,638 

9 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 15,541 0 15,541

10 NET CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES) .......................................................... 0 1,161 0 1,161 11 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEM NETWORK .............................................................. 0 126,345 0 126,345 12 CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ..................................................................................... 0 1,817 0 1,817 13 WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATION AGENCY ................................................................. 0 45,243 0 45,243 14 SENIOR LEADERSHIP ENTERPRISE ............................................................................ 0 294,139 0 294,139 16 JOINT REGIONAL SECURITY STACKS (JRSS) .............................................................. 0 188,483 0 188,483 17 JOINT SERVICE PROVIDER ......................................................................................... 0 100,783 0 100,783 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DLA 

19 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 2,951 0 2,951 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DSS 

23 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 1,073 0 1,073 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCAA 

1 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 1,475 0 1,475 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS 

43 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS ............................................................................................ 0 9,341 0 9,341 

44 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS—CE2T2 .............................................................................. 0 903 0 903 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY 

27 THAAD ........................................................................................................................ 34 451,592 24 319,400 58 770,992 

UFR: Procures additional THAAD Interceptors ................................................. [24 ] [319,400 ] 

28 AEGIS BMD ................................................................................................................ 34 425,018 34 425,018 29 AEGIS BMD (AP) ........................................................................................................ 0 38,738 0 38,738 30 BMDS AN/TPY–2 RADARS ......................................................................................... 0 947 0 947 33 AEGIS ASHORE PHASE III .......................................................................................... 0 59,739 0 59,739 34 IRON DOME ................................................................................................................ 1 42,000 0 50,000 1 92,000 

Increase for Co-production of Iron Dome Tamir interceptors ......................... [0 ] [50,000 ] 

35 AEGIS BMD HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE .................................................................. 21 160,330 21 160,330 78 DAVID’S SLING ........................................................................................................... 0 0 0 120,000 0 120,000 

Increase to DSWS Co-production ..................................................................... [0 ] [120,000 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
424 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

79 ARROW UPPER TIER .................................................................................................. 0 0 0 120,000 0 120,000 

Increase Arrow 3 Co-production ...................................................................... [0 ] [120,000 ] 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DHRA 

3 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................... 0 14,588 0 14,588 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 

25 VEHICLES ................................................................................................................... 0 204 0 204 

26 OTHER MAJOR EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 0 12,363 0 12,363 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DODEA 

21 AUTOMATION/EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT & LOGISTICS ................................................. 0 1,910 0 1,910 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCMA 

2 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 4,347 0 4,347 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DMACT 

20 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 3 13,464 3 13,464 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

46 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 657,759 0 657,759 

AVIATION PROGRAMS 

49 ROTARY WING UPGRADES AND SUSTAINMENT .......................................................... 0 158,988 0 –13,500 0 145,488 

SOCOM requested transfer .............................................................................. [0 ] [–13,500 ] 

50 UNMANNED ISR ......................................................................................................... 0 13,295 0 13,295 

51 NON-STANDARD AVIATION ......................................................................................... 0 4,892 0 4,892 52 U–28 .......................................................................................................................... 0 5,769 1 14,800 1 20,569 

UFR: Aircraft loss replacement ........................................................................ [1 ] [14,800 ] 

53 MH–47 CHINOOK ....................................................................................................... 0 87,345 0 87,345 

55 CV–22 MODIFICATION ................................................................................................ 0 42,178 0 42,178 57 MQ–9 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE .......................................................................... 0 21,660 0 21,660 59 PRECISION STRIKE PACKAGE .................................................................................... 0 229,728 0 229,728 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
425 

60 AC/MC–130J .............................................................................................................. 0 179,934 0 179,934 61 C–130 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 0 28,059 0 28,059 

SHIPBUILDING 

62 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 0 92,606 0 –12,800 0 79,806 

SOCOM requested transfer .............................................................................. [0 ] [–12,800 ] 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

63 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M ........................................................................................... 0 112,331 0 112,331 

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

64 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 0 82,538 0 82,538 

65 DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS .............................................. 0 11,042 0 11,042 66 OTHER ITEMS <$5M .................................................................................................. 0 54,592 0 54,592 67 COMBATANT CRAFT SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 0 23,272 0 23,272 68 SPECIAL PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 0 16,053 0 16,053 69 TACTICAL VEHICLES ................................................................................................... 0 63,304 0 63,304 70 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M ........................................................................................ 0 252,070 0 252,070 71 COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 0 19,570 0 19,570 72 GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ............................................................... 0 3,589 0 3,589 73 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ......................................................... 0 17,953 0 17,953 75 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................................. 0 241,429 26 13,250 26 254,679 

UFR: Medium Precision Strike munitions ........................................................ [26 ] [13,250 ] 

CBDP 

76 CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL SITUATIONAL AWARENESS ................................................... 0 135,031 0 135,031 77 CB PROTECTION & HAZARD MITIGATION .................................................................. 0 141,027 0 141,027 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................................... 113 4,835,418 51 611,150 164 5,446,568 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 

1 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .............................................................. 0 99,795 0 99,795 

TOTAL JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .................................................. 0 99,795 0 0 0 99,795 UNDISTRIBUTED UNDISTRIBUTED 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
426 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

1 UNDISTRIBUTED ......................................................................................................... 0 0 0 1,870,600 0 1,870,600 

ERI costs transfer from OCO ........................................................................... [0 ] [1,870,600 ] 

TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ............................................................................................. 0 0 0 1,870,600 0 1,870,600 TOTAL PROCUREMENT ............................................................................................... 35,463 113,983,713 3,563 26,333,524 39,026 140,317,237 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
427 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 

4 MQ–1 UAV ................................................................................................................. 9 87,300 9 87,300 

ROTARY 

6 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN .......................................................................... 4 39,040 4 39,040 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

15 MQ–1 PAYLOAD (MIP) ............................................................................................... 0 41,400 0 41,400 

18 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP) ............................................................................ 0 33,475 0 33,475 23 EMARSS SEMA MODS (MIP) ...................................................................................... 0 36,000 0 36,000 27 COMMS, NAV SURVEILLANCE .................................................................................... 0 4,289 0 4,289 

GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 

33 CMWS ........................................................................................................................ 0 139,742 0 139,742 34 COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) .................................................. 0 43,440 0 43,440 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY .................................................................. 13 424,686 0 0 13 424,686 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 

5 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 2,927 278,073 2,927 278,073 

ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 

8 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY ..................................................................... 47 8,112 47 8,112 9 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 49 3,907 49 3,907

11 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ............................................................................... 1,542 191,522 1,542 191,522 13 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM (HIMARS ............................................. 0 41,000 0 41,000 14 LETHAL MINIATURE AERIAL MISSILE SYSTEM (LMAMS ............................................. 120 8,669 120 8,669 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
428 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

MODIFICATIONS 

18 STINGER MODS .......................................................................................................... 0 28,000 0 28,000 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ..................................................................... 4,685 559,283 0 0 4,685 559,283 PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

1 BRADLEY PROGRAM .................................................................................................. 60 200,000 60 200,000 

2 ARMORED MULTI PURPOSE VEHICLE (AMPV) ........................................................... 65 253,903 65 253,903 

MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

6 BRADLEY PROGRAM (MOD) ....................................................................................... 0 30,000 0 30,000

8 PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) .............................................................. 12 125,736 12 125,736 

14 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) .......................................................................................... 0 138,700 0 138,700 15 ABRAMS UPGRADE PROGRAM ................................................................................... 36 442,800 36 442,800 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ................................................................ 173 1,191,139 0 0 173 1,191,139 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 5 0 5 4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 121 0 121 5 CTG, 20MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 1,605 0 1,605 

7 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 35,000 0 35,000 

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982 ..................................................................... 266 23,234 266 23,234 16 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL ............................................. 0 20,023 0 20,023 

MINES 

17 MINES & CLEARING CHARGES, ALL TYPES ............................................................... 0 11,615 0 11,615 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
429 

ROCKETS 

19 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................ 0 25,000 0 25,000 20 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 0 75,820 0 75,820 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

24 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES .................................................................................................. 0 1,013 0 1,013 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ....................................................... 266 193,436 0 0 266 193,436 OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 

10 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ......................................................... 0 25,874 0 25,874 12 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK EXT SERV ............................................... 0 38,628 0 38,628 14 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP .............................................................................. 0 64,647 0 64,647 15 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED (MRAP) MODS ............................................. 0 17,508 0 17,508 

COMM—JOINT COMMUNICATIONS 

20 SIGNAL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .......................................................................... 0 4,900 0 4,900 

COMM—COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 

41 TRACTOR RIDE ........................................................................................................... 0 1,000 0 1,000 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

62 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM ............................................ 0 2,500 0 2,500 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

68 DCGS-A (MIP) ............................................................................................................ 0 39,515 0 39,515 

70 TROJAN (MIP) ............................................................................................................. 0 21,310 0 21,310 71 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) (MIP) ................................................................ 0 2,300 0 2,300 72 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING AND COLL(CHARCS) ..................................................... 0 14,460 0 14,460 75 BIOMETRIC TACTICAL COLLECTION DEVICES (MIP) .................................................. 0 5,180 0 5,180 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

80 FAMILY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITIE ............................................... 0 16,935 0 16,935 81 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES .......................................... 0 18,874 0 18,874 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 

84 NIGHT VISION DEVICES ............................................................................................. 0 377 0 37785 SMALL TACTICAL OPTICAL RIFLE MOUNTED MLRF .................................................... 0 60 0 60 87 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS ................................................... 0 57,500 0 57,500 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
430 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

93 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR) .................................................................................. 0 3,974 0 3,974 95 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM .............................................................................. 0 2,947 0 2,947 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS 

98 AIR & MSL DEFENSE PLANNING & CONTROL SYS .................................................... 0 9,100 0 9,100 

CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 

119 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS) ............................................................................... 0 3,726 0 3,726 

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

136 HEATERS AND ECU’S ................................................................................................. 0 270 0 270 

142 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 0 145 0 145 143 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM ........................................ 0 1,980 0 1,980 

MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 

148 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL ..................................................................................... 0 25,690 0 25,690 

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 

149 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS .......................................................... 0 1,124 0 1,124 

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 

153 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR ............................................................................................ 0 3,850 0 3,850 

157 HIGH MOBILITY ENGINEER EXCAVATOR (HMEE) ....................................................... 0 1,932 0 1,932 

GENERATORS 

164 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP ..................................................................... 0 569 0 569 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

168 TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM .............................................................................. 0 2,700 0 2,700 

TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT (TMD) 

173 INTEGRATED FAMILY OF TEST EQUIPMENT (IFTE) ..................................................... 0 7,500 0 7,500 

OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

176 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................... 0 8,500 0 8,500 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ....................................................................... 0 405,575 0 0 0 405,575 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
431 

JOINT IMPROVISED-THREAT DEFEAT FUND NETWORK ATTACK 

1 RAPID ACQUISITION AND THREAT RESPONSE ........................................................... 0 483,058 0 483,058 

TOTAL JOINT IMPROVISED-THREAT DEFEAT FUND ................................................... 0 483,058 0 0 0 483,058 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY OTHER AIRCRAFT 

27 STUASL0 UAV ............................................................................................................. 0 3,900 0 3,900 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

34 H–53 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 950 0 950 

35 SH–60 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 15,382 0 15,382 37 EP–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 7,220 0 7,220 47 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ..................................................................................... 0 19,855 0 19,855 51 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 75,530 0 75,530

62 QRC ........................................................................................................................... 0 15,150 0 15,150 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

64 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 18,850 0 18,850 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP & FACILITIES 

66 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................. 0 463 0 463 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 0 157,300 0 0 0 157,300 WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY STRATEGIC MISSILES 

3 TOMAHAWK ................................................................................................................ 66 100,086 66 100,086 

TACTICAL MISSILES 

7 STANDARD MISSILE ................................................................................................... 8 35,208 8 35,208 

11 HELLFIRE ................................................................................................................... 110 8,771 110 8,771 12 LASER MAVERICK ...................................................................................................... 0 5,040 0 5,040 

MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

17 ESSM ......................................................................................................................... 1 1,768 1 1,768 

GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
432 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

35 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS .................................................................................... 0 1,500 0 1,500 

TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 185 152,373 0 0 185 152,373 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 

1 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 74,021 0 74,021 2 JDAM .......................................................................................................................... 4,717 106,941 4,717 106,941 3 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 0 1,184 0 1,184 7 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ..................................................................... 0 15,700 0 15,700 8 JATOS ......................................................................................................................... 0 540 0 540 

12 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................. 0 13,789 0 13,789 13 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO ................................................................... 0 1,963 0 1,963 14 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ............................................................................... 0 765 0 765 16 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ....................................................................... 0 866 0 866 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

20 MORTARS ................................................................................................................... 0 1,290 0 1,290 23 DIRECT SUPPORT MUNITIONS ................................................................................... 0 1,355 0 1,355 24 INFANTRY WEAPONS AMMUNITION ............................................................................ 0 1,854 0 1,854 33 ARTILLERY MUNITIONS .............................................................................................. 0 5,319 0 5,319 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ........................................................ 4,717 225,587 0 0 4,717 225,587 OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT 

25 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 0 12,348 0 12,348 

SMALL BOATS 

32 STANDARD BOATS ...................................................................................................... 0 18,000 0 18,000 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
433 

SHIP SONARS 

46 SSN ACOUSTIC EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 43,500 0 43,500 

AVIATION ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

78 NAVAL MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 0 2,550 0 2,550 

OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

80 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 0 7,900 0 7,900 81 DCGS-N ...................................................................................................................... 0 6,392 0 6,392 

CRYPTOLOGIC EQUIPMENT 

101 CRYPTOLOGIC COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP .................................................................. 0 2,280 0 2,280 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

119 AVIATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 29,245 0 29,245

SHIP MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT 

121 SHIP MISSILE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 2,436 0 2,436 

OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

126 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP .................................................................. 0 31,970 0 31,970 

CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

132 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS ..................................................................................... 0 496 0 496 134 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 2,304 0 2,304 

135 TACTICAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................. 0 2,336 0 2,336 

SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

141 SUPPLY EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................. 0 164 0 164 

143 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 420 0 420 

COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

147 COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 21,650 0 21,650 152 OPERATING FORCES SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................. 0 15,800 0 15,800 154 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 0 1,000 0 1,000 155 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 15,890 0 15,890 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 2,200 0 2,200

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

161 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 1,178 0 1,178

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ........................................................................ 0 220,059 0 0 0 220,059 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
434 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS 

6 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM ............................................................ 0 5,360 0 5,360 

GUIDED MISSILES 

11 JAVELIN ...................................................................................................................... 11 2,833 11 2,833 12 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW ............................................................................................... 0 49 0 49 13 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-H) ................................................... 0 5,024 0 5,024 

REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 

17 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 0 8,241 0 8,241 

OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 

19 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 0 750 0 750 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 

20 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & ELEC) ............................................................. 0 200 0 200 

RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

24 RQ–21 UAS ................................................................................................................ 0 8,400 0 8,400 

INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

26 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 0 50 0 50 27 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 3,000 0 3,000 

OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 

37 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 0 5,777 0 5,777 38 RADIO SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 0 4,590 0 4,590 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

53 EOD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 0 21,000 0 21,000 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ................................................................... 11 65,274 0 0 11 65,274 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
435 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE OTHER AIRCRAFT 

17 MQ–9 ......................................................................................................................... 32 271,080 32 271,080 

AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 

33 C–17A ........................................................................................................................ 0 26,850 0 26,850 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

48 C–130J MODS ............................................................................................................ 0 8,400 0 8,400 

51 COMPASS CALL MODS ............................................................................................... 0 56,720 0 56,720 56 E–8 ............................................................................................................................ 0 3,000 0 3,000 62 HC/MC–130 MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 0 153,080 0 153,080 63 OTHER AIRCRAFT ....................................................................................................... 0 10,381 0 10,381 65 MQ–9 MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 56,400 0 56,400 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

67 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 0 129,450 0 129,450 

COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

68 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP ............................................................... 0 25,417 0 25,417 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................................... 32 740,778 0 0 32 740,778 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL 

6 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ................................................................................... 3,230 294,480 3,230 294,480 

7 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ........................................................................................... 2,273 90,920 2,273 90,920 

CLASS IV 

11 AGM–65D MAVERICK ................................................................................................. 0 10,000 0 10,000 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................................................ 5,503 395,400 0 0 5,503 395,400 SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE SPACE PROGRAMS 

10 MILSATCOM ................................................................................................................ 0 2,256 0 2,256 

TOTAL SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .............................................................. 0 2,256 0 0 0 2,256 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
436 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

ROCKETS 

1 ROCKETS .................................................................................................................... 0 49,050 0 49,050 

CARTRIDGES 

2 CARTRIDGES .............................................................................................................. 0 11,384 0 11,384 

BOMBS 

6 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .............................................................................. 16,990 390,577 16,990 390,577 

FLARES 

15 FLARES ...................................................................................................................... 0 3,498 0 3,498 

FUZES 

16 FUZES ........................................................................................................................ 0 47,000 0 47,000 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE .............................................. 16,990 501,509 0 0 16,990 501,509 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 

1 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 3,855 0 3,855 

CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 

4 CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES ................................................................................. 0 1,882 0 1,882 

SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 

5 SECURITY AND TACTICAL VEHICLES ......................................................................... 0 1,100 0 1,100 6 SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES .................................................................................... 0 32,479 0 32,479

FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 

7 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE VEHICLES ................................................................ 0 22,583 0 22,583 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

8 MATERIALS HANDLING VEHICLES .............................................................................. 0 5,353 0 5,353 

BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 

9 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV & CLEANING EQUIP ............................................................. 0 11,315 0 11,315 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
437 

10 BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT VEHICLES ................................................................. 0 40,451 0 40,451 

INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 

13 INTERNATIONAL INTEL TECH & ARCHITECTURES ...................................................... 0 8,873 0 8,873 15 INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 2,000 0 2,000 

ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 

16 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS ................................................................... 0 56,500 0 56,500 19 THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................... 0 4,970 0 4,970 

SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 

29 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM ................................................................. 0 3,000 0 3,000 

ORGANIZATION AND BASE 

48 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 0 55,000 0 55,000 

PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 

51 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 8,469 0 8,469 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

53 BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 0 7,500 0 7,500 54 ENGINEERING AND EOD EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 80,427 0 80,427 56 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 110,405 0 110,405 

SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 

58 DARP RC135 .............................................................................................................. 0 700 0 700 

59 DCGS-AF .................................................................................................................... 0 9,200 0 9,200 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 3,542,825 0 3,542,825 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .............................................................. 0 4,008,887 0 0 0 4,008,887 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

8 TELEPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 0 1,979 0 1,979 

18 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS NETWORK ............................................................ 0 12,000 0 12,000 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 43,653 0 43,653 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS AVIATION PROGRAMS 

46 MANNED ISR .............................................................................................................. 0 15,900 0 15,900 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
438 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

47 MC–12 ....................................................................................................................... 0 20,000 0 20,000 50 UNMANNED ISR ......................................................................................................... 0 38,933 0 38,933 51 NON-STANDARD AVIATION ......................................................................................... 0 9,600 0 9,600 52 U–28 .......................................................................................................................... 0 8,100 0 8,100 53 MH–47 CHINOOK ....................................................................................................... 0 10,270 0 10,270 57 MQ–9 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE .......................................................................... 0 19,780 0 19,780 61 C–130 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 0 3,750 0 3,750 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

63 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M ........................................................................................... 0 62,643 0 62,643 

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

64 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 0 12,000 0 12,000 

69 TACTICAL VEHICLES ................................................................................................... 0 38,527 0 38,527 70 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M ........................................................................................ 0 20,215 0 20,215 73 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ......................................................... 0 7,134 0 7,134 75 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................................. 0 193,542 0 15,900 0 209,442 

UFR: Joint Task Force Platform Expansion ...................................................... [0 ] [15,900 ] 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................................... 0 518,026 0 15,900 0 533,926 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

1 UNDISTRIBUTED ......................................................................................................... 0 0 –1,870,600 0 –1,870,600 

ERI costs transfer from OCO to base ............................................................. [0 ] [–1,870,600 ] 

TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ............................................................................................. 0 0 0 –1,870,600 0 0 UNDISTRIBUTED TOTAL PROCUREMENT ............................................................................................... 32,575 10,244,626 0 –1,854,700 32,575 8,389,926 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(439) 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 

AND EVALUATION 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
440 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND 

EVALUATION 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION. 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ......................................................................... 12,010 12,010 

2 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 263,590 10,000 273,590 

Basic research program increase .......................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

3 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 67,027 67,027 4 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH CENTERS .......................................................................... 87,395 5,000 92,395 

Basic research program increase .......................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

235 111111 UNDISTRIBUTED BASIC RESEARCH .................................................................................................. 0 10,000 10,000 

Modernizing Army capabilities and Third Offset ................................................................... [10,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 430,022 25,000 455,022 APPLIED RESEARCH 

5 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 29,640 10,000 39,640 

Strategic materials ................................................................................................................. [10,000 ] 

6 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC SURVIVABILITY .................................................................................... 35,730 35,730 7 0602122A TRACTOR HIP ................................................................................................................................... 8,627 8,627 8 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 66,086 –5,000 61,086 

General program reduction ..................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
441 

9 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 27,144 27,144 

10 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 43,742 43,742 11 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 22,785 22,785 12 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND SIMULATION ......................................................................................... 28,650 28,650 13 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................ 67,232 67,232 14 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 85,309 85,309 15 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND EQUIPMENT DEFEATING TECHNOLOGY ...................................................... 4,004 4,00416 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 5,615 5,615 17 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 41,455 41,455 18 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES ...................................................................................... 58,352 58,352 19 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 34,723 34,723 20 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 26,190 26,190 21 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 24,127 24,127 22 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 21,678 21,678 23 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 33,123 5,000 38,123 

Position, navigation, and timing technologies ...................................................................... [5,000 ] 

24 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................... 14,041 14,041 

25 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 67,720 67,720 26 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................ 20,216 20,216 27 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 39,559 39,559 28 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 83,434 83,434 

236 222222 UNDISTRIBUTED APPLIED RESEARCH .............................................................................................. 0 15,000 15,000 

Modernizing Army capabilities and Third Offset ................................................................... [15,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 889,182 25,000 914,182 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

29 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 44,863 44,863 

30 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................. 67,780 67,780 31 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................. 160,746 –20,000 140,746 

Platform design & structure systems .................................................................................... [–20,000 ] 

32 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 84,079 84,079 33 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................... 125,537 125,537 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
442 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

34 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................... 12,231 12,231 35 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................ 6,466 6,466 36 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE ................................................................................................................................. 28,552 28,552 37 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING & SIMULATION SYSTEMS .................................................................. 16,434 16,434 39 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM—TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................ 26,903 26,903 40 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL .................................................................................................................................. 4,880 4,880 41 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS ................................................................................................................................ 4,326 4,326 42 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 31,296 31,296 43 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................. 62,850 62,850 44 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE ................................................................................................................................ 12,323 12,323 45 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................... 182,331 40,000 222,331 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [40,000 ] 

46 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ....................................................... 17,948 17,948 

47 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 5,796 5,796 48 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 47,135 47,135 49 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 10,421 10,421 50 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 32,448 –5,000 27,448 

Combat engineering system ................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

51 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE AND SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ........................................ 52,206 52,206 52 0603794A C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 33,426 33,426 

237 333333 UNDISTRIBUTED ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 0 20,000 20,000 

Modernizing Army capabilities and Third Offset ................................................................... [20,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 1,070,977 35,000 1,105,977 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

53 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ............................................................................ 9,634 9,634 

55 0603327A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ...................................................................... 33,949 33,949 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
443 

56 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER—ADV DEV .............................................................................. 72,909 72,909 57 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND TARGET DEFEATING SYS—ADV DEV ..................................................... 7,135 7,135 58 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 41,452 24,450 65,902 

UFR: Munitions and CM development .................................................................................... [24,450 ] 

59 0603645A ARMORED SYSTEM MODERNIZATION—ADV DEV ............................................................................. 32,739 70,000 102,739 

UFR: Supports development of critical ground combat vehicle technologies ....................... [70,000 ] 

60 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY .......................................................................................... 10,157 10,157 

61 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM—ADV DEV ........................................................... 27,733 1,620 29,353 

UFR: Funds of the Advanced Miniaturized Data Acquisition System-Next ........................... [1,620 ] 

62 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 12,347 12,347 

63 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY—DEM/VAL ...................................................................... 10,456 10,456 64 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 2,588 2,588 65 0603801A AVIATION—ADV DEV ........................................................................................................................ 14,055 14,055 66 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ADV DEV ........................................................................ 35,333 35,333 67 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS—ADV DEV ........................................................................................................ 33,491 33,491 68 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 20,239 20,239 69 0604017A ROBOTICS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................ 39,608 5,000 44,608 

UFR: Accelerate armed Robotic Wingman development ........................................................ [5,000 ] 

70 0604100A ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................ 9,921 9,921 71 0604114A LOWER TIER AIR MISSILE DEFENSE (LTAMD) SENSOR .................................................................... 76,728 76,728 72 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 115,221 115,221 73 0604117A MANEUVER—SHORT RANGE AIR DEFENSE (M-SHORAD) ................................................................ 20,000 20,000 

74 0604118A TRACTOR BEAM ................................................................................................................................ 10,400 10,400 75 0604120A ASSURED POSITIONING, NAVIGATION AND TIMING (PNT) ................................................................ 164,967 126 165,093 

UFR: Fully funds Anti-Jam Antenna development and testing ............................................. [126 ] 

76 0604121A SYNTHETIC TRAINING ENVIRONMENT REFINEMENT & PROTOTYPING .............................................. 1,600 1,600 77 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2–INTERCEPT (IFPC2) ................................ 11,303 11,303 78 0305251A CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS FORCES AND FORCE SUPPORT ............................................................ 56,492 56,492 

79 1206308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION .............................................................................................. 20,432 20,432 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................. 890,889 101,196 992,085 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
444 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

80 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS ......................................................................................................................... 30,153 12,000 42,153 

UFR: Funds implementation of Assured Position, Navigation, and Timing (A-PNT) ............. [12,000 ] 

81 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 71,671 71,671 83 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) ........................................................................ 10,589 10,589 84 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM ...................................................................................................... 4,774 4,774 85 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE ................................................................................................................................ 17,252 13,000 30,252 

UFR: Provides the Army’s Cyber Mission Force (CMF) with classified cyber tools ............... [13,000 ] 

86 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS ......................................................................................................... 87,643 6,000 93,643 

UFR: Acceleration of qualification of XM914 and XM913 ..................................................... [6,000 ] 

87 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................................... 6,039 6,039 

88 0604611A JAVELIN ............................................................................................................................................ 21,095 21,095 89 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................... 10,507 10,507 90 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ..................................................................................................................... 3,536 3,536 92 0604642A LIGHT TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLES .............................................................................................. 7,000 7,000 93 0604645A ARMORED SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION (ASM)—ENG DEV ................................................................ 36,242 36,242 

94 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS—ENG DEV ................................................................................................ 108,504 17,500 126,004 

UFR: Develop Thermal Weapon Sights ................................................................................... [17,500 ] 

95 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, AND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 3,702 3,702 

96 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING DEVICES—ENG DEV .................................................................................. 43,575 43,575 97 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE—ENG DEV .............................................. 28,726 28,726 98 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 18,562 18,562 99 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 8,344 8,344 

100 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE SIMULATIONS (DIS)—ENG DEV ........................................................... 11,270 11,270 101 0604768A BRILLIANT ANTI-ARMOR SUBMUNITION (BAT) ................................................................................. 10,000 10,000 102 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER (CATT) CORE ........................................................................ 18,566 18,566 103 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION ...................................................................... 145,360 145,360 104 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS—ENG DEV ........................................................................................... 145,232 16,178 161,410 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
445 

UFR: 105mm Anti-Personnel / Wall Breach Ammunition ...................................................... [8,000 ] UFR: Devops the 40mm Low Velocity M320 Door Breaching cartridge ................................ [4,178 ] UFR: Testing for the Anti-Tank Confined Space Tandem Warhead ...................................... [4,000 ] 

105 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ........................................................................ 90,965 90,965 

106 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS—ENG DEV .................................................... 9,910 9,910 107 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ................................ 39,238 39,238 108 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER—ENG DEV ...................................................................................... 34,684 34,684 109 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & CONTROL HARDWARE & SOFTWARE ............................................... 164,409 164,409 110 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 32,968 32,968 111 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS) ............................................................. 49,554 49,554 112 0604823A FIREFINDER ...................................................................................................................................... 45,605 45,605 113 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—WARRIOR DEM/VAL ........................................................................................ 16,127 16,127 114 0604852A SUITE OF SURVIVABILITY ENHANCEMENT SYSTEMS—EMD ............................................................ 98,600 35,000 133,600 

UFR: Expands installation of Active Protection Systems ....................................................... [25,000 ] UFR: Modular Active Protection System ................................................................................. [10,000 ]

115 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS—EMD ............................................................................................................ 1,972 2,000 3,972 

UFR: Funds research for 55 cal tube .................................................................................... [2,000 ]

116 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 81,776 81,776 117 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A) .......................................................... 172,361 172,361 118 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLE (AMPV) .................................................................................. 199,778 199,778 119 0605029A INTEGRATED GROUND SECURITY SURVEILLANCE RESPONSE CAPABILITY (IGSSR-C) ..................... 4,418 4,418 120 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK CENTER (JTNC) ..................................................................................... 15,877 15,877 121 0605031A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK (JTN) ...................................................................................................... 44,150 44,150 122 0605032A TRACTOR TIRE .................................................................................................................................. 34,670 78,900 113,570 

UFR: Develops Offensive Cyber Operations capabilities ........................................................ [78,900 ] 

123 0605033A GROUND-BASED OPERATIONAL SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM—EXPEDITIONARY (GBOSS-E) ................. 5,207 5,207 124 0605034A TACTICAL SECURITY SYSTEM (TSS) ................................................................................................. 4,727 4,727 

125 0605035A COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) ........................................................................ 105,778 105,778 126 0605036A COMBATING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (CWMD) ................................................................ 6,927 6,927 127 0605037A EVIDENCE COLLECTION AND DETAINEE PROCESSING ..................................................................... 214 214 128 0605038A NUCLEAR BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL RECONNAISSANCE VEHICLE (NBCRV) SENSOR SUITE ............... 16,125 16,125 129 0605041A DEFENSIVE CYBER TOOL DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 55,165 55,165 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
446 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

130 0605042A TACTICAL NETWORK RADIO SYSTEMS (LOW-TIER) .......................................................................... 20,076 20,076 131 0605047A CONTRACT WRITING SYSTEM ........................................................................................................... 20,322 –20,300 22 

Consolidate requirements ....................................................................................................... [–20,300 ] 

132 0605049A MISSILE WARNING SYSTEM MODERNIZATION (MWSM) .................................................................... 55,810 155,000 210,810 

UFR: Supports Directed Requirement for Limited Interim Missile Warning System to detect Enemy (MANPADS). [155,000 ] 

133 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 30,879 30,879 134 0605052A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INC 2—BLOCK 1 ........................................................... 175,069 175,069 135 0605053A GROUND ROBOTICS .......................................................................................................................... 70,760 70,760 137 0605380A AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM (JTRS) ................................................................................... 8,965 8,965 138 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) .......................................................................................... 34,626 34,626 140 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD) ................................................................ 336,420 –200,000 136,420 

Early to need .......................................................................................................................... [–200,000 ] 

143 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION (MIP) ................................................................................... 6,882 2,500 9,382 

UFR: Funds development for Remote Ground Terminal ......................................................... [2,500 ] 

144 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH .. 23,467 23,467 145 0605830A AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 6,930 6,930 

146 0210609A PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) ..................................................................................... 6,112 6,112 147 0303032A TROJAN—RH12 ................................................................................................................................ 4,431 4,431 150 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 14,616 14,616 151 1205117A TRACTOR BEARS .............................................................................................................................. 17,928 17,928 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................. 3,012,840 117,778 3,130,618 

RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

152 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 22,862 22,862 

153 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 13,902 13,902 154 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 102,901 102,901 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
447 

155 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER ................................................................................................................... 20,140 20,140 156 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL .................................................................................................................. 246,663 4,362 251,025 

UFR: Increases funding for facilities sustainment from 75% to 83% ................................ [4,362 ] 

157 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................ 29,820 29,820 

159 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND FACILITIES .............................................................................................. 307,588 307,588 160 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND TARGETS ............................................................. 49,242 49,242 161 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 41,843 41,843 162 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................................ 4,804 4,804 163 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO RDT&E ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ 7,238 7,238 164 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 21,890 21,890 165 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN ITEMS ................................................................................................... 12,684 12,684 166 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL TESTING ............................................................................................... 51,040 51,040 167 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER ............................................................................................................. 56,246 56,246 168 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD COLLABORATION & INTEG ............................................................ 1,829 1,829 169 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................... 55,060 55,060 170 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................. 33,934 33,934 171 0605805A MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY ........................................................ 43,444 43,444 172 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT .............................................................. 5,087 5,087 173 0605898A ARMY DIRECT REPORT HEADQUARTERS—R&D—MHA ................................................................... 54,679 54,679 174 0606001A MILITARY GROUND-BASED CREW TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 7,916 7,916 175 0606002A RONALD REAGAN BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST SITE ............................................................. 61,254 61,254 176 0303260A DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION INITIATIVE ...................................................................................... 1,779 1,779 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT .................................................................................... 1,253,845 4,362 1,258,207 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

178 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 8,929 8,929 

179 0603813A TRACTOR PULL ................................................................................................................................. 4,014 4,014 180 0605024A ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 4,094 4,094 181 0607131A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS .................................................. 15,738 15,738 182 0607133A TRACTOR SMOKE .............................................................................................................................. 4,513 4,513 183 0607134A LONG RANGE PRECISION FIRES (LRPF) ........................................................................................... 102,014 42,731 144,745 

UFR: Accelerates LRPF procurement from FY25 .................................................................... [42,731 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
448 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

184 0607135A APACHE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .................................................................................. 59,977 59,977 185 0607136A BLACKHAWK PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................... 34,416 34,416 186 0607137A CHINOOK PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................ 194,567 194,567 187 0607138A FIXED WING PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................... 9,981 9,981 188 0607139A IMPROVED TURBINE ENGINE PROGRAM .......................................................................................... 204,304 204,304 189 0607140A EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FROM NIE ............................................................................................. 1,023 1,023 190 0607141A LOGISTICS AUTOMATION ................................................................................................................... 1,504 1,504 191 0607142A AVIATION ROCKET SYSTEM PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT ..................................... 10,064 8,000 18,064

UFR: Qualifies M282 for use by AH–64 aircraft ................................................................... [8,000 ] 

192 0607143A UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM UNIVERSAL PRODUCTS .................................................................. 38,463 38,463 

193 0607665A FAMILY OF BIOMETRICS ................................................................................................................... 6,159 6,159 194 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT .................................................................................................. 90,217 90,000 180,217 

UFR: Funds Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD)/Missile Segment Enhanced 

(MSE) integration.

[90,000 ] 

195 0202429A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT—COCOM EXERCISE .............................................................................. 6,749 6,749 196 0203728A JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP OPERATION COORDINATION SYSTEM (JADOCS) ....................................... 33,520 33,520 197 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 343,175 8,000 351,175 

Laser warning sensor suite .................................................................................................... [4,000 ] UFR: Accelerate the development of the M88A2E1 ............................................................... [4,000 ] 

198 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 6,639 6,639 

199 0203743A 155MM SELF-PROPELLED HOWITZER IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................... 40,784 40,784 200 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ................................................... 39,358 39,358 201 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................. 145 145 202 0203758A DIGITIZATION .................................................................................................................................... 4,803 4,803 203 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................... 2,723 26,000 28,723 

UFR: Supports research for the Stinger Product Improvement Program (PIP) ..................... [26,000 ] 

204 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS .................................................................... 5,000 5,000 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
449 

205 0203808A TRACTOR CARD ................................................................................................................................ 37,883 37,883 207 0205410A MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................. 1,582 1,582 208 0205412A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY—OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV ......................................... 195 195 209 0205456A LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD) SYSTEM ............................................................... 78,926 78,926 210 0205778A GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS) .................................................................. 102,807 102,807 213 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 13,807 21,845 35,652 

UFR: Funds Offensive Cyber capabilities development ......................................................... [21,845 ] 

214 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 132,438 132,438 

215 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 64,370 64,370 217 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................... 10,475 10,475 220 0305172A COMBINED ADVANCED APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................. 1,100 1,100 222 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ......................................................................................... 9,433 9,433 223 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 5,080 5,080 224 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 24,700 –20,000 4,700 

Change in tactical requirements ........................................................................................... [–20,000 ] 

225 0305219A MQ–1C GRAY EAGLE UAS ................................................................................................................ 9,574 9,574 226 0305232A RQ–11 UAV ...................................................................................................................................... 2,191 2,191 227 0305233A RQ–7 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 12,773 12,773 228 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED INTELLIGENCE ............................................................................................. 2,537 2,537 229 0310349A WIN-T INCREMENT 2—INITIAL NETWORKING .................................................................................. 4,723 –4,000 723 

Change in tactical requirements ........................................................................................... [–4,000 ] 

230 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ 60,877 60,877 231 1203142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT (SPACE) ...................................................................................... 11,959 11,959 232 1208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 10,228 10,228 234 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 7,154 7,154 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 1,877,685 172,576 2,050,261 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ................................................................ 9,425,440 480,912 9,906,352 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY BASIC RESEARCH 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
450 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

1 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 118,130 5,000 123,130 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

2 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ......................................................................... 19,438 19,438 3 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 458,333 458,333 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 595,901 5,000 600,901 APPLIED RESEARCH 

4 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................... 13,553 13,553 

5 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 125,557 125,557 6 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 53,936 53,936 7 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 36,450 36,450 8 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................................ 48,649 48,649 9 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 79,598 79,598 

10 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING ENVIRONMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................. 42,411 15,000 57,411 

Research vessel refit .............................................................................................................. [15,000 ] 

11 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 6,425 6,425 12 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 56,094 25,000 81,094 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [25,000 ] 

13 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 156,805 156,805 14 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................. 32,733 32,733 15 0602792N INNOVATIVE NAVAL PROTOTYPES (INP) APPLIED RESEARCH .......................................................... 171,146 –10,000 161,146 

General decrease .................................................................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

16 0602861N SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT—ONR FIELD ACITIVITIES ............................................ 62,722 62,722 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 886,079 30,000 916,079 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

19 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 26,342 26,342 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
451 

20 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 9,360 9,360 21 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION (ATD) ................................................................ 154,407 –5,000 149,407 

Futures directorate ................................................................................................................. [–5,000 ] 

22 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................... 13,448 13,448 

23 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 231,772 –5,000 226,772 

Capable manpower, enterprise and platform enablers ......................................................... [–5,000 ] 

24 0603680N MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 57,797 57,797 

25 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 4,878 4,878 27 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING EXPERIMENTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 64,889 64,889 

28 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................... 15,164 15,000 30,164 

Maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconaissance technology ..................................... [15,000 ] 

29 0603801N INNOVATIVE NAVAL PROTOTYPES (INP) ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .......................... 108,285 15,000 123,285 

Underwater unmanned vehicle prototypes ............................................................................. [15,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 686,342 20,000 706,342 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

30 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................... 48,365 48,365 

31 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY .................................................................................................................. 5,566 5,566 33 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 695 695 34 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 7,661 7,661 35 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE .......................................................................................... 3,707 3,707 36 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 61,381 61,381 37 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER MINE COUNTERMEASURES .......................................................... 154,117 –26,000 128,117 

PLUS experimentation ............................................................................................................. [10,000 ] 

Reduce Barracuda .................................................................................................................. [–16,000 ] Reduce Snakehead ................................................................................................................. [–20,000 ] 

38 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO DEFENSE ................................................................................................. 14,974 14,974 39 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 9,296 9,296 40 0603525N PILOT FISH ....................................................................................................................................... 132,083 132,083 41 0603527N RETRACT LARCH .............................................................................................................................. 15,407 15,407 42 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER ............................................................................................................................ 122,413 122,413 43 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL ................................................................................................................. 745 745 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
452 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

44 0603553N SURFACE ASW .................................................................................................................................. 1,136 1,136 45 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 100,955 100,955 46 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 13,834 13,834 47 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED DESIGN ................................................................................................. 36,891 36,891 48 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & FEASIBILITY STUDIES ...................................................................... 12,012 30,000 42,012 

Aircraft carrier preliminary design ......................................................................................... [30,000 ] 

49 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ........................................................................................... 329,500 329,500 50 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 29,953 29,953 51 0603576N CHALK EAGLE ................................................................................................................................... 191,610 191,610 52 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS) ........................................................................................................ 40,991 –7,000 33,991 

Excess program support ......................................................................................................... [–7,000 ] 

53 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ....................................................................................................... 24,674 24,674 54 0603595N OHIO REPLACEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 776,158 776,158 55 0603596N LCS MISSION MODULES ................................................................................................................... 116,871 116,871 56 0603597N AUTOMATED TEST AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 8,052 8,052 57 0603599N FRIGATE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................... 143,450 143,450 58 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS .............................................................................................................. 8,909 8,909 60 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM .................................................................... 1,428 1,428 61 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 53,367 53,367 63 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 8,212 8,212 64 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ......................................................................................................... 20,214 20,214 65 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. 50,623 50,623 66 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT ................................................................................................................ 2,837 2,837 67 0603734N CHALK CORAL .................................................................................................................................. 245,143 245,143 68 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY ........................................................................................................ 2,995 2,995 69 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE .............................................................................................................................. 306,101 306,101 70 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA ................................................................................................................................ 253,675 253,675 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
453 

71 0603751N RETRACT ELM .................................................................................................................................. 55,691 55,691 72 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN ............................................................................................................................. 48,982 48,982 74 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 9,099 9,099 75 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 33,568 33,568 76 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TESTING ........................................................................................... 29,873 29,873 77 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEMS—DEM/VAL ................................................. 106,391 106,391 78 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS ................................................................... 107,310 107,310 79 0604112N GERALD R. FORD CLASS NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER (CVN 78—80) ......................................... 83,935 83,935 81 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (TADIRCM) ....................................... 46,844 46,844 83 0604286M MARINE CORPS ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ..................................... 6,200 6,200 85 0604320M RAPID TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITY PROTOTYPE ................................................................................. 7,055 10,000 17,055 

Increase rapid acquisition capability for Marine Corps Warfighting Lab ............................. [10,000 ] 

86 0604454N LX (R) ............................................................................................................................................... 9,578 9,578 

87 0604536N ADVANCED UNDERSEA PROTOTYPING .............................................................................................. 66,543 –52,900 13,643 

Funding early to need ............................................................................................................ [–52,900 ] 

89 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ................................................................ 31,315 31,315 90 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING SUPPORT ..................... 42,851 42,851 91 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT ....................................................... 160,694 160,694 93 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT—MIP ............................................................................................... 8,278 8,278 94 0304240M ADVANCED TACTICAL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM ..................................................................... 7,979 7,979 95 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT—MIP ................................................................................. 527 527 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................. 4,218,714 –45,900 4,172,814 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

96 0603208N TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT ........................................................................................................... 16,945 16,945 

97 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 26,786 26,786 98 0604214N AV–8B AIRCRAFT—ENG DEV ........................................................................................................... 48,780 48,780 99 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................. 2,722 2,722 

100 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 5,371 5,371 101 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING ............................................................................................. 782 782 102 0604221N P–3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 1,361 1,361 103 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 14,167 14,167 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
454 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

104 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM .......................................................................................................... 55,695 55,695 105 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE ....................................................................................................................... 292,535 292,535 106 0604245N H–1 UPGRADES ................................................................................................................................ 61,288 61,288 107 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS .......................................................................................................... 37,167 37,167 108 0604262N V–22A .............................................................................................................................................. 171,386 15,000 186,386 

UFR: MV–22 Common Configuration CC-RAM improvements ............................................... [15,000 ] 

109 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 13,235 20,000 33,235 

Physiological Episode prize competition ................................................................................ [10,000 ] 

Physiological episodes ............................................................................................................ [10,000 ] 

110 0604269N EA–18 .............................................................................................................................................. 173,488 173,488 111 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 54,055 3,000 57,055 

UFR: Intrepid Tiger UH–1Y Jettison Capability ...................................................................... [3,000 ] 

112 0604273N EXECUTIVE HELO DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................... 451,938 451,938 

113 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER (NGJ) ................................................................................................... 632,936 632,936 114 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM—NAVY (JTRS-NAVY) ..................................................................... 4,310 4,310 115 0604282N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER (NGJ) INCREMENT II ........................................................................... 66,686 66,686 116 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT SYSTEM ENGINEERING ................................................................. 390,238 390,238 117 0604311N LPD–17 CLASS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ........................................................................................... 689 689 118 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB) ....................................................................................................... 112,846 112,846 119 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................... 158,578 158,578 120 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM ............................................................................................................................... 15,734 15,734 122 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE CONTROL—COUNTER AIR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ............................... 25,445 25,445 124 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER SENSORS ............................................................................................... 87,233 87,233 125 0604503N SSN–688 AND TRIDENT MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................ 130,981 130,981 126 0604504N AIR CONTROL ................................................................................................................................... 75,186 75,186 127 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 177,926 177,926 128 0604518N COMBAT INFORMATION CENTER CONVERSION ................................................................................ 8,062 8,062 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
455 

129 0604522N AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM ...................................................................... 32,090 32,090 130 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN ............................................................................................................................. 120,087 120,087 131 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 50,850 50,850 132 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ LIVE FIRE T&E ........................................................................................ 67,166 67,166 133 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 4,817 4,817 134 0604580N VIRGINIA PAYLOAD MODULE (VPM) .................................................................................................. 72,861 72,861 135 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................ 25,635 25,635 136 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 28,076 28,076 137 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 7,561 7,561 138 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, SIMULATION, AND HUMAN FACTORS ......................................................... 40,828 40,828 139 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON SYSTEMS ................................................................................................ 435 435 140 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT & CONTROL) .................................................................................... 161,713 3,000 164,713 

UFR: Ship C2 Systems for Amphibs ...................................................................................... [3,000 ] 

141 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: HARD KILL) .................................................................................... 212,412 212,412 

142 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW) ............................................................................... 103,391 103,391 143 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING ........................................................................................................... 34,855 34,855 144 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 9,353 9,353 145 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM ................................................................................................................... 92,546 92,546 146 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ................................................................................................ 152,934 91,200 244,134 

SDD plus up ........................................................................................................................... [91,200 ] 

147 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ................................................................................................ 108,931 66,700 175,631 

SDD plus up ........................................................................................................................... [66,700 ] 

148 0604810M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER FOLLOW ON MODERNIZATION (FOM)—MARINE CORPS ............................. 144,958 144,958 149 0604810N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER FOLLOW ON MODERNIZATION (FOM)—NAVY .............................................. 143,855 143,855 150 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 14,865 14,865 151 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 152,977 –35,045 117,932 

Navy ePS consolidate requirements ....................................................................................... [–11,200 ] NSIPS consolidate requirements ............................................................................................ [–23,845 ] 

152 0605024N ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 3,410 3,410 153 0605212N CH–53K RDTE .................................................................................................................................. 340,758 340,758 154 0605215N MISSION PLANNING .......................................................................................................................... 33,430 33,430 155 0605217N COMMON AVIONICS .......................................................................................................................... 58,163 58,163 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
456 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

156 0605220N SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR (SSC) ................................................................................................ 22,410 22,410 157 0605327N T-AO 205 CLASS .............................................................................................................................. 1,961 1,961 158 0605414N UNMANNED CARRIER AVIATION (UCA) ............................................................................................. 222,208 222,208 159 0605450N JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) .......................................................................................... 15,473 15,473 160 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME AIRCRAFT (MMA) ................................................................................... 11,795 11,795 161 0605504N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME (MMA) INCREMENT III ........................................................................... 181,731 181,731 162 0605611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT VEHICLES SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ......................... 178,993 178,993 163 0605813M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ..................... 20,710 20,710 164 0204202N DDG–1000 ........................................................................................................................................ 140,500 –50,000 90,500 

Unjustified cost growth .......................................................................................................... [–50,000 ] 

168 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC SYSTEMS .................................................................................................. 28,311 28,311 170 0306250M CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 4,502 4,502 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................. 6,362,102 113,855 6,475,957 MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

171 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 91,819 91,819 

172 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 23,053 23,053 173 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 52,634 13,000 65,634 

UFR: Critical infrastructure investments for major range and test facilities ...................... [13,000 ] 

174 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION ........................................................... 141 141 

175 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—NAVY ...................................................................................... 3,917 3,917 176 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES ....................................................................................................... 50,432 50,432 179 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICES ............................................................................................... 782 782 180 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ................................................................ 94,562 –5,500 89,062 

Unjustified cost growth .......................................................................................................... [–5,500 ] 

181 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 4,313 4,313 182 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ........................................................................ 1,104 1,104 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
457 

183 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT SUPPORT ............................................................................................ 105,666 105,666 184 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 373,667 373,667 185 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION CAPABILITY .......................................................................... 20,298 20,298 186 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT ............................................................ 17,341 17,341 188 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 21,751 21,751 189 0605898N MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 44,279 44,279 190 0606355N WARFARE INNOVATION MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................. 28,841 28,841 191 0902498N MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS (DEPARTMENTAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES) ......................................... 1,749 1,749 194 1206867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT ........................................................................... 9,408 9,408 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 945,757 7,500 953,257 OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

196 0607658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY (CEC) .............................................................................. 92,571 29,000 121,571 

UFR: Accelerate Tactical Data Distribution Initiative ............................................................ [18,000 ] UFR: IFF Mode 5 acceleration ................................................................................................ [11,000 ] 

197 0607700N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND AND CONTROL ................................................................................ 3,137 3,137 198 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT ............................................................................ 135,219 135,219 199 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 36,242 36,242 200 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 12,053 12,053 201 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................... 18,221 18,221 203 0204136N F/A–18 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................ 224,470 224,470 204 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS (TACTICAL) ...................................................................................... 33,525 33,525 205 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................... 24,829 24,829 206 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK MISSION PLANNING CENTER (TMPC) ................................................. 133,617 133,617 

207 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .............................................................................................. 38,972 38,972 208 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL SUPPORT UNITS (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT) .................................................. 3,940 3,940 209 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR (G/ATOR) .............................................................................. 54,645 54,645 210 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 66,518 66,518 211 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT SUPPORT ...................................................................................................... 1,155 1,155 212 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) READINESS SUPPORT ........................................................................ 51,040 51,040 213 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 87,989 10,000 97,989 

UFR: Weapons Improvement ................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
458 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

214 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS ...................................................................................................................... 89,852 89,852 215 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ............................................................................... 29,351 29,351 216 0205632N MK–48 ADCAP .................................................................................................................................. 68,553 68,553 217 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 119,099 119,099 218 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 127,445 127,445 219 0206313M MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................................. 123,825 123,825 220 0206335M COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (CAC2S) ................................................... 7,343 7,343 221 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS .................................................. 66,009 66,009 222 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT SERVICES SUPPORT ................................................................................ 25,258 25,258 223 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS (MIP) ........................................................ 30,886 30,886 224 0206629M AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT VEHICLE ....................................................................................................... 58,728 58,728 225 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES ................................................................................................................... 42,884 9,000 51,884 

UFR: Weapons Improvement ................................................................................................... [9,000 ] 

226 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) .......................................................... 25,364 25,364 232 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK ENTERPRISE SERVICES (CANES) .............................................. 24,271 24,271233 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 50,269 50,269 236 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES ..................................................................... 6,352 6,352 237 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ......................................................................................... 7,770 7,770 238 0305205N UAS INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY ..................................................................................... 39,736 39,736 239 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 12,867 12,867 240 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 46,150 46,150 241 0305220N MQ–4C TRITON ................................................................................................................................ 84,115 84,115 242 0305231N MQ–8 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 62,656 62,656 243 0305232M RQ–11 UAV ...................................................................................................................................... 2,022 2,022 245 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL UAS (STUASL0) ................................................................................... 4,835 4,835 246 0305239M RQ–21A ............................................................................................................................................ 8,899 8,899 247 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 99,020 99,020 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
459 

248 0305242M UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS (UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP) .................................................................... 18,578 18,578 249 0305421N RQ–4 MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................................... 229,404 229,404 250 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION SUPPORT ........................................................................................... 5,238 5,238 251 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ....................................................................................................... 38,227 38,227 252 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY (MARITECH) .............................................................................................. 4,808 4,808 253 1203109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (SPACE) ............................................................................................ 37,836 37,836 255 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 1,364,347 200,000 1,564,347 

Classified project 0428 .......................................................................................................... [200,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 3,980,140 248,000 4,228,140 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ................................................................. 17,675,035 378,455 18,053,490 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 342,919 342,919 

2 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 147,923 147,923 3 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................. 14,417 14,417 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 505,259 0 505,259 APPLIED RESEARCH 

4 0602102F MATERIALS ....................................................................................................................................... 124,264 124,264 

5 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES .............................................................................................. 124,678 5,000 129,678 

Hypersonic wind tunnels ........................................................................................................ [5,000 ] 

6 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................. 108,784 25,000 133,784 

Advanced training environments ............................................................................................ [25,000 ] 

7 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION ................................................................................................................ 192,695 8,000 200,695 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [5,500 ] UFR: S&T TOA to 1.9% .......................................................................................................... [2,500 ] 

8 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS ...................................................................................................................... 152,782 152,782 9 0602298F SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT— MAJOR HEADQUARTERS ACTIVITIES ....................... 8,353 8,353 

10 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 116,503 116,503 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
460 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

11 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS .............................................................................................................. 112,195 112,195 12 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................... 132,993 8,300 141,293 

UFR: S&T TOA to 1.9% .......................................................................................................... [8,300 ] 

13 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION SCIENCES AND METHODS ....................................................................... 167,818 167,818 14 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH ..................................................................................................... 43,049 43,049 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 1,284,114 46,300 1,330,414 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

15 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 37,856 37,856 

16 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) .......................................................................... 22,811 22,811 17 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS ................................................................................................... 40,978 40,978 18 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/DEMO ............................................................................................. 115,966 5,700 121,666 

UFR: S&T TOA to 1.9% .......................................................................................................... [5,700 ] 

19 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 104,499 13,500 117,999 

UFR: S&T TOA to 1.9% .......................................................................................................... [13,500 ] 

20 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 60,551 5,000 65,551 

Software engineering capabilities .......................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

21 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 58,910 15,000 73,910 

UFR: Commercial SSA consortia/testbed ............................................................................... [15,000 ] 

22 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (MSSS) ................................................................................. 10,433 10,433 

23 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 33,635 33,635 24 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 167,415 167,415 25 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 45,502 45,502 26 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 46,450 46,450 27 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................. 49,011 49,011 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 794,017 39,200 833,217 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
461 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

28 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 5,652 5,652 

30 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 24,397 24,397 31 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 3,851 3,851 33 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE—DEM/VAL ........................................................................ 10,736 10,736 34 0603859F POLLUTION PREVENTION—DEM/VAL ................................................................................................ 2 2 35 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE—BOMBER ..................................................................................................... 2,003,580 2,003,580 36 0604201F INTEGRATED AVIONICS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 65,458 35,400 100,858 

UFR: GPS Receiver Development ............................................................................................ [35,400 ] 

37 0604257F ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND SENSORS ......................................................................................... 68,719 14,700 83,419 

UFR: Hyperspectral Chip Development ................................................................................... [14,700 ]

38 0604288F NATIONAL AIRBORNE OPS CENTER (NAOC) RECAP ......................................................................... 7,850 7,850 39 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER .................................................................................................................. 3,295 3,295 40 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM (HDBTDS) PROGRAM .................................. 17,365 17,365 41 0604414F CYBER RESILIENCY OF WEAPON SYSTEMS-ACS .............................................................................. 32,253 10,200 42,453 

UFR: Cyber Security & Resiliency for Weapon Systems ......................................................... [10,200 ] 

44 0604776F DEPLOYMENT & DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE R&D .......................................................................... 26,222 26,222 

46 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 840,650 95,000 935,650 

UFR: Directed Energy Prototyping .......................................................................................... [70,000 ] 

UFR: Hypersonics Prototyping ................................................................................................. [10,000 ] UFR: Long-Endurance Aerial Platform Ahead Prototyping ..................................................... [15,000 ] 

47 0605230F GROUND BASED STRATEGIC DETERRENT ........................................................................................ 215,721 215,721 

49 0207110F NEXT GENERATION AIR DOMINANCE ................................................................................................ 294,746 147,000 441,746 

UFR: Penetrating Counter air (PCA) Risk Reduction ............................................................. [147,000 ] 

50 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG-RANGE RADAR (3DELRR) .................................................................... 10,645 10,645 52 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK EXECUTIVE AGENT (CDL EA) .......................................................................... 41,509 41,509 53 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 226,287 226,287 54 0306415F ENABLED CYBER ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................ 16,687 16,687 55 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT CONTROL ........................................................................................... 4,500 4,500 56 0901410F CONTRACTING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM ....................................................................... 15,867 –15,867 

Consolidate requirements ....................................................................................................... [–15,867 ] 

57 1203164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT) (SPACE) .......................................... 253,939 98,500 352,439 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
462 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

UFR: Military GPS User Equipment INC2 ............................................................................... [98,500 ] 

58 1203710F EO/IR WEATHER SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 10,000 10,000 59 1206422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON ........................................................................................................ 112,088 112,088 60 1206425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 34,764 34,764 61 1206434F MIDTERM POLAR MILSATCOM SYSTEM ............................................................................................ 63,092 63,092 62 1206438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 7,842 120,800 128,642 

UFR: Space Defense Force Packaging ................................................................................... [113,800 ]

UFR: Space Enterprise Defense Implementation ................................................................... [7,000 ] 

63 1206730F SPACE SECURITY AND DEFENSE PROGRAM .................................................................................... 41,385 41,385 64 1206760F PROTECTED TACTICAL ENTERPRISE SERVICE (PTES) ...................................................................... 18,150 18,150 

65 1206761F PROTECTED TACTICAL SERVICE (PTS) ............................................................................................. 24,201 24,201 66 1206855F PROTECTED SATCOM SERVICES (PSCS)—AGGREGATED ................................................................. 16,000 16,000 67 1206857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE .............................................................................................. 87,577 87,577 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................. 4,605,030 505,733 5,110,763 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

68 0604200F FUTURE ADVANCED WEAPON ANALYSIS & PROGRAMS ................................................................... 5,100 5,100 

69 0604201F INTEGRATED AVIONICS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 101,203 101,203 70 0604222F NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 3,009 3,009 71 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 2,241 2,241 72 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................ 38,250 38,250 73 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 19,739 19,739 74 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)—EMD ............................................................................................ 38,979 38,979 78 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK ...................................................................................................... 7,091 7,091 80 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 46,540 46,540 81 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 2,705 2,705 82 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT ................................................................................................................. 31,240 31,240 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
463 

84 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 9,060 9,060 85 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ............................................................................................................. 87,350 87,350 86 0604800F F–35—EMD ..................................................................................................................................... 292,947 172,000 464,947 

SDD plus up ........................................................................................................................... [172,000 ] 

88 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON ................................................................................................... 451,290 451,290 89 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................................... 178,991 178,991 90 0605030F JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK CENTER (JTNC) ..................................................................................... 12,736 12,736 91 0605031F JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK (JTN) ...................................................................................................... 9,319 9,319 92 0605213F F–22 MODERNIZATION INCREMENT 3.2B ........................................................................................ 13,600 13,600 94 0605221F KC–46 .............................................................................................................................................. 93,845 93,845 95 0605223F ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING ............................................................................................................. 105,999 105,999 96 0605229F COMBAT RESCUE HELICOPTER ........................................................................................................ 354,485 354,485 

100 0605458F AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER 10.2 RDT&E ......................................................................................... 119,745 –104,800 14,945 

Restructure of program .......................................................................................................... [–104,800 ] 

101 0605931F B–2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .......................................................................................... 194,570 194,570 102 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................. 91,237 91,237 103 0207171F F–15 EPAWSS .................................................................................................................................. 209,847 209,847 104 0207328F STAND IN ATTACK WEAPON .............................................................................................................. 3,400 3,400 105 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION TRAINING ................................................................................................... 16,727 16,727 109 0307581F JSTARS RECAP ................................................................................................................................. 417,201 417,201 110 0401310F C–32 EXECUTIVE TRANSPORT RECAPITALIZATION .......................................................................... 6,017 6,017 111 0401319F PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT RECAPITALIZATION (PAR) ........................................................................ 434,069 434,069 112 0701212F AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................. 18,528 18,528 113 1203176F COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER LOCATOR ............................................................................................ 24,967 24,967 114 1203940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS OPERATIONS .................................................................................. 10,029 10,029 115 1206421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 66,370 66,370 116 1206425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 48,448 48,448 117 1206426F SPACE FENCE ................................................................................................................................... 35,937 26,900 62,837 

UFR: Space Fence Site 1 & Ground Based Operational Surveillance System ...................... [26,900 ] 

118 1206431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM (SPACE) .............................................................................................. 145,610 145,610 

119 1206432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE) ............................................................................................................ 33,644 33,644 120 1206433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM (SPACE) ............................................................................................. 14,263 37,000 51,263 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
464 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

UFR: Fix wideband Ka Anti-jam Enhancement (KAJE) ........................................................... [37,000 ] 

121 1206441F SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD .................................................................... 311,844 12,800 324,644 

UFR: Fix upgrades Space Based Infrared System ................................................................. [12,800 ] 

122 1206442F EVOLVED SBIRS ............................................................................................................................... 71,018 71,018 

123 1206853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)—EMD ............................................ 297,572 297,572 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................. 4,476,762 143,900 4,620,662 MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

124 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 35,405 35,405 

125 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 82,874 20,000 102,874 

Advanced weapons system testing capabilities .................................................................... [15,000 ] UFR: Weapon System Cyber Resiliency-TE ............................................................................. [5,000 ] 

126 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE .............................................................................................................. 34,346 34,346 

128 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 15,523 15,523 129 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 678,289 27,400 705,689 

UFR: 4th Gen Mods ................................................................................................................ [23,000 ] UFR: Weapon System Cyber Resiliency-TE ............................................................................. [4,400 ] 

130 0605826F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL POWER ................................................................................................. 219,809 219,809 

131 0605827F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL VIG & COMBAT SYS ............................................................................ 223,179 223,179 132 0605828F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL REACH ................................................................................................. 138,556 138,556 133 0605829F ACQ WORKFORCE- CYBER, NETWORK, & BUS SYS ......................................................................... 221,393 221,393 134 0605830F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL BATTLE MGMT ..................................................................................... 152,577 152,577 135 0605831F ACQ WORKFORCE- CAPABILITY INTEGRATION ................................................................................. 196,561 196,561 136 0605832F ACQ WORKFORCE- ADVANCED PRGM TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................... 28,322 28,322 137 0605833F ACQ WORKFORCE- NUCLEAR SYSTEMS ........................................................................................... 126,611 126,611 140 0605898F MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 9,154 9,154 141 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................... 135,507 135,507 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
465 

142 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT ........................................................ 28,720 28,720 143 0606017F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND MATURATION ................................................................................. 35,453 100,000 135,453 

UFR: Modeling and Simulation Joint Simulation Environment .............................................. [70,000 ] UFR:AS2030 Planning for Development ................................................................................. [30,000 ] 

146 0308602F ENTEPRISE INFORMATION SERVICES (EIS) ...................................................................................... 29,049 29,049 

147 0702806F ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 14,980 14,980 148 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING ................................................................................................................ 1,434 1,434 150 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................. 4,569 4,569 151 1206116F SPACE TEST AND TRAINING RANGE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 25,773 25,773 152 1206392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER (SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE ........................................................... 169,887 169,887 153 1206398F SPACE & MISSILE SYSTEMS CENTER—MHA ................................................................................... 9,531 9,531 154 1206860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH PROGRAM (SPACE) .............................................................................. 20,975 13,300 34,275 

UFR: Rocket System Launch Program (RSLP) ........................................................................ [13,300 ] 

155 1206864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP) .......................................................................................................... 25,398 25,398 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 2,663,875 160,700 2,824,575 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

157 0604222F NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 27,579 27,579 

158 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE FLIGHT TRAINING .......................................................................... 5,776 5,776 159 0604445F WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE .............................................................................................................. 16,247 16,247 161 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS) .............................................................. 21,915 –21,915 

Consolidate requirements ....................................................................................................... [–21,915 ] 

162 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY EXECUTIVE AGENCY ............................................................................ 33,150 33,150 163 0605117F FOREIGN MATERIEL ACQUISITION AND EXPLOITATION ..................................................................... 66,653 66,653 164 0605278F HC/MC–130 RECAP RDT&E ............................................................................................................. 38,579 38,579 165 0606018F NC3 INTEGRATION ............................................................................................................................ 12,636 12,636 166 0101113F B–52 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 111,910 111,910 167 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ......................................................................................... 463 463 168 0101126F B–1B SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 62,471 62,471 169 0101127F B–2 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................. 193,108 193,108 170 0101213F MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS ................................................................................................................. 210,845 210,845 

Requested transfer: Ground and Comms Equipment ............................................................ [–20,000 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
466 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Requested transfer: ICBM Cryptography Upgrade II .............................................................. [20,000 ] 

171 0101313F INTEGRATED STRATEGIC PLANNING AND ANALYSIS NETWORK (ISPAN)—USSTRATCOM ................. 25,736 25,736 173 0101316F WORLDWIDE JOINT STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS .......................................................................... 6,272 4,000 10,272 

UFR: NC3—Global Assured Communications CBA Execution ............................................... [4,000 ] 

174 0101324F INTEGRATED STRATEGIC PLANNING & ANALYSIS NETWORK ............................................................ 11,032 11,032 

176 0102110F UH–1N REPLACEMENT PROGRAM .................................................................................................... 108,617 108,617 177 0102326F REGION/SECTOR OPERATION CONTROL CENTER MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ................................ 3,347 3,347 179 0205219F MQ–9 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 201,394 201,394 182 0207131F A–10 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 17,459 17,459 183 0207133F F–16 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................ 246,578 25,000 271,578 

UFR: F–16 MIDS-JTRS ............................................................................................................. [25,000 ] 

184 0207134F F–15E SQUADRONS .......................................................................................................................... 320,271 320,271 185 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE SUPPRESSION ............................................................................................. 15,106 15,106 186 0207138F F–22A SQUADRONS .......................................................................................................................... 610,942 610,942 187 0207142F F–35 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................ 334,530 334,530 188 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES ................................................................................................................... 34,952 20,000 54,952 

Pulsed rocket motor technologies .......................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

189 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) .......................................................... 61,322 61,322 191 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE—PARARESCUE .................................................................................................... 693 693 193 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS PROCUREMENT ................................................................................. 1,714 1,714 194 0207253F COMPASS CALL ................................................................................................................................ 14,040 20,200 34,240 

UFR: Baseline 3 (BL3) Advanced Radar Countermeasure System ........................................ [20,200 ] 

195 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................. 109,243 109,243 

197 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM) ...................................................................... 29,932 29,932 198 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CENTER (AOC) ...................................................................................... 26,956 26,956 199 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING CENTER (CRC) ..................................................................................... 2,450 2,450 200 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS) ................................................................... 151,726 151,726 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
467 

201 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 3,656 3,656 203 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM ACTIVITIES ............................................................................ 13,420 13,420 204 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL PARTY-MOD .............................................................................................. 10,623 10,623 205 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK ............................................................................................................. 1,754 1,754 206 0207452F DCAPES ............................................................................................................................................ 17,382 17,382 207 0207573F NATIONAL TECHNICAL NUCLEAR FORENSICS ................................................................................... 2,307 2,307 208 0207590F SEEK EAGLE ..................................................................................................................................... 25,397 25,397 209 0207601F USAF MODELING AND SIMULATION .................................................................................................. 10,175 10,175 210 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION CENTERS ........................................................................................ 12,839 12,839 211 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND EXERCISES ........................................................................................ 4,190 4,190 212 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................... 85,531 85,531 213 0208007F TACTICAL DECEPTION ....................................................................................................................... 3,761 3,761 214 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS ...................................................................................... 35,693 35,693 215 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS ...................................................................................... 20,964 20,964 218 0301017F GLOBAL SENSOR INTEGRATED ON NETWORK (GSIN) ....................................................................... 3,549 3,549 219 0301112F NUCLEAR PLANNING AND EXECUTION SYSTEM (NPES) ................................................................... 4,371 4,371 227 0301401F AIR FORCE SPACE AND CYBER NON-TRADITIONAL ISR FOR BATTLESPACE AWARENESS ............... 3,721 3,721 228 0302015F E–4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC) ............................................................. 35,467 35,467 230 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) .................................... 48,841 48,841 

Requested transfer: Global ASNT Incr 2 and CVR ................................................................ [–21,100 ] Requested transfer: Global ASNT Increment 1 ...................................................................... [21,100 ] 

231 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 42,973 42,973 232 0303141F GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 105 105 233 0303142F GLOBAL FORCE MANAGEMENT—DATA INITIATIVE ........................................................................... 2,147 2,147 236 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................................ 121,948 121,948 237 0304310F COMMERCIAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 3,544 3,544 240 0305020F CCMD INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 1,542 1,542 241 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (GATM) ................................................................................... 4,453 4,453 243 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE ........................................................................................................................... 26,654 26,654 244 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, APPROACH, AND LANDING SYSTEM (ATCALS) ........................................... 6,306 6,306 245 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS .............................................................................................................................. 21,295 21,295 248 0305128F SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 415 415 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
468 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

250 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................... 3,867 3,867 257 0305202F DRAGON U–2 ................................................................................................................................... 34,486 34,486 259 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 4,450 4,450 260 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 14,269 14,269 261 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 27,501 27,501 262 0305220F RQ–4 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 214,849 214,849 263 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC COLLABORATIVE TARGETING ............................................................................ 18,842 18,842 265 0305238F NATO AGS ......................................................................................................................................... 44,729 44,729 266 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS ENTERPRISE ..................................................................................................... 26,349 26,349 269 0305600F INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ARCHITECTURES .............................................. 3,491 3,491 271 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION ............................................................................................................. 4,899 4,899 275 0305984F PERSONNEL RECOVERY COMMAND & CTRL (PRC2) ....................................................................... 2,445 2,445 276 0307577F INTELLIGENCE MISSION DATA (IMD) ................................................................................................ 8,684 8,684 278 0401115F C–130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON .............................................................................................................. 10,219 10,219 279 0401119F C–5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS (IF) ......................................................................................................... 22,758 22,758 280 0401130F C–17 AIRCRAFT (IF) ......................................................................................................................... 34,287 34,287 281 0401132F C–130J PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................ 26,821 –6,400 20,421 

Available prior year funds ...................................................................................................... [–6,400 ] 

282 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM) ....................................................................... 5,283 5,283 283 0401218F KC–135S .......................................................................................................................................... 9,942 9,942 284 0401219F KC–10S ............................................................................................................................................ 7,933 7,933 285 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT ...................................................................................................... 6,681 6,681 286 0401318F CV–22 .............................................................................................................................................. 22,519 14,000 36,519 

UFR: CV–22 Aircraft Survivability and Availability ............................................................... [7,000 ] UFR: CV–22 Integrated Modula Avionics ............................................................................... [7,000 ] 

287 0401840F AMC COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM ......................................................................................... 3,510 3,510 

288 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT CONTROL ........................................................................................... 8,090 8,090 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
469 

289 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ....................................................................................................... 1,528 1,528 290 0708055F MAINTENANCE, REPAIR & OVERHAUL SYSTEM ................................................................................ 31,677 31,677 291 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT) .............................................................................. 33,344 33,344 292 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 9,362 9,362 293 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING .................................................................................................................. 2,074 2,074 294 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 107 107 295 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY ........................................................................................... 2,006 2,006 296 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 3,780 3,780 297 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION .......................................................................................................... 7,472 7,472 298 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND ANALYSIS AGENCY .................................................................................. 1,563 1,563 299 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 91,211 91,211300 1201921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO STRATCOM—SPACE ACTIVITIES .................................................................. 14,255 14,255 301 1202247F AF TENCAP ....................................................................................................................................... 31,914 31,914 302 1203001F FAMILY OF ADVANCED BLOS TERMINALS (FAB-T) ........................................................................... 32,426 32,426 303 1203110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK (SPACE) ......................................................................................... 18,808 18,808 305 1203165F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (SPACE AND CONTROL SEGMENTS) ................................ 10,029 10,029 306 1203173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST AND EVALUATION CENTER .................................................................... 25,051 40,000 65,051 

UFR: Space Enterprise Defense Implementation ................................................................... [40,000 ] 

307 1203174F SPACE INNOVATION, INTEGRATION AND RAPID TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................ 11,390 11,390 308 1203179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE (IBS) ........................................................................................ 8,747 8,747 

309 1203182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM (SPACE) ................................................................................................ 10,549 10,549 310 1203265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT .................................................................................................................. 243,435 40,300 283,735 

UFR: GPS satellite simulator (GSS) ....................................................................................... [40,300 ] 

311 1203400F SPACE SUPERIORITY INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................................ 12,691 12,691 312 1203614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 99,455 48,500 147,955 

UFR: Space Enterprise Defense Implementation ................................................................... [48,500 ] 

313 1203620F NATIONAL SPACE DEFENSE CENTER ................................................................................................ 18,052 68,000 86,052 

UFR: Fix Enterprise Space BMC2 ........................................................................................... [68,000 ] 

314 1203699F SHARED EARLY WARNING (SEW) ..................................................................................................... 1,373 1,373 315 1203906F NCMC—TW/AA SYSTEM ................................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 316 1203913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM (SPACE) ............................................................................................... 31,508 31,508 317 1203940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS OPERATIONS .................................................................................. 99,984 40,800 140,784 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
470 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

UFR: Space Fence Site 1 & Ground Based Operational Surveillance System ...................... [40,800 ] 

318 1206423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM III—OPERATIONAL CONTROL SEGMENT ......................................... 510,938 510,938 320 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 14,938,002 36,000 14,974,002 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [36,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 20,585,302 328,485 20,913,787 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ..................................................................... 34,914,359 1,224,318 36,138,677 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH ................................................................................................................... 37,201 37,201 2 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 432,347 432,347 3 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES ......................................................................................................... 40,612 40,612 4 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH SCIENCE ....................................................................... 43,126 43,126 

5 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 74,298 25,000 99,298 

Evidence based military child STEM education ..................................................................... [5,000 ] Manufacturing Engineering Education Program .................................................................... [20,000 ] 

6 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY INSTITUTIONS .............................. 25,865 2,000 27,865 

STEM support for minority women ......................................................................................... [2,000 ] 

7 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 43,898 43,898 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 697,347 27,000 724,347 APPLIED RESEARCH 

8 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 19,111 19,111 9 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 109,360 109,360 

11 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH PROGRAM ................................................................................. 49,748 49,748 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
471 

12 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF S&T PRIORITIES ................................................ 49,226 49,226 13 0602303E INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 392,784 392,784 14 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE ...................................................................................................... 13,014 13,014 15 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 201,053 201,053 16 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 14,775 14,775 17 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 343,776 –15,000 328,776 

General decrease .................................................................................................................... [–15,000 ] 

18 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 224,440 224,440 19 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 295,447 –10,000 285,447 

Unjustified growth .................................................................................................................. [–10,000 ] 

20 0602718BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION APPLIED RESEARCH ................................................ 157,908 157,908 21 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED RESEARCH ..................................................... 8,955 8,955 22 1160401BB SOF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 34,493 34,493 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 1,914,090 –25,000 1,889,090 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

23 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 25,627 25,627 

24 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ........................................................................... 76,230 76,230 25 0603133D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTING ..................................................................................................... 24,199 24,199 26 0603160BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................ 268,607 268,607 27 0603176C ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 12,996 12,996 29 0603178C WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 5,495 5,495 31 0603180C ADVANCED RESEARCH ..................................................................................................................... 20,184 20,184 32 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 18,662 18,662 35 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 155,406 155,406 36 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................ 247,435 247,435 37 0603288D8Z ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................................................. 13,154 –5,000 8,154 

General decrease .................................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

38 0603289D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS ......................................................................... 37,674 37,674 39 0603291D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS—MHA ............................................................. 15,000 15,000 40 0603294C COMMON KILL VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 252,879 252,879 41 0603342D8W DEFENSE INNOVATION UNIT EXPERIMENTAL (DIUX) ........................................................................ 29,594 29,594 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
472 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

42 0603375D8Z TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ............................................................................................................... 59,863 59,863 43 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................. 145,359 145,359 44 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH .............................................................................................................................. 171,120 171,120 45 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 14,389 14,389 46 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................................ 105,871 105,871 47 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITIES ................................................................................ 12,661 12,661 48 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ..................................... 136,159 55,000 191,159 

Improve productivity of defense industrial base ................................................................... [20,000 ] Partnership between MEP centers and Manufacturing USA Institutes ................................. [15,000 ] Manufacturing USA institutes ................................................................................................ [20,000 ] 

49 0603680S MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 40,511 40,511 50 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 57,876 57,876 51 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 10,611 10,611 53 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ....................................................................... 71,832 10,000 81,832 

Readiness increase ................................................................................................................. [10,000 ] 

54 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT ................................................. 219,803 80,000 299,803 

Supply chain assurance ......................................................................................................... [80,000 ] 

55 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 6,349 6,349 56 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES ....................................................................................... 79,173 79,173 57 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................ 106,787 106,787 58 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................... 439,386 439,386 59 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 210,123 210,123 60 0603769D8Z DISTRIBUTED LEARNING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 11,211 11,211 

62 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE ................................................................................................ 15,047 15,047 63 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL PROJECTS .............................................................................................. 69,203 69,203 64 0603833D8Z ENGINEERING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 25,395 25,395 65 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 89,586 89,586 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
473 

66 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT ......................................................................... 38,403 10,000 48,403 

Readiness increase ................................................................................................................. [10,000 ] 

67 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................... 33,382 33,382 68 1160402BB SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 72,605 72,605 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 3,445,847 150,000 3,595,847 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES 

69 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P .......................... 32,937 32,937 70 0603600D8Z WALKOFF .......................................................................................................................................... 101,714 101,714 

72 0603821D8Z ACQUISITION ENTERPRISE DATA & INFORMATION SERVICES .......................................................... 2,198 2,198 73 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ................................................ 54,583 10,000 64,583 

Readiness increase ................................................................................................................. [10,000 ] 

74 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT ......................................................... 230,162 230,162 75 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT ...................................................... 828,097 21,996 850,093 

UFR: Discrimination ................................................................................................................ [21,996 ] 

76 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—DEM/VAL ........................................................ 148,518 148,518 

77 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSORS ........................................................................................... 247,345 57,862 305,207 

UFR: Discrimination ................................................................................................................ [57,862 ] 

78 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................. 449,442 29,444 478,886 

UFR: Discrimination ................................................................................................................ [23,342 ] 

UFR: High Fidelity Modeling and Simulation ......................................................................... [6,102 ] 

79 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS—MDA ............................................................................................................. 320,190 320,190 

80 0603892C AEGIS BMD ....................................................................................................................................... 852,052 852,052 83 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND AND CONTROL, BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND 

COMMUNICATI.

430,115 430,115 

84 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT ........................................................... 48,954 48,954 85 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS CENTER (MDIOC) ................................................ 53,265 53,265 86 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH ........................................................................................................................ 9,113 9,113 87 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR (SBX) .................................................................................................. 130,695 130,695 88 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 105,354 268,450 373,804 

Arrow ....................................................................................................................................... [71,460 ] 

Arrow Upper Tier flight test ................................................................................................... [105,000 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
474 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Arrow-Upper Tier ..................................................................................................................... [28,140 ] David’s Sling .......................................................................................................................... [63,850 ] 

89 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST .................................................................................................. 305,791 305,791 90 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TARGETS ............................................................................................ 410,425 410,425 91 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING ................................................................................................................ 10,837 10,837 92 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE ........................................................................................................................ 10,740 10,740 93 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CORROSION PROGRAM ......................................................................... 3,837 10,000 13,837 

DOD Corrosion Program .......................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

94 0604115C TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 128,406 128,406 95 0604132D8Z MISSILE DEFEAT PROJECT ................................................................................................................ 98,369 98,369 96 0604181C HYPERSONIC DEFENSE ..................................................................................................................... 75,300 75,300 97 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES .......................................................................................... 1,175,832 1,175,832 98 0604294D8Z TRUSTED & ASSURED MICROELECTRONICS .................................................................................... 83,626 83,626 99 0604331D8Z RAPID PROTOTYPING PROGRAM ....................................................................................................... 100,000 100,000 

100 0604342D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY OFFSET ....................................................................................................... 0 200,000 200,000 

Directed energy ....................................................................................................................... [200,000 ] 

101 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) UNMANNED SYSTEM COMMON DEVELOPMENT ......................... 3,967 3,967 102 0604682D8Z WARGAMING AND SUPPORT FOR STRATEGIC ANALYSIS (SSA) ........................................................ 3,833 3,833 104 0604826J JOINT C5 CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT, INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY ASSESSMENTS ........ 23,638 23,638 105 0604873C LONG RANGE DISCRIMINATION RADAR (LRDR) ............................................................................... 357,659 357,659 106 0604874C IMPROVED HOMELAND DEFENSE INTERCEPTORS ............................................................................ 465,530 80,000 545,530 

UFR: C3 Booster Development ............................................................................................... [80,000 ] 

107 0604876C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT TEST ................................................ 36,239 36,239 108 0604878C AEGIS BMD TEST .............................................................................................................................. 134,468 26,351 160,819 

UFR: Anti-Air Warfare Capability ............................................................................................ [26,351 ] 

109 0604879C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSOR TEST .................................................................................... 84,239 84,239 110 0604880C LAND-BASED SM–3 (LBSM3) ........................................................................................................... 30,486 67,275 97,761 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
475 

UFR: Anti-Air Warfare Capability ............................................................................................ [67,275 ] 

111 0604881C AEGIS SM–3 BLOCK IIA CO-DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................... 9,739 9,739 112 0604887C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE SEGMENT TEST ............................................................. 76,757 76,757 113 0604894C MULTI-OBJECT KILL VEHICLE ........................................................................................................... 6,500 6,500 114 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM ............................................................... 2,902 2,902 115 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................ 986 986 116 1206893C SPACE TRACKING & SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 34,907 34,907 117 1206895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS .............................................................. 16,994 27,500 44,494 

UFR: Space Based Sensor ...................................................................................................... [27,500 ] 

262 888888 GROUND-LAUNCHED INTERMEDIATE RANGE MISSILE ...................................................................... 0 65,000 65,000 

Ground-Launched Intermediate Range Missile ...................................................................... [65,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES ......................................... 7,736,741 863,878 8,600,619 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION 

118 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD .............................. 12,536 12,536 119 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 201,749 201,749 

120 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—EMD ............................................................... 406,789 406,789 122 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (JTIDS) ....................................................... 15,358 15,358 123 0605000BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 6,241 6,241 124 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 12,322 12,322 125 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL SECURITY INITIATIVE ................................................................................ 4,893 4,893 126 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 3,162 3,162 127 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 21,353 –2,000 19,353 

Find COTS solution ................................................................................................................. [–2,000 ] 

128 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................ 6,266 6,266 129 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND INTEGRATION .................................................................................................... 2,810 2,810 130 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY INITIATIVES (DAI)—FINANCIAL SYSTEM ............................................................. 24,436 24,436 

131 0605090S DEFENSE RETIRED AND ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM (DRAS) .............................................................. 13,475 13,475 133 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES ........................................................... 11,870 –11,870 

Consolidate requirements ....................................................................................................... [–11,870 ] 

134 0605294D8Z TRUSTED & ASSURED MICROELECTRONICS .................................................................................... 61,084 61,084 135 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 2,576 2,576 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
476 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

136 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (EEIM) .................................................... 3,669 3,669 137 0305310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................... 8,230 8,230

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ............................................................. 818,819 –13,870 804,949 MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

138 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS) ......................................................................... 6,941 6,941 

139 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................. 4,851 4,851 140 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP) .......................................... 211,325 211,325 

141 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS ................................................................................................... 30,144 100,000 130,144 

Classified assessment ............................................................................................................ [100,000 ] 

142 0605001E MISSION SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................... 63,769 63,769 143 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC) .............................................................. 91,057 91,057 144 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 22,386 22,386 145 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO) ...................................... 36,581 36,581 147 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ................................................................................................................... 37,622 37,622 148 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—OSD ........................................................................................ 5,200 5,200 149 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL SECURITY ........................................................................................ 5,232 5,232 150 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION ............................................................ 12,583 12,583 151 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD (INTELLIGENCE) .................................................................................. 31,451 31,451 152 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 104,348 104,348 161 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER .... 2,372 2,372 162 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 24,365 24,365 163 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC) ....................................................................... 54,145 54,145 164 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND EVALUATION .............................................. 30,356 30,356 165 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................ 20,571 5,000 25,571 

Software testing capabilities ................................................................................................. [5,000 ] 

166 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 14,017 14,017 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
477 

167 0605998KA MANAGEMENT HQ—DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC) ...................................... 4,187 4,187 168 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS .......................................................................................... 3,992 3,992 169 0606225D8Z ODNA TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCE ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 1,000 1,000 170 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS SECURITY INITIATIVE (DOSI) ....................................................................... 2,551 2,551 171 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 7,712 7,712 174 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION OPERATIONS (IO) CAPABILITIES .......................................................... 673 673 175 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE (DMDPO) .......................................................... 1,006 1,006 177 0305172K COMBINED ADVANCED APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................. 16,998 16,998 180 0305245D8Z INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES AND INNOVATION INVESTMENTS ........................................................ 18,992 18,992 181 0306310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT .......................................................................... 1,231 1,231 183 0804767J COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT AND TRAINING TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2)—MHA ..................... 44,500 44,500 184 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ—MDA ................................................................................................................. 29,947 29,947 186 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 63,312 63,312 187 0903235K JOINT SERVICE PROVIDER (JSP) ...................................................................................................... 5,113 5,113 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 1,010,530 105,000 1,115,530 OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

188 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY SYSTEM (ESS) ............................................................................................ 4,565 4,565 

189 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH (RIO) AND PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE INFORMATION MANA 1,871 1,871 190 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE SHARED INFORMATION SYSTEM (OHASIS) ....................... 298 298 191 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT ............................................................ 10,882 10,882 192 0607310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 7,222 7,222 193 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY COOPERATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-TSCMIS) .. 14,450 14,450 194 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT) .......................... 45,677 45,677 195 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID SYSTEM (PDAS) ............................................................................... 3,037 3,037 196 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY .................................................................................................................... 59,490 59,490 198 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION INFORMATION SHARING ........................................................................... 6,104 6,104 202 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT ................................................................ 1,863 1,863 203 0302019K DEFENSE INFO INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING AND INTEGRATION ............................................... 21,564 21,564 204 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS—DCS ............................................................................................. 15,428 15,428 205 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) .................................... 15,855 15,855 206 0303135G PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE (PKI) ............................................................................................... 4,811 4,811 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
478 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

207 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI) .................................................................................... 33,746 33,746 208 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 9,415 9,415 209 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 227,652 227,652 210 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................................... 42,687 42,687 211 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................... 8,750 8,750 214 0303228K JOINT INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT (JIE) ........................................................................................ 4,689 4,689 216 0303430K FEDERAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ................................................... 50,000 50,000 222 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................ 1,686 1,686 227 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................. 6,526 6,526 228 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY ............................................................................................................................... 18,455 18,455 230 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 5,496 5,496 233 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 3,049 3,049 236 0305327V INSIDER THREAT .............................................................................................................................. 5,365 5,365 237 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM .............................................................. 2,071 2,071 243 0307577D8Z INTELLIGENCE MISSION DATA (IMD) ................................................................................................ 13,111 13,111 245 0708012S PACIFIC DISASTER CENTERS ............................................................................................................ 1,770 1,770 246 0708047S DEFENSE PROPERTY ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM .............................................................................. 2,924 2,924 248 1105219BB MQ–9 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 37,863 13,000 50,863 

MQ–9 Capability Enhancement .............................................................................................. [13,000 ] 

251 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................... 259,886 13,500 273,386 

SOCOM requested transfer ..................................................................................................... [13,500 ] 

252 1160405BB INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 8,245 8,245 253 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ........................................................................................................ 79,455 16,000 95,455 

UFR: Enhanced Precision Strike ............................................................................................. [16,000 ] 

254 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................... 45,935 45,935 255 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................ 1,978 1,978 256 1160434BB UNMANNED ISR ................................................................................................................................ 31,766 31,766 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
479 

257 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................................. 2,578 2,578 258 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 42,315 18,100 60,415 

SOCOM requested transfer ..................................................................................................... [12,800 ] UFR: Develop Dry Combat Submersible ................................................................................. [5,300 ] 

259 1160489BB GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 4,661 4,661 

260 1160490BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................ 12,049 12,049 261 1203610K TELEPORT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................ 642 642 262 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 3,689,646 3,689,646 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 4,867,528 60,600 4,928,128 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW .................................................................... 20,490,902 1,167,608 21,658,510 OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

1 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 83,503 83,503 

2 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 59,500 59,500 3 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES .............................................................................. 67,897 67,897 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 210,900 0 210,900 

TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE ................................................................................ 210,900 210,900 UNDISTRIBUTED UNDISTRIBUTED 

999 999999 UNDISTRIBUTED ............................................................................................................................... 0 64,100 64,100 

ERI costs transfer from OCO to base .................................................................................... [64,100 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ............................................................................................................. 0 64,100 64,100 TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED .................................................................................................................... 0 64,100 64,100 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
480 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TOTAL RDT&E ................................................................................................................................... 82,716,636 3,315,393 86,032,029 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
481 

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

55 0603327A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ......................................................................... 15,000 15,000 

60 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY ............................................................................................. 3,000 3,000 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ................................................ 18,000 0 18,000 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

122 0605032A TRACTOR TIRE .................................................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 

125 0605035A COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) ........................................................................... 21,540 21,540 133 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 30,100 30,100 147 0303032A TROJAN—RH12 .................................................................................................................................. 1,200 1,200 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................... 57,840 0 57,840 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

203 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .............................................................. 15,000 15,000 

222 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................... 7,492 7,492 223 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 15,000 15,000 228 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................................ 6,036 6,036 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 43,528 0 43,528 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY .................................................................. 119,368 0 119,368 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
482 

SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

41 0603527N RETRACT LARCH ................................................................................................................................. 22,000 22,000 81 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (TADIRCM) .......................................... 5,710 5,710 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ................................................ 27,710 0 27,710 

9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 89,855 89,855 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

207 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ................................................................................................ 11,600 11,600 

211 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT SUPPORT ........................................................................................................ 1,200 1,200 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 102,655 0 102,655 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ................................................................... 130,365 0 130,365 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

29 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 7,800 7,800 

53 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................ 5,400 5,400 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ................................................ 13,200 0 13,200 

9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 112,408 112,408 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

196 0207277F ISR INNOVATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 5,750 5,750 

214 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS ......................................................................................... 4,000 4,000 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 122,158 0 122,158 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ....................................................................... 135,358 0 135,358 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
483 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

24 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ............................................................................. 25,000 25,000 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 25,000 0 25,000 

9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 196,176 196,176 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

253 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 1,920 1,920 

256 1160434BB UNMANNED ISR .................................................................................................................................. 3,000 3,000 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................ 201,096 0 201,096 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ...................................................................... 226,096 0 226,096 UNDISTRIBUTED UNDISTRIBUTED 

999 999999 UNDISTRIBUTED .................................................................................................................................. –64,100 –64,100 

ERI costs transfer from OCO to base ...................................................................................... [–64,100] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ................................................................................................................ –64,100 –64,100 

TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ...................................................................................................................... –64,100 –64,100 

TOTAL RDT&E ..................................................................................................................................... 611,187 –64,100 547,087 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(485) 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
486 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,455,366 112,179 1,567,545 

UFR: Convert IBCT to ABCT ............................................................................................................................................ [27,000 ] 

UFR: Readiness to execute NMS .................................................................................................................................... [44,179 ] UFR: Stryker Vehicle training ......................................................................................................................................... [20,000 ] UFR: Support 16th ABCT ................................................................................................................................................ [21,000 ] 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 105,147 12,873 118,020 

UFR: Readiness to execute NMS .................................................................................................................................... [12,873 ] 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 604,117 147,218 751,335 

UFR: NETCOM HQ ........................................................................................................................................................... [13 ] 

UFR: Readiness to execute NMS .................................................................................................................................... [147,205 ] 

040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 793,217 43,005 836,222 

UFR: 3% increase to Decisive Action training .............................................................................................................. [5,244 ] 

UFR: Readiness to execute NMS .................................................................................................................................... [28,327 ] UFR: Support Equipment ................................................................................................................................................ [9,434 ] 

050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 1,169,478 1,169,478 060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,496,503 1,496,503 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 3,675,901 49,500 3,725,401 

UFR: Funding to support 6k additional endstrength ..................................................................................................... [680 ] UFR: Organizational Clothing & Indiv. Equipment maintenance .................................................................................. [44,215 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
487 

UFR: Support Equipment ................................................................................................................................................ [4,605 ] 

080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 466,720 4,872 471,592 

UFR: Medical equipment ................................................................................................................................................ [4,872 ] 

090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 1,443,516 77,669 1,521,185 

UFR: Depot Maintenance ................................................................................................................................................ [77,669 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 8,080,357 90,719 8,171,076 

UFR: Engineering Services ............................................................................................................................................. [36,949 ] UFR: IT Services NEC C4IM ............................................................................................................................................ [22,000 ] UFR: Support 6k additional endstrength ....................................................................................................................... [31,770 ] 

110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 3,401,155 601,817 4,002,972 

UFR: Address facility restoration backlog ...................................................................................................................... [70,427 ] UFR: FSRM increases ..................................................................................................................................................... [481,210 ] UFR: Support 6k additional endstrength ....................................................................................................................... [50,180 ] 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 443,790 443,790 180 US AFRICA COMMAND ............................................................................................................................................................. 225,382 225,382 190 US EUROPEAN COMMAND ........................................................................................................................................................ 141,352 141,352 200 US SOUTHERN COMMAND ........................................................................................................................................................ 190,811 190,811 210 US FORCES KOREA .................................................................................................................................................................. 59,578 59,578 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 23,752,390 1,139,852 24,892,242 

MOBILIZATION 

220 STRATEGIC MOBILITY ............................................................................................................................................................... 346,667 1,124 347,791 

UFR: Readiness increase ................................................................................................................................................ [1,124 ] 

230 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS ............................................................................................................................................... 422,108 5,238 427,346 

UFR: Readiness increase ................................................................................................................................................ [5,238 ] 

240 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................... 7,750 7,750 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 776,525 6,362 782,887 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

250 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 137,556 137,556 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
488 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

260 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 58,872 1,392 60,264 

UFR: Recruit training ..................................................................................................................................................... [1,392 ] 

270 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 58,035 1,886 59,921 

UFR: One Station Unit Training ..................................................................................................................................... [1,886 ] 

280 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ....................................................................................................................... 505,089 673 505,762 

UFR: Supports commissions for increase end strength ................................................................................................ [673 ] 

290 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 1,015,541 15,293 1,030,834 

UFR: Supports increased capacity ................................................................................................................................. [15,293 ] 

300 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,124,115 1,124,115 310 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 220,688 220,688 320 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 618,164 3,526 621,690 

UFR: Supports increased capacity ................................................................................................................................. [1,526 ] 

UFR: Supports Initial Entry Training .............................................................................................................................. [2,000 ] 

330 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 613,586 10,673 624,259 

UFR: Supports increased capacity ................................................................................................................................. [10,673 ] 

340 EXAMINING ............................................................................................................................................................................... 171,223 171,223 350 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 214,738 350 215,088 

UFR: Supports increased capacity ................................................................................................................................. [350 ] 

360 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 195,099 195,099 370 JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS .......................................................................................................................... 176,116 176,116 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 5,108,822 33,793 5,142,615 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

390 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 555,502 96,563 652,065 

UFR: Supports transportation equipment ...................................................................................................................... [96,563 ] 

400 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................................. 894,208 894,208 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
489 

410 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................ 715,462 715,462 420 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 446,931 446,931 430 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 493,616 493,616 440 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 2,084,922 10,000 2,094,922 

UFR: Army Regional Cyber Centers capabilities ............................................................................................................ [10,000 ] 

450 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 259,588 259,588 460 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 326,387 326,387 470 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,087,602 –41,400 1,046,202 

UFR: Funds DFAS increases ........................................................................................................................................... [3,600 ] Under execution .............................................................................................................................................................. [–45,000 ] 

480 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................................................................ 210,514 3,500 214,014 

UFR: Supports JAG increase needs ................................................................................................................................ [3,500 ] 

490 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 243,584 13,153 256,737 

UFR: Supports engineering services .............................................................................................................................. [13,153 ] 

500 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS ................................................................................................................... 284,592 284,592 510 INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS ............................................................................................................................. 415,694 415,694 520 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 46,856 46,856 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,242,222 1,242,222 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................. 9,307,680 81,816 9,389,496 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ........................................................................................................................... 38,945,417 1,261,823 40,207,240 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 11,461 286 11,747 

UFR: ARNG Operational Demand Model to 82% ........................................................................................................... [286 ] 

020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 577,410 15,643 593,053 

UFR: ARNG Operational Demand Model to 82% ........................................................................................................... [15,643 ] 

030 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 117,298 4,718 122,016 

UFR: Operational Demand Model to 82% ...................................................................................................................... [4,718 ] 

040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 552,016 12,918 564,934 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
490 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

UFR: Operational Demand Model to 82% ...................................................................................................................... [12,918 ] 

050 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 80,302 1,159 81,461 

UFR: Increases aviation contract support ..................................................................................................................... [845 ] UFR: Operational Demand Model to 82% ...................................................................................................................... [314 ] 

060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 399,035 4,600 403,635 

UFR: Support additional capacity .................................................................................................................................. [4,600 ] 

070 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 102,687 102,687 080 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 56,016 56,016 090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 599,947 550 600,497 

UFR: Support 6k additional endstrength ....................................................................................................................... [550 ] 

100 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 273,940 30,750 304,690 

UFR: Address facility restoration backlog ...................................................................................................................... [4,465 ] UFR: Increased facilities sustainment ........................................................................................................................... [26,285 ] 

110 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 22,909 22,909 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 2,793,021 70,624 2,863,645 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

120 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 11,116 11,116 

130 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17,962 17,962 140 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 18,550 2,400 20,950 

UFR: Equipment support ................................................................................................................................................ [2,400 ] 

150 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 6,166 6,166 160 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 60,027 60,027 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 113,821 2,400 116,221 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES .................................................................................................................... 2,906,842 73,024 2,979,866 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
491 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 777,883 16,979 794,862 

UFR: Readiness increase ................................................................................................................................................ [16,979 ] 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 190,639 190,639 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 807,557 13,099 820,656 

UFR: Operational Demand Model to 82% ...................................................................................................................... [13,099 ] 

040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 85,476 13,093 98,569 

UFR: Operational Demand Model to 82% ...................................................................................................................... [13,093 ] 

050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 36,672 2,225 38,897 

UFR: Increased aviation readiness ................................................................................................................................ [2,225 ] 

060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 956,381 29,998 986,379 

UFR: Aviation readiness for AH64 .................................................................................................................................. [24,828 ] UFR: Aviation readiness for TAB .................................................................................................................................... [2,040 ] UFR: Aviation readinss for ECAB ................................................................................................................................... [3,130 ] 

070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 777,756 100 777,856 

UFR: Supports increased capacity ................................................................................................................................. [100 ] 

080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 51,506 51,506 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 244,942 244,942 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 1,144,726 3,850 1,148,576 

UFR: Support increase end-strength .............................................................................................................................. [3,850 ] 

110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 781,895 94,839 876,734 

UFR: Address facility restoration backlog ...................................................................................................................... [20,108 ] UFR: Facilities Sustainment improvement ..................................................................................................................... [74,731 ] 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 999,052 240 999,292 

UFR: Support increase end-strength .............................................................................................................................. [240 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 6,854,485 174,423 7,028,908 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
492 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 7,703 7,703 140 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 79,236 79,236 150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 85,160 85,160 160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 8,654 8,654 170 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 268,839 8,500 277,339 

UFR: Behavior Health Specialists .................................................................................................................................. [8,500 ] 

180 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 3,093 3,093 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 452,685 8,500 461,185 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ............................................................................................................................ 7,307,170 182,923 7,490,093 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 5,544,165 5,544,165 

020 FLEET AIR TRAINING ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,075,000 2,075,000 030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 46,801 46,801 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................. 119,624 119,624 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 552,536 42,000 594,536 

UFR: Fund to Max Executable ........................................................................................................................................ [42,000 ] 

060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 1,088,482 1,088,482 070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 40,584 40,584 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 723,786 120,000 843,786 

UFR: Fund to Max Executable ........................................................................................................................................ [120,000 ] 

090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 4,067,334 22,000 4,089,334 

UFR: Combat Logistics Maintenance Funding TAO–187 ............................................................................................... [22,000 ] 

100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 977,701 977,701 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
493 

110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 7,165,858 7,165,858 120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................ 2,193,851 2,193,851 130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE ....................................................................................................... 1,288,094 1,288,094 150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 206,678 206,678 160 WARFARE TACTICS ................................................................................................................................................................... 621,581 1,000 622,581 

UFR: Operational range Clearance and Environmental Compliance ............................................................................. [1,000 ] 

170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 370,681 370,681 180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,437,966 1,437,966 190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 162,705 162,705 210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 65,108 65,108 220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 86,892 86,892 230 MILITARY INFORMATION SUPPORT OPERATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 8,427 8,427 240 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 385,212 385,212 260 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,278,456 1,278,456 280 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................................................................... 745,680 5,000 750,680 

UFR: Munitions wholeness ............................................................................................................................................. [5,000 ] 

290 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................... 380,016 380,016 300 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................................................... 914,428 –32,000 882,428 

Under execution .............................................................................................................................................................. [–32,000 ] 

310 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 1,905,679 542,181 2,447,860 

NHHC Reduction ............................................................................................................................................................. [–29,000 ] 

UFR: 88% of Facility Sustainment requirements .......................................................................................................... [293,181 ] 

UFR: FSRM Increases ..................................................................................................................................................... [218,000 ] UFR: MPT&E Management System IT Modernization ..................................................................................................... [60,000 ] 

320 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 4,333,688 51,000 4,384,688 

UFR: FSRM Increases ..................................................................................................................................................... [28,000 ] 

UFR: Operational range Clearance and Environmental Compliance ............................................................................. [11,000 ] UFR: Port Operations Service Craft Maintenance .......................................................................................................... [12,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 38,787,013 751,181 39,538,194 

MOBILIZATION 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
494 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

330 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE ......................................................................................................................................... 417,450 10,000 427,450 

UFR: Strategic Sealift ..................................................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

360 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 198,341 198,341 370 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 66,849 66,849 390 COAST GUARD SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................... 21,870 21,870 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 704,510 10,000 714,510 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

400 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 143,924 143,924 

410 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 8,975 8,975 420 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ..................................................................................................................................... 144,708 144,708 430 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 812,708 812,708 450 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 180,448 180,448 460 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 234,596 234,596 470 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 177,517 177,517 480 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 103,154 103,154 490 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 72,216 72,216 500 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 53,262 53,262 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 1,931,508 0 1,931,508 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

510 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,135,429 1,135,429 

530 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 149,365 149,365 540 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 386,749 386,749 590 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 165,301 165,301 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
495 

610 PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND PROGRAM SUPPORT .............................................................................................................. 311,616 311,616 620 ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND OVERSIGHT ............................................................................................................................. 665,580 665,580 660 INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................... 659,143 659,143 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 543,193 543,193 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 4,016,376 0 4,016,376 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ............................................................................................................................ 45,439,407 761,181 46,200,588 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 967,949 967,949 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,065,090 3,100 1,068,190 

UFR: Long Endurance Small UAS ................................................................................................................................... [3,100 ] 

030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 286,635 286,635 040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING ..................................................................................................................................................... 85,577 85,577 050 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 181,518 181,518 060 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................................... 785,264 43,791 829,055 

UFR: Facilities Sustainment to 80% ............................................................................................................................. [43,791 ] 

070 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,196,252 2,196,252 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 5,568,285 46,891 5,615,176 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

080 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 16,163 16,163 

090 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,154 1,154 100 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 100,398 100,398 110 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 46,474 46,474 120 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 405,039 405,039 130 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 201,601 201,601 140 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 32,045 32,045 150 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 24,394 24,394 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
496 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 827,268 0 827,268 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

160 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 28,827 28,827 

170 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 378,683 378,683 190 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 77,684 77,684 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 52,661 52,661 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 537,855 0 537,855 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ........................................................................................................... 6,933,408 46,891 6,980,299 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 596,876 596,876 

020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................. 5,902 5,902 030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 94,861 94,861 040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 381 381 050 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 13,822 13,822 060 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 571 571 070 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 16,718 16,718 080 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 118,079 118,079 090 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 308 308 100 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................................................... 28,650 28,650 110 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 86,354 86,354 120 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 103,596 103,596 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
497 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 1,066,118 0 1,066,118 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

130 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,371 1,371 

140 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 13,289 13,289 

160 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 3,229 3,229 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 17,889 0 17,889 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES .................................................................................................................... 1,084,007 1,084,007 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 103,468 103,468 

020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 18,794 18,794 030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 32,777 1,077 33,854 

UFR: Facilities Sustainment to 80% ............................................................................................................................. [1,077 ] 

040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 111,213 111,213 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 266,252 1,077 267,329 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

060 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12,585 12,585 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 12,585 0 12,585 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ............................................................................................................... 278,837 1,077 279,914 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 694,702 13,200 707,902 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
498 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

UFR: NC3 & Other Nuclear Requirements ..................................................................................................................... [9,000 ] UFR: PACAF Contingency Response Group ..................................................................................................................... [4,200 ] 

020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................ 1,392,326 184,100 1,576,426 

Air and Space Operations Center .................................................................................................................................. [104,800 ] 

UFR: Airmen Readiness Training ................................................................................................................................... [8,900 ] UFR: Cyber Requirements ............................................................................................................................................... [70,400 ] 

030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ............................................................................................................... 1,128,640 144,300 1,272,940 

UFR: Airmen Readiness Training ................................................................................................................................... [93,100 ] UFR: Contract Adversary Air ........................................................................................................................................... [51,200 ] 

040 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................ 2,755,367 160,600 2,915,967 

UFR: Airmen Readiness Training ................................................................................................................................... [7,100 ] UFR: WSS funded at 89% .............................................................................................................................................. [153,500 ] 

050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 3,292,553 3,292,553 060 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT ................................................................................................... 6,555,186 328,500 6,883,686 

UFR: E–4B Maintenance personnel ................................................................................................................................ [1,000 ] UFR: EC–130H Compass Call ........................................................................................................................................ [20,000 ] UFR: Sustain 3 additional C–37B ................................................................................................................................. [11,300 ] UFR: Weapon Systems Sustainment .............................................................................................................................. [296,200 ] 

070 FLYING HOUR PROGRAM .......................................................................................................................................................... 4,135,330 4,135,330 080 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5,985,232 999,483 6,984,715 

UFR: Cyber Requirements ............................................................................................................................................... [152,600 ] UFR: Facility Restoration Modernization ........................................................................................................................ [493,883 ] UFR: Funds mission readiness at installations ............................................................................................................. [146,000 ] UFR: Funds Operational Communications and JIE conversion ...................................................................................... [190,000 ] UFR: PACAF Contingency Response Group ..................................................................................................................... [6,700 ] UFR: Transient Alert Contracts ...................................................................................................................................... [10,300 ] 

090 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING .......................................................................................................................................... 847,516 84,700 932,216 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
499 

UFR: Cyber Requirements ............................................................................................................................................... [10,700 ] UFR: NC3 & Other Nuclear Requirements ..................................................................................................................... [66,000 ] UFR: SBIRS Requirements .............................................................................................................................................. [8,000 ] 

100 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................... 1,131,817 41,200 1,173,017 

UFR: Cyber Requirements ............................................................................................................................................... [18,300 ] UFR: Eagle Vision sustainment ...................................................................................................................................... [6,100 ] UFR: PACAF Contingency Response Group ..................................................................................................................... [16,800 ] 

120 LAUNCH FACILITIES .................................................................................................................................................................. 175,457 175,457 130 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................................... 353,458 353,458 160 US NORTHCOM/NORAD ............................................................................................................................................................ 189,891 189,891 170 US STRATCOM .......................................................................................................................................................................... 534,236 534,236 180 US CYBERCOM ......................................................................................................................................................................... 357,830 357,830 190 US CENTCOM ........................................................................................................................................................................... 168,208 168,208 200 US SOCOM ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2,280 2,280 210 US TRANSCOM ......................................................................................................................................................................... 533 533 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,091,655 1,091,655 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 30,792,217 1,956,083 32,748,300 

MOBILIZATION 

220 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,570,697 1,800 1,572,497 

UFR: sustain 3 additional C–37B .................................................................................................................................. [1,800 ] 

230 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................ 130,241 46,450 176,691 

UFR: PACAF Contingency Response Group ..................................................................................................................... [16,900 ] UFR: Set the Theater (StT) PACOM ................................................................................................................................ [29,550 ] 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,700,938 48,250 1,749,188 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

270 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 113,722 113,722 

280 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 24,804 24,804 290 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC) ........................................................................................................................ 95,733 95,733 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
500 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

320 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 395,476 395,476 330 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 501,599 501,599 340 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 287,500 287,500 350 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 91,384 91,384 370 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 166,795 166,795 380 EXAMINING ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4,134 4,134 390 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 222,691 222,691 400 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 171,974 171,974 410 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 60,070 60,070 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 2,135,882 0 2,135,882 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

420 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 805,453 805,453 

430 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 127,379 127,379 470 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 911,283 911,283 480 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 432,172 432,172 490 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 1,175,658 1,175,658 500 CIVIL AIR PATROL .................................................................................................................................................................... 26,719 26,719 530 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................ 76,878 76,878 540 AIR FORCE WIDE UNDISTRIBUTED ........................................................................................................................................... 0 129,100 129,100 

UFR: C&Y Tech Sustainment .......................................................................................................................................... [6,000 ] UFR: Child and Youth Compliance ................................................................................................................................ [35,000 ] UFR: Food Service Capabilities ...................................................................................................................................... [43,200 ] UFR: MWR Resiliency Capabilities ................................................................................................................................. [40,000 ] UFR: Violence Prevention Program ................................................................................................................................. [4,900 ] 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,244,653 1,244,653 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
501 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 4,800,195 129,100 4,929,295 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................... 39,429,232 2,133,433 41,562,665 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,801,007 1,801,007 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 210,642 210,642 030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................ 403,867 403,867 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 124,951 124,951 050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT ................................................................................................... 240,835 25,800 266,635 

UFR: Weapon Systems Sustainment .............................................................................................................................. [25,800 ] 

060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 371,878 34,000 405,878 

UFR: Restore maintenance and repair ........................................................................................................................... [34,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 3,153,180 59,800 3,212,980 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 

070 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 74,153 74,153 

080 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 19,522 19,522 

090 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC) ..................................................................................................................... 12,765 12,765 100 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP) ............................................................................................................................ 7,495 7,495 110 AUDIOVISUAL ............................................................................................................................................................................ 392 392 

SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................. 114,327 0 114,327 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ................................................................................................................ 3,267,507 59,800 3,327,307 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 

010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 3,175,055 3,175,055 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
502 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 746,082 66,000 812,082 

UFR: Facility and Communication Infrastructure .......................................................................................................... [66,000 ] 

030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................ 867,063 867,063 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 325,090 56,000 381,090 

UFR: Sustainment, Restoration, Modernization (SRM) ................................................................................................... [56,000 ] 

050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT ................................................................................................... 1,100,829 58,700 1,159,529 

UFR: Increase Weapons System Sustainment ................................................................................................................ [58,700 ] 

060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 583,664 68,000 651,664 

UFR: Facility Restoration Modernization ........................................................................................................................ [68,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 6,797,783 248,700 7,046,483 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES 

070 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 44,955 44,955 

080 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 97,230 –45,000 52,230 

Advertising Reduction .................................................................................................................................................... [–45,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................... 142,185 –45,000 97,185 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .............................................................................................................................. 6,939,968 203,700 7,143,668 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ........................................................................................................................................................... 440,853 440,853 

020 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF—CE2T2 ............................................................................................................................................ 551,511 551,511 040 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES ........................................................................................................... 5,008,274 5,008,274 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 6,000,638 0 6,000,638 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
503 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

050 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY ......................................................................................................................................... 144,970 5,000 149,970 

Increase for curriculum development ............................................................................................................................ [5,000 ] 

060 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ........................................................................................................................................................... 84,402 84,402 080 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND RECRUITING ............................................................................................... 379,462 379,462 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 608,834 5,000 613,834 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

090 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................................... 183,000 25,000 208,000 

Starbase .......................................................................................................................................................................... [25,000 ] 

110 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ....................................................................................................................................... 597,836 597,836 

120 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY .......................................................................................................................... 1,439,010 1,439,010 130 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................................. 807,754 807,754 140 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ............................................................................................................................. 2,009,702 2,009,702 160 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY ........................................................................................................................................ 24,207 24,207 170 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY .................................................................................................................................................. 400,422 400,422 180 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ....................................................................................................................................................... 217,585 217,585 190 DEFENSE PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING AGENCY .......................................................................................................................... 131,268 131,268 200 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY ........................................................................................................................... 722,496 722,496 210 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................. 683,665 683,665 230 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................... 34,712 34,712 240 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY ................................................................................................................................... 542,604 542,604 260 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................... 2,794,389 35,000 2,829,389 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities ........................................................................................................... [10,000 ] Impact aid for schools with military dependent students ............................................................................................ [25,000 ] 

270 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY ...................................................................................................................................................... 504,058 504,058 290 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 57,840 57,840 300 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ............................................................................................................................... 1,612,244 9,000 1,621,244 

CDC Study ....................................................................................................................................................................... [7,000 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
504 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Readiness increase ........................................................................................................................................................ [1,000 ] Study on Air Force aircraft capacity and capabilities .................................................................................................. [1,000 ] 

310 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................... 94,273 94,273 320 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ................................................................................................................................ 436,776 436,776 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 14,806,404 14,806,404 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................. 28,100,245 69,000 28,169,245 

TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........................................................................................................ 34,709,717 74,000 34,783,717 

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE 

010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE ................................................................................................ 14,538 14,538 

SUBTOTAL US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE ............................................................................. 14,538 0 14,538 

OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID 

010 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID ............................................................................................................ 104,900 104,900 

SUBTOTAL OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID ......................................................................................... 104,900 0 104,900 FORMER SOVIET UNION (FSU) THREAT REDUCTION 

010 FORMER SOVIET UNION (FSU) THREAT REDUCTION ................................................................................................................ 324,600 324,600 

SUBTOTAL FORMER SOVIET UNION (FSU) THREAT REDUCTION ............................................................................................. 324,600 0 324,600 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
505 

050 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY ................................................................................................................................... 215,809 215,809 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY ................................................................................................................. 215,809 0 215,809 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY 

070 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY .................................................................................................................................... 281,415 281,415 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY .................................................................................................................. 281,415 0 281,415 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE 

090 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................................... 293,749 293,749 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................ 293,749 0 293,749 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE 

110 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE .............................................................................................................................. 9,002 9,002 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE ............................................................................................................ 9,002 0 9,002 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES 

130 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES ........................................................................................................ 208,673 208,673 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES ..................................................................................... 208,673 0 208,673 TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 1,452,686 1,452,686 UNDISTRIBUTED UNDISTRIBUTED 

999 UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 1,411,595 1,411,595 

ERI costs transferred to base (except Ukraine assistance) .......................................................................................... [2,121,300 ] Foreign Currency Fluctuations ........................................................................................................................................ [–313,315 ] Fuel Savings ................................................................................................................................................................... [–396,390 ] 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
506 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 1,411,595 1,411,595 

TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ............................................................................................................................................................ 0 1,411,595 1,411,595 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 188,694,198 6,209,447 194,903,645 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
507 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 828,225 828,225 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 25,474 25,474 

040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,778,644 1,778,644 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 260,575 260,575 060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 284,422 284,422 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 2,784,525 2,784,525 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 502,330 502,330 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 104,149 104,149 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 80,249 80,249 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 32,000 32,000 140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................................ 6,151,378 6,151,378 150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. 5,000 5,000 160 RESET ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 864,926 864,926 180 US AFRICA COMMAND ............................................................................................................................................................. 186,567 186,567 190 US EUROPEAN COMMAND ........................................................................................................................................................ 44,250 44,250 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 13,932,714 0 13,932,714 

MOBILIZATION 

230 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS ............................................................................................................................................... 56,500 56,500 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 56,500 0 56,500 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
508 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

390 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 755,029 755,029 

400 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................................. 16,567 16,567 410 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................ 6,000 6,000 420 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 5,207 5,207 460 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 107,091 107,091 490 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 165,280 165,280 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,082,015 1,082,015 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................. 2,137,189 0 2,137,189 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ........................................................................................................................... 16,126,403 0 16,126,403 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 4,179 4,179 

040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 2,132 2,132 060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 779 779 090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 17,609 17,609 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 24,699 0 24,699 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES .................................................................................................................... 24,699 0 24,699 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
509 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 41,731 41,731 020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 762 762 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 11,855 11,855 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 204 204 060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 27,583 27,583 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 5,792 5,792 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 18,507 18,507 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 937 937 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 107,371 0 107,371 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 740 740 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 740 0 740 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ............................................................................................................................ 108,111 0 108,111 

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND MINISTRY OF DEFENSE 

010 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2,660,855 2,660,855 

020 INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................................................... 21,000 21,000 030 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 684,786 684,786 040 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 405,117 405,117 

SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF DEFENSE .......................................................................................................................................... 3,771,758 0 3,771,758 

MINISTRY OF INTERIOR 

050 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 955,574 955,574 

060 INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................................................... 39,595 39,595 070 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 75,976 75,976 080 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 94,612 94,612 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
510 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF INTERIOR ......................................................................................................................................... 1,165,757 0 1,165,757 TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND ...................................................................................................................... 4,937,515 0 4,937,515 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 412,710 412,710 

030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 1,750 1,750 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................. 2,989 2,989 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 144,030 144,030 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 211,196 211,196 070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 1,921 1,921 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 102,834 102,834 090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 855,453 855,453 100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 19,627 19,627 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,483,179 2,483,179 130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE ....................................................................................................... 58,886 58,886 150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 4,400 4,400 160 WARFARE TACTICS ................................................................................................................................................................... 21,550 21,550 170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 21,104 21,104 180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 605,936 605,936 190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 11,433 11,433 280 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................................................................... 325,011 325,011 290 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................... 9,598 9,598 310 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 31,898 31,898 320 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 228,246 228,246 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
511 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 5,553,751 0 5,553,751 MOBILIZATION 

360 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 1,869 1,869 

370 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 11,905 11,905 390 COAST GUARD SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................... 161,885 161,885 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 175,659 0 175,659 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

430 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 43,369 43,369 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 43,369 0 43,369 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

510 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3,217 3,217 

540 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 7,356 7,356 

590 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 67,938 67,938 620 ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND OVERSIGHT ............................................................................................................................. 9,446 9,446 660 INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES ............................................................................................................................... 1,528 1,528 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 12,751 12,751 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 102,236 0 102,236 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ............................................................................................................................ 5,875,015 0 5,875,015 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 710,790 710,790 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 242,150 242,150 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 52,000 52,000 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
512 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

070 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 17,529 17,529 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 1,022,469 0 1,022,469 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

120 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 29,421 29,421 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 29,421 0 29,421 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

160 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 61,600 61,600 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 3,150 3,150 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 64,750 0 64,750 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ........................................................................................................... 1,116,640 0 1,116,640 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 

030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 14,964 14,964 

080 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 9,016 9,016 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 23,980 0 23,980 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES .................................................................................................................... 23,980 0 23,980 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
513 

OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 2,548 2,548 

040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 819 819 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 3,367 0 3,367 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ............................................................................................................... 3,367 0 3,367 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 248,235 248,235 

020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................ 1,394,962 1,394,962 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ............................................................................................................... 5,450 5,450 040 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................ 699,860 699,860 050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 113,131 113,131 060 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT ................................................................................................... 2,039,551 2,039,551 070 FLYING HOUR PROGRAM .......................................................................................................................................................... 2,059,363 2,059,363 080 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,088,946 1,088,946 090 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING .......................................................................................................................................... 15,274 15,274 100 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................... 198,090 198,090 120 LAUNCH FACILITIES .................................................................................................................................................................. 385 385 130 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................................... 22,020 22,020 160 US NORTHCOM/NORAD ............................................................................................................................................................ 381 381 170 US STRATCOM .......................................................................................................................................................................... 698 698 180 US CYBERCOM ......................................................................................................................................................................... 35,239 35,239 190 US CENTCOM ........................................................................................................................................................................... 159,520 159,520 200 US SOCOM ............................................................................................................................................................................... 19,000 19,000 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 58,098 58,098 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 8,158,203 0 8,158,203 

MOBILIZATION 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
514 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

220 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,430,316 1,430,316 230 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................ 213,827 213,827 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,644,143 0 1,644,143 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

270 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 300 300 

280 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 298 298 290 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC) ........................................................................................................................ 90 90 320 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 25,675 25,675 330 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 879 879 340 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 1,114 1,114 350 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,426 1,426 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 29,782 0 29,782 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

420 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 151,847 151,847 

430 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 8,744 8,744 470 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6,583 6,583 480 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 129,508 129,508 490 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 84,110 84,110 530 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................ 120 120 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 53,255 53,255 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 434,167 0 434,167 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................... 10,266,295 0 10,266,295 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
515 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................ 52,323 52,323 

060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6,200 6,200 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 58,523 0 58,523 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ................................................................................................................ 58,523 0 58,523 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 3,468 3,468 

060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11,932 11,932 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 15,400 0 15,400 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .............................................................................................................................. 15,400 0 15,400 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ........................................................................................................................................................... 4,841 4,841 

040 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES ........................................................................................................... 3,305,234 6,300 3,311,534 

UFR: Joint Task Force Platform Expansion .................................................................................................................... [6,300 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 3,310,075 6,300 3,316,375 ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

110 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ....................................................................................................................................... 9,853 9,853 

120 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY .......................................................................................................................... 21,317 21,317 140 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ............................................................................................................................. 64,137 64,137 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
516 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

160 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY ........................................................................................................................................ 115,000 115,000 180 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ....................................................................................................................................................... 13,255 13,255 200 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY ........................................................................................................................... 2,312,000 250,000 2,562,000 

Reduction to Coalition Support Funds ........................................................................................................................... [–100,000 ] Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative ........................................................................................................................... [350,000 ] 

260 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................... 31,000 31,000 300 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ............................................................................................................................... 34,715 34,715 320 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ................................................................................................................................ 3,179 3,179 

9999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,797,549 1,797,549 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................. 4,402,005 250,000 4,652,005 

TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........................................................................................................ 7,712,080 256,300 7,968,380 UNDISTRIBUTED UNDISTRIBUTED 

999 UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 –2,121,300 –2,121,300 

ERI costs transferred from OCO to base (except Ukraine assistance) ......................................................................... [–2,121,300 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 –2,121,300 –2,121,300 

TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ............................................................................................................................................................ 0 –2,121,300 –2,121,300 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 46,268,028 –1,865,000 44,403,028 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(517) 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
518 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL. 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY PERSONNEL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 133,881,636 –154,913 133,726,723 

Defense Innovation Board software review ........................................................................................................ 1,000 

ERI costs transferred to base ............................................................................................................................. 214,300 Marine Corps endstrength increase (1k) ............................................................................................................ 100,000 Public-Private partnership on military spousal employment ............................................................................. 1,000 UFR: ANG funds training man days ................................................................................................................... 170,800 UFR: Army endtrength increase (6k) .................................................................................................................. 321,000 UFR: Army readiness requirements ..................................................................................................................... 107,987 UFR: ATFP Enhancement—2nd Pier Sentry (Mahan Report) ............................................................................. 12,000 Unobligated Balances ......................................................................................................................................... [–1,083,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................. 133,881,636 –154,913 133,726,723 MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS .............................................................................................. 7,804,427 16,000 7,820,427 

UFR: Army endtrength increase (6k) .................................................................................................................. 16,000 

SUBTOTAL MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS ........................................................................... 7,804,427 16,000 7,820,427 

TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................. 141,686,063 –138,913 141,547,150 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
519 

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY PERSONNEL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 4,276,276 –214,300 4,061,976 

ERI costs transferred to base budget ................................................................................................................ [–214,300 ] 

SUBTOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................. 4,276,276 –214,300 4,061,976 TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................. 4,276,276 –214,300 4,061,976 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
520 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY 

010 Industrial Operations ........................................................................................................................................................ 43,140 43,140 020 Supply Management—Army ............................................................................................................................................. 40,636 50,100 90,736 

ERI costs transfer from OCO to base ..................................................................................................................... [50,100 ] 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .................................................................................................................... 83,776 50,100 133,876 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE 

010 Supplies and Materials .................................................................................................................................................... 66,462 66,462 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE ............................................................................................................ 66,462 0 66,462 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE 

020 Supply Chain Management—Def ..................................................................................................................................... 47,018 47,018 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE ..................................................................................................... 47,018 0 47,018 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA 

010 Working Capital Fund, DECA ............................................................................................................................................ 1,389,340 1,389,340 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA ..................................................................................................................... 1,389,340 0 1,389,340 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND ...................................................................................................................................... 1,586,596 50,100 1,636,696 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
521 

CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

1 Chem Demilitarization—O&M .......................................................................................................................................... 104,237 104,237 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................... 104,237 0 104,237 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

2 Chem Demilitarization—RDT&E ....................................................................................................................................... 839,414 839,414 

SUBTOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 839,414 0 839,414 PROCUREMENT 

3 Chem Demilitarization—Proc ........................................................................................................................................... 18,081 18,081 

SUBTOTAL PROCUREMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 18,081 0 18,081 

TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION ........................................................................................................ 961,732 0 961,732 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES 

010 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ................................................................................................. 674,001 674,001 

SUBTOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES ................................................................................. 674,001 0 674,001 

DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM 

020 Drug Demand Reduction Program .................................................................................................................................... 116,813 116,813 

SUBTOTAL DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 116,813 0 116,813 

TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ........................................................................................... 790,814 0 790,814 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

010 Operation And Maintenance ............................................................................................................................................. 334,087 334,087 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................... 334,087 0 334,087 RDT&E 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
522 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

020 RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2,800 2,800 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................. 2,800 0 2,800 

TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .................................................................................................................. 336,887 0 336,887 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 

010 In-House Care ................................................................................................................................................................... 9,457,768 9,457,768 

020 Private Sector Care ........................................................................................................................................................... 15,317,732 15,317,732 030 Consolidated Health Support ............................................................................................................................................ 2,193,045 2,193,045 040 Information Management ................................................................................................................................................. 1,803,733 1,803,733 050 Management Activities ..................................................................................................................................................... 330,752 330,752 060 Education and Training .................................................................................................................................................... 737,730 737,730 070 Base Operations/Communications .................................................................................................................................... 2,255,163 2,255,163 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................................................... 32,095,923 0 32,095,923 RDT&E 

080 R&D Research ................................................................................................................................................................... 9,796 9,796 

090 R&D Exploratry Development ............................................................................................................................................ 64,881 64,881 100 R&D Advanced Development ............................................................................................................................................ 246,268 246,268 110 R&D Demonstration/Validation ......................................................................................................................................... 99,039 99,039 120 R&D Engineering Development ......................................................................................................................................... 170,602 170,602 130 R&D Management and Support ....................................................................................................................................... 69,191 69,191 140 R&D Capabilities Enhancement ....................................................................................................................................... 13,438 13,438 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................. 673,215 0 673,215 

PROCUREMENT 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
523 

150 PROC Initial Outfitting ..................................................................................................................................................... 26,978 26,978 160 PROC Replacement & Modernization ............................................................................................................................... 360,831 360,831 180 PROC Joint Operational Medicine Information System .................................................................................................... 8,326 8,326 190 PROC DoD Healthcare Management System Modernization ............................................................................................ 499,193 499,193 

SUBTOTAL PROCUREMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 895,328 0 895,328 

TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................. 33,664,466 0 33,664,466 NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND LEASE 

050 LG Med Spd Ro/Ro Maintenance ...................................................................................................................................... 135,800 135,800 

060 DoD Mobilization Alterations ............................................................................................................................................ 11,197 11,197 070 TAH Maintenance .............................................................................................................................................................. 54,453 54,453 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND LEASE ....................................................................................................... 201,450 0 201,450 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

080 Research And Development .............................................................................................................................................. 18,622 18,622 

SUBTOTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................................... 18,622 0 18,622 

READY RESERVE FORCES 

090 Ready Reserve Force ......................................................................................................................................................... 289,255 7,000 296,255 

UFR: Strategic Sealift service life extension ........................................................................................................... [7,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL READY RESERVE FORCES ............................................................................................................................... 289,255 7,000 296,255 

TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND ....................................................................................................................... 509,327 7,000 516,327 

TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 37,849,822 57,100 37,906,922 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
524 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY 

020 Supply Management—Army ............................................................................................................................................. 50,111 –50,111 0 

ERI costs transfer from OCO to base ..................................................................................................................... [–50,111 ] 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .................................................................................................................... 50,111 –50,111 0 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE 

010 Energy Management—Def ............................................................................................................................................... 70,000 70,000 

020 Supply Chain Management—Def ..................................................................................................................................... 28,845 28,845 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE ..................................................................................................... 98,845 0 98,845 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND ...................................................................................................................................... 148,956 –50,111 98,845 DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES 

010 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ................................................................................................. 196,300 196,300 

SUBTOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES ................................................................................. 196,300 0 196,300 

TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ........................................................................................... 196,300 0 196,300 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

010 Operation And Maintenance ............................................................................................................................................. 24,692 24,692 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................... 24,692 0 24,692 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
525 

TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .................................................................................................................. 24,692 0 24,692 DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 

010 In-House Care ................................................................................................................................................................... 61,857 61,857 020 Private Sector Care ........................................................................................................................................................... 331,968 331,968 030 Consolidated Health Support ............................................................................................................................................ 1,980 1,980 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................................................... 395,805 0 395,805 

TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................. 395,805 0 395,805 

COUNTER-ISLAMIC ISIS TRAIN & EQUIP FUND COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND (CTEF) 

010 Iraq .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,269,000 1,269,000 020 Syria .................................................................................................................................................................................. 500,000 500,000 

SUBTOTAL COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND (CTEF) ............................................................................................ 1,769,000 0 1,769,000 

TOTAL COUNTER-ISLAMIC ISIS TRAIN & EQUIP FUND .................................................................................................... 1,769,000 0 1,769,000 TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 2,534,753 –50,111 2,484,642 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(527) 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION. 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION MILCON, ARMY MILCON, ARMY ALABAMA Fort Rucker Training Support Facility ........................................... 38,000 38,000 MILCON, ARMY ARIZONA Davis-Monthan AFB General Instruction Building ..................................... 22,000 22,000 MILCON, ARMY ARIZONA Fort Huachuca Ground Transport Equipment Building ...................... 30,000 30,000 MILCON, ARMY CALIFORNIA Fort Irwin Land Acquisition ........................................................ 3,000 3,000 MILCON, ARMY COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado Ammunition Supply Point .......................................... 21,000 21,000 MILCON, ARMY COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado Battlefield Weather Facility ....................................... 8,300 8,300 MILCON, ARMY FLORIDA Eglin AFB Multipurpose Range Complex .................................... 18,000 18,000 MILCON, ARMY GEORGIA Fort Benning Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) ................................ 0 10,800 10,800 MILCON, ARMY GEORGIA Fort Benning Training Support Facility ........................................... 28,000 28,000 MILCON, ARMY GEORGIA Fort Gordon Access Control Point .................................................. 33,000 33,000 MILCON, ARMY GEORGIA Fort Gordon Automation-Aided Instructional Building .................. 18,500 18,500 MILCON, ARMY GERMANY Stuttgart Commissary ............................................................... 40,000 40,000 MILCON, ARMY GERMANY Weisbaden Administrative Building ............................................. 43,000 43,000 MILCON, ARMY HAWAII Fort Shafter Command and Control Facility, Incr 3 ...................... 90,000 90,000 MILCON, ARMY HAWAII Pohakuloa Training Area Operational Readiness Training Complex (Barracks) 0 25,000 25,000 MILCON, ARMY INDIANA Crane Army Ammunition 

Plant 

Shipping and Receiving Building .............................. 24,000 24,000 

MILCON, ARMY KOREA Kunsan AB Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Hangar ............................. 53,000 53,000 MILCON, ARMY NEW YORK U.S. Military Academy Cemetery .................................................................... 22,000 22,000 

MILCON, ARMY SOUTH CAROLINA Fort Jackson Reception Barracks Complex, Ph1 ............................ 60,000 60,000 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
528 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILCON, ARMY SOUTH CAROLINA Shaw AFB Mission Training Complex ......................................... 25,000 25,000 MILCON, ARMY TEXAS Camp Bullis Vehicle Maintenance Shop ........................................ 13,600 13,600 MILCON, ARMY TEXAS Fort Hood Vehicle Maintenance Shop ........................................ 0 33,000 33,000 MILCON, ARMY TEXAS Fort Hood, Texas Battalion Headquarters Complex ............................... 37,000 37,000 MILCON, ARMY TURKEY Turkey Various Forward Operating Site .............................................. 6,400 6,400 MILCON, ARMY VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir Secure Admin/Operations Facility, Incr 3 .................. 14,124 14,124 MILCON, ARMY VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley-Eustis Aircraft Maintenance Instructional Bldg ................... 34,000 34,000 MILCON, ARMY VIRGINIA Joint Base Myer-Henderson Security Fence ............................................................ 20,000 20,000 

MILCON, ARMY WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis-Mcchord Confinement Facility .................................................. 66,000 –66,000 0 

MILCON, ARMY WASHINGTON Yakima Fire Station ................................................................ 19,500 19,500 MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 72,770 72,770 

MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Host Nation Support .................................................. 28,700 28,700 

MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 31,500 31,500 

MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

ERI: Planning and Design ......................................... 0 15,700 15,700 

SUBTOTAL MILCON, ARMY ................................................................................................................................................................. 920,394 18,500 938,894 

MIL CON, NAVY MIL CON, NAVY ARIZONA Yuma Enlisted Dining Facility & Community Bldgs ............ 36,358 36,358 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Barstow Combat Vehicle Repair Facility ................................. 36,539 36,539 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, California Ammunition Supply Point Upgrade ........................... 61,139 61,139 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
529 

MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Coronado P988 Undersea Rescue Command (URC) Operations 

Building.

0 36,000 36,000 

MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Lemoore F/A 18 Avionics Repair Facility Replacement ........... 60,828 60,828 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Marine Corps Air Station 

Miramar 

F–35 Simulator Facility ............................................. 0 47,574 47,574 

MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Miramar Aircraft Maintenance Hangar (INC 2) ....................... 39,600 39,600 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA San Diego P440 Pier 8 Replacement .......................................... 0 108,000 108,000 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Twentynine Palms, California Potable Water Treatment/Blending Facility ............... 55,099 55,099 MIL CON, NAVY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NSA Washington Washington Navy Yard AT/FP Land Acquisition ........ 60,000 –60,000 0 MIL CON, NAVY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NSA Washington Electronics Science and Technology Laboratory ........ 37,882 37,882 MIL CON, NAVY DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonier, Djibouti Aircraft Parking Apron Expansion ............................. 13,390 13,390 MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Mayport P426 Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Support Facility 

(LSF).

0 81,000 81,000 

MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Mayport P427 Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Training Facility 

(LTF).

0 29,000 29,000 

MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Mayport Missile Magazines ..................................................... 9,824 9,824 MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Mayport Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant (AWWTP) ..... 74,994 74,994 MIL CON, NAVY GEORGIA Marine Corps Logistics 

Base Albany 

Combat Vehicle Warehouse ....................................... 0 43,308 43,308 

MIL CON, NAVY GREECE Souda Bay Strategic Aircraft Parking Apron Expansion .............. 22,045 22,045 MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Water Well Field ......................................................... 56,088 56,088

MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas MALS Facilities .......................................................... 49,431 49,431MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Corrosion Control Hangar .......................................... 66,747 66,747 MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Aircraft Maintenance Hangar #2 ............................... 75,233 75,233 MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Navy-Commercial Tie-In Hardening ........................... 37,180 37,180 MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam Sewer Lift Station & Relief Sewer Line ..................... 73,200 73,200 

MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Kaneohe Bay LHD Pad Conversions MV–22 Landing Pads ............ 19,012 19,012 MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Marine Corps Base 

Kaneohe Bay 

Mokapu Gate Entry Control AT/FP Compliance ......... 0 26,492 26,492 

MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Wahiawa Communications/Crypto Facility ................................ 65,864 65,864 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
530 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MIL CON, NAVY JAPAN Iwakuni KC130J Enlisted Aircrew Trainer Facility ................... 21,860 21,860 MIL CON, NAVY MAINE Kittery Paint, Blast, and Rubber Facility .............................. 61,692 61,692 MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North 

Carolina 

Water Treatment Plant Replacement Hadnot Pt ....... 65,784 65,784 

MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North 

Carolina 

Bachelor Enlisted Quarters ........................................ 37,983 37,983 

MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Marine Corps 

Air Station 

F–35B Vertical Lift Fan Test Facility ........................ 15,671 15,671 

MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Marine Corps Base 

Lejeune 

Radio BN Complex, Phase 2 ..................................... 0 64,292 64,292 

MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Dam Neck ISR Operations Facility Expansion ............................. 29,262 29,262 MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Joint Expeditionary Base 

Little Creek—Story 

ACU–4 Electrical Upgrades ....................................... 2,596 2,596 

MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Marine Corps Base 

Quantico 

TBS Fire Station Building 533 Replacement ............ 0 23,738 23,738 

MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Norfolk Chambers Field Magazine Recap Ph 1 ..................... 34,665 34,665 MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Portsmouth Ship Repair Training Facility ..................................... 72,990 72,990 MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Yorktown Bachelor Enlisted Quarters ........................................ 36,358 36,358 MIL CON, NAVY WASHINGTON Indian Island Missile Magazines ..................................................... 44,440 44,440 MIL CON, NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 23,842 23,842 

MIL CON, NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

ERI: Planning and Design ......................................... 0 18,500 18,500 

MIL CON, NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 219,069 9,000 228,069 

SUBTOTAL MIL CON, NAVY ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,616,665 426,904 2,043,569 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
531 

MILCON, AIR FORCE MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB Repair Central Heat/Power Plant Boiler PH 4 ........... 41,000 41,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35A OSS/Weapons/Intel Facility ............................. 11,800 11,800 MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35A AGE Facility / Fillstand .................................. 21,000 21,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35A R–11 Fuel Truck Shelter ................................ 9,600 9,600 MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35A Satellite Dining Facility .................................. 8,000 8,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35A Consolidated Munitions Admin Facility ......... 27,000 27,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35A ADAL Conventional Munitions Facility ........... 2,500 2,500 MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35A Extend Utiliduct to South Loop ...................... 48,000 48,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE ARKANSAS Little Rock AFB Dormitory - 168 PN ................................................... 0 20,000 20,000 

MILCON, AIR FORCE AUSTRALIA Darwin APR—Bulk Fuel Storage Tanks ................................. 76,000 76,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE COLORADO Buckley Air Force Base SBIRS Operations Facility .......................................... 38,000 38,000 

MILCON, AIR FORCE COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado 13 ASOS Expansion ................................................... 13,000 13,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE COLORADO U.S. Air Force Academy Air Force CyberWorx ................................................... 30,000 30,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE ESTONIA Amari Air Base ERI: POL Capacity Phase II ....................................... 0 4,700 4,700 MILCON, AIR FORCE ESTONIA Amari Air Base ERI: Tactical Fighter Aircraft Parking Apron ............. 0 9,200 9,200 MILCON, AIR FORCE FLORIDA Eglin AFB Dormitories (288 RM) ................................................ 0 44,000 44,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE FLORIDA Eglin AFB F–35A Armament Research Fac Addition (B614) ..... 8,700 8,700 MILCON, AIR FORCE FLORIDA Eglin AFB Long-Range Stand-Off Acquisition Fac ..................... 38,000 38,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE FLORIDA Macdill AFB KC–135 Beddown OG/MXG HQ .................................. 8,100 8,100 MILCON, AIR FORCE FLORIDA Tyndall AFB Fire/Crash Rescue Station ......................................... 0 17,000 17,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE GEORGIA Robins AFB Commercial Vehicle Visitor Control Facility .............. 9,800 9,800 MILCON, AIR FORCE HUNGARY Kecskemet AB ERI: Increase POL Storage Capacity ......................... 0 12,500 12,500 MILCON, AIR FORCE HUNGARY Kecskemet AB ERI: Construct Parallel Taxiway ................................ 0 30,000 30,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE HUNGARY Kecskemet AB ERI: Airfield Upgrades ............................................... 0 12,900 12,900 MILCON, AIR FORCE ICELAND Keflavik ERI: Airfield Upgrades ............................................... 0 14,400 14,400 MILCON, AIR FORCE ITALY Aviano AB Guardian Angel Operations Facility ........................... 27,325 27,325 MILCON, AIR FORCE KANSAS Mcconnell AFB Combat Arms Facility ................................................ 17,500 17,500 MILCON, AIR FORCE LATVIA Lielvarde Air Base ERI: Expand Strategic Ramp Parking ....................... 0 3,850 3,850 MILCON, AIR FORCE LUXEMBOURG Sanem ERI: ECAOS Deployable Airbase System Storage ...... 0 67,400 67,400 MILCON, AIR FORCE MARIANA ISLANDS Tinian APR Land Acquisition ................................................ 12,900 12,900 MILCON, AIR FORCE MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews PAR Land Acquisition ................................................ 17,500 17,500


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
532 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILCON, AIR FORCE MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews Presidential Aircraft Recap Complex ......................... 254,000 –196,000 58,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE MASSACHUSETTS Hanscom AFB Vandenberg Gate Complex ........................................ 11,400 11,400 MILCON, AIR FORCE NEVADA Nellis AFB Red Flag 5th Gen Facility Addition ........................... 23,000 23,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE NEVADA Nellis AFB Virtual Warfare Center Operations Facility ............... 38,000 38,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB Dangerous Cargo Pad Relocate CATM ...................... 42,000 42,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB RPA Fixed Ground Control Station Facility ................ 4,250 4,250 MILCON, AIR FORCE NEW MEXICO Kirtland AFB Replace Fire Station 3 ............................................... 0 9,300 9,300 MILCON, AIR FORCE NORTH DAKOTA Minot AFB Indoor Firing Range ................................................... 27,000 27,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE NORWAY Rygge ERI: Replace/Expand Quick Reaction Alert Pad ........ 0 10,300 10,300 MILCON, AIR FORCE OHIO Wright-Patterson AFB Fire/Crash Rescue Station ......................................... 0 6,800 6,800 MILCON, AIR FORCE OKLAHOMA Altus AFB Fire Rescue Center .................................................... 0 16,000 16,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC–46A FTU Fuselage Trainer Phase 2 .................... 4,900 4,900 MILCON, AIR FORCE QATAR Al Udeid, Qatar Consolidated Squadron Operations Facility .............. 15,000 15,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE ROMANIA Campia Turzii ERI: Upgrade Utilities Infrastructure ......................... 0 2,950 2,950 MILCON, AIR FORCE SLOVAKIA Malacky ERI: Increase POL Storage Capacity ......................... 0 20,000 20,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE SLOVAKIA Malacky ERI: Airfield Upgrades ............................................... 0 4,000 4,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE SLOVAKIA Sliac Airport ERI: Airfield Upgrades ............................................... 0 22,000 22,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Camp Bullis Dining Facility ...................................... 18,500 18,500 MILCON, AIR FORCE TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Air Traffic Control Tower ........................................... 10,000 10,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio BMT Recruit Dormitory 7 ........................................... 90,130 90,130 MILCON, AIR FORCE TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio BMT Classrooms/Dining Facility 4 ............................ 38,000 38,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE TURKEY Incirlik AB Dormitory—216 PN ................................................... 25,997 25,997 MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force Fairford EIC RC–135 Intel and Squad Ops Facility ............... 38,000 38,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force Fairford EIC RC–135 Runway Overrun Reconfiguration ......... 5,500 5,500 MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force Fairford EIC RC–135 Infrastructure ........................................ 2,150 2,150 MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force 

Lakenheath 

Consolidated Corrosion Control Facility .................... 20,000 20,000 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
533 

MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force 

Lakenheath 

F–35A F–15 Parking .................................................. 10,800 10,800 

MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force 

Lakenheath 

F–35A Flight Simulator Facility ................................. 22,000 22,000 

MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force 

Lakenheath 

F–35A Field Training Detachment Facility ................ 12,492 12,492 

MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force 

Lakenheath 

F–35A Infrastructure ................................................. 6,700 6,700 

MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force 

Lakenheath 

F–35A 6–Bay Hangar ................................................ 24,000 24,000 

MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force 

Lakenheath 

F–35A Squadron Operations and AMU ...................... 41,000 41,000 

MILCON, AIR FORCE UTAH Hill AFB UTTR Consolidated Mission Control Center ............... 28,000 28,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

KC–46A Main Operating Base 4 ............................... 269,000 –16,000 253,000 

MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 0 56,400 56,400 

MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 97,852 97,852 

MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

ERI: Planning and Design ......................................... 0 56,630 56,630 

MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 31,400 31,400 MILCON, AIR FORCE WYOMING F. E. Warren AFB Consolidated Helo/TRF Ops/AMU and Alert Fac ........ 62,000 62,000 

SUBTOTAL MILCON, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,738,796 228,330 1,967,126 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, California SOF Marine Battalion Company/Team Facilities ....... 9,958 9,958 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, California SOF Motor Transport Facility Expansion .................... 7,284 7,284 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
534 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, California Ambulatory Care Center Replacement ...................... 26,400 26,400 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Basic Training Command .................................. 96,077 96,077 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF SEAL Team Ops Facility ..................................... 66,218 66,218 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Logistics Support Unit One Ops Fac. #3 ........... 46,175 46,175 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF SEAL Team Ops Facility ..................................... 50,265 50,265 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE COLORADO Schriever AFB Ambulatory Care Center/Dental Add./Alt. .................. 10,200 10,200 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CONUS CLASSIFIED Classified Location Battalion Complex, PH 1 ........................................... 64,364 64,364 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE FLORIDA Eglin AFB SOF Simulator Facility ............................................... 5,000 5,000 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE FLORIDA Eglin AFB Upgrade Open Storage Yard ...................................... 4,100 4,100 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE FLORIDA Hurlburt Field SOF Simulator & Fuselage Trainer Facility ............... 11,700 11,700 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE FLORIDA Hurlburt Field SOF Combat Aircraft Parking Apron .......................... 34,700 34,700 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GEORGIA Fort Gordon Blood Donor Center Replacement .............................. 10,350 10,350 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GERMANY Rhine Ordnance Barracks Medical Center Replacement Incr 7 .......................... 106,700 106,700 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GERMANY Spangdahlem AB Spangdahlem Elementary School Replacement ........ 79,141 79,141 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GERMANY Stuttgart Robinson Barracks Elem. School Replacement ......... 46,609 46,609 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GREECE Souda Bay Construct Hydrant System ......................................... 18,100 18,100 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GUAM Andersen AFB Construct Truck Load & Unload Facility ................... 23,900 23,900 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE HAWAII Kunia NSAH Kunia Tunnel Entrance .................................... 5,000 5,000 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE ITALY Sigonella Construct Hydrant System ......................................... 22,400 22,400 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE ITALY Vicenza Vicenza High School Replacement ............................ 62,406 62,406 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Iwakuni Construct Bulk Storage Tanks PH 1 ......................... 30,800 30,800 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Kadena AB SOF Special Tactics Operations Facility .................... 27,573 27,573 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Kadena AB SOF Maintenance Hangar .......................................... 3,972 3,972 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Okinawa Replace Mooring System ........................................... 11,900 11,900 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Sasebo Upgrade Fuel Wharf ................................................... 45,600 45,600 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Torii Commo Station SOF Tactical Equipment Maintenance Fac ............... 25,323 25,323 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
535 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Yokota AB Hangar/Aircraft Maintenance Unit ............................ 12,034 12,034 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Yokota AB Operations and Warehouse Facilities ........................ 8,590 8,590 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Yokota AB Simulator Facility ....................................................... 2,189 2,189 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Yokota AB Airfield Apron ............................................................. 10,800 10,800 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MARYLAND Bethesda Naval Hospital Medical Center Addition/Alteration Incr 2 ................. 123,800 123,800 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize Building #2 Incr 3 ...................... 313,968 313,968 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MISSOURI Fort Leonard Wood Hospital Replacement Ph 1 ....................................... 250,000 –200,000 50,000 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MISSOURI Fort Leonard Wood Blood Processing Center Repalcement ...................... 11,941 11,941 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MISSOURI St Louis Next NGA West (N2W) Complex Ph1 .......................... 381,000 –331,000 50,000 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB SOF C–130 AGE Facility ............................................ 8,228 8,228 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North 

Carolina 

SOF Human Performance Training Center ................ 10,800 10,800 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North 

Carolina 

SOF Motor Transport Maintenance Expansion ........... 20,539 20,539 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North 

Carolina 

Ambulatory Care Center Addition/Alteration ............. 15,300 15,300 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North 

Carolina 

Ambulatory Care Center/Dental Clinic ...................... 21,400 21,400 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North 

Carolina 

Ambulatory Care Center/Dental Clinic ...................... 22,000 22,000 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Support Battalion Admin Facility ....................... 13,518 13,518 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Human Performance Training Ctr ...................... 20,260 20,260 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Tactical Equipment Maintenance Facility .......... 20,000 20,000 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Telecomm Reliability Improvements .................. 4,000 4,000 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB Construct Tanker Truck Delivery System ................... 20,000 20,000 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE PUERTO RICO Punta Borinquen Ramey Unit School Replacement .............................. 61,071 61,071 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE SOUTH CAROLINA Shaw AFB Consolidate Fuel Facilities ........................................ 22,900 22,900 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE TEXAS Fort Bliss Blood Processing Center ............................................ 8,300 8,300 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE TEXAS Fort Bliss Hospital Replacement Incr 8 ..................................... 251,330 251,330 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE UNITED KINGDOM Menwith Hill Station RAFMH Main Gate Rehabilitation .............................. 11,000 11,000

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE UTAH Hill AFB Replace POL Facilities ............................................... 20,000 20,000 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
536 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Joint Expeditionary Base 

Little Creek—Story 

SOF SATEC Range Expansion .................................... 23,000 23,000 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Norfolk Replace Hazardous Materials Warehouse ................. 18,500 18,500 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Pentagon Security Updates ........................................................ 13,260 13,260 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Pentagon Pentagon Corr 8 Pedestrian Access Control Pt ........ 8,140 8,140 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Pentagon S.E. Safety Traffic and Parking Improvements ......... 28,700 28,700 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Portsmouth Replace Harardous Materials Warehouse .................. 22,500 22,500 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 8,000 8,000 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 26,147 26,147 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 39,746 39,746 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 3,000 3,000 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 7,384 7,384 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

ERI: Planning and Design ......................................... 0 1,900 1,900 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 1,150 1,150 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning & Design .................................................... 23,012 23,012 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 2,039 2,039 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Energy Resilience and Conserv. Invest. Prog. ........... 150,000 26,500 176,500 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
537 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Contingency Construction .......................................... 10,000 10,000 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 3,000 3,000 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 13,500 13,500 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

ERCIP Design ............................................................. 10,000 10,000 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 3,000 3,000 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 20,000 20,000 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 40,220 40,220 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 10,000 10,000 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Exercise Related Minor Construction ......................... 11,490 11,490 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 0 1,150 1,150 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 1,942 1,942 

SUBTOTAL MIL CON, DEF-WIDE ........................................................................................................................................................ 3,114,913 –501,450 2,613,463 

MILCON, ARNG MILCON, ARNG DELAWARE New Castle Combined Support Maintenance Shop ...................... 36,000 36,000 MILCON, ARNG IDAHO Mission Training Center 

Gowen 

Enlisted Barracks, Transient Training ....................... 0 9,000 9,000 

MILCON, ARNG IDAHO Orchard Trainig Area Digital Air/Ground Integration Range ........................ 22,000 22,000 MILCON, ARNG IOWA Camp Dodge Vehicle Maintenance Instructional Facility ............... 0 8,500 8,500 MILCON, ARNG KANSAS Fort Leavenworth Enlisted Barracks, Transient Training ....................... 0 19,000 19,000 MILCON, ARNG MAINE Presque Isle National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 17,500 17,500 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
538 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILCON, ARNG MARYLAND Sykesville National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 19,000 19,000 MILCON, ARNG MINNESOTA Arden Hills National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 39,000 39,000 MILCON, ARNG MISSOURI Springfield Aircraft Maintenance Hangar (Addition) ................... 0 32,000 32,000 MILCON, ARNG NEW MEXICO Las Cruces National Guard Readiness Center Addition .............. 8,600 8,600 MILCON, ARNG VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 0 15,000 15,000 MILCON, ARNG VIRGINIA Fort Pickett Training Aids Center .................................................. 4,550 4,550 MILCON, ARNG WASHINGTON Tumwater National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 31,000 31,000 MILCON, ARNG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 16,731 16,731 

MILCON, ARNG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 16,271 16,271 

SUBTOTAL MILCON, ARNG ................................................................................................................................................................. 210,652 83,500 294,152 

MILCON, ANG MILCON, ANG CALIFORNIA March AFB TFI Construct RPA Flight Training Unit ..................... 15,000 15,000 MILCON, ANG COLORADO Peterson AFB Space Control Facility ................................................ 8,000 8,000 MILCON, ANG CONNECTICUT Bradley IAP Construct Base Entry Complex .................................. 7,000 7,000 MILCON, ANG INDIANA Hulman Regional Airport Construct Small Arms Range .................................... 0 8,000 8,000 MILCON, ANG KENTUCKY Louisville IAP Add/Alter Response Forces Facility ........................... 9,000 9,000 MILCON, ANG MISSISSIPPI Jackson International Airport Construct Small Arms Range .................................... 0 8,000 8,000 

MILCON, ANG MISSOURI Rosecrans Memorial Airport Replace Communications Facility ............................. 10,000 10,000 MILCON, ANG NEW YORK Hancock Field Add To Flight Training Unit, Building 641 ............... 6,800 6,800 MILCON, ANG OHIO Toledo Express Airport NORTHCOM—Construct Alert Hangar ....................... 15,000 15,000 MILCON, ANG OKLAHOMA Tulsa International Airport Construct Small Arms Range .................................... 0 8,000 8,000 MILCON, ANG OREGON Klamath Falls IAP Construct Corrosion Control Hangar ......................... 10,500 10,500 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
539 

MILCON, ANG OREGON Klamath Falls IAP Construct Indoor Range ............................................. 8,000 8,000 MILCON, ANG SOUTH DAKOTA Joe Foss Field Aircraft Maintenance Shops ...................................... 12,000 12,000 MILCON, ANG TENNESSEE McGhee-Tyson Airport Replace KC–135 Maintenance Hangar and Shops ... 25,000 25,000 MILCON, ANG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 0 2,000 2,000 

MILCON, ANG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 18,000 18,000 

MILCON, ANG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 17,191 17,191 

SUBTOTAL MILCON, ANG ................................................................................................................................................................... 161,491 26,000 187,491 

MILCON, ARMY R MILCON, ARMY R CALIFORNIA Fallbrook Army Reserve Center ................................................. 36,000 36,000 MILCON, ARMY R DELAWARE Newark Army Reserve Center ................................................. 0 19,500 19,500 MILCON, ARMY R OHIO Wright-Patterson AFB Area Maintenance Support Activity ........................... 0 9,100 9,100 MILCON, ARMY R PUERTO RICO Aguadilla Army Reserve Center ................................................. 12,400 12,400 MILCON, ARMY R WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis-McChord Army Reserve Center ................................................. 0 30,000 30,000 MILCON, ARMY R WISCONSIN Fort McCoy AT/MOB Dining Facility–1428 PN .............................. 13,000 13,000 MILCON, ARMY R WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 6,887 6,887 

MILCON, ARMY R WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 5,425 5,425 

SUBTOTAL MILCON, ARMY R ............................................................................................................................................................. 73,712 58,600 132,312 

MIL CON, NAVY RES MIL CON, NAVY RES CALIFORNIA Lemoore Naval Operational Support Center Lemoore .............. 17,330 17,330 MIL CON, NAVY RES GEORGIA Fort Gordon Naval Operational Support Center Fort Gordon ........ 17,797 17,797 MIL CON, NAVY RES NEW JERSEY Joint Base Mcguire-DixLakehurst Aircraft Apron, Taxiway & Support Facilities ............ 11,573 11,573 

MIL CON, NAVY RES TEXAS Fort Worth KC130-J EACTS Facility ............................................. 12,637 12,637 MIL CON, NAVY RES WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 1,504 1,504 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
540 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MIL CON, NAVY RES WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning & Design .................................................... 4,430 4,430 

SUBTOTAL MIL CON, NAVY RES ........................................................................................................................................................ 65,271 0 65,271 

MILCON, AF RES MILCON, AF RES FLORIDA Patrick AFB Guardian Angel Facility ............................................. 25,000 25,000 MILCON, AF RES GEORGIA Robins AFB Consolidated Mission Complex Phase 2 ................... 0 32,000 32,000 MILCON, AF RES GUAM Joint Region Marianas Reserve Medical Training Facility ............................. 5,200 5,200 MILCON, AF RES HAWAII Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam Consolidated Training Facility ................................... 5,500 5,500 

MILCON, AF RES MASSACHUSETTS Westover ARB Indoor Small Arms Range ......................................... 10,000 10,000 MILCON, AF RES MASSACHUSETTS Westover ARB Maintenance Facility Shops ....................................... 0 51,100 51,100 MILCON, AF RES MINNESOTA Minneapolis-St Paul IAP Indoor Small Arms Range ......................................... 0 9,000 9,000 MILCON, AF RES NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB KC–46A ADAL for Alt Mission Storage ...................... 6,400 6,400 MILCON, AF RES TEXAS NAS JRB Fort Worth Munitions Training/Admin Facility ............................. 0 3,100 3,100 MILCON, AF RES UTAH Hill AFB Add/Alter Life Support Facility .................................. 3,100 3,100 MILCON, AF RES WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning & Design .................................................... 0 13,500 13,500 

MILCON, AF RES WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning & Design .................................................... 4,725 4,725 

MILCON, AF RES WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 3,610 3,610 

SUBTOTAL MILCON, AF RES .............................................................................................................................................................. 63,535 108,700 172,235 

NATO SEC INV PRGM NATO SEC INV PRGM WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Nato Security Investment 

Program 

Nato Security Investment Program ............................ 154,000 154,000 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
541 

SUBTOTAL NATO SEC INV PRGM ....................................................................................................................................................... 154,000 0 154,000 

TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 8,119,429 449,084 8,568,513 

FAMILY HOUSING FAM HSG CON, ARMY FAM HSG CON, ARMY GEORGIA Fort Gordon Family Housing New Construction ............................. 6,100 6,100 FAM HSG CON, ARMY GERMANY Baumholder Construction Improvements ....................................... 34,156 34,156 FAM HSG CON, ARMY GERMANY South Camp Vilseck Family Housing New Construction (36 units) ........... 22,445 22,445 FAM HSG CON, ARMY KOREA Camp Humphreys Family Housing New Construction Incr 2 .................. 34,402 34,402 FAM HSG CON, ARMY KWAJALEIN Kwajalein Atoll Family Housing Replacement Construction ............... 31,000 –31,000 0 FAM HSG CON, ARMY MASSACHUSETTS Natick Family Housing Replacement Construction ............... 21,000 21,000 FAM HSG CON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning & Design .................................................... 33,559 33,559 

SUBTOTAL FAM HSG CON, ARMY ...................................................................................................................................................... 182,662 –31,000 151,662 

FAM HSG O&M, ARMY FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Management .............................................................. 37,089 37,089 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Services ...................................................................... 8,930 8,930 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 12,816 12,816 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Miscellaneous ............................................................ 400 400 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 57,708 57,708 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 60,251 60,251 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 148,538 148,538 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
542 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Housing Privitization Support .................................... 20,893 20,893 

SUBTOTAL FAM HSG O&M, ARMY ..................................................................................................................................................... 346,625 0 346,625 

FAM HSG CON, N/MC FAM HSG CON, N/MC BAHRAIN ISLAND SW Asia Construct On-Base GFOQ .......................................... 2,138 2,138 FAM HSG CON, N/MC MARIANA ISLANDS Guam Replace Andersen Housing PH II ............................... 40,875 –40,875 0 FAM HSG CON, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Construction Improvements ....................................... 36,251 36,251 

FAM HSG CON, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning & Design .................................................... 4,418 4,418 

SUBTOTAL FAM HSG CON, N/MC ....................................................................................................................................................... 83,682 –40,875 42,807 

FAM HSG O&M, N/MC FAM HSG O&M, N/ 

MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 62,167 62,167 

FAM HSG O&M, N/ 

MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 14,529 14,529 

FAM HSG O&M, N/ 

MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Management .............................................................. 50,989 50,989 

FAM HSG O&M, N/ 

MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Miscellaneous ............................................................ 336 336 

FAM HSG O&M, N/ 

MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Services ...................................................................... 15,649 15,649 

FAM HSG O&M, N/ 

MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 61,921 61,921 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
543 

FAM HSG O&M, N/ 

MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 95,104 95,104 

FAM HSG O&M, N/ 

MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Housing Privatization Support ................................... 27,587 27,587 

SUBTOTAL FAM HSG O&M, N/MC ...................................................................................................................................................... 328,282 0 328,282 

FAM HSG CON, AF FAM HSG CON, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Construction Improvements ....................................... 80,617 80,617 

FAM HSG CON, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning & Design .................................................... 4,445 4,445 

SUBTOTAL FAM HSG CON, AF ........................................................................................................................................................... 85,062 0 85,062 

FAM HSG O&M, AF FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Housing Privatization ................................................. 21,569 21,569 

FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 47,504 47,504 

FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Management .............................................................. 53,464 53,464 

FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Services ...................................................................... 13,517 13,517 

FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 29,424 29,424 

FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Miscellaneous ............................................................ 1,839 1,839 

FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 16,818 16,818 

FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 134,189 134,189 

SUBTOTAL FAM HSG O&M, AF .......................................................................................................................................................... 318,324 0 318,324 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
544 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

FAM HSG O&M, DW FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 4,100 4,100 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 407 407 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 268 268 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 12,390 12,390 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 655 655 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 641 641 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 39,716 39,716 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 6 6 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Services ...................................................................... 14 14 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 86 86 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 567 567 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Management .............................................................. 319 319 

SUBTOTAL FAM HSG O&M, DW ......................................................................................................................................................... 59,169 0 59,169 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
545 

FAM HSG IMPROVE FUND FAM HSG IMPROVE 

FUND 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Administrative Expenses—FHIF ................................ 2,726 2,726 

SUBTOTAL FAM HSG IMPROVE FUND ............................................................................................................................................... 2,726 0 2,726 

TOTAL FAMILY HOUSING ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,406,532 –71,875 1,334,657 

DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE DOD BRAC—ARMY DOD BRAC—ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Closure, Army Base Realignment and Closure ................................. 58,000 58,000 

SUBTOTAL DOD BRAC—ARMY .......................................................................................................................................................... 58,000 0 58,000 

DOD BRAC—NAVY DOD BRAC—NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Closure, Navy Base Realignment & Closure .................................... 93,474 93,474 

DOD BRAC—NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

DON–172: NWS Seal Beach, Concord, CA ................. 5,355 5,355 

DOD BRAC—NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

DON–138: NAS Brunswick, ME .................................. 647 647 

DOD BRAC—NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

DON–157: MCSA Kansas City, MO ............................ 40 40 

DOD BRAC—NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

DON–84: JRB Willow Grove & Cambria Reg AP ........ 4,737 4,737 

DOD BRAC—NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Undistributed ............................................................. 7,210 7,210 

DOD BRAC—NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

DON–100: Planing, Design and Management .......... 8,428 8,428 

DOD BRAC—NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

DON–101: Various Locations ..................................... 23,753 23,753 

SUBTOTAL DOD BRAC—NAVY ........................................................................................................................................................... 143,644 0 143,644 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
546 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

DOD BRAC—AIR FORCE DOD BRAC—AIR 

FORCE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

DoD BRAC Activities—Air Force ................................ 54,223 54,223 

SUBTOTAL DOD BRAC—AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................................................. 54,223 0 54,223 

TOTAL DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................... 255,867 255,867 

UNACCMP HSG IMPRV FUND UNACCMP HSG IMPRV FUND UNACCMP HSG 

IMPRV FUND 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unaccompanied Housing 

Improvement Fund 

Administrative Expenses—UHIF ................................ 623 623 

SUBTOTAL UNACCMP HSG IMPRV FUND .......................................................................................................................................... 623 0 623 

TOTAL UNACCMP HSG IMPRV FUND ................................................................................................................................................. 623 623 TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC .................................................................................................... 9,782,451 377,209 10,159,660 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
547 

SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION MILCON, ARMY MILCON, ARMY GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay OCO: Barracks ........................................................... 115,000 115,000 MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

ERI: Planning and Design ......................................... 15,700 –15,700 0 

MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

OCO: Planning and Design ........................................ 9,000 9,000 

SUBTOTAL MILCON, ARMY ................................................................................................................................................................. 139,700 –15,700 124,000 

MIL CON, NAVY MIL CON, NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

ERI: Planning and Design ......................................... 18,500 –18,500 0 

SUBTOTAL MIL CON, NAVY ................................................................................................................................................................ 18,500 –18,500 

MILCON, AIR FORCE MILCON, AIR FORCE ESTONIA Amari Air Base ERI: POL Capacity Phase II ....................................... 4,700 –4,700 0 MILCON, AIR FORCE ESTONIA Amari Air Base ERI: Tactical Fighter Aircraft Parking Apron ............. 9,200 –9,200 0 MILCON, AIR FORCE HUNGARY Kecskemet AB ERI: Increase POL Storage Capacity ......................... 12,500 –12,500 0 MILCON, AIR FORCE HUNGARY Kecskemet AB ERI: Construct Parallel Taxiway ................................ 30,000 –30,000 0 MILCON, AIR FORCE HUNGARY Kecskemet AB ERI: Airfield Upgrades ............................................... 12,900 –12,900 0 MILCON, AIR FORCE ICELAND Keflavik ERI: Airfield Upgrades ............................................... 14,400 –14,400 0 MILCON, AIR FORCE JORDAN Azraq OCO: MSAB Development ........................................... 143,000 143,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE LATVIA Lielvarde Air Base ERI: Expand Strategic Ramp Parking ....................... 3,850 –3,850 0 MILCON, AIR FORCE LUXEMBOURG Sanem ERI: ECAOS Deployable Airbase System Storage ...... 67,400 –67,400 0 MILCON, AIR FORCE NORWAY Rygge ERI: Replace/Expand Quick Reaction Alert Pad ........ 10,300 –10,300 0 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
548 

SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILCON, AIR FORCE ROMANIA Campia Turzii ERI: Upgrade Utilities Infrastructure ......................... 2,950 –2,950 0 MILCON, AIR FORCE SLOVAKIA Malacky ERI: Increase POL Storage Capacity ......................... 20,000 –20,000 0 MILCON, AIR FORCE SLOVAKIA Malacky ERI: Airfield Upgrades ............................................... 4,000 –4,000 0 MILCON, AIR FORCE SLOVAKIA Sliac Airport ERI: Airfield Upgrades ............................................... 22,000 –22,000 0 MILCON, AIR FORCE TURKEY Incirlik AB OCO: Replace Perimeter Fence .................................. 8,100 8,100 MILCON, AIR FORCE TURKEY Incirlik AB OCO: Relocate Base Main Access Control Point ....... 14,600 14,600 MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

ERI: Planning and Design ......................................... 56,630 –56,630 0 

MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

OCO—Planning and Design ...................................... 41,500 41,500 

SUBTOTAL MILCON, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................................................................ 478,030 –270,830 207,200 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

ERI: Planning and Design ......................................... 1,900 –1,900 0 

SUBTOTAL MIL CON, DEF-WIDE ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,900 –1,900 

TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 638,130 –306,930 331,200 TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC .................................................................................................... 638,130 –306,930 331,200 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(549) 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
550 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS. 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Discretionary Summary by Appropriation 

Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: 

Energy Programs 

Nuclear energy ......................................................................................................................................................... 133,000 0 133,000 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National nuclear security administration: 

Weapons activities .......................................................................................................................................... 10,239,344 273,600 10,512,944 

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ................................................................................................................... 1,793,310 250,297 2,043,607 

Naval reactors ................................................................................................................................................ 1,479,751 38,000 1,517,751 Federal Salaries and Expenses ...................................................................................................................... 418,595 0 418,595 

Total, National nuclear security administration ................................................................................................... 13,931,000 561,897 14,492,897 Environmental and other defense activities: 

Other defense activities ................................................................................................................................. 815,512 0 815,512 

Defense nuclear waste disposal .................................................................................................................... 30,000 0 30,000 

Total, Environmental & other defense activities ................................................................................................. 845,512 0 845,512 

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ........................................................................................................................ 14,776,512 561,897 15,338,409 

Subtotal, Energy And Water Development and Related Agencies ........................................................................................ 14,909,512 561,897 15,471,409 

Defense EM funded .......................................................................................................................................................... 5,537,186 0 5,537,186 

Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution .......................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Total, Discretionary Funding ............................................................................................................................................................. 20,446,698 561,897 21,008,595 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
551 

Nuclear Energy 

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ................................................................................................................................... 133,000 133,000 

Total, Nuclear Energy ........................................................................................................................................................................ 133,000 0 133,000 

Defense (050) function.....................(non-add) .................................................................................................................................. ( 133,000) –133,000 Weapons Activities 

Directed stockpile work 

Life extension programs and major alterations 

B61 Life extension program .................................................................................................................................... 788,572 788,572 W76 Life extension program .................................................................................................................................... 224,134 224,134 W88 Alt 370 ............................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 

W88 Alteration program .......................................................................................................................................... 332,292 332,292 

W80–4 Life extension program ............................................................................................................................... 399,090 399,090 

Total, Life extension programs and major alterations ................................................................................................. 1,744,088 0 1,744,088 Stockpile systems 

B61 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 59,729 59,729 W76 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 51,400 51,400 W78 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 60,100 60,100 W80 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 80,087 80,087 B83 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 35,762 35,762 W87 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 83,200 83,200 W88 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 131,576 131,576 

Total, Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................. 501,854 0 501,854 Weapons dismantlement and disposition 

Operations and maintenance .................................................................................................................................. 52,000 52,000 

Stockpile services 

Production support .................................................................................................................................................. 470,400 470,400 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
552 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Research and development support ........................................................................................................................ 31,150 31,150 R&D certification and safety ................................................................................................................................... 196,840 20,900 217,740 

Program increase for technology maturation ............................................................................... [20,900 ] 

Management, technology, and production .............................................................................................................. 285,400 285,400 

Total, Stockpile services ................................................................................................................................................. 983,790 20,900 1,004,690 Strategic materials 

Uranium sustainment .............................................................................................................................................. 20,579 20,579 Plutonium sustainment ........................................................................................................................................... 210,367 210,367 Tritium sustainment ................................................................................................................................................ 198,152 198,152 Domestic uranium enrichment ................................................................................................................................ 60,000 60,000 Strategic materials sustainment ............................................................................................................................. 206,196 206,196 

Total, Strategic materials ............................................................................................................................................... 695,294 0 695,294 

Total, Directed stockpile work ................................................................................................................................................ 3,977,026 20,900 3,997,926 

Research, development, test evaluation (RDT&E) 

Science 

Advanced certification ............................................................................................................................................. 57,710 57,710 Primary assessment technologies ........................................................................................................................... 89,313 89,313 Dynamic materials properties ................................................................................................................................. 122,347 122,347 Advanced radiography ............................................................................................................................................. 37,600 37,600 Secondary assessment technologies ....................................................................................................................... 76,833 76,833 Academic alliances and partnerships ..................................................................................................................... 52,963 52,963 Enhanced Capabilities for Subcritical Experiments ................................................................................................ 50,755 15,000 65,755 

Radiography project completion ................................................................................................... [15,000 ] 

Total, Science .................................................................................................................................................................. 487,521 15,000 502,521 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
553 

Engineering 

Enhanced surety ...................................................................................................................................................... 39,717 12,300 52,017 

Program increase for technology maturation ............................................................................... [12,300 ] 

Weapon systems engineering assessment technology ............................................................................................ 23,029 23,029 Nuclear survivability ................................................................................................................................................ 45,230 45,230 Enhanced surveillance ............................................................................................................................................. 45,147 45,147 

Stockpile Responsiveness ........................................................................................................................................ 40,000 10,000 50,000 

Program increase .......................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

Total, Engineering ............................................................................................................................................................ 193,123 22,300 215,423 Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield 

Ignition ..................................................................................................................................................................... 79,575 79,575 Support of other stockpile programs ...................................................................................................................... 23,565 23,565 Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support ................................................................................................ 77,915 77,915 Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion .............................................................................................................. 7,596 7,596 Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas ..................................................................................... 9,492 9,492 Facility operations and target production ............................................................................................................... 334,791 12,000 346,791 

Support increased shot rates ....................................................................................................... [12,000 ] 

Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield ........................................................................................................ 532,934 12,000 544,934 Advanced simulation and computing 

Advanced simulation and computing ..................................................................................................................... 709,244 709,244 Construction: 

18–D–670, Exascale Class Computer Cooling Equipment, LNL .................................................................... 22,000 22,000 18–D–620, Exascale Computing Facility Modernization Project ................................................................... 3,000 3,000 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................. 25,000 0 25,000 

Total, Advanced simulation and computing ................................................................................................................... 734,244 0 734,244 

Advanced manufacturing development 

Additive manufacturing ........................................................................................................................................... 12,000 12,000 24,000 

Program increase for research and infrastructure ...................................................................... [12,000 ]

Component manufacturing development ................................................................................................................ 38,644 36,400 75,044 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
554 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Improve production efficiency ...................................................................................................... [36,400 ] 

Process technology development ............................................................................................................................. 29,896 29,896 

Total, Advanced manufacturing development ............................................................................................................... 80,540 48,400 128,940 

Total, RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2,028,362 97,700 2,126,062 Infrastructure and operations 

Operating 

Operations of facilities 

Operations of facilities ................................................................................................................................... 868,000 868,000 Kansas City National Security Campus ......................................................................................................... 0 0 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ....................................................................................................... 0 0 Los Alamos National Laboratory ..................................................................................................................... 0 0 Nevada National Security Site ........................................................................................................................ 0 0 Pantex ............................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 Sandia National Laboratories ......................................................................................................................... 0 0 Savannah River Site ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 Y–12 National security complex ..................................................................................................................... 0 0 

Total, Operations of facilities ................................................................................................................................ 868,000 0 868,000 Safety and environmental operations ..................................................................................................................... 116,000 116,000 Maintenance and repair of facilities ...................................................................................................................... 360,000 50,000 410,000 

Reduce deferred maintenance backlog ........................................................................................ [50,000 ] 

Recapitalization ....................................................................................................................................................... 427,342 100,000 527,342 

Reduce deferred maintenance backlog ........................................................................................ [100,000 ] 

Construction: 

18–D–660, Fire Station, Y–12 ................................................................................................................................ 28,000 28,000 18–D–650, Tritium Production Capability, SRS ...................................................................................................... 6,800 6,800 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
555 

17–D–640, U1a Complex Enhancements Project, NNSS ........................................................................................ 22,100 22,100 17–D–630, Expand Electrical Distribution System, LLNL ....................................................................................... 6,000 6,000 17–D–126, PF–4 reconfiguration project, LANL ..................................................................................................... 0 0 17–D–125, RLOUB reconfiguration project, LANL ................................................................................................... 0 0 16–D–621 TA–3 substation replacement, LANL ..................................................................................................... 0 0 16–D–515 Albuquerque complex project ................................................................................................................ 98,000 98,000 15–D–613 Emergency Operations Center, Y–12 .................................................................................................... 7,000 7,000 15–D–302, TA–55 Reinvestment project, Phase 3, LANL ...................................................................................... 0 0 11–D–801 TA–55 Reinvestment project Phase 2, LANL ........................................................................................ 0 0 07–D–220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility upgrade project, LANL .................................................... 2,100 2,100 07–D–220-04 Transuranic liquid waste facility, LANL .......................................................................................... 17,895 17,895 06–D–141 Uranium processing facility Y–12, Oak Ridge, TN ............................................................................... 663,000 663,000 Chemistry and metallurgy replacement (CMRR) 

04–D–125 Chemistry and metallurgy research facility replacement project, LANL ..................................... 180,900 180,900 04–D–125—04 RLUOB equipment installation ............................................................................................ 0 0 04–D–125—05 PF –4 equipment installation .............................................................................................. 0 0 

Total, Chemistry and metallurgy replacement (CMRR) ....................................................................................... 180,900 0 180,900 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,031,795 0 1,031,795 

Total, Infrastructure and operations ...................................................................................................................................... 2,803,137 150,000 2,953,137 Secure transportation asset 

Operations and equipment ............................................................................................................................................... 219,464 219,464 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 105,600 105,600 

Total, Secure transportation asset ......................................................................................................................................... 325,064 0 325,064 Defense nuclear security 

Operations and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................... 686,977 5,000 691,977 

Reduce deferred maintenance backlog ................................................................................................. [5,000 ] 

Security improvements program ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 Construction: 

17–D–710 West end protected area reduction project, Y–12 ................................................................................ 0 0 14–D–710 Device assembly facility argus installation project, NNSS, NV ............................................................ 0 0 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
556 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Total, Defense nuclear security .............................................................................................................................................. 686,977 5,000 691,977 Information technology and cybersecurity ................................................................................................................................. 186,728 186,728 Legacy contractor pensions ....................................................................................................................................................... 232,050 232,050 

Subtotal, Weapons activities ............................................................................................................................................................ 10,239,344 273,600 10,512,944 

Adjustments 

Use of prior year balances ............................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

Subtotal, Weapons activities ............................................................................................................................................................ 10,239,344 273,600 10,512,944 

Rescission 

Rescission of prior year balances .................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

Total, Weapons Activities .................................................................................................................................................................. 10,239,344 273,600 10,512,944 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs 

Global material security 

International nuclear security ................................................................................................................................. 46,339 20,000 66,339 

Enhanced nuclear security ........................................................................................................... [20,000 ] 

Radiological security ............................................................................................................................................... 146,340 20,000 166,340 

Protection and safe disposal of radioactive sources .................................................................. [20,000 ] 

Domestic radiologic security ................................................................................................................................... 0 0 International radiologic security .............................................................................................................................. 0 0 Nuclear smuggling detection .................................................................................................................................. 144,429 60,000 204,429 

Radiation detection ...................................................................................................................... [60,000 ] 

Total, Global material security ....................................................................................................................................... 337,108 100,000 437,108 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
557 

Material management and minimization 

HEU reactor conversion ........................................................................................................................................... 125,500 125,500 Nuclear material removal ........................................................................................................................................ 32,925 32,925 Material disposition ................................................................................................................................................. 173,669 173,669 

Total, Material management & minimization ................................................................................................................ 332,094 0 332,094 Nonproliferation and arms control ................................................................................................................................... 129,703 70,297 200,000 

Verification ............................................................................................................................................. [70,297 ] 

Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D ............................................................................................................................. 446,095 446,095 Nonproliferation construction 

U. S. Construction: 

18–D–150 Surplus Plutonium Disposition Project ......................................................................................... 9,000 9,000 99–D–143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility, SRS ....................................................................... 270,000 80,000 350,000 

Increase to continue construction of MOX .......................................................................... [80,000 ] 

Total, Nonproliferation construction ..................................................................................................................... 279,000 80,000 359,000 

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs ............................................................................................................... 1,524,000 250,297 1,774,297 

Legacy contractor pensions ....................................................................................................................................................... 40,950 40,950 Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program ....................................................................................................... 277,360 277,360 

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .................................................................................................................................... 1,842,310 250,297 2,092,607 

Adjustments 

Use of prior year balances ............................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation .................................................................................................................................... 1,842,310 250,297 2,092,607 

Rescission .................................................................................................................................................................................. 0 

Rescission of prior year balances .................................................................................................................................... –49,000 –49,000 

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ......................................................................................................................................... 1,793,310 250,297 2,043,607 

Naval Reactors 

Naval reactors development ...................................................................................................................................................... 473,267 473,267 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
558 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Ohio replacement reactor systems development ...................................................................................................................... 0 0 Columbia-Class reactor systems development ......................................................................................................................... 156,700 156,700 S8G Prototype refueling ............................................................................................................................................................. 190,000 190,000 Naval reactors operations and infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 466,884 38,000 504,884 

Reduce deferred maintenance backlog .......................................................................................................... [38,000 ] 

Construction: .............................................................................................................................................................................. 0 

17–D–911, BL Fire System Upgrade ................................................................................................................................ 0 0 15–D–904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3 ............................................................................................................... 13,700 13,700 15–D–903 KL Fire System Upgrade ................................................................................................................................. 15,000 15,000 15–D–902 KS Engineroom team trainer facility .............................................................................................................. 0 0 14–D–902 KL Materials characterization laboratory expansion, KAPL ............................................................................ 0 0 14–D–901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, NRF ........................................................................................ 116,000 116,000 10-D–903, Security upgrades, KS .................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................................... 144,700 0 144,700 Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 48,200 48,200 

Subtotal, Naval Reactors .................................................................................................................................................................. 1,479,751 38,000 1,517,751 

Rescission 

Rescission of prior year balances .................................................................................................................................... 0 0 

Total, Naval Reactors ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,479,751 38,000 1,517,751 

Federal Salaries and Expenses 

Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 418,595 418,595 

Rescission .............................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 

Total, Federal Salaries and Expenses .............................................................................................................................................. 418,595 0 418,595 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
559 

Defense Environmental Cleanup 

Closure sites: 

Closure sites administration ............................................................................................................................................ 4,889 4,889 

Hanford site: 

River corridor and other cleanup operations: 

River corridor and other cleanup operations .......................................................................................................... 58,692 58,692 

Central plateau remediation: 

Central plateau remediation ................................................................................................................................... 637,879 637,879 

Richland community and regulatory support ................................................................................................................... 5,121 5,121 Construction 

18–D–404 WESF Modifications and Capsule Storage ............................................................................................ 6,500 6,500 15–D–401 Containerized sludge removal annex, RL .............................................................................................. 8,000 8,000 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 14,500 14,500 

Total, Hanford site .................................................................................................................................................................... 716,192 716,192 Idaho National Laboratory: 

SNF stabilization and disposition—2012 ........................................................................................................................ 19,975 19,975 Solid waste stabilization and disposition ........................................................................................................................ 170,101 170,101 Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition .......................................................................................... 111,352 111,352 Soil and water remediation—2035 ................................................................................................................................. 44,727 44,727 Idaho community and regulatory support ........................................................................................................................ 4,071 4,071 

Total, Idaho National Laboratory ............................................................................................................................................. 350,226 350,226 

NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ......................................................................................................................... 1,175 1,175 Nuclear facility D&D Separations Process Research Unit ............................................................................................... 1,800 1,800 Nevada .............................................................................................................................................................................. 60,136 60,136 

Sandia National Laboratories ........................................................................................................................................... 2,600 2,600 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
560 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Los Alamos National Laboratory ....................................................................................................................................... 191,629 191,629 

Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites .................................................................................................................................. 257,340 257,340 

Oak Ridge Reservation: 

OR Nuclear facility D & D 

OR-0041—D&D - Y–12 .......................................................................................................................................... 29,369 29,369 OR-0042—D&D -ORNL ............................................................................................................................................ 48,110 48,110 Construction 

17–D–401 On-site waste disposal facility .................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 14–D–403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility ....................................................................................... 17,100 17,100 

Total, OR Nuclear facility D & D .................................................................................................................................... 99,579 99,579 

U233 Disposition Program ................................................................................................................................................ 33,784 33,784 OR cleanup and disposition 

OR cleanup and disposition .................................................................................................................................... 66,632 66,632 

OR community & regulatory support ................................................................................................................................ 4,605 4,605 Solid waste stabilization and disposition 

Oak Ridge technology development ........................................................................................................................ 3,000 3,000 

Total, Oak Ridge Reservation .................................................................................................................................................. 207,600 207,600 

Office of River Protection: 

Waste treatment and immobilization plant 

Construction: 01–D–416 A-D WTP Subprojects A-D ........................................................................................................... 655,000 655,000 01–D–416 E—Pretreatment Facility ............................................................................................................ 35,000 35,000 Total, 01–D–416 Construction .................................................................................................................... 690,000 690,000 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
561 

WTP Commissioning ...................................................................................................................................... 8,000 8,000 

Total, Waste treatment & immobilization plant ............................................................................................................ 698,000 698,000 

Tank farm activities 

Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ............................................................................................. 713,311 713,311 Construction: 

15–D–409 Low activity waste pretreatment system, ORP ............................................................................ 93,000 93,000 

Total, Tank farm activities .............................................................................................................................................. 806,311 806,311 

Total, Office of River protection ............................................................................................................................................. 1,504,311 1,504,311 

Savannah River Sites: 

Savannah River risk management operations: 

Nuclear material stabilization and disposition ....................................................................................................... 0 0 SNF stabilization and disposition ........................................................................................................................... 0 0 Soil and water remediation–2035 ........................................................................................................................... 0 0 Solid waste stabilization and disposition ............................................................................................................... 0 0 

Total, Savannah River risk management operations .................................................................................................... 0 0 Nuclear Material Management 

Nuclear Material Management ....................................................................................................................... 323,482 323,482 

Environmental Cleanup 

Environmental Cleanup ................................................................................................................................. 159,478 159,478 

Construction: 

08–D–402, Emergency Operations Center ..................................................................................................... 500 500 

Total, Environmental Cleanup ......................................................................................................................................... 159,978 159,978 

SR community and regulatory support ............................................................................................................................ 11,249 11,249 Radioactive liquid tank waste: 

Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ................................................................................. 597,258 597,258 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
562 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Construction: 

18–D–401, SDU #8/9 ..................................................................................................................................... 500 500 17–D–402—Saltstone Disposal Unit #7 ....................................................................................................... 40,000 40,000 15–D–402—Saltstone Disposal Unit #6, SRS .............................................................................................. 0 0 05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah River Site .................................................................. 150,000 150,000 

Total, Savannah River Site ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,282,467 1,282,467 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

Operations and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................... 206,617 206,617 Recovery activities ............................................................................................................................................................ 0 0 Central characterization project ....................................................................................................................................... 22,500 22,500 Transportation ................................................................................................................................................................... 21,854 21,854 Construction: 

15–D–411 Safety significant confinement ventilation system, WIPP .................................................................... 46,000 46,000 15–D–412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP .............................................................................................................................. 19,600 19,600 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 65,600 65,600 

Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ........................................................................................................................................... 316,571 316,571 Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 300,000 300,000 Program support ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6,979 6,979 WCF Mission Related Activities ................................................................................................................................................. 22,109 22,109 Minority Serving Institution Partnership ................................................................................................................................... 6,000 6,000 Safeguards and Security: 

Oak Ridge Reservation ..................................................................................................................................................... 16,500 16,500 Paducah ............................................................................................................................................................................ 14,049 14,049 Portsmouth ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12,713 12,713 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
563 

Richland/Hanford Site ...................................................................................................................................................... 75,600 75,600 Savannah River Site ......................................................................................................................................................... 142,314 142,314 Waste Isolation Pilot Project ............................................................................................................................................ 5,200 5,200 West Valley ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2,784 2,784 

Total, Safeguards and Security ............................................................................................................................................... 269,160 269,160 

Cyber Security ............................................................................................................................................................................ 43,342 43,342 Technology development ............................................................................................................................................................ 25,000 25,000 HQEF-0040—Excess Facilities .................................................................................................................................................. 225,000 225,000 CB-0101 Economic assistance to the state of NM .................................................................................................................. 0 0 

Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup ....................................................................................................................................... 5,537,186 5,537,186 

Rescission: 

Rescission of prior year balances .................................................................................................................................... 0 

Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................................................................................................ 5,537,186 5,537,186 

Other Defense Activities 

Environment, health, safety and security 

Environment, health, safety and security ........................................................................................................................ 130,693 130,693 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 68,765 68,765 

Total, Environment, Health, safety and security .................................................................................................................... 199,458 0 199,458 

Independent enterprise assessments 

Independent enterprise assessments ............................................................................................................................... 24,068 24,068 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 50,863 50,863 

Total, Independent enterprise assessments ........................................................................................................................... 74,931 0 74,931 

Specialized security activities ................................................................................................................................................... 237,912 237,912 Office of Legacy Management 

Legacy management ......................................................................................................................................................... 137,674 137,674 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
564 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2018 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 16,932 16,932 

Total, Office of Legacy Management ...................................................................................................................................... 154,606 0 154,606 Defense related administrative support 

Chief financial officer ...................................................................................................................................................... 48,484 48,484 Chief information officer .................................................................................................................................................. 91,443 91,443 Management ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 Project management oversight and Assessments ........................................................................................................... 3,073 3,073 

Total, Defense related administrative support ....................................................................................................................... 143,000 0 143,000 Office of hearings and appeals ................................................................................................................................................ 5,605 5,605 

Subtotal, Other defense activities .................................................................................................................................................... 815,512 0 815,512 

Rescission: 

Rescission of prior year balances (LM) ........................................................................................................................... 0 0 Rescission of prior year balances (EHS&S) ..................................................................................................................... 0 0 Rescission of prior year balances (OHA) ......................................................................................................................... 0 0 Rescission of prior year balances (SSA) .......................................................................................................................... 0 0 Rescission of prior year balances (EA) ............................................................................................................................ 0 0 Rescission of prior year balances (ESA) .......................................................................................................................... 0 0 

Total, Rescission ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Total, Other Defense Activities ......................................................................................................................................................... 815,512 0 815,512 

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal 

Yucca mountain and interim storage ....................................................................................................................................... 30,000 30,000 

Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
565 

Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund Contribution ........................................................................................................................... 0 0 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
566 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

Departmental Recommendations 

One legislative proposal on the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2018 was submitted as an executive communication to the President of the Senate by the Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Legislative Affairs of the Department of Defense and 

subsequently referred to the committee. Information on this executive communications appears below. This executive communication 

is available for review at the committee. 

Executive Communication No. EC–1677 

Dated June 6, 2017 

Received in the Committee on Armed Services on June 6, 2017 

Committee Action 

The committee vote to report the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2018 passed by roll call vote, 27–0, as follows: 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, 

Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, 

Strange, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, and 

Peters 

The other 7 roll call votes on motions and amendments to the bill 

which were considered during the course of the full committee 

markup are as follows: 

1. MOTION: To conduct full committee markup of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 in closed session 

because of classified and proprietary information expected to be 

discussed. 

Passed by roll call vote 18–9 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, 

Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Graham, Sasse, Strange, 

Reed, Nelson, Donnelly, Hirono, and King 

Opposed: Senators Cruz, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Kaine, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters 

2. MOTION: To include a provision that would vest in the Chief 

of Staff of each of the Armed Forces the responsibility for establishing, approving, and modifying the criteria, standards, and 

qualifications for military specialty codes within that Armed Force. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 15–12 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, 

Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, 

Strange, and King 

Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, Heinrich, Warren, and 

Peters 

3. MOTION: To include a provision that would remove Department of Defense exemptions from Program and Program Management requirements in Section 503(c) of title 31, United States 

Code, and Program Improvement Management Officer requirements in Section 1123(a)(3) of title 31, United States Code. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10–17 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
567 

In favor: Senators Ernst, Perdue, Cruz, McCaskill, Gillibrand, 

Donnelly, King, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, 

Rounds, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Sasse, Strange, Reed, Nelson, 

Shaheen, Blumenthal, Hirono, and Kaine 

4. MOTION: To include a provision that would allow each secretary of a military department to transfer funds designated for 

military museums to the World War I Centennial Commission. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13–14 

In favor: Senators Cruz, Strange, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, Warren, 

and Peters 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, 

Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Graham, Sasse, King, and 

Heinrich 

5. MOTION: To include a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to reestablish port of call exchanges between the 

United States and Taiwan. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 21–6 

In Favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, 

Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, 

Strange, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, 

Heinrich, and Peters 

Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Warren 

6. MOTION: To strike the portions of a provision that would 

allow the Department of Defense to conduct all personnel background and security investigations adjudicated by the Consolidated 

Adjudication Facility of the Department. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 9–18 

In favor: Senators McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, 

Hirono, Kaine, King, Warren, and Peters 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, 

Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Cruz, Graham, Sasse, 

Strange, Reed, Nelson, Donnelly, and Heinrich 

7. MOTION: To include a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the oversight of Department of Defense assistance for the Lebanese Armed Forces and the 

Lebanese Internal Security Forces. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 8–19 

In favor: Senators Cotton, Ernst, Perdue, Cruz, Sasse, Donnelly, 

Kaine, and King 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, 

Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Strange, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Heinrich, Warren, and 

Peters 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget Office 

cost estimate on this legislation because it was not available at the 

time the report was filed. It will be included in material presented 

during Senate floor debate on the legislation. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
568 

Regulatory Impact 

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the bill be 

included in the report on the bill. The committee finds that there 

is no regulatory impact in the case of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2018. 

Changes in Existing Laws 

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law made by 

certain portions of the bill have not been shown in this section of 

the report because, in the opinion of the committee, it is necessary 

to dispense with showing such changes in order to expedite the 

business of the Senate and reduce the expenditure of funds. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(569) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. ROUNDS 

I strongly support the National Defense Authorization Act reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I commend 

Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for their outstanding bipartisan cooperation in once again moving this crucial 

bill to the full Senate. However, I strongly oppose a section of the 

bill that would adversely affect my constituents who are military 

retirees as well as those in many other states. These retirees may 

be disproportionately and unfairly impacted by increases in 

TRICARE prescription drug copay increases in the bill. Specifically, 

provisions in this bill would increase cost-sharing amounts for the 

TRICARE pharmacy benefits program for years 2018 through 2026. 

The committee report does not state the rationale for these increases. Such increases in the Senate passed NDAA 2017, which 

fortunately did not survive conference, had the stated rationale 

that the increases would generate savings which could be used to 

improve health outcomes and the experience of care for beneficiaries of the military health system. I fully support improving 

care for beneficiaries of the military health system. However, increased TRICARE pharmacy copays must be carefully considered to 

make certain that they do not disproportionately impact one part 

of the beneficiary population. Unfortunately that would be the case 

for South Dakota and other largely rural states with large military 

retiree populations that live too far from Military Treatment Facilities to draw free prescriptions available there. Instead, these military retirees and their families are compelled to use the TRICARE 

mail order system or retail pharmacies and in both cases, they 

would have to pay higher copays. 

For example, the copay for a generic drug ordered through the 

TRICARE mail order system would increase by $10 dollars in Fiscal Year 2018. While this does not seem like a lot of money, these 

costs can add up rapidly if a military retiree and his or her family 

members are required to make multiple copays for multiple prescriptions every month. 

Simply put—our military retirees who live distant from a Military Treatment Facility should not be unfairly forced to pay higher 

copays on prescription drugs just because of where they choose to 

live. 

MIKE ROUNDS. 

Æ 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING