1 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

114–255 

Calendar No. 469 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

REPORT 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 2943]

ON

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 FOR 

MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND 

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

PURPOSES 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

MAY 18, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

20–113 WASHINGTON : 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2016

114–255 

Calendar No. 469 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION 

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

REPORT 

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 2943]

ON

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 FOR 

MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND 

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

PURPOSES 

TOGETHER WITH

ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

MAY 18, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOM TILLIS, North Carolina 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

CHRISTIAN BROSE, Staff Director 

ELIZABETH L. KING, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

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

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

Summary of Discretionary Authorizations and Budget Authority Implication .. 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 

Distributed Common Ground System—Army (sec. 111) ........................ 5 

Multiyear procurement authority for UH–60M/HH–60M Black Hawk 

helicopters (sec. 112) .............................................................................. 6 

Multiyear procurement authority for AH–64E Apache helicopters 

(sec. 113) ................................................................................................. 6 

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

Incremental funding for detail design and construction of LHA replacement ship designated LHA–8 (sec. 121) ...................................... 7 

Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 122) ............................................................... 7 

Certification on ship deliveries (sec. 123) ................................................ 8 

Limitation on the use of sole source shipbuilding contracts (sec. 124) . 9 

Limitation on availability of funds for the Advanced Arresting Gear 

program (sec. 125) .................................................................................. 11 

Limitation on procurement of USS John F. Kennedy (CVN–79) and 

USS Enterprise (CVN–80) (sec. 126) .................................................... 13 

Limitation on availability of funds for Tactical Combat Training System Increment II (sec. 127) ................................................................... 14 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 14 

Extension of prohibition on availability of funds for retirement of 

A–10 aircraft (sec. 141) ......................................................................... 14 

Limitation on availability of funds for destruction of A–10 aircraft 

in storage status (sec. 142) ................................................................... 15 

Repeal of the requirement to preserve certain retired C–5 aircraft 

(sec. 143) ................................................................................................. 15 

Repeal of requirement to preserve F–117 aircraft in recallable condition (sec. 144) ......................................................................................... 16 

Limitation on availability of funds for EC–130H Compass Call recapitalization program (sec. 145) ................................................................ 16 

Limitation on availability of funds for Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) recapitalization program (sec. 146) ... 17 

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

Report to Congress on independent study of future mix of aircraft 

platforms for the Armed Forces (sec. 151) ........................................... 18 

Limitation on availability of funds for destruction of certain cluster 

munitions and report on Department of Defense policy and cluster 

munitions (sec. 152) ............................................................................... 18 

Medium altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft (sec. 153) ........................................................................................ 19 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 19 

Army ........................................................................................................... 19 

Survivability Counter Measures ....................................................... 19 

Stryker Upgrades ............................................................................... 20 

M1 Abrams Tank (Modification) ....................................................... 20 

M1 Abrams Tank (Modification) ....................................................... 20 

Army Budget request realignment M4 Carbine Modification ........ 20 

Army Budget request realignment Hand Gun ................................ 20 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

IV 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Army—Continued 

Army ammunition reduction ............................................................. 20 

High Mobility Multi-Purpose Vehicle ............................................... 21 

Modification of in Service Equipment .............................................. 21 

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical ....................................... 21 

Distributed Common Ground System-Army (Military Intelligence 

Program) .......................................................................................... 21 

Light Weight Counter Mortar Radar ................................................ 21 

Modification of In-Service Equipment (Lightweight Laser Designator Rangefinder) ......................................................................... 22 

Counterfire Radars ............................................................................ 22 

Maneuver Control System ................................................................. 22 

Automated Data Processing Equipment .......................................... 22 

Army Contract Writing System ........................................................ 22 

Distribution Systems, Petroleum and Water ................................... 22 

Mobile Maintenance Equipment Systems ........................................ 22 

Construction Equipment Engineer Support Companies ................. 23 

Army Watercraft Extended Service Program .................................. 23 

Modification of In-Service Equipment (Other Procurement, Army 

3) ...................................................................................................... 23 

Navy ........................................................................................................... 23 

F–35B Spares ..................................................................................... 23 

Tomahawk missile ............................................................................. 23 

AGM–88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile ...................... 24 

Ordnance support equipment ............................................................ 24 

Navy and Marine Corps ammunition reduction .............................. 24 

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

Littoral Combat Ship ......................................................................... 25 

Amphibious ship replacement LX(R) ................................................ 25 

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

LCS common mission modules equipment ....................................... 25 

Surveillance towed array sensor system .......................................... 25 

Surface electronic warfare improvement program .......................... 25 

Minesweeping system replacement .................................................. 26 

Air Force .................................................................................................... 26 

UH–1N helicopter replacement program ......................................... 26 

Fourth generation fighter capability upgrades ................................ 26 

Budget request realignments ............................................................ 27 

Defense Wide ............................................................................................. 27 

Mentor Prote ́ge ́ reduction .................................................................. 27 

MH–60M training loss replacement ................................................. 28 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ...................................................... 28 

AC–130J A-kit procurement .............................................................. 28 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 28 

Aegis radar improvements ........................................................................ 28 

Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload ..................................................... 29 

Army Modular Handgun System (MHS) ................................................. 29 

B–21 supply chain ..................................................................................... 30 

B–52 radar replacement program ............................................................ 30 

C–130 engine enhancements .................................................................... 30 

Comptroller General of the United States assessment of Department 

of Defense F–35 deployment planning efforts ..................................... 31 

DDG–51 destroyer production gap ........................................................... 32 

Department of Defense report on improvements to the munitions 

requirements process ............................................................................. 32 

E–3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) fleet Block 

40/45 upgrade ......................................................................................... 32 

EA–18G Growler requirement .................................................................. 33 

Enhanced tactical mobility for infantry brigade combat teams ............ 33 

F–16 mission training centers .................................................................. 33 

High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) ambulance . 34 

Munitions availability ............................................................................... 34 

Navy maritime security barriers .............................................................. 35 

Ohio-class replacement submarine program ........................................... 35 

Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) .................................................. 36 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

V 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Patriot Product Improvement ................................................................... 36 

Radiation Detection Technology ............................................................... 36 

Report on disposition options for previously modified C–130H Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) aircraft ..................................... 36 

Review of Army salutes, honors, and visits of courtesy in relation 

to use of 75MM blank rounds ............................................................... 37 

Shipbuilding guarantees ........................................................................... 37 

Unmet COCOM Cruise Missile Defense Requirement ........................... 38 

USAF Eagle Vision program .................................................................... 38 

V–22 defensive weapon system ................................................................ 39 

Virginia-class submarines ........................................................................ 39 

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN–T) ............................... 40 

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

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

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

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

Modification of mechanisms to provide funds for defense laboratories 

for research and development of technologies for military missions 

(sec. 211) ................................................................................................. 43 

Making permanent authority for defense research and development 

rapid innovation program (sec. 212) .................................................... 44 

Authorization for National Defense University and Defense Acquisition University to enter into cooperative research and development 

agreements (sec. 213) ............................................................................ 44 

Manufacturing Universities Grant Program (sec. 214) .......................... 44 

Increased micro-purchase threshold for basic research programs and 

activities of the Department of Defense science and technology 

reinvention laboratories (sec. 215) ....................................................... 45 

Directed energy weapon system programs (sec. 216) ............................. 46 

Limitation on B–21 Engineering and Manufacturing Development 

program funds (sec. 217) ....................................................................... 47 

Pilot program on disclosure of certain sensitive information to contractors performing under contracts with Department of Defense 

federally funded research and development centers (sec. 218) .......... 47 

Pilot program on enhanced interaction between the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the service academies (sec. 

219) ......................................................................................................... 48 

Modification of authority for use of operation and maintenance funds 

for unspecified minor construction projects consisting of laboratory 

revitalization (sec. 220) ......................................................................... 48 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 49 

Materials technology ................................................................................. 49 

Sensors and electronic survivability ........................................................ 49 

Social science research .............................................................................. 49 

Army vehicle prototyping .......................................................................... 50 

Electronic warfare technology .................................................................. 50 

Advanced tactical computer science and sensor technology .................. 50 

Small Arms Improvement ......................................................................... 51 

Army contract writing system .................................................................. 51 

Integrated Personnel and Pay System—Army ....................................... 51 

Aircraft survivability development .......................................................... 51 

Technical information activities ............................................................... 51 

Aerostat joint project-COCOM exercise ................................................... 51 

Combat vehicle improvement programs .................................................. 52 

Army Global Combat Support System Increment 2 ............................... 52 

Distributed Common Ground/Surface System ........................................ 52 

Undersea warfare applied research ......................................................... 52 

Power projection advanced technology .................................................... 52 

Capable manpower and power and energy ............................................. 53 

Large diameter unmanned underwater vehicle ...................................... 53 

Littoral Combat Ship mission modules ................................................... 53 

Amphibious ship replacement LX(R) ....................................................... 53 

Extra large unmanned underwater vehicle ............................................. 53 

Marine Corps cyber protection team fly-away kits ................................. 54 

Management, technical, and international support ............................... 54 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VI 

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

Budget Items—Continued 

Aerospace propulsion ................................................................................ 54 

High energy laser joint technology office ................................................ 54 

Silicon carbide for aerospace power applications .................................... 55 

Electronic combat technology ................................................................... 55 

Battlespace knowledge development and demonstration ....................... 55 

B–21 long range strike bomber ................................................................ 56 

Operationally Responsive Space program ............................................... 56 

Advanced Pilot Training Program ........................................................... 56 

KC–46 aerial refueling tanker aircraft program .................................... 56 

Evolved Advanced Extremely High Frequency MILSATCOM .............. 56 

B–2 Defensive Management System Modernization .............................. 57 

MQ–9 automatic takeoff and landing control system ............................ 57 

Air Force Cost Estimating Module (CEM) .............................................. 57 

Air Force Program Budget Enterprise Service (PBES) .......................... 57 

Budget request realignments ................................................................... 57 

Operational energy capability improvement increase ............................ 58 

Post intercept assessment acceleration ................................................... 58 

Israeli cooperative missile defense program ........................................... 58 

Ground based interceptor booster acceleration ....................................... 58 

Redesigned kill vehicle risk reduction ..................................................... 59 

Multiple object kill vehicle technology maturation ................................ 59 

High altitude long endurance solar powered unmanned aircraft ......... 59 

Corrosion control and prevention funding increase ................................ 59 

Directed energy systems prototyping ...................................................... 59 

Development test and evaluation ............................................................. 60 

Information Systems Security Program at the National Security 

Agency .................................................................................................... 60 

Sharkseer 2.0 ............................................................................................. 61 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ............................................................. 62 

Sharkseer email protection ....................................................................... 62 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 63 

Active protection systems ......................................................................... 63 

Advanced airlift airship technology ......................................................... 63 

Advanced weapons technology ................................................................. 65 

Assessment of status of little used research and development infrastructure assets ...................................................................................... 65 

Bradley Fighting Vehicle Transmission Competition ............................. 65 

Conformal phased array antennas ........................................................... 66 

Department of Defense technology offset program to build and maintain the military technological superiority of the United States ....... 66 

Digital polarimetric radar development .................................................. 68 

Expedited hiring at Department of Defense laboratories ...................... 68 

Human augmentation technology for industrial operations .................. 68 

Hypersonic wind tunnel capabilities ........................................................ 69 

Immunosuppression associated with Anthrax Prophylaxis ................... 69 

Integration of nanoscale techniques for improved battery technology . 70 

Laser weapon system demonstrator ........................................................ 70 

Littoral Combat Ship propulsion and machinery control test capability ........................................................................................................ 70 

Long-range threat detection ..................................................................... 71 

Mid-Tier Networking Vehicular Radio .................................................... 71 

Military medical photonics ....................................................................... 71 

MQ–XX ....................................................................................................... 71 

Night Vision Device Reset ........................................................................ 72 

Night Vision Reset .................................................................................... 73 

Plan to reduce the footprint of aged chemical and biological weapons 

facilities at Aberdeen Proving Ground ................................................. 73 

Review of balance between Department of Defense developmental 

and operational test and evaluation .................................................... 73 

Silicon Carbide Technology ....................................................................... 75 

Simulation training ................................................................................... 75 

Single appropriation for developmental test and evaluation and test 

resources ................................................................................................. 76 

Study on best practices for laboratory management techniques ........... 76 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VII 

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

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Subsurface threat detection systems ....................................................... 78 

The improved turbine engine program (ITEP) for Army rotary wing 

aviation ................................................................................................... 78 

Third offset technology—industrial base concerns ................................. 78 

Troposcatter Systems ................................................................................ 79 

United States Special Operations Command, Airborne High Energy 

Lazer ....................................................................................................... 79 

Working capital fund efficiencies ............................................................. 79 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 80 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 80 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301) .............................................. 80 

Subtitle B—Energy and the Environment ..................................................... 80 

Modified reporting requirement related to installations energy management (sec. 302) ................................................................................. 80 

Report on efforts to reduce high energy cost at military installations 

(sec. 303) ................................................................................................. 80 

Utility data management for military facilities (sec. 304) ..................... 80 

Linear LED lamps (sec. 305) .................................................................... 81 

Subtitle C—Logistics and Sustainment .......................................................... 81 

Deployment prioritization and readiness of Army units (sec. 311) ....... 81 

Revision of guidance related to corrosion control and prevention executives (sec. 312) .................................................................................. 81 

Repair, recapitalization, and certification of dry docks at Naval shipyards (sec. 313) ...................................................................................... 81 

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 81 

Modifications to Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress (sec. 321) ... 81 

Report on HH–60G sustainment and Combat Rescue Helicopter 

(CRH) program (sec. 322) ...................................................................... 82 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 82 

Repurposing and reuse of surplus military firearms (sec. 331) ............. 82 

Limitation on development and fielding of new camouflage and utility 

uniforms (sec. 332) ................................................................................. 82 

Hazard assessments related to new construction of obstructions on 

military installations (sec. 333) ............................................................ 83 

Plan for modernized Air Force dedicated adversary air training enterprise (sec. 334) ....................................................................................... 83 

Independent study to review and assess the effectiveness of the Air 

Force Ready Aircrew Program (sec. 335) ............................................. 84 

Mitigation of risks posed by certain window coverings with accessible 

cords in military housing units in which children reside (sec. 336) .. 84 

Tactical explosive detection dogs (sec. 337) ............................................. 85 

STARBASE Program (sec. 338) ................................................................ 85 

Access to Department of Defense Installations for drivers of vehicles 

of online transportation network companies (sec. 339) ...................... 85 

Women’s military service memorials and museums (sec. 340) .............. 85 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 85 

Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard readiness unfunded 

priorities increases ................................................................................. 85 

Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization increases ..... 86 

Army advertising reduction ...................................................................... 87 

Army museum reduction .......................................................................... 88 

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase ......... 88 

Printing reductions to active service components and defense-wide .... 88 

Distributed Common Ground System—Army ......................................... 88 

Foreign currency fluctuations .................................................................. 89 

Bulk fuel savings ....................................................................................... 89 

Army National Guard psychological health increase ............................. 90 

Army National Guard underexecution reduction ................................... 90 

Navy readiness unfunded priorities increases ........................................ 90 

Navy enterprise information reduction ................................................... 90 

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase in 

security programs .................................................................................. 91 

Naval History and Heritage Command reduction .................................. 91 

Marine Corps readiness unfunded priorities increases .......................... 91 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

VIII 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

Budget Items—Continued 

Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard readiness 

unfunded priorities increases ............................................................... 92 

Air Force advertising reduction ............................................................... 92 

Special Operations Command civilian compensation ............................. 92 

Defense Logistics Agency Price Comparability Office ............................ 92 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency foreign partner engagement 

programs ................................................................................................. 93 

Funding for impact aid ............................................................................. 93 

Office of Economic Adjustment reduction ............................................... 93 

Defense-wide funding decrease for base realignment and closure 

planning and support ............................................................................ 94 

Department of Defense rewards program reduction .............................. 94 

Funding for Secretary of Defense delivery unit ...................................... 94 

National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service .......... 94 

Funding for waiver of long-term temporary duty travel per diem 

rates ........................................................................................................ 94 

Modeling of an Alternative Army Design and Operational Concept ..... 95 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 95 

Additive manufacturing recommendations ............................................. 95 

Addressing unacceptable conditions at al Udeid Air Base .................... 96 

Advertising activities among the military service components ............. 96 

Army Foundry Military Intelligence Program ........................................ 97 

Army requirements for footwear technology ........................................... 97 

Assessment of Navy and Marine Corps training requirements ............ 98 

Assessment on duplication and inefficiencies within the Defense Logistics Agency and United States Transportation Command ............ 99 

Battery standardization plan ................................................................... 100 

Civil Air Patrol (CAP) ............................................................................... 100 

Clarification of the Department of Defense’s authority to perform 

environmental response actions on other agency’s lands in the case 

of aircraft crashes .................................................................................. 101 

Clarification on the importance of operation and maintenance savings .......................................................................................................... 101 

Comprehensive review of the Army sustainable readiness model ........ 101 

Comptroller General review of emerging contaminants on military 

installations ............................................................................................ 102 

Comptroller General review of F–22A global force posture ................... 103 

Cyber implementation at the combat training centers .......................... 104 

Cybersecurity guidelines for micro-grids ................................................. 104 

Defense Logistics Agency overhead costs ................................................ 104 

Defining readiness and interoperability for commercial carriers .......... 105 

Demilitarization of conventional munitions ............................................ 106 

Department of Defense transportation protective services .................... 107 

Department of Defense weapon system sustainment strategy .............. 107 

Department of Defense’s use of executive agents ................................... 108 

Development and procurement of combat personal protective equipment for different body types ................................................................ 108 

Encouraging the use of the Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) 

program .................................................................................................. 109 

Energy resiliency metrics ......................................................................... 110 

Enhanced transparency in Department of Defense fuel rate pricing ... 110 

Examination and recommendations regarding reimbursement process 

major range test base facilities ............................................................. 111 

Expanding the number of younger cyber security professionals on 

Department of Defense contracts ......................................................... 112 

Expansion of Surface Warfare Officer School basic division officer 

course ...................................................................................................... 112 

Expeditionary equipment and forward operating bases ........................ 113 

Flame resistant uniforms ......................................................................... 114 

Foreign language training report ............................................................. 114 

Impacts to the defense industrial base from carryover reductions ....... 115 

Installation security .................................................................................. 116 

Item unique identification implementation and verification ................. 117 

Joint-Military Service approach to prepositioning ................................. 117 

Modernization of emergency power generation ...................................... 118 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

IX 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

National Test and Training Range Improvements ................................. 118 

New Hampshire water contamination ..................................................... 119 

Objective training readiness reporting .................................................... 119 

Physical security of sensitive conventional ammunition items at Department of Defense and contractor locations ..................................... 120 

Public shipyard funding and capital investment to support defense 

operations ............................................................................................... 121 

Rebuilding readiness ................................................................................. 121 

Report on equipment purchased under sole source contracts ............... 122 

Report on M240 Sustainment and the small arms industrial base ...... 123 

Report on non-combat training requirements for Army, Navy, Air 

Force, and Marine Corps servicemembers ........................................... 123 

Report on reset and sustainment of material handling equipment ...... 124 

Requirements model for restoration and modernization funds at Department of Defense installations ........................................................ 124 

Resiliency through improved utilization of CHP and WHP ................... 125 

Review of Navy Coastal Riverine Forces ................................................. 125 

Software-based foreign language training and sustainment ................. 126 

Study on power storage capacity requirement ........................................ 126 

Synthetic and simulation training to enhance small arms weapons 

skills and combat readiness .................................................................. 127 

Third party financed energy projects ....................................................... 127 

Third party financed energy savings performance contracts ................. 129 

Warfighter technology ............................................................................... 129 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS ............................... 131 

Subtitle A—Active Personnel .......................................................................... 131 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) ................................................ 131 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 131 

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) ........................................ 131 

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

(sec. 412) ................................................................................................. 131 

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413) ............ 132 

Fiscal year 2017 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians 

(sec. 414) ................................................................................................. 132 

Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active 

duty for operational support (sec. 415) ................................................ 132 

Technical corrections to annual authorization for personnel strengths 

(sec. 416) ................................................................................................. 133 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 133 

Military personnel (sec. 421) .................................................................... 133 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 133 

Military personnel funding changes ........................................................ 133 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY ..................................................... 135 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy .............................................................. 135 

Reform of distribution and authorized strength of general and flag 

officers (sec. 501) .................................................................................... 135 

Repeal of statutory specification of general or flag officer grade for 

various positions in the Armed Forces (sec. 502) ................................ 135 

Temporary suspension of officer grade strength tables (sec. 503) ......... 136 

Enhanced authority for service credit for experience or advanced 

education upon original appointment as a commissioned officer 

(sec. 504) ................................................................................................. 136 

Authority of promotion boards to recommend officers of particular 

merit be placed at the top of the promotion list (sec. 505) ................. 137 

Promotion eligibility period for officers whose confirmation of appointment is delayed due to nonavailability to the Senate of probative information under control of non-Department of Defense 

agencies (sec. 506) .................................................................................. 137 

Length of joint duty assignments (sec. 507) ............................................ 137 

Modification of definitions relating to joint officer management (sec. 

508) ......................................................................................................... 137 

Continuation of certain officers on Active Duty without regard to 

requirement for retirement for years of service (sec. 509) ................. 137 

Extension of force management authorities allowing enhanced flexibility for officer personnel management (sec. 510) ............................. 138 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

X 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY—Continued 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management .............................................. 138 

Authority for temporary waiver of limitation on term of service of 

Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau (sec. 521) ........................... 138 

Authority to designate certain Reserve officers as not to be considered for selection for promotion (sec. 522) ........................................... 138 

Rights and protections available to military technicians (sec. 523) ...... 139 

Extension of suicide prevention and resilience programs for the National Guard and Reserves (sec. 524) ................................................... 139 

Inapplicability of certain laws to National Guard technicians performing Active Guard and Reserve duty (sec. 525) ............................. 139 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities ........................................................ 139 

Responsibility of Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces for standards 

and qualifications for military specialties within the Armed Forces 

(sec. 531) ................................................................................................. 139 

Leave matters (sec. 532) ........................................................................... 140 

Transfer of provision relating to expenses incurred in connection 

with leave canceled due to contingency operations (sec. 533) ............ 140 

Reduction of tenure on the temporary disability retired list (sec. 

534) ......................................................................................................... 140 

Prohibition on enforcement of military commission rulings preventing 

members of the Armed Forces from carrying out otherwise lawful 

duties based on member gender (sec. 535) .......................................... 141 

Board for the Correction of Military Records and Discharge Review 

Board matters (sec. 536) ....................................................................... 141 

Reconciliation of contradictory provisions relating to qualifications 

for enlistment in the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

(sec. 537) ................................................................................................. 141 

Subtitle D—Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters ........................ 142 

PART I—Retaliation ................................................................................. 142 

Report to complainants of resolution of investigations into retaliation (sec. 541) ............................................................................... 142 

Training for Department of Defense personnel on sexual assault 

trauma in individuals claiming retaliation in connection with 

reports of sexual assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 542) ............ 142 

Inclusion in annual reports on sexual assault prevention and 

response efforts of the Armed Forces of information on complaints of retaliation in connection with reports of sexual assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 543) ............................................. 142 

Metrics for evaluating the efforts of the Armed Forces to prevent 

and respond to retaliation in connection with reports of sexual 

assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 544) ......................................... 142 

PART II—Other Military Justice Matters .............................................. 143 

Discretionary authority for military judges to designate an individual to assume the rights of the victim of an offense under 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice when the victim is a 

minor, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased (sec. 546) .......... 143 

Appellate standing of victims in enforcing rights of victims under 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 547) .......................... 143 

Effective prosecution and defense in courts-martial (sec. 548) ...... 143 

Pilot programs on military justice career track for judge advocates (sec. 549) ................................................................................ 144 

Modification of definition of sexual harassment for purposes of 

investigations of complaints of harassment by commanding officers (sec. 550) ................................................................................ 144 

Extension and clarification of annual reports regarding sexual 

assault involving members of the armed forces (sec. 551) .......... 144 

Expansion of authority to execute certain military instruments 

(sec. 552) .......................................................................................... 145 

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (sec. 553) ... 145 

Subtitle E—Member Education, Training, and Transition ........................... 145 

Limitation on tuition assistance for off-duty training or education 

(sec. 561) ................................................................................................. 145 

Modification of program to assist members of the Armed Forces 

in obtaining professional credentials (sec. 562) ................................... 146 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XI 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY—Continued 

Subtitle E—Member Education, Training, and Transition—Continued 

Access to Department of Defense installations of institutions of higher education providing certain advising and student support services (sec. 563) .......................................................................................... 146 

Priority processing of applications for Transportation Worker Identification Credentials for members undergoing discharge or release 

from the Armed Forces (sec. 564) ......................................................... 146 

Subtitle F—Defense Dependents’ Education and Military Family Readiness Matters .................................................................................................. 147 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that 

benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 571) ..................................... 147 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 572) ..................... 147 

Impact Aid amendments (sec. 573) .......................................................... 147 

One-year extension of authorities relating to the transition and support of military dependent students to local educational agencies 

(sec. 574) ................................................................................................. 148 

Comptroller General of the United States analysis of unsatisfactory 

conditions and overcrowding at public schools on military installations (sec. 575) ....................................................................................... 148 

Enhanced flexibility in provision of relocation assistance to members 

of the Armed Forces and their families (sec. 576) .............................. 148 

Reporting on allegations of child abuse in military families and 

homes (sec. 577) ..................................................................................... 148 

Background checks for employees of agencies and schools providing 

elementary and secondary education for Department of Defense 

dependents (sec. 578) ............................................................................. 149 

Support for programs providing camp experience for children of military families (sec. 579) .......................................................................... 149 

Comptroller General of the United States report on Exceptional Family Member Program (sec. 580) ............................................................. 149 

Repeal of Advisory Council on Dependents, Education (sec. 581) ......... 150 

Subtitle G—Decorations and Awards ............................................................. 150 

Authorization for award of the Medal of Honor to Charles S. Kettles 

for acts of valor during the Vietnam war (sec. 586) ........................... 150 

Authorization for award of the Medal of Honor to Gary M. Rose 

for action of valor during the Vietnam war (sec. 587) ........................ 150 

Authorization for award of the Distinguished Service Cross to Chaplain (First Lieutenant) Joseph Verbis LaFleur for acts of valor 

during World War II (sec. 588) ............................................................. 150 

Posthumous advancement of Colonel George E. ‘‘Bud’’ Day, United 

States Air Force, on the retired list (sec. 589) .................................... 150 

Subtitle H—Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters ................................ 150 

Applicability of Military Selective Service Act to female citizens and 

persons (sec. 591) ................................................................................... 150 

Senior Military Acquisition Advisors in the Defense Acquisition 

Corps (sec. 592) ...................................................................................... 151 

Annual reports on progress of the Army and the Marine Corps in 

integrating women into military occupational specialties and units 

recently opened to women (sec. 593) .................................................... 151 

Report on career progression tracks of the Armed Forces for women 

in combat arms units (sec. 594) ............................................................ 152 

Repeal of requirement for a chaplain at the United States Air Force 

Academy appointed by the President (sec. 595) .................................. 152 

Extension of limitation on reduction in number of military and civilian personnel assigned to duty with service review agencies (sec. 

596) ......................................................................................................... 152 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 153 

Assessment of Joint Professional Military Education ............................ 153 

Comptroller General of the United States assessment of Department 

of Navy personnel strategies for unmanned systems ......................... 153 

Comptroller General of the United States review of pilot programs 

on career flexibility to enhance retention of members of the armed 

forces ....................................................................................................... 154 

Comptroller General report on the continuum of offenses involving 

unwanted sexual behavior in the armed forces ................................... 155 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XII 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

CONUS Education Options Assessment ................................................. 155 

Department of Defense consultation with outside experts to improve 

sexual assault prevention and response programs ............................. 156 

Department of Defense identity numbers ............................................... 156 

Disclosure of Military Sexual Trauma During Separation Examinations ........................................................................................................ 156 

DoD report on implementation of GAO recommendations on hazing ... 157 

Employment of members of the National Guard, Reserves, and veterans of the Armed Forces .................................................................... 157 

Enhancing the capabilities of Army military intelligence personnel .... 158 

Enlisted representation ............................................................................ 158 

F–35A maintainer shortage report .......................................................... 158 

Impact of basic allowance for housing changes on the Military Housing Privatization Initiative ................................................................... 159 

Military to mariner transition .................................................................. 159 

Pilot deficiencies ........................................................................................ 160 

Process required for adjudication of suspension or termination of 

institutions with a voluntary education partnership memoranda 

of understanding with Department of Defense ................................... 160 

Religious accommodation in the military ................................................ 161 

Report on litigation billets ........................................................................ 161 

Sexual assault prevention strategy .......................................................... 162 

Space available seating for veterans with service-connected disabilities ......................................................................................................... 162 

Transition Assistance Program and reserve component members ....... 162 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS .......... 163 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 163 

Fiscal year 2017 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) ..................... 163 

Publication by Department of Defense of actual rates of basic pay 

payable to members of the Armed Forces by pay grade for annual 

or other pay periods (sec. 602) .............................................................. 163 

Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in rates of 

basic allowance for housing under certain circumstances (sec. 603) . 163 

Reform of basic allowance for housing (sec. 604) .................................... 163 

Repeal of obsolete authority for combat-related injury rehabilitation 

pay (sec. 605) .......................................................................................... 165 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 165 

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

reserve forces (sec. 611) ......................................................................... 165 

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

health care professionals (sec. 612) ...................................................... 165 

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

officers (sec. 613) .................................................................................... 165 

One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated 

special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614) .............. 165 

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

37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615) ................................................ 166 

Conforming amendment to consolidation of special pay, incentive pay, 

and bonus authorities (sec. 616) ........................................................... 166 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ...................................... 166 

Maximum reimbursement amount for travel expenses of Reserves 

to attend inactive duty training outside of normal commuting distance (sec. 621) ....................................................................................... 166 

Period for relocation of spouses and dependents of certain members 

of the Armed Forces undergoing a permanent change of station 

(sec. 622) ................................................................................................. 166 

Subtitle D—Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits ................. 167 

Part I—Amendments in Connection With Retired Pay Reform ................... 167 

Election period for members in the service academies and inactive Reserves to participate in the modernized retirement system (sec. 631) .................................................................................. 167 

Effect of separation of members from the uniformed services 

on participation in the Thrift Savings Plan (sec. 632) ................ 167 

Continuation pay for members who have completed 8 to 12 years 

of service (sec. 633) ......................................................................... 167 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIII 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS—Continued 

Part I—Amendments in Connection With Retired Pay Reform—Continued 

Combat-related special compensation coordinating amendment 

(sec. 634) .......................................................................................... 167 

Sense of the Congress on Roth contributions as default contributions of members of the Armed Forces participating in the 

Thrift Savings Plan under retired pay reform (sec. 635) ............ 168 

Part II—Other Matters ............................................................................. 168 

Extension of allowance covering monthly premium for 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance while in certain overseas areas to cover members in any combat zone or overseas 

direct support area (sec. 641) ........................................................ 168 

Use of member’s current pay grade and years of service, rather 

than final retirement pay grade and years of service, in a 

division of property involving disposable retired pay (sec. 642) . 168 

Permanent extension of payment of special survivor indemnity 

allowances under the survivor benefit plan (sec. 643) ................ 168 

Authority to deduct Survivor Benefit Plan premiums from combat-related special compensation when retired pay not sufficient (sec. 644) ................................................................................ 168 

Sense of the Congress on options for members of the Armed 

Forces to designate payment of the death gratuity to a trust 

for a special needs individual (sec. 645) ....................................... 169 

Independent assessment of the Survivor Benefit Plan (sec. 646) .. 169 

Subtitle E—Commissary and Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentality 

Benefits and Operations ............................................................................... 170 

Protection and enhancement of access to and savings at commissaries 

and exchanges (sec. 661) ....................................................................... 170 

Pilot program on privatization of the Defense Commissary System 

(sec. 662) ................................................................................................. 170 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 171 

Compliance with domestic source requirements for footwear furnished to enlisted members of the Armed Forces upon their initial 

entry into the Armed Forces (sec. 671) ................................................ 171 

Authority for payment of pay and allowances and retired and retainer pay pursuant to power of attorney (sec. 672) ........................... 171 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 171 

Military forty-year pay table revision advisability report ..................... 171 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS ......................................................... 173 

Military health system reform overview ................................................. 173 

Subtitle A—Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits ................................... 177 

Reform of health care plans available under the TRICARE program 

(sec. 701) ................................................................................................. 177 

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

agents (sec. 702) ..................................................................................... 178 

Eligibility of certain beneficiaries under the TRICARE program for 

participation in the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program (sec. 703) ........................................................................ 179 

Coverage of medically necessary food and vitamins for digestive and 

inherited metabolic disorders under the TRICARE program (sec. 

704) ......................................................................................................... 179 

Enhancement of use of telehealth services in military health system 

(sec. 705) ................................................................................................. 179 

Evaluation and treatment of veterans and civilians at military treatment facilities (sec. 706) ........................................................................ 180 

Pilot program to provide health insurance to members of the reserve 

components of the Armed Forces (sec. 707) ......................................... 181 

Pilot program on treatment of members of the Armed Forces for 

post-traumatic stress disorder related to military sexual trauma 

(sec. 708) ................................................................................................. 181 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration ....................................................... 182 

Consolidation of the medical departments of the Army, Navy, and 

Air Force into the Defense Health Agency (sec. 721) ......................... 182 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIV 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS—Continued 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration—Continued 

Accountability for the performance of the military health care system 

of certain positions in the system (sec. 722) ........................................ 183 

Selection of commanders and directors of military treatment facilities 

and tours of duty of commanders of such facilities (sec. 723) ............ 184 

Authority to convert military medical and dental positions to civilian 

medical and dental positions (sec. 724) ............................................... 184 

Authority to realign infrastructure of and health care services provided by military treatment facilities (sec. 725) .................................. 185 

Acquisition of medical support contracts for TRICARE program (sec. 

726) ......................................................................................................... 185 

Authority to enter into health care contracts with certain entities 

to provide care under the TRICARE program (sec. 727) .................... 187 

Improvement of health outcomes and control of costs of health care 

under TRICARE program through programs to involve covered 

beneficiaries (sec. 728) ........................................................................... 187 

Establishment of centers of excellence for specialty care in the military health system (sec. 729) ................................................................ 188 

Program to eliminate variability in health outcomes and improve 

quality of health care services delivered in military treatment facilities (sec. 730) ..................................................................................... 188 

Establishment of advisory committees for military treatment facilities (sec. 731) .......................................................................................... 189 

Standardized system for scheduling medical appointments at military 

treatment facilities (sec. 732) ................................................................ 189 

Display of wait times at urgent care clinics, emergency departments, 

and pharmacies of military treatment facilities (sec. 733) ................. 190 

Improvement and maintenance of combat casualty care and trauma 

care skills of health care providers of Department of Defense (sec. 

734) ......................................................................................................... 190 

Adjustment of medical services, personnel authorized strengths, and 

infrastructure in military health system to maintain readiness and 

core competencies of health care providers (sec. 735) ......................... 190 

Establishment of high performance military-civilian integrated 

health delivery systems (sec. 736) ........................................................ 191 

Contracts with private sector entities to provide certain health care 

services at military treatment facilities (sec. 737) .............................. 192 

Modification of acquisition strategy for health care professional staffing services (sec. 738) ............................................................................ 192 

Reduction of administrative requirements relating to automatic renewal of enrollments in TRICARE Prime (sec. 739) ........................... 193 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters ......................................................... 193 

Pilot program on expansion of use of physician assistants to provide 

mental health care to members of the Armed Forces (sec. 751) ........ 193 

Implementation of plan to eliminate certain graduate medical education programs of Department of Defense (sec. 752) ........................ 193 

Modification of authority of Uniformed Services University of the 

Health Sciences to include undergraduate and other medical education and training programs (sec. 753) .............................................. 194 

Memoranda of agreement with institutions of higher education that 

offer degrees in allopathic or osteopathic medicine (sec. 754) ........... 194 

Extension of authority for joint Department of Defense-Department 

of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 

755) ......................................................................................................... 194 

Prohibition on conduct of certain medical research and development 

projects (sec. 756) ................................................................................... 194 

Authorization of reimbursement by Department of Defense to entities 

carrying out state vaccination programs for costs of vaccines provided to covered beneficiaries (sec. 757) .............................................. 195 

Maintenance of certain reimbursement rates for care and services 

to treat autism spectrum disorder under demonstration program 

(sec. 758) ................................................................................................. 195 

Incorporation into certain surveys by Department of Defense of questions on service women experiences with family planning services 

and counseling (sec. 759) ....................................................................... 195 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XV 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS—Continued 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters—Continued 

Assessment of transition to TRICARE program by families of members of reserve components called to Active Duty and elimination 

of certain charges for such families (sec. 760) ..................................... 195 

Requirement to review and monitor prescribing practices at military 

treatment facilities of pharmaceutical agents for treatment of posttraumatic stress (sec. 761) .................................................................... 196 

Report on plan to improve pediatric care and related services for 

children of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 762) .......................... 196 

Comptroller General report on health care delivery and waste in 

military health system (sec. 763) ......................................................... 197 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 197 

Cancer research programs ........................................................................ 197 

Capability to transport and treat military personnel exposed to highly infectious emerging diseases ............................................................ 197 

Chronic pain .............................................................................................. 197 

Collar technology ....................................................................................... 198 

Comptroller General report on military health professional recruitment ........................................................................................................ 198 

Comptroller General report on TRICARE managed care support contracts acquisition strategy and program administration requirements ...................................................................................................... 199 

Dental implants ......................................................................................... 199 

Department of Defense tobacco policy ..................................................... 200 

Expert behavioral science support for courts-martial ............................ 200 

Full spectrum ultraviolet technologies .................................................... 200 

Hearing restoration research ................................................................... 201 

Implementation of authority for provisional TRICARE coverage for 

emerging health care services and supplies ........................................ 202 

Improvement of prosthetic care outcomes ............................................... 202 

Maternity care ........................................................................................... 202 

Medical operations in austere environments .......................................... 202 

Online patient portal ................................................................................. 203 

Prescription Drug Abuse ........................................................................... 203 

Psychological Health Risk-Adjusted Model for Staffing ......................... 203 

Reduction of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in military hospital and 

surgical environments ........................................................................... 204 

Report on provision of behavioral health and suicide prevention resources to reserve component members ............................................... 205 

TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration program ........ 205 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS ......................................................................................... 207 

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management .......................................... 207 

Rapid acquisition authority amendments (sec. 801) .............................. 207 

Authority for temporary service of Principal Military Deputies to 

the Assistant Secretaries of the military departments for acquisition as acting Assistant Secretaries (sec. 802) .................................... 207 

Conduct of independent cost estimation and cost analysis (sec. 803) ... 207 

Modernization of services acquisition (sec. 804) ..................................... 207 

Modified notification requirement for exercise of waiver authority 

to acquire vital national security capabilities (sec. 805) .................... 208 

Repeal of temporary suspension of public-private competitions for 

conversion of Department of Defense functions to performance by 

contractors (sec. 806) ............................................................................. 208 

Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations ............................................................................................. 208 

Defense cost accounting standards (sec. 811) ......................................... 208 

Increased micro-purchase threshold applicable to Department of Defense procurements (sec. 812) ............................................................... 209 

Enhanced competition requirements (sec. 813) ...................................... 209 

Elimination of bid and proposal costs and other expenses as allowable independent research and development costs on certain contracts (sec. 814) ...................................................................................... 209 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVI 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations—Continued 

Exception to requirement to include cost or price to the Government 

as a factor in the evaluation of proposals for certain multipleaward task or delivery order contracts (sec. 815) ............................... 209 

Modified restrictions on undefinitized contractual actions (sec. 816) ... 210 

Non-traditional contractor definition (sec. 817) ...................................... 210 

Comprehensive small business contracting plans (sec. 818) ................. 210 

Limitation on task and delivery order protests (sec. 819) ..................... 211 

Modified data collection requirements applicable to procurement of 

services (sec. 820) ................................................................................... 211 

Government Accountability Office bid protest reforms (sec. 821) ......... 211 

Report on bid protests (sec. 822) .............................................................. 211 

Treatment of side-by-side testing of certain equipment, munitions, 

and technologies manufactured and developed under cooperative 

research and development agreements as use of competitive procedures (sec. 823) ...................................................................................... 212 

Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (sec. 824) ................................ 212 

Use of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection process 

(sec. 825) ................................................................................................. 212 

Penalties for the use of cost-type contracts (sec. 826) ............................ 212 

Preference for fixed-price contracts (sec. 827) ......................................... 213 

Requirement to use firm fixed-price contracts for foreign military 

sales (sec. 828) ....................................................................................... 214 

Preference for performance-based contractual payments (sec. 829) ..... 214 

Share-in-savings contracts (sec. 829A) .................................................... 214 

Special emergency procurement authority to facilitate the defense 

against or recovery from a cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, 

or radiological attack (sec. 829B) ......................................................... 214 

Limitation on the use of reverse auction and lowest price technically 

acceptable contracting methods (sec. 829C) ........................................ 215 

Avoidance of use of brand names or brand-name or equivalent descriptions in solicitations (sec. 829D) ................................................... 215 

Sunset and repeal of certain contracting provisions (sec. 829E) ........... 215 

Flexibility in contracting award program (sec. 829F) ............................ 215 

Products and services purchased through contracting program for 

firms that hire the severely disabled (sec. 829G) ................................ 216 

Applicability of Executive Order 13673 ‘‘Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces’’ to Department of Defense contractors (sec. 829H) ................. 217 

Contract closeout authority (sec. 829I) .................................................... 217 

Closeout of old Navy contracts (sec. 829J) .............................................. 217 

Subtitle C—Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs ... 217 

Repeal of major automated information systems provisions (sec. 831) 217 

Revisions to definition of major defense acquisition program (sec. 

832) ......................................................................................................... 218 

Acquisition strategy (sec. 833) .................................................................. 218 

Improved life cycle cost control (sec. 834) ............................................... 218 

Modification of certain Milestone B certification requirements (sec. 

835) ......................................................................................................... 219 

Disclosure of risk in cost estimates (sec. 836) ......................................... 219 

Authority to designate increments or blocks of items delivered under 

major defense acquisition programs as major subprograms for purposes of acquisition reporting (sec. 837) .............................................. 219 

Counting of major defense acquisition program subcontracts toward 

small business goals (sec. 838) ............................................................. 219 

Use of economy-wide inflation index to calculate percentage increase 

in unit costs (sec. 839) ........................................................................... 220 

Waiver of notification when acquiring tactical missiles and munitions 

above the budgeted quantity (sec. 840) ................................................ 220 

Multiple program multiyear contract pilot demonstration program 

(sec. 841) ................................................................................................. 220 

Key Performance Parameter reduction pilot program (sec. 842) .......... 220 

Mission and system of systems of interoperability (sec. 843) ................ 221 

B–21 bomber development program baseline and cost control (sec. 

844) ......................................................................................................... 221 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVII 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle D—Provisions Relating to Acquisition Workforce ........................... 222 

Improvement of program and project management by the Department of Defense (sec. 851) .................................................................... 222 

Authority to waive tenure requirement for program managers for 

program definition and program execution periods (sec. 852) ........... 222 

Enhanced use of data analytics to improve acquisition program outcomes (sec. 853) ...................................................................................... 222 

Purposes for which the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce 

Development Fund may be used (sec. 854) .......................................... 222 

Subtitle E—Provisions Related to Commercial Items ................................... 223 

Inapplicability of certain laws and regulations to the acquisition of 

commercial items and commercially available off-the-shelf items 

(sec. 861) ................................................................................................. 223 

Department of Defense exemptions from certain regulations (sec. 

862) ......................................................................................................... 223 

Use of performance and commercial specifications in lieu of military 

specifications and standards (sec. 863) ................................................ 224 

Preference for commercial services (sec. 864) ......................................... 224 

Treatment of items purchased by prospective contractors prior to 

release of prime contract requests for proposals as commercial 

items (sec. 865) ...................................................................................... 224 

Treatment of services provided by nontraditional contractors as commercial items (sec. 866) ......................................................................... 225 

Use of non-cost contracts to acquire commercial items (sec. 867) ......... 225 

Pilot program for authority to acquire innovative commercial items, 

technologies, and services using general solicitation competitive 

procedures (sec. 868) .............................................................................. 226 

Subtitle F—Industrial Base Matters .............................................................. 226 

Greater integration of the national technical industrial base (sec. 

871) ......................................................................................................... 226 

Integration of civil and military roles in attaining national technology 

and industrial base objectives (sec. 872) .............................................. 226 

Distribution support and services for weapon systems contractors 

(sec. 873) ................................................................................................. 227 

Permanency of Department of Defense SBIR and STTR programs 

(sec. 874) ................................................................................................. 227 

Modified requirements for distribution of assistance under procurement technical assistance cooperative agreements (sec. 875) ............ 227 

Nontraditional and small disruptive innovation prototyping program 

(sec. 876) ................................................................................................. 227 

Subtitle G—International Contracting Matters ............................................. 227 

International sales process improvements (sec. 881) ............................. 227 

Working capital fund for precision guided munitions exports in support of contingency operations (sec. 882) ............................................. 228 

Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced 

in countries along major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec. 883) .. 229 

Clarification of treatment of contracts performed outside the United 

States (sec. 884) ..................................................................................... 229 

Enhanced authority to acquire products and services produced in 

Africa in support of covered activities (sec. 885) ................................. 229 

Maintenance of prohibition on procurement by Department of Defense of People’s Republic of China-origin items that meet the 

definition of goods and services controlled as munitions items when 

moved to the ‘‘600 series’’ of the Commerce Control List (sec. 886) .. 229 

Subtitle H—Other Matters .............................................................................. 230 

Contractor business system requirements (sec. 891) ............................. 230 

Authority to provide reimbursable auditing services to certain nondefense agencies (sec. 892) .................................................................... 231 

Improved management practices to reduce cost and improve performance of certain Department Of Defense by Defense organizations 

(sec. 893) ................................................................................................. 232 

Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation (sec. 894) .................... 232 

Exemption from requirement for capital planning and investment 

control for information technology equipment included as integral 

part of a weapon or weapon system (sec. 895) .................................... 232 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XVIII 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle H—Other Matters—Continued 

Modifications to pilot program for streamlining awards for innovative 

technology projects (sec. 896) ................................................................ 232 

Enhancement of electronic warfare capabilities (sec. 897) .................... 233 

Improved transparency and oversight over Department of Defense 

research, development, test, and evaluation efforts and procurement activities related to medical research (sec. 898) ........................ 233 

Extension of enhanced transfer authority for technology developed 

at Department of Defense laboratories (sec. 899) ............................... 233 

Rapid prototyping funds for the military services (sec. 899A) .............. 233 

Defense Modernization Account (sec. 899B) ........................................... 233 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 234 

Defense industrial supply chain security ................................................ 234 

Expansion of eligible small business concerns ........................................ 234 

Modification of commercial items definition ........................................... 234 

Preserving competition in the defense industry ..................................... 235 

Small business contract bundling ............................................................ 235 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 237 

Subtitle A—Office of the Secretary of Defense and Related Matters .......... 237 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and related acquisition position in the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(sec. 901) ................................................................................................. 237 

Qualifications for appointment of the Secretaries of the military departments (sec. 902) .............................................................................. 239 

Establishment of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Information 

(Chief Information Officer) in Office of Secretary of Defense (sec. 

903) ......................................................................................................... 239 

Reduction in maximum number of personnel in Office of the Secretary of Defense and other Department of Defense headquarters 

offices (sec. 904) ..................................................................................... 239 

Limitations on funds used for staff augmentation contracts at management headquarters of the Department of Defense and the military departments (sec. 905) .................................................................. 240 

Unit within the Office of the Secretary of Defense supporting 

achievement of results in Department of Defense management reform and business transformation efforts (sec. 906) ........................... 240 

Subtitle B—Combatant Command Matters ................................................... 241 

Joint Chiefs of Staff and related combatant command matters (sec. 

921) ......................................................................................................... 241 

Delegation to Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff of authority to direct 

transfer of forces (sec. 922) ................................................................... 242 

Organization of the Department of Defense for management of special operations forces and special operations (sec. 923) ...................... 243 

Pilot program on organization of subordinate commands of a unified 

combatant command as joint task forces (sec. 924) ............................ 244 

Expansion of eligibility for deputy commander of combatant command having United States among geographic area of responsibility to include officers of the Reserves (sec. 925) ............................. 244 

Subtitle C—Organization and Management of Other Department of Defense Offices and Elements .......................................................................... 245 

Organizational strategy for the Department of Defense (sec. 941) ....... 245 

Department of Defense management overview by the Secretary of 

Defense (sec. 942) .................................................................................. 253 

Modification of composition and mission of Joint Requirements Oversight Council (sec. 943) .......................................................................... 255 

Enhanced personnel management authorities for the Chief of the 

National Guard Bureau (sec. 944) ........................................................ 255 

Management of Defense clandestine human intelligence collection 

(sec. 945) ................................................................................................. 256 

Repeal of Financial Management Modernization Executive Committee (sec. 946) ..................................................................................... 256 

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

Needs (sec. 947) ..................................................................................... 257 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XIX 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT—Continued 

Subtitle C—Organization and Management of Other Department of Defense Offices and Elements—Continued 

Pilot programs on waiver of applicability of rules and regulations 

to Department of Defense science and technology reinvention laboratories and DARPA to improve operations and personnel management (sec. 948) ................................................................................. 257 

Subtitle D—Whistleblower Protections for Members of the Armed Forces . 257 

Improvements to whistleblower protection procedures (sec. 961) ......... 257 

Modification of whistleblower protection authorities to restrict contrary findings of prohibited personnel action by the Secretary concerned (sec. 962) ..................................................................................... 258 

Improvements to authorities and procedures for the correction of 

military records (sec. 963) ..................................................................... 258 

Comptroller General of the United States review of integrity of Department of Defense whistleblower program (sec. 964) ...................... 259 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 259 

Modification of requirements for accounting for members of the 

Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees listed 

as missing (sec. 971) .............................................................................. 259 

Modification of authority of the Secretary of Defense relating to 

protection of the Pentagon Reservation and other Department of 

Defense facilities in the National Capitol Region (sec. 972) .............. 259 

Enhanced security programs for Department of Defense personnel 

and innovation initiatives (sec. 973) .................................................... 260 

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

4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division ............. 260 

Amendment on National Guard Apache recommendations ................... 261 

Enhancing Army Military Intelligence Support to the Warfighter ....... 261 

Unjustified expansion of the Army Reserve Military Intelligence 

Readiness Command ............................................................................. 261 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 263 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 263 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) .................................................... 263 

Increased use of commercial data integration and analysis products 

for the purpose of preparing financial statement audits (sec. 1002) . 263 

Sense of the Senate on sequestration (sec. 1003) ................................... 263 

Subtitle B—Counter–Drug Activities .............................................................. 264 

Codification and modification of authority to provide support for 

counter-drug activities and activities to counter transnational organized crime of civilian law enforcement agencies (sec. 1006) ............ 264 

Extension of authority to support unified counterdrug and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1007) ............................................ 264 

Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 264 

Availability of funds for retirement or inactivation of cruisers or 

dock landing ships (sec. 1011) .............................................................. 264 

Prohibition on use of funds for retirement of legacy maritime mine 

countermeasures platforms (sec. 1012) ................................................ 265 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism ......................................................................... 266 

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. 1021) ........................................ 266 

Extension on prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify 

facilities in the United State to house detainees transferred from 

United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1022) ... 266 

Designing and planning related to construction of certain facilities 

in the United States (sec. 1023) ........................................................... 266 

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. 1024) ..................... 266 

Authority for article III judges to take certain actions relating to 

individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba (sec. 1025) ............................................................................ 267 

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. 1026) ....................................... 267 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XX 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued 

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism—Continued 

Matters on memorandum of understanding between the United 

States and governments of receiving foreign countries and entities 

in certifications on transfer of detainees at United States Naval 

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1027) ....................................... 267 

Limitation on transfer of detainees at United States Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pending a report on their terrorist actions 

and affiliations (sec. 1028) .................................................................... 267 

Prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of individuals 

detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 

to countries covered by Department of State travel warnings (sec. 

1029) ....................................................................................................... 267 

Extension of prohibition on use of funds for realignment of forces 

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

Cuba (sec. 1030) ..................................................................................... 268 

Subtitle E—Assured Access to Space Matters ............................................... 268 

Restrictions on use of rocket engines from the Russian Federation 

for space launch of national security satellites (sec. 1036) ................ 268 

Limitations on use of rocket engines from the Russian Federation 

to achieve assured access to space (sec. 1037) .................................... 268 

Repeal of provision permitting the use of rocket engines from the 

Russian Federation for the evolved expendable launch vehicle program (sec. 1038) ..................................................................................... 269 

Subtitle F—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations ............................... 269 

Assigned forces of the combatant commands (sec. 1041) ....................... 269 

Quadrennial independent review of United Sates military strategy 

and force posture in the United States Pacific Command area 

of responsibility (sec. 1042) ................................................................... 269 

Designation of a Department of Defense Strategic Arctic Port (sec. 

1043) ....................................................................................................... 270 

Modification of requirements regarding notifications to Congress on 

sensitive military operations (sec. 1044) .............................................. 270 

Reconnaissance Strike Group matters (sec. 1045) .................................. 270 

Transition of Air Force to operation of remotely piloted aircraft by 

enlisted personnel (sec. 1046) ............................................................... 271 

Prohibition on divestment of Marine Corps Search and Rescue Units 

(sec. 1047) ............................................................................................... 272 

Modification of requirements relating to management of military 

technicians (sec. 1048) ........................................................................... 272 

Support for the Associate Director of the Central Intelligence Agency 

for Military Affairs (sec. 1049) .............................................................. 273 

Enhancement of interagency support during contingency operations 

and transition periods (sec. 1050) ........................................................ 273 

Enhancement of information sharing and coordination of military 

training between Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense (sec. 1051) .................................................................. 273 

Notification on the provision of defense sensitive support (sec. 1052) .. 274 

Modification of authority to transfer Department of Defense property 

for law enforcement activities (sec. 1053) ............................................ 274 

Exemption of information on military tactics, techniques, and procedures from release under Freedom of Information Act (sec. 1054) ... 274 

Treatment of certain sensitive information by State and local governments (sec. 1055) ................................................................................... 275 

Recovery of excess firearms, ammunition, and parts granted to foreign countries and transfer to certain persons (sec. 1056) ................. 275 

Sense of the Senate on development and fielding of fifth generation 

airborne systems (sec. 1057) ................................................................. 275 

Technical and conforming amendments (sec. 1058) ............................... 275 

Subtitle G—National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service ................................................................................................................... 275 

Purpose and scope (sec. 1066) .................................................................. 275 

National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service (sec. 

1067) ....................................................................................................... 276 

Commission hearings and meetings (sec. 1068) ..................................... 276 

Principles and procedure for Commission recommendations (sec. 

1069) ....................................................................................................... 276 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXI 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS—Continued 

Subtitle G—National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service—Continued 

Executive Director and staff (sec. 1070) .................................................. 277 

Judicial review precluded (sec. 1071) ...................................................... 277 

Termination (sec. 1072) ............................................................................ 277 

Funding (sec. 1073) ................................................................................... 277 

Subtitle H—Studies and Reports .................................................................... 277 

Annual reports on unfunded priorities of the Armed Forces and the 

combatant commands (sec. 1076) ......................................................... 277 

Assessment of the joint ground forces of the Armed Forces (sec. 

1077) ....................................................................................................... 278 

Report on independent assessment of the force structure of the 

Armed Forces to meet the national defense strategy (sec. 1078) ...... 279 

Annual report on observation flights over the United States under 

the Open Skies Treaty (sec. 1079) ........................................................ 279 

Reports on programs managed under alternative compensatory control measures in the Department of Defense (sec. 1080) .................... 279 

Requirement for notice and reporting to Committees on Armed Services of certain expenditures of funds by Defense Intelligence Agency (sec. 1081) .......................................................................................... 280 

Repeal of Department of Defense reporting requirements for which 

statutory requirement is from an amendment made by an annual 

national defense authorization Act (sec. 1082) .................................... 280 

Repeal of Department of Defense reporting requirements for which 

statutory requirement is specified in an annual national defense 

authorization Act (sec. 1083) ................................................................ 280 

Repeal of requirements relating to efficiencies plan for the civilian 

personnel workforce and service contractor workforce of the Department of Defense (sec. 1084) ........................................................... 280 

Subtitle I—Other Matters ................................................................................ 280 

Military service management of F–35 Joint Strike Fighter program 

(sec. 1086) ............................................................................................... 280 

Treatment of follow-on modernization for the F–35 joint strike fighter 

as a major defense acquisition program (sec. 1087) ........................... 281 

Reduction in minimum number of Navy carrier air wings and carrier 

air wing headquarters required to be maintained (sec. 1088) ........... 282 

Streamlining of the National Security Council (sec. 1089) .................... 282 

Form of annual national security strategy report (sec. 1090) ............... 283 

Border security metrics (sec. 1091) .......................................................... 283 

Consolidation of marketing of the Army within the Army Marketing 

Research Group (sec. 1092) ................................................................... 283 

Protection against misuse of Naval Special Warfare Command insignia (sec. 1093) ........................................................................................ 284 

Program to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Tomb of 

the Unknown Soldier (sec. 1094) .......................................................... 284 

Sense of Congress regarding the OCONUS basing of the KC–46A 

aircraft (sec. 1095) ................................................................................. 284 

Replacement of quadrennial defense review with national defense 

strategy (sec. 1096) ................................................................................ 284 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 285 

Air Force training with partner nations .................................................. 285 

Arctic Search and Rescue ......................................................................... 285 

Army Modernization Strategy .................................................................. 286 

Army Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) ................................................. 287 

Comptroller General assessment of national defense implications of 

the next generation air traffic management system ........................... 287 

Comptroller General assessment of priorities and processes for operational support airlift and executive airlift by Department of Defense aircraft .......................................................................................... 288 

Domain awareness in the Arctic .............................................................. 289 

Night vision technology for the southern border .................................... 289 

Predictable Funding for the National Guard Counterdrug Program .... 290 

Study on Article III trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees ................... 290 

Total Army End Strength ......................................................................... 290 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS ................................................. 293 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Matters Generally ................................ 293 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXII 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Matters Generally—Continued 

Civilian personnel management (sec. 1101) ............................................ 293 

Repeal of requirement for annual strategic workforce plan for the 

Department of Defense (sec. 1102) ....................................................... 293 

Temporary and term appointments in the competitive service in the 

Department of Defense (sec. 1103) ....................................................... 293 

Personnel authorities related to the defense acquisition workforce 

(sec. 1104) ............................................................................................... 293 

Direct hire authority for financial management experts into the Department of Defense workforce (sec. 1105) .......................................... 294 

Direct hire authority for the Department of Defense for post-secondary students and recent graduates (sec. 1106) .............................. 294 

Public-private talent exchange (sec. 1107) .............................................. 295 

Training for employment personnel of Department of Defense on 

matters relating to authorities for recruitment and retention at 

United States Cyber Command (sec. 1108) ......................................... 295 

Increase in maximum amount of voluntary separation incentive pay 

authorized for civilian employees of the Department of Defense 

(sec. 1109) ............................................................................................... 295 

Repeal of certain basis for appointment of a retired member of the 

Armed Forces to Department of Defense position within 180 days 

of retirement (sec. 1110) ........................................................................ 296 

Pilot programs on career sabbaticals for Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 1111) ...................................................................... 297 

Limitation on number of SES employees (sec. 1112) ............................. 297 

No time limitation for appointment of relocating military spouses 

(sec. 1113) ............................................................................................... 297 

Subtitle B—Department of Defense Science and Technology Laboratories 

and Related Matters ..................................................................................... 297 

Permanent personnel management authority for the Department of 

Defense for experts in science and engineering (sec. 1121) ............... 297 

Permanent extension and modification of temporary authorities for 

certain positions at Department of Defense research and engineering laboratories (sec. 1122) ................................................................... 298 

Direct hire authority for scientific and engineering positions for test 

and evaluation facilities of the Major Range and Test Facility 

Base (sec. 1123) ...................................................................................... 299 

Permanent authority for the temporary exchange of information technology personnel (sec. 1124) ................................................................. 300 

Pilot program on enhanced pay authority for certain research and 

technology positions in the science and technology reinvention laboratories of the Department of Defense (sec. 1125) ............................ 300 

Discharge of certain authorities to conduct personnel demonstration 

projects (sec. 1126) ................................................................................. 301 

Subtitle C—Government-Wide Matters .......................................................... 302 

Expansion of personnel flexibilities relating to land management 

agencies to include all agencies (sec. 1131) ......................................... 302 

Direct hiring for Federal wage schedule employees (sec. 1132) ............ 302 

Appointment authority for uniquely qualified prevailing rate employees (sec. 1133) ........................................................................................ 302 

Limitation on preference eligible hiring preferences for permanent 

employees in the competitive service (sec. 1134) ................................ 302 

Authority for advancement of pay for certain employees relocating 

within the United States and its territories (sec. 1135) ..................... 302 

Elimination of the foreign exemption provision in regard to overtime 

for federal civilian employees temporarily assigned to a foreign 

area (sec. 1136) ...................................................................................... 302 

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

employees working overseas (sec. 1137) .............................................. 303 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 303 

Modification of flat rate per diem requirement for personnel on longterm temporary duty assignments (sec. 1151) .................................... 303 

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

zone (sec. 1152) ...................................................................................... 304 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXIII 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS—Continued 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 304 

Furlough of Department of Defense civilian employees ......................... 304 

Performance metrics relative to procedures for reduction in force 

of Department of Defense civilian personnel ....................................... 305 

Report on automatic step increases for Department of Defense civilians .......................................................................................................... 305 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS .......................... 307 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training .............................................................. 307 

Three-Year Extension of Commanders’ Emergency Response Program 

(sec. 1201) ............................................................................................... 307 

Increase in size of the Special Defense Acquisition Fund (sec. 1202) ... 307 

Codification of authority for support of special operations to combat 

terrorism (sec. 1203) .............................................................................. 307 

Prohibition on use of funds to invite, assist, or otherwise assure 

the participation of Cuba in certain joint or multilateral exercises 

(sec. 1204) ............................................................................................... 307 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan ........................ 308 

Extension and modification of authority to transfer defense articles 

and provide defense services to the military and security forces 

of Afghanistan (sec. 1211) ..................................................................... 308 

Modification of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support (sec. 1212) .................................................................. 308 

Prohibition on use of funds for certain programs and projects of 

the Department of Defense in Afghanistan that cannot be safely 

accessed by United States Government Personnel (sec. 1213) .......... 308 

Reimbursement of Pakistan for security enhancement activities (sec. 

1214) ....................................................................................................... 308 

Improvement of oversight of United States Government efforts in 

Afghanistan. (sec. 1215) ........................................................................ 309 

Subtitle C—Matters Relating to Iraq and Syria ............................................ 310 

Extension and modification of authority to provide assistance to the 

vetted Syrian Opposition (sec. 1221) .................................................... 310 

Extension of authority to provide assistance to counter the Islamic 

State of Iraq and the Levant (sec. 1222) ............................................. 310 

Extension of authority to support operations and activities of the 

Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1223) ............................... 310 

Subtitle D—Matters Relating to Iran ............................................................. 311 

Additional elements in the annual report on the military power of 

Iran (sec. 1226) ...................................................................................... 311 

Subtitle E—Matters Relating to the Russian Federation ............................. 311 

Extension and enhancement of Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative 

(sec. 1231) ............................................................................................... 311 

Extension and modification of authority on training for Eastern European national military forces in the course of multilateral exercises 

(sec. 1232) ............................................................................................... 312 

Additional matters in annual report on military and security developments involving the Russian Federation (sec. 1233) .......................... 312 

European investment in security and stability (sec. 1234) .................... 312 

Sense of Senate on the European Deterrence Initiative (sec. 1235) ..... 313 

Subtitle F—Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region .............................. 313 

Annual update on Department of Defense Freedom of Navigation 

Report (sec. 1241) .................................................................................. 313 

Inclusion of the Philippines among allied countries with whom 

United States may enter into cooperative military airlift agreements (sec. 1242) ................................................................................... 314 

Military exchanges between the United States and Taiwan (sec. 

1243) ....................................................................................................... 314 

Sense of Senate on Taiwan (sec. 1244) .................................................... 314 

Sense of Senate on enhancement of the military relationship between 

the United States and Vietnam (sec. 1245) ......................................... 315 

Redesignation of South China Sea Initiative (sec. 1246) ....................... 315 

Subtitle G—Reform of Department of Defense Security Cooperation ......... 315 

Sense of Congress on security sector assistance (sec. 1251) .................. 315 

Enactment of new chapter for defense security cooperation (sec. 

1252) ....................................................................................................... 316 

Military-to-military exchanges (sec. 1253) .............................................. 317 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXIV 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS—Continued 

Subtitle G—Reform of Department of Defense Security Cooperation — 

Continued 

Consolidation and revision of authorities for payment of personnel 

expenses necessary for theater security cooperation (sec. 1254) ....... 317 

Transfer and revision of authority on payment of expenses in connection with training and exercises with friendly foreign forces (sec. 

1255) ....................................................................................................... 317 

Transfer and revision of authority to provide operational support 

to forces of friendly foreign countries (sec. 1256) ................................ 317 

Department of Defense State Partnership Program (sec. 1257) ........... 318 

Modification of regional defense combating terrorism fellowship program (sec. 1258) ..................................................................................... 318 

Consolidation of authorities for service academy international engagement (sec. 1259) ............................................................................. 318 

Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (sec. 1260) ............................ 318 

Consolidation and standardization of reporting requirements relating 

to security cooperation authorities (sec. 1261) .................................... 319 

Requirement for submittal of consolidated annual budget for security 

cooperation programs and activities of the Department of Defense 

(sec. 1262) ............................................................................................... 319 

Department of Defense security cooperation workforce development 

(sec. 1263) ............................................................................................... 320 

Coordination between the Department of Defense and Department 

of State on certain security cooperation and security assistance 

programs and activities (sec. 1264) ...................................................... 320 

Repeal of superseded, obsolete, or duplicative statutes relating to 

security cooperation authorities (sec. 1265) ......................................... 321 

Subtitle H—Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters ................................ 321 

Free trade agreements with Sub-Saharan African countries (sec. 

1271) ....................................................................................................... 321 

Extension and expansion of authority to support border security operations of certain foreign countries (sec. 1272) ..................................... 321 

Modification and clarification of United States-Israel anti-tunnel cooperation authority (sec. 1273) ............................................................. 321 

Modification and extension of authorization for non-conventional assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1274) ................................................ 322 

Assessment of proliferation of certain remotely piloted aircraft systems (sec. 1275) ...................................................................................... 322 

Efforts to end modern slavery (sec. 1276) ............................................... 322 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 322 

Asia-Pacific force posture resiliency ........................................................ 322 

People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) participation in Rim of the 

Pacific exercise ....................................................................................... 324 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ....................................... 325 

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 1301) .......... 325 

Funding allocations (sec. 1302) ................................................................ 325 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 325 

Long term threat outlook for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program ........................................................................................................ 325 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ........................................................... 327 

Subtitle A—Military Programs ........................................................................ 327 

Working capital funds (sec. 1401) ............................................................ 327 

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1402) ....... 327 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide (sec. 

1403) ....................................................................................................... 327 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1404) ..................................................... 327 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1405) ........................................................ 327 

Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (sec. 1406) ............................ 327 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile ......................................................... 327 

National Defense Stockpile matters (sec. 1411) ...................................... 327 

Authority to dispose of certain materials from and to acquire additional materials for the National Defense Stockpile (sec. 1412) ........ 328 

Subtitle C—Chemical Demilitarization Matters ............................................ 329 

Authority to destroy certain specified World War II-era United 

States-origin chemical munitions located on San Jose Island, Republic of Panama (sec. 1421) ................................................................ 329 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXV 

TITLE XIV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS—Continued 

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 329 

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. 

1431) ....................................................................................................... 329 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home 

(sec. 1432) ............................................................................................... 329 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 330 

Defense Health Program .......................................................................... 330 

Foreign currency fluctuation .................................................................... 330 

Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund .............................................. 330 

Department of Defense Inspector General Financial Statement Audit 

Support ................................................................................................... 331 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 331 

Rare earth elements critical to national security ................................... 331 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ................................................... 333 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Additional Appropriations .............................. 333 

Purpose (sec. 1501) .................................................................................... 333 

Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502) .......................................... 333 

Procurement (sec. 1503) ............................................................................ 333 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (sec. 1504) .................... 333 

Operation and Maintenance (sec. 1505) .................................................. 333 

Military Personnel (sec. 1506) .................................................................. 333 

Working capital funds (sec. 1507) ............................................................ 333 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide (sec. 

1508) ....................................................................................................... 333 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509) ..................................................... 334 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1510) ........................................................ 334 

Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (sec. 1511) ............................ 334 

Subtitle B—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 334 

Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521) ............................... 334 

Special transfer authority (sec. 1522) ...................................................... 334 

Subtitle C—Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters .................................. 334 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1531) ................. 334 

Extension and modification of authorities on Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (sec. 1532) ..................................................................... 334 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1533) ........................................ 335 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 335 

Spider network munitions reduction ....................................................... 335 

Coalition Support Funds ........................................................................... 335 

Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund ...................................................... 335 

Counter Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Fund ............................. 336 

Office of Security Cooperation—Iraq ....................................................... 336 

Syria Train and Equip Fund .................................................................... 336 

Nuclear force readiness in Europe ........................................................... 336 

Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund .............................................. 337 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities ...................................... 338 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE 

MATTERS ............................................................................................................. 339 

Subtitle A—Space Activities ............................................................................ 339 

Requirement that pilot program for acquisition of commercial satellite communications services demonstrate order-of-magnitude improvements in satellite communication capabilities (sec. 1601) ........ 339 

Plan for use of allied launch vehicles (sec. 1602) ................................... 339 

Long-term strategy on electromagnetic spectrum for warfare (sec. 

1603) ....................................................................................................... 340 

Five-year plan for Joint Interagency Combined Space Operations 

Center (sec. 1604) .................................................................................. 340 

Independent assessment of global positioning system next generation 

operational control system (sec. 1605) ................................................. 340 

Government Accountability Office assessment of satellite acquisition 

by National Reconnaissance Office (sec. 1606) .................................... 340 

Cost-benefit analysis of commercial use of excess ballistic missile 

solid rocket motors (sec. 1607) .............................................................. 340 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXVI 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE 

MATTERS—Continued 

Subtitle A—Space Activities—Continued 

Assessment of cost-benefit analysis by Department of Defense of 

use of KA-band commercial satellite communications (sec. 1608) ..... 341 

Limitation on use of funds for Joint Space Operations Center Mission 

System (sec. 1609) ................................................................................. 341 

Limitation on availability of fiscal year 2017 funds for the global 

positioning system next generation operational control system (sec. 

1610) ....................................................................................................... 341 

Availability of certain amounts to meet requirements in connection 

with United States policy on assured access to space (sec. 1611) ..... 343 

Availability of funds for certain secure voice conferencing capabilities 

(sec. 1612) ............................................................................................... 343 

Subtitle B—Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities ......... 344 

Department of Defense-wide requirements for security clearances for 

military intelligence officers (sec. 1621) ............................................... 344 

Subtitle C—Cyber Warfare, Cybersecurity, and Related Matters ............... 344 

Cyber Protection Support for Department of Defense Personnel in 

Positions Highly Vulnerable to Cyber Attack (sec. 1631) ................... 344 

Cyber mission forces matters (sec. 1632 ) ............................................... 344 

Limitation on ending of arrangement in which the commander of 

the United States Cyber Command is also Director of the National 

Security Agency (sec. 1633) ................................................................... 345 

Pilot program on application of consequence-driven, cyber-informed 

engineering to mitigate against cyber-security threats (sec. 1634) ... 345 

Evaluation of Cyber Vulnerabilities of F–35 Aircraft and Support 

Systems (sec. 1635) ................................................................................ 346 

Review and assessment of technology strategy and development at 

Defense Information Systems Agency (sec. 1636) ............................... 346 

Evaluation of Cyber Vulnerabilities of Department of Defense Critical 

Infrastructure (sec. 1637) ...................................................................... 347 

Plan for information security continuous monitoring capability and 

comply-to-connect policy (sec. 1638) ..................................................... 347 

Report on Authority Delegated to Secretary of Defense to Conduct 

Cyber Operations (sec. 1639) ................................................................ 348 

Deterrence of Adversaries in Cyberspace (sec. 1640) ............................. 348 

Subtitle D—Nuclear Forces ............................................................................. 349 

Procurement authority for certain parts of intercontinental ballistic 

missile fuzes (sec. 1651) ........................................................................ 349 

Modification of report on activities of the council on oversight of 

the National Leadership Command, Control and Communications 

System (sec. 1652) ................................................................................. 350 

Review by the Comptroller General of the United States of recommendations relating to nuclear enterprise of Department of Defense (sec. 1653) ..................................................................................... 350 

Sense of Congress on nuclear deterrence (sec. 1654) ............................. 350 

Subtitle E—Missile Defense Programs ........................................................... 350 

Required testing by Missile Defense Agency of ground-based midcourse defense element of ballistic missile defense system (sec. 

1661) ....................................................................................................... 350 

Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system codevelopment and 

coproduction (sec. 1662) ........................................................................ 351 

Non-terrestrial missile defense intercept and defeat capability for 

the ballistic missile defense system (sec. 1663) .................................. 351 

Review of pre-launch missile defense strategy (sec. 1664) .................... 351 

Modification of National Missile Defense policy (sec. 1665) .................. 351 

Extension of prohibitions on providing certain missile defense information to the Russian Federation (sec. 1666) ..................................... 352 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 352 

Survey and review of Defense Intelligence Enterprise (sec. 1671) ....... 352 

Milestone A decision for Conventional Prompt Global Strike (sec. 

1672) ....................................................................................................... 352 

Cyber Center for Education and Innovation and National Cryptologic 

Museum (sec. 1673) ............................................................................... 352 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 352 

Additional Atlantic radar capability ........................................................ 352 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXVII 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE 

MATTERS—Continued 

Items of Special Interest—Continued 

Air Force Global Strike Command’s management of the National 

Airborne Operations Center .................................................................. 353 

Air Force Seismic Technologies Program ................................................ 354 

Ballistic Missile Defense System ............................................................. 354 

Commercial cloud implementation in the Department of Defense ....... 354 

Commercial off the shelf procurement for ICBM launch control centers .......................................................................................................... 355 

Comptroller General Review of the ground based strategic deterrent 

system ..................................................................................................... 355 

Conventional prompt global strike ........................................................... 356 

Cyber protection for the ballistic missile defense system ...................... 356 

Cyber security on military installations .................................................. 357 

Department of Defense report on nuclear enterprise funding and 

management ........................................................................................... 357 

E–4B Recapitalization Plan ...................................................................... 358 

Ground Based Strategic Deterrent .......................................................... 358 

Inclusion of the Army National Guard Cyber Protection Teams in 

the Department of Defense Cyber Mission Force ............................... 359 

Space situational awareness technologies ............................................... 359 

Space system software review .................................................................. 360 

Strategic missile commonality .................................................................. 360 

The importance and use of U.S. FAA licensed spaceports ..................... 361 

Training for cyber mission forces ............................................................. 361 

Weather imagery for U.S. Central Command ......................................... 362 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ................... 363 

Summary and explanation of funding tables .......................................... 363 

Short title (sec. 2001) ................................................................................ 363 

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified 

by law (sec. 2002) ................................................................................... 363 

Effective date (sec. 2003) .......................................................................... 363 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................. 365 

Summary .................................................................................................... 365 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2101) ....................................................................................................... 365 

Family housing (sec. 2102) ....................................................................... 365 

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2103) ................................. 365 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2014 project 

(sec. 2104) ............................................................................................... 366 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec. 

2105) ....................................................................................................... 366 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2014 projects (sec. 

2106) ....................................................................................................... 366 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ............................................ 367 

Summary .................................................................................................... 367 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2201) ....................................................................................................... 367 

Family housing (sec. 2202) ....................................................................... 367 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) .................. 367 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) ................................. 367 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2014 project 

(sec. 2205) ............................................................................................... 368 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec. 

2206) ....................................................................................................... 368 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 projects (sec. 

2207) ....................................................................................................... 368 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ................................ 369 

Summary .................................................................................................... 369 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2301) ....................................................................................................... 369 

Family housing (sec. 2302) ....................................................................... 369 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) .................. 369 

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304) .......................... 370 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2016 project 

(sec. 2305) ............................................................................................... 370 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXVIII 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION—Continued 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 projects (sec. 

2306) ....................................................................................................... 370 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION .............. 371 

Summary .................................................................................................... 371 

Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2401) ................................................................................. 371 

Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) .............................. 371 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403) ............. 371 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2014 project 

(sec. 2404) ............................................................................................... 372 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec. 

2405) ....................................................................................................... 372 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 projects (sec. 

2406) ....................................................................................................... 372 

TITLE XXV—INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS .................................................... 373 

Summary .................................................................................................... 373 

Subtitle A—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program ............................................................................................................... 373 

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2501) ....................................................................................................... 373 

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) ............................... 373 

Subtitle B—Host Country In-kind Contributions .......................................... 373 

Republic of Korea funded construction projects (sec. 2511) ................... 373 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES ........................ 375 

Summary .................................................................................................... 375 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorizations of Appropriations . 375 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2601) ................................................................................. 375 

Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2602) ............................................................................................... 375 

Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction 

and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603) ............................................. 375 

Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2604) ................................................................................. 376 

Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2605) ................................................................................. 376 

Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 

2606) ....................................................................................................... 376 

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 376 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2014 project 

(sec. 2611) ............................................................................................... 376 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2015 project 

(sec. 2612) ............................................................................................... 376 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 project (sec. 

2613) ....................................................................................................... 376 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2014 projects (sec. 

2614) ....................................................................................................... 377 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES ............ 379 

Summary and explanation of tables ........................................................ 379 

Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account (sec. 2701) ..................................................................................... 379 

Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and closure 

(BRAC) round (sec. 2702) ...................................................................... 379 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS ....... 381 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ......................................................................................................... 381 

Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas outside 

the United States (sec. 2801) ................................................................ 381 

Limited authority for scope of work increase (sec. 2802) ....................... 381 

Permanent authority for acceptance and use of contributions for certain construction, maintenance, and repair projects mutually beneficial to the Department of Defense and Kuwait Military Forces 

(sec. 2803) ............................................................................................... 381 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 381 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXIX 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS— 

Continued 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration—Continued 

Authority to carry out military construction projects for energy resiliency and security projects not previously authorized (sec. 2811) ..... 381 

Authority of the Secretary concerned to accept lessee improvements 

at government-owned/contractor-operated industrial plants or facilities (sec. 2812) ................................................................................... 382 

Treatment of insured depository institutions operating on land leased 

from military installations (sec. 2813) ................................................. 382 

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 383 

Land acquisitions, Arlington County, Virginia (sec. 2821) .................... 383 

Land conveyance, Campion Air Force Radar Station, Galena, Alaska 

(sec. 2822) ............................................................................................... 383 

Land conveyances, High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program 

facility and adjacent property, Gakona, Alaska (sec. 2823) ............... 383 

Transfer of Fort Belvoir Mark Center Campus from the Secretary 

of the Army to the Secretary of Defense and applicability of certain 

provisions of law relating to the Pentagon Reservation (sec. 2824) .. 383 

Transfer of Administrative Jurisdictions, Navajo Army Depot, Arizona (sec. 2825) ...................................................................................... 383 

Subtitle D—Utah Land Withdrawals and Exchanges ................................... 383 

PART I—Authorization for Temporary Closure of Certain Public 

Land Adjacent to the Utah Test and Training Range ........................ 383 

Short Title (sec. 2831) ........................................................................ 383 

Definitions (sec. 2832) ........................................................................ 384 

Memorandum of agreement (sec. 2833) ............................................ 384 

Temporary closures (sec. 2834) ......................................................... 384 

Liability (sec. 2835) ............................................................................ 384 

Community resource advisory group (sec. 2836) ............................. 384 

Savings clauses (sec. 2837) ................................................................ 384 

PART II—Bureau of Land Management Land Exchange with State 

of Utah .................................................................................................... 384 

Definitions (sec. 2841) ........................................................................ 384 

Exchange of federal land and non-federal land (sec. 2842) ............ 384 

Status and management of non-federal land acquired by the 

United States (sec. 2843) ............................................................... 385 

Hazardous materials (sec. 2844) ....................................................... 385 

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 385 

Certification of optimal location for 4th and 5th generation combat 

aircraft basing and for rotation of forces at Naval Air Station 

El Centro or Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe Bay (sec. 2851) ..... 385 

Replenishment of Sierra Vista Subwatershed regional aquifer, Arizona (sec. 2852) ...................................................................................... 385 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 385 

Concurrent use of repair and new construction ...................................... 385 

Cybersecurity risk to Department of Defense facilities ......................... 386 

Extension of the runway at Pope Army Airfield ..................................... 387 

Military Ocean Terminal, Concord infrastructure impacts on readiness ......................................................................................................... 387 

Ordnance Plant Recapitalization ............................................................. 388 

Treatment of stormwater as wastewater ................................................ 388 

TITLE XXIX—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ......................................................................................................... 389 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2901) ....................................................................................................... 389 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 

2902) ....................................................................................................... 389 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 2903) ............................................ 389 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................... 391 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................. 391 

Overview ............................................................................................................ 391 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 391 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) .......................... 391 

Defense environmental clean-up (sec. 3102) ........................................... 392 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXX 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS—Continued 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations—Continued 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) ......................................................... 392 

Nuclear energy (sec. 3104) ........................................................................ 392 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 392 

Common financial systems for the nuclear security enterprise (sec. 

3111) ....................................................................................................... 392 

Industry best practices in operations at National Nuclear Security 

Administration facilities and sites (sec. 3112) ..................................... 393 

Limitation on acceleration of dismantlement of retired nuclear weapons (sec. 3113) ........................................................................................ 393 

Contract for Mixed-Oxide fuel fabrication facility construction project 

(sec. 3114) ............................................................................................... 393 

Unavailability for general and administrative overhead costs of 

amounts specified for certain laboratories for laboratory-directed 

research and development (sec. 3115) .................................................. 395 

Increase in certain limitations applicable to funds for conceptual 

and construction design of the Department of Energy (sec. 3116) .... 395 

Subtitle C—Plans and Reports ........................................................................ 395 

Estimate of total life cycle cost of tank waste cleanup at Hanford 

Reservation (sec. 3121) .......................................................................... 395 

Analysis of approaches for supplemental treatment of low-activity 

waste at Hanford Nuclear Reservation (sec. 3122) ............................. 396 

Analyses of options for disposal of high-level radioactive waste (sec. 

3123) ....................................................................................................... 398 

Elimination of duplication in reviews by the Comptroller General 

of the United States (sec. 3124) ............................................................ 399 

Repeal of requirement for Comptroller General of the United States 

report on the program on scientific engagement for nonproliferation 

(sec. 3125) ............................................................................................... 400 

Budget Items ..................................................................................................... 400 

Environmental management at Los Alamos National Laboratory ....... 400 

Stockpile Responsiveness Program .......................................................... 400 

Defense uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning . 400 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ....................................................................... 400 

Weapons dismantlement and disposition ................................................ 400 

MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility ................................................................ 401 

Items of Special Interest .................................................................................. 401 

Comptroller General review of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s depleted uranium management program ........................... 401 

Long term planning for H-Canyon ........................................................... 402 

Management of the project design phase at the National Nuclear 

Security Administration ........................................................................ 402 

Microlab implementation .......................................................................... 403 

Plutonium strategy .................................................................................... 404 

Report on future-year funding needs ....................................................... 405 

Report on high-level risks to the B61–12 Life extension program ........ 406 

Report on interoperable warhead-1 ......................................................... 406 

Responsive capabilities program .............................................................. 407 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............. 409 

Authorization (sec. 3201) .......................................................................... 409 

TITLE XXXIII—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION THIRD CLASS 

MEDICAL REFORM AND GENERAL AVIATION PILOT PROTECTIONS . 411 

Short title (sec. 3301) ................................................................................ 411 

Medical certification of certain small aircraft pilots (sec. 3302) ............ 411 

Expansion of Pilot’s Bill of Rights (sec. 3303) ......................................... 411 

Limitations on reexamination of certificate holders (sec. 3304) ............ 411 

Expediting updates to NOTAM program (sec. 3305) .............................. 412 

Accessibility of certain flight data (sec. 3306) ......................................... 412 

Authority for legal counsel to issue certain notices (sec. 3307) ............. 412 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION ................................................. 413 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501) ....................................................... 413 

National security floating dry docks (sec. 3502) ..................................... 413 

DIVISION D—FUNDING TABLES ....................................................................... 415 

Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001) ......................... 415 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT .............................................................................. 423 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXXI 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT—Continued 

Procurement (sec. 4101) ............................................................................ 424 

Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4102) ............... 459 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION ..... 471 

Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201) ....................... 472 

Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas contingency 

operations (sec. 4202) ............................................................................ 506 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................... 509 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301) .................................................. 510 

Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations (sec. 

4302) ....................................................................................................... 531 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL .............................................................. 543 

Military personnel (sec. 4401) .................................................................. 544 

Military personnel for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4402) ..... 545 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS .......................................................... 547 

Other authorizations (sec. 4501) .............................................................. 548 

Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4502) . 553 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ....................................................... 557 

Military construction (sec. 4601) .............................................................. 558 

Military construction for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4602) . 574 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................. 577 

Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 4701) ............. 578 

DIVISION E—UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE REFORM ............. 589 

Short title (Sec. 5001) ............................................................................... 589 

TITLE LI—GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................................... 589 

Definitions (sec. 5101) ............................................................................... 589 

Clarification of persons subject to UCMJ while on inactive-duty training (sec. 5102) ........................................................................................ 589 

Staff judge advocate disqualification due to prior involvement in case 

(sec. 5103) ............................................................................................... 589 

Conforming amendment relating to military magistrates (sec. 5104) .. 589 

Rights of victim (sec. 5105) ....................................................................... 590 

TITLE LII—APPREHENSION AND RESTRAINT .............................................. 591 

Restraint of persons charged (sec. 5121) ................................................. 591 

Modification of prohibition of confinement of members of the Armed 

Forces with enemy prisoners and certain others (sec. 5122) ............. 591 

TITLE LIII—NON-JUDICIAL PUNISHMENT .................................................... 593 

Modification of confinement as non-judicial punishment (sec. 5141) .... 593 

TITLE LIV—COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION ............................................... 595 

Courts-martial classified (sec. 5161) ........................................................ 595 

Jurisdiction of general courts-martial (sec. 5162) .................................. 595 

Jurisdiction of special courts-martial (sec. 5163) .................................... 595 

Summary courts-martial as non-criminal forum (sec. 5164) ................. 595 

TITLE LV—COMPOSITION OF COURTS-MARTIAL ........................................ 597 

Technical amendment relating to persons authorized to convene general courts-martial (sec. 5181) .............................................................. 597 

Who may serve on courts-martial and related matters (sec. 5182) ....... 597 

Number of court-martial members in capital cases (sec. 5183) ............. 597 

Detailing, qualifications, and other matters relating to military 

judges (sec. 5184) ................................................................................... 597 

Qualifications of trial counsel and defense counsel (sec. 5185) ............. 598 

Assembly and impaneling of members and related matters (sec. 

5186) ....................................................................................................... 598 

Military magistrates (sec. 5187) ............................................................... 598 

TITLE LVI—PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE ............................................................... 599 

Charges and specifications (sec. 5201) .................................................... 599 

Proceedings conducted before referral (sec. 5202) .................................. 599 

Preliminary hearing required before referral to general court-martial 

(sec. 5203) ............................................................................................... 599 

Disposition guidance (sec. 5204) .............................................................. 599 

Advice to convening authority before referral for trial (sec. 5205) ....... 600 

Service of charges and commencement of trial (sec. 5206) .................... 600 

TITLE LVII—TRIAL PROCEDURE ...................................................................... 601 

Duties of assistant defense counsel (sec. 5221) ....................................... 601 

Sessions (sec. 5222) ................................................................................... 601 

Technical amendment relating to continuances (sec. 5223) .................. 601 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXXII 

TITLE LVII—TRIAL PROCEDURE —Continued 

Conforming amendments relating to challenges (sec. 5224) .................. 601 

Statute of limitations (sec. 5225) ............................................................. 601 

Former jeopardy (sec. 5226) ..................................................................... 602 

Pleas of the accused (sec. 5227) ............................................................... 602 

Subpoena and other process (sec. 5228) .................................................. 602 

Refusal of person not subject to UCMJ to appear, testify, or produce 

evidence (sec. 5229) ............................................................................... 602 

Contempt (sec. 5230) ................................................................................. 602 

Depositions (sec. 5231) .............................................................................. 603 

Admissibility of sworn testimony by audiotape or videotape from 

records of courts of inquiry (sec. 5232) ................................................ 603 

Conforming amendment relating to defense of lack of mental responsibility (sec. 5233) .................................................................................. 603 

Voting and rulings (sec. 5234) .................................................................. 603 

Votes required for conviction, sentencing, and other matters (sec. 

5235) ....................................................................................................... 604 

Findings and sentencing (sec. 5236) ........................................................ 604 

Plea agreements (sec. 5237) ..................................................................... 604 

Record of trial (sec. 5238) ......................................................................... 604 

TITLE LVIII—SENTENCES .................................................................................. 605 

Sentencing (sec. 5261) ............................................................................... 605 

Effective date of sentences (sec. 5262) ..................................................... 605 

Sentence of reduction in enlisted grade (sec. 5263) ................................ 605 

Repeal of sentence reduction provision when interim guidance takes 

effect (sec. 5264) ..................................................................................... 605 

TITLE LIX—POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL ...................................................................................................................... 607 

Post-trial processing in general and special courts-martial (sec. 5281) 607 

Limited authority to act on sentence in specified post-trial circumstances (sec. 5282) .......................................................................... 607 

Post-trial actions in summary courts-martial and certain general and 

special courts-martial (sec. 5283) ......................................................... 608 

Entry of judgment (sec. 5284) .................................................................. 608 

Waiver of right to appeal and withdrawal of appeal (sec. 5285) ........... 609 

Appeal by the United States (sec. 5286) .................................................. 609 

Rehearings (sec. 5287) .............................................................................. 609 

Judge advocate review of finding of guilty in summary court-martial 

(sec. 5288) ............................................................................................... 609 

Transmittal and review of records (sec. 5289) ........................................ 609 

Courts of Criminal Appeals (sec. 5290) ................................................... 610 

Review by Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (sec. 5291) .............. 610 

Supreme Court review (sec. 5292) ........................................................... 610 

Review by Judge Advocate General (sec. 5293) ...................................... 610 

Appellate defense counsel in death penalty cases (sec. 5294) ............... 610 

Authority for hearing on vacation of suspension of sentence to be 

conducted by qualified judge advocate (sec. 5295) .............................. 611 

Extension of time for petition for new trial (sec. 5296) .......................... 611 

Restoration (sec. 5297) .............................................................................. 611 

Leave requirements pending review of certain court-martial convictions (sec. 5298) ...................................................................................... 611 

TITLE LX—PUNITIVE ARTICLES ....................................................................... 613 

Reorganization of punitive articles (sec. 5301) ....................................... 613 

Conviction of offense charged, lesser included offenses, and attempts 

(sec. 5302) ............................................................................................... 613 

Soliciting commission of offenses (sec. 5303) .......................................... 613 

Malingering (sec. 5304) ............................................................................. 613 

Breach of medical quarantine (sec. 5305) ................................................ 613 

Missing movement; jumping from vessel (sec. 5306) .............................. 613 

Offenses against correctional custody and restriction (sec. 5307) ......... 613 

Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer; assault of superior 

commissioned officer (sec. 5308) ........................................................... 614 

Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer (sec. 5309) ............. 614 

Prohibited activities with military recruit or trainee by person in 

position of special trust (sec. 5310) ...................................................... 614 

Offenses by sentinel or lookout (sec. 5311) ............................................. 614 

Disrespect toward sentinel or lookout (sec. 5312) .................................. 614 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXXIII 

TITLE LX—PUNITIVE ARTICLES —Continued 

Release of prisoner without authority; drinking with prisoner (sec. 

5313) ....................................................................................................... 614 

Penalty for acting as a spy (sec. 5314) .................................................... 615 

Public records offenses (sec. 5315) ........................................................... 615 

False or unauthorized pass offenses (sec. 5316) ..................................... 615 

Impersonation offenses (sec. 5317) .......................................................... 615 

Insignia offenses (sec. 5318) ..................................................................... 615 

False official statements; false swearing (sec. 5319) .............................. 615 

Parole violation (sec. 5320) ....................................................................... 615 

Wrongful taking, opening, etc. of mail matter (sec. 5321) ..................... 616 

Improper hazarding of vessel or aircraft (sec. 5322) .............................. 616 

Leaving scene of vehicle accident (sec. 5323) .......................................... 616 

Drunkenness and other incapacitation offenses (sec. 5324) .................. 616 

Lower blood alcohol content limits for conviction of drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel (sec. 5325) ................... 616 

Endangerment offenses (sec. 5326) .......................................................... 616 

Communicating threats (sec. 5327) ......................................................... 616 

Technical amendment relating to murder (sec. 5328) ............................ 616 

Child endangerment (sec. 5329) ............................................................... 617 

Rape and sexual assault offenses (sec. 5330) .......................................... 617 

Deposit of obscene matter in the mail (sec. 5331) .................................. 617 

Fraudulent use of credit cards, debit cards, and other access devices 

(sec. 5332) ............................................................................................... 617 

False pretenses to obtain services (sec. 5333) ......................................... 617 

Robbery (sec. 5334) .................................................................................... 617 

Receiving stolen property (sec. 5335) ....................................................... 618 

Offenses concerning Government computers (sec. 5336) ....................... 618 

Bribery (sec. 5337) ..................................................................................... 618 

Graft (sec. 5338) ........................................................................................ 618 

Kidnapping (sec. 5339) .............................................................................. 618 

Arson; burning property with intent to defraud (sec. 5340) .................. 618 

Assault (sec. 5341) ..................................................................................... 618 

Burglary and unlawful entry (sec. 5342) ................................................. 618 

Stalking (sec. 5343) ................................................................................... 619 

Subornation of perjury (sec. 5344) ........................................................... 619 

Obstructing justice (sec. 5345) ................................................................. 619 

Misprision of serious offense (sec. 5346) ................................................. 619 

Wrongful refusal to testify (sec. 5347) ..................................................... 619 

Prevention of authorized seizure of property (sec. 5348) ....................... 619 

Wrongful interference with adverse administrative proceeding (sec. 

5349) ....................................................................................................... 620 

Retaliation (sec. 5350) ............................................................................... 620 

Extraterritorial application of certain offenses (sec. 5351) .................... 620 

Subtitle LXI—Miscellaneous Provisions ......................................................... 620 

Technical amendments relating to courts of inquiry (sec. 5401) ........... 620 

Technical amendment to Article 136 (sec. 5402) .................................... 621 

Articles of Uniform Code of Military Justice to be explained to officers upon commissioning (sec. 5403) .................................................... 621 

Military justice case management; data collection and accessibility 

(sec. 5404) ............................................................................................... 621 

Subtitle LXII—Military Justice Review Panel and Annual Reports ............ 622 

Military Justice Review Panel (sec. 5421) ............................................... 622 

Annual reports (sec. 5422) ........................................................................ 623 

Subtitle LXIII—Conforming Amendments and Effective Dates ................... 623 

Amendments to UCMJ subchapter tables of sections (sec. 5441) ......... 623 

Effective dates (sec. 5442) ......................................................................... 623 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 623 

Departmental Recommendations ............................................................. 623 

Committee Action ...................................................................................... 623 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................ 628 

Regulatory Impact ..................................................................................... 628 

Changes in Existing Law .......................................................................... 628 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS ............................................................................................. 629 

Additional Views of Mr. Inhofe ................................................................ 629 

Additional Views of Ms. Ayotte ................................................................ 631 

Additional Views of Mr. Kaine ................................................................. 637 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Page

XXXIV 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS—Continued 

Additional Views of Mr. Heinrich ............................................................ 640 

MINORITY VIEWS ................................................................................................. 641 

Minority Views of Mr. Lee and Mr. Cruz ................................................ 641 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Calendar No. 469 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 114–255 

TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 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 

MAY 18, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. MCCAIN, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 2943] 

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original 

bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 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 2017; 

(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each military 

active duty component of the Armed Forces for fiscal year 

2017; 

(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected 

Reserve of each of the reserve components of the Armed Forces 

for fiscal year 2017; 

(4) impose certain reporting requirements; 

(5) impose certain limitations with regard to specific procurement and research, development, test and evaluation actions 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

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 2017; and 

(7) authorize appropriations for national security programs 

of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2017. 

COMMITTEE OVERVIEW 

For 54 consecutive years, the Senate Armed Services Committee 

has fulfilled its duty of producing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This vital piece of legislation authorizes the necessary funding and provides authorities for our military to defend 

the nation. And it is a reflection of its critical importance to our 

national security that the NDAA is one of few bills in Congress 

that continues to enjoy bipartisan support year after year. 

The men and women of our Armed Forces—as well as the civilians and contractors who support them—have worked honorably 

and courageously to address the diverse and complex array of challenges to our national security, often at great personal risk and significant sacrifice to themselves and their families. The committee, 

Congress, and the American people owe them a debt of gratitude 

for this service. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 

continues the committee’s commitment to defense reforms that enable our military to rise to the challenges of a more dangerous 

world both today and in the future. The NDAA: • Ensures the long-term viability of the All-Volunteer force 

by sustaining the quality of life of the men and women of the 

total force (Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserves) and 

their families, as well as Department of Defense civilian personnel, through fair pay, policies, and comprehensive reform of 

the military health system. • Ensures that our men and women in uniform have the advanced equipment they need to succeed in future combat 

against technologically sophisticated adversaries, in the most 

efficient and effective manner that provides best value to the 

taxpayers. • Reduces strategic risk to the nation and our military 

servicemembers by prioritizing the restoration the military’s 

readiness to conduct the full range of its assigned missions as 

soon as possible. • Addresses shortfalls in strategic integration at the Department of Defense identified by the committee’s review of the 

Goldwater-Nichols Act by improving and sustaining the alignment of effort and resources across different regions, functions, 

and domains. 

• Continues a comprehensive reform of the defense acquisition system designed to drive innovation and ensure accountability for delivering military capabilities to our warfighters on 

time, on budget, and as promised. • Reduces excessive and wasteful spending to ensure every 

defense dollar is spent wisely. 

• Enhances the capability of the U.S. Armed Forces and the 

security forces of allied and friendly nations to defeat ISIL, al 

Qaeda, and other violent extremist organizations. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

• Advances our ability to establish deterrence and defend 

our allies and partners in Eastern Europe and the Asia-Pacific. • Improves the ability of the Armed Forces to counter 

emerging and nontraditional threats, focusing on terrorism, 

cyber warfare, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. 

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 2017 was $602.0 billion. Of this 

amount, $524.0 billion was requested for base Department of Defense (DOD) programs, $19.2 billion was requested for national security programs in the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), and $58.8 billion 

was requested for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). 

The committee recommends an overall discretionary authorization of $602.0 billion in fiscal year 2017, including $523.9 billion for 

base DOD programs, $19.2 billion for national security programs in 

the DOE and the DNFSB, and $58.9 billion for OCO. 

The two tables preceding the detailed program adjustments in 

Division D of this bill summarize the direct discretionary authorizations in the committee recommendation and the equivalent 

budget authority levels for fiscal year 2017 defense programs. The 

first table summarizes the committee’s recommended discretionary 

authorizations by appropriation account for fiscal year 2017 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). 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD 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 

Distributed Common Ground System-Army (sec. 111) 

The committee is aware that the Distributed Common Ground 

System (DCGS) is a multi-service program that is intended to provide a family of fixed and deployable multi-source ground processing systems that support a range of United States Air Force, 

United States Navy and United States Army intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems. The United States Army system, DCGS–A, is the primary system for posting of data, processing 

of information, and disseminating intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information about the threat, weather, and terrain. 

The system contributes to visualization and situational awareness, 

thereby enhancing tactical maneuver, maximizing combat power 

and enhancing soldiers’ ability to operate in an unpredictable and 

changing environment. DCGS–A is fielded at echelons that range 

from fixed sites, corps, division, brigade combat team (BCT), and 

battalion levels. Since 2007 the total program cost is in excess of 

$3.0 billion dollars. Costs to complete the program are estimated 

to be in excess of an additional $7.0 billion dollars. DCGS–A, Increment 2, intended to correct many identified problems, is in source 

selection. 

The committee notes that DCGS–A is operationally suitable and 

effective when operating from fixed sites and providing direct support to operational and strategic forces. However, the committee 

also notes that DCGS–A is not suitable or effective in providing a 

reliable capability to tactical forces operating in the field. Army 

BCTs and battalions are required to improvise to overcome unreliable hardware and complex software. Operator knowledge and proficiency is low because of this complexity. Unit readiness is adversely impacted. 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Army to take action to improve training of DCGS– 

A operators and their leaders at division and below echelons. Secondly, the Secretary of the Army should rapidly identify and field 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

an effective, suitable and survivable solution for division and below 

tactical units. The Secretary of the Army shall acquire a commercially available off the shelf, non-developmental capability that: 

meets essential tactical operational requirements for processing, 

analyzing and displaying intelligence information; is substantially 

easier for personnel in tactical units to use; and requires less training. The Secretary of the Army may not award any contract or expend any funds for the design, development, procurement, or operation and maintenance of any data architecture, data integration, 

‘‘cloud’’ capability, data analysis, or data visualization and 

workflow capabilities, including various warfighting function-related tools under or contributing to any increment of the distributed common ground system of the Army for tactical units at division or below unless the contract is awarded not later than 180 

days after the date of the enactment of this Act and uses procedures relating to the acquisition of commercial items pursuant to 

part 12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (48 CFR 12.000 et 

seq.), and the contract uses firm fixed-price procedures. In addition, 

the technology to be acquired will begin initial fielding rapidly after 

the contract award; achieve Initial Operating Capability (IOC) 

within 9 months of the contract award; and achieve Full Operating 

Capability (FOC) within 18 months of the contract award. 

Multiyear procurement authority for UH–60M/HH–60M 

Black Hawk helicopters (sec. 112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of the Army to enter into a multiyear contract for UH–60M/ 

HH–60M Black Hawk helicopters for fiscal years 2017 through 

2021. The proposed multiyear procurement will produce significant 

savings and facilitate industrial base stability. 

The UH–60M/HH–60M Black Hawk is a core aviation program 

and is approved for full-rate production through the future years 

defense program. If the proposal is approved, the Army buy will 

consist of 193 UH–60M aircraft and 75 HH–60M aircraft between 

fiscal years 2017 and 2021. The Navy is not expected to participate 

in this multiyear procurement. The request for proposal solicitation 

was released with a minimum quantity of 36 helicopters per year 

and a base quantity of 50 helicopters per year with options to increase the maximum quantity to 72 helicopters per year. 

Multiyear procurement authority for AH–64E Apache helicopters (sec. 113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of the Army to enter into a multiyear contract for AH–64E 

Apache helicopters for fiscal years 2017 through 2021. The proposed multiyear procurement will produce significant savings and 

facilitate industrial stability. 

The AH–64E is a core aviation program and is approved for fullrate production through the current future years defense program. 

The minimum need for the AH–64E is not expected to decrease 

during the contemplated multiyear procurement period. 

If the proposal is approved, the Army buy will consist of 275 AH– 

64E Apache helicopters between fiscal years 2017 and 2021. The 

request for proposal (RFP) was released with a minimum quantity 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

of 46 per year, with options for remanufactured quantities up to 75 

per year. The RFP included new build quantities, as a contract option, of up to 30 per year. In no year would total quantities of remanufactured and new build aircraft exceed 90 per year. 

Subtitle C—Navy Programs 

Incremental funding for detail design and construction of 

LHA replacement ship designated LHA–8 (sec. 121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of the Navy to enter into and incrementally fund a contract 

for detail design and construction of the LHA Replacement ship, 

designated LHA–8. Subject to the availability of appropriations, 

funds for payments under the contract may be provided from 

amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Defense for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, for fiscal years 2017 

and 2018. 

Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require an 

annual report on Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) mission packages, a 

certification on the acquisition inventory objective of LCS mission 

packages, a limitation on the use of funds to revise or deviate from 

revision three of the LCS acquisition strategy, and a repeal of a reporting requirement related to LCS mission modules. 

The committee is concerned with the volume and complexity of 

LCS mission package testing that remains to be completed. Since 

2009, the surface package has been delayed by 2 years, the antisubmarine package by 3 years, and the mine countermeasures 

package by at least 8 years. Significant design, testing, integration, 

and deployment challenges must be overcome before the promised 

LCS warfighting capability is realized. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit a report on LCS mission packages, annually, with the 

President’s budget request. For each mission package and increment therein, the report would include: (1) a description of the current status of and plans for development, production, and 

sustainment; (2) a description, including dates, for each developmental test, operational test, integrated test, and follow-on test 

event completed in the preceding fiscal year, forecast to be conducted in the current fiscal year, and in each of the next 5 fiscal 

years; (3) the planned initial operational capability (IOC) date and 

a description of the performance level criteria that must be demonstrated to declare IOC; (4) a description of systems that reached 

IOC in the preceding fiscal year and the performance level demonstrated versus the performance level required; (5) the acquisition 

inventory objective listed by system; (6) the current locations and 

quantities of the individual systems listed by city, state, and country; and (7) the planned locations and quantities of systems listed 

by city, state, and country in each of the next 5 fiscal years. 

Since 2007, the committee notes the program of record has required 64 LCS mission packages, including 16 for anti-submarine 

warfare (ASW), 24 for mine countermeasures (MCM), and 24 for 

surface warfare (SUW). Several major program changes have ocVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

curred since this program of record quantity was established to 

support 52 LCS, including: a revised acquisition strategy that reduces procurement to 40 ships, the decision to modify at least 12 

LCS to a frigate design that includes LCS ASW and SUW mission 

package systems permanently installed, and a Remote 

Minehunting System Independent Review Team recommendation 

to exercise MCM capability from platforms other than LCS. Therefore, the committee recommends the Undersecretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics recertify the LCS mission 

package program of record and submit this certification with the 

President’s budget request for fiscal year 2018. 

The committee also notes that on March 29, 2016 revision three 

of the LCS acquisition strategy was approved by Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Frank Kendall. This revision was approved on February 19, 2016 by Assistant 

Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development & Acquisition) Sean 

Stackley and supports the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request. This revision plans to continue the procurement of both LCS 

designs in fiscal year 2017 in preparation for the down select to a 

single variant and transition to the frigate as early fiscal year 

2018, but no later than fiscal year 2019. It also plans to procure 

LCS/frigate ships through fiscal year 2025 for a total inventory of 

40 ships. As the Secretary of Defense testified on March 17, 2016, 

‘‘. . . we’re investing in LCS and frigates because we need the capability they provide, and for missions like minesweeping and antisubmarine warfare, they’re expected to be very capable. The department’s warfighting analysis called for 40 small surface combatants, so that’s how many we’re buying . . . While this will somewhat reduce the number of LCS available for presence operations, 

that need will be met by higher-end ships . . . Under this rebalanced plan, we will still achieve our 308-ship goal within the next 

five years, and we will be better positioned as a force to effectively 

deter, and if necessary defeat, even the most advanced potential 

adversaries.’’ Therefore, the committee requires, should the Secretary of Defense deem changes necessary, that the Secretary submit a waiver justification prior to revising or deviating from revision three of the LCS acquisition strategy. The waiver would be required to include the following related to such revision or deviation: 

the rationale, a determination that it is in the national security interest, a description of the changes, the resulting acquisition strategy, and independent cost estimates that compare the changes to 

revision three of the LCS acquisition strategy. 

The committee notes section 126(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) requires 

a quarterly report on LCS mission modules. This reporting requirement is addressed in subsection (a) of this provision. Therefore, the 

committee recommends striking subsection (b) of section 126 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 

Law 112–239). 

Additionally, the committee recommends initiating or continuing 

the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System analysis necessary for future surface combatants, including the LCS replacement. It is essential that a follow-on small combatant be developed and procured starting in the 2020s to replace LCS, which 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

begins retiring in the early-2030s. The committee believes the analytical assumptions for the follow-on small surface combatant must 

address the capability and survivability shortfalls of LCS in a high 

threat environment, including the ability to: attack enemy surface 

ships at over-the-horizon ranges with multiple salvos, defend nearby noncombatant ships from air and missile threats as an escort, 

conduct long-duration escort or patrol missions without frequent refueling, and be built to Navy level one survivability design standards. 

Certification on ship deliveries (sec. 123) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Navy to deem ship delivery to occur at the completion of the final phase of construction. The Secretary would be required to submit a certification to the congressional defense committees not later than January 1, 2017 that certifies ship delivery 

dates have been adjusted, including the ship hull numbers and delivery date adjustments. The adjustments would be reflected in the 

budget of the President submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, 

United States Code, as well as Department of Defense Selected Acquisition Reports. 

The committee notes that justification materials, which accompanied the President’s fiscal year 2016 and 2017 budgets, as well 

as Department of Defense Selected Acquisition Reports for the 

CVN–78 class aircraft carrier program, list the delivery date of 

USS John F. Kennedy (CVN–79) as June 2022. However, the Navy 

plans to deliver this ship in two phases. Phase I delivery, scheduled 

to complete in June 2022, will deliver the ship with full propulsion 

capability, aircraft launch and recovery systems, and safe to sail 

navigation systems. Phase II delivery, scheduled to complete in 

September 2024, will add the remaining electronics and ordnance 

equipment, including the Ship Self-Defense System, weapons systems, and Enterprise Air Search Radar. The committee believes 

CVN–79 delivery should be deemed to occur at the end of Phase 

II delivery. 

Similarly, the committee understands all three ships in the 

Zumwalt-class will employ a dual delivery approach with hull, mechanical, and electrical (HM&E) systems delivery at the shipbuilder in Maine and combat systems activation in California. In 

the case of USS Zumwalt (DDG–1000), HM&E delivery is scheduled for 2016 and combat systems activation is scheduled for 2018. 

The committee notes the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget lists 

April 2016 as the delivery date. The committee believes Zumwaltclass delivery should be deemed to occur at the completion of the 

dual delivery approach, following combat systems activation. 

The committee is concerned the variance in the Navy’s definition 

of ship delivery may obscure oversight of the program’s schedule, 

including whether or not a project has breached its threshold delivery date. The committee is also concerned Navy ships are being delivered in various degrees of completion and then, after a period of 

availabilities and shakedowns, possibly several years later, the ship 

is delivered to the fleet for operations. CVN–79 and the Zumwaltclass programs illustrate this practice. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

Therefore, the committee also directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to submit a report, not later than March 1, 2017, 

that includes analysis and recommendations regarding the Navy’s 

process for fully delivering ships from the time the Navy takes custody of the vessel until the vessels are fully complete and ready for 

operations. This review should examine the Navy’s cost and schedule milestones throughout this process and how these milestones 

are reported to decision makers and oversight agencies. The review 

should also propose a common definition and criteria for Navy ship 

deliveries, including the associated dates. 

Limitation on the use of sole source shipbuilding contracts 

(sec. 124) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 

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 appropriations have been made in the past 

2 years for JHSVs (now called EPFs) that were not requested by 

the President’s budget or authorized by a National Defense Authorization Act. Since 2011, the Navy requirement for EPFs has been 

10 ships. 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, procurement of an eleventh EPF at a cost of $200.0 million 

was inserted in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–235). Again without an authorization or request in the President’s budget, a twelfth EPF was inserted at a cost of $225.0 million in 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 on a sole source contract. 

Therefore, this provision would require the Secretary of the Navy 

to submit a certification that, beginning with the EPF designated 

EPF 11, a sole source contract for one or more EPFs: (1) is in the 

national security interest of the United States; (2) will not result 

in exceeding the requirement for the ship class, as delineated in 

the most recent Navy Force Structure Assessment that currently 

stands at 308 ships, including 10 EPFs; (3) will use a fixed price 

contract; (4) will include a fair and reasonable contract price as determined at the discretion of the Service Acquisition Executive; and 

(5) will provide for government purpose data rights of the ship design. 

In addition, the Secretary of the Navy would also be required to 

submit a report that includes: (1) the basis for awarding a noncompetitive sole source contract and (2) a description of courses of 

action to achieve competitive ship or component-level contract 

awards in the future, should additional ships in the class be procured, including for each such course of action, a notional implementation schedule and associated cost savings, as compared to a 

sole source award. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

Limitation on availability of funds for the Advanced Arresting Gear program (sec. 125) 

The committee recommends a provision that would restrict the 

obligation or expenditure of amounts authorized to be appropriated 

by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2017 for research and development, design, procurement, or advanced procurement of materials for the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) to 

be installed on USS Enterprise (CVN–80) until the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees the report 

required under section 2433a(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code, 

commonly referred to as a Nunn-McCurdy certification, for the 

AAG program. 

The provision would also direct the Secretary of Defense to deem 

the 2009 AAG acquisition program baseline as the original baseline 

estimate and to execute the requirements of sections 2433 and 

2433a of title 10, United States Code, as though the Department 

had submitted a Selected Acquisition Report with this baseline estimate included. This subsection provides clarity on the original 

baseline estimate, which is a necessary element of a Nunn-McCurdy review. 

The committee remains concerned with the current cost, schedule, and performance of the AAG program, which is on the critical 

path for the Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford 

(CVN–78). The committee finds the AAG program has exceeded the 

program acquisition unit cost (PAUC) critical cost growth thresholds as prescribed in section 2433 of title 10, United States Code. 

In 2009, the Navy reported what the committee understands to 

have been the last AAG acquisition program baseline (APB), which 

estimated AAG costs of: $331.0 million for development, $145.0 

million for procurement, and a program acquisition unit cost of 

$123.0 million. 

In 2013, the program breached the major defense acquisition program (MDAP) threshold at which time the program should have 

been re-designated as an MDAP with a new APB. However, the Department did not take these actions. According to the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO), AAG breached the MDAP development threshold by November 2013 with estimated costs of: at least 

$480.0 million for development, $503 million for procurement, and 

a program acquisition unit cost of $246.0 million. Although the 

Navy re-designated AAG as an MDAP (ACAT 1C) in July 2015, the 

Navy still has not updated the APB or begun submitting Selected 

Acquisition Reports. 

In February 2016, the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2017 estimated AAG costs of: $927.0 million for development, and 

$483.0 million for procurement, from which the committee calculated a program acquisition unit cost of $353.0 million. 

In April 2016, Navy officials provided the committee with an up- date, estimating AAG costs of: $1.3 billion for development, from 

which the committee calculated a program acquisition unit cost of 

$446.0 million. 

For the purposes of this provision, the committee considers the 

2009 APB to constitute the original baseline estimate and the November 2013 GAO reporting to constitute the current baseline estimate. As a result, through February 2016, the committee finds the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

program acquisition unit cost has risen $230.0 million, or 186 percent compared to the original baseline estimate, and $107.0 million, or 43 percent, compared to the current baseline estimate. 

Based on both percentage increases, the committee finds the AAG 

program has exceeded the PAUC critical cost growth thresholds as 

prescribed in section 2433 of title 10, United States Code, warranting a Nunn-McCurdy review. 

The committee is also concerned by other elements of the AAG 

program. 

First, the system development and demonstration contract schedule for delivery has more than quadrupled in length, while the 

AAG promised capability has yet to materialize. 

Second, a critical element of the Navy’s business case for AAG 

was an ability to land the next generation of aircraft, both heavier 

and lighter than those in service today. A more sensitive braking 

system—featuring a water twister to absorb 70 percent of the 

force—would recover these new aircraft safely and with less unnecessary stress. Facing persistent delays in software development, 

the committee notes that in February 2016, the Navy authorized 

an easing of these requirements to: (1) meet just the legacy Mark 

7 operating envelope, (2) eliminate the requirement to backfit Nimitz-class carriers with AAG, and (3) redefine what constitutes initial operational capability for AAG. 

Third, the committee understands a fatigue life review of the 

water twister is on-going and may result in the need for a significant re-design of components in order to meet the requirement for 

a service life of 25 years, which Navy officials acknowledge it cannot currently meet. The Navy has already procured AAG systems 

for the first two Ford-class ships, which will require additional effort and cost to re-design and fix. 

Fourth, the committee is concerned by the 18-month delay to redesignate AAG as an MDAP and the continued delay updating the 

APB and issuing Selected Acquisition Reports. 

Fifth, delays at the AAG land-based test site and with software 

development for recovering the full range of carrier air wing aircraft are unacceptable. In September 2015, Navy officials informed 

the committee that aircraft would be landing at the test site by the 

end of 2015. As of April 2016, this event has yet to occur. 

Sixth, as the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation has 

noted in his annual reports, the reliability data the Navy is collecting is still not sufficient to determine if the mean time between 

failures will be acceptable. Additionally, the committee is concerned 

that high cycle testing—which is necessary to understand system 

performance under more realistic operational tempo—will not occur 

at the land-based test site until fiscal year 2018. 

Seventh, the committee understands that in January 2015 the 

Navy considered using the legacy Mark 7 arresting gear for USS 

John F. Kennedy (CVN–79) instead of AAG, but decided to continue 

with AAG, in part because the installation of the Mark 7 was estimated to cost $87.0 million more than AAG. This appears to be a 

shortsighted decision given the extraordinary and continuing development delays and cost growth, including more than $500.0 million 

since this decision was made in February 2015. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

The committee believes the Navy must pause and reconsider the 

way ahead, including the best business case, for the arresting gear 

on CVN–79 and CVN–80, and notes the Navy has already begun 

such a review. The committee believes returning to a variant of the 

Mark 7 arresting gear is a viable option that should be considered. 

The committee encourages the Navy to maximize competition and 

ensure government data rights of AAG, as well as of any other arresting gear that may be pursued. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a reassessment of the AAG program, in accordance with sections 2433 and 2433a of title 10, United States Code. 

Limitation on procurement of USS John F. Kennedy (CVN– 

79) and USS Enterprise (CVN–80) (sec. 126) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit more 

than 25 percent of funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act 

or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2017 for advance procurement or procurement of USS John F. Kennedy (CVN–79) or 

USS Enterprise (CVN–80) from being obligated or expended until 

the Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees. 

The committee notes the progress that has been made in controlling the cost of the Ford-class aircraft carrier program. In fiscal 

year 2008, the cost estimate of CVN–78 was $10.5 billion, CVN– 

79 was $9.2 billion, and CVN–80 was $10.7 billion. In fiscal year 

2015, these estimates had risen to $12.9 billion, $11.5 billion, and 

$13.9 billion, respectively. In the fiscal year 2017 budget request, 

the estimates stood at $12.9 billion, $11.4 billion, and $12.9 billion, 

respectively. 

The Navy has largely attributed the progress made in arresting 

cost growth to ‘‘design for affordability’’ initiatives, which will improve efficiency and cost effectiveness in aircraft carrier construction. These initiatives require an investment of tens of millions of 

dollars to yield savings in excess of one billion dollars. The committee expects these initiatives to yield the projected savings and 

believes the Navy and industrial base are capable of achieving 

greater savings through these initiatives coupled with increased 

savings from: the Ford-class learning curve, CVN–80 repeating the 

design of CVN–79, and increased competition. To this end, the committee supported a series of provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) that required reports on cost reduction opportunities for CVN–79 and 

CVN–80 (sec. 128), alternatives for the future development of aircraft carriers (sec. 128), and independent studies of fleet platform 

architectures (sec. 1067). The committee expects the Navy to leverage these reports in identifying further cost reduction options for 

aircraft carriers. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy and 

Chief of Naval Operations to submit a report no later than December 1, 2016 that provides alternatives to achieve a CVN–80 procurement end cost of $12.0 billion. In addition, the report shall describe all applicable CVN–80 alternatives that could be applied to 

CVN–79 to enable an $11.0 billion procurement end cost. The provision also requires the Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

Operations to provide annual progress reports compared to these 

end cost goals with the President’s budget request. 

Limitation on availability of funds for Tactical Combat 

Training System Increment II (sec. 127) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the obligation or expenditure of 25 percent of the funds for the Tactical 

Combat Training System (TCTS) Increment II program until 60 

days after the Secretary of the Navy submits the report on the 

TCTS II program required by section 235 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). 

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs 

Extension of prohibition on availability of funds for retirement of A–10 aircraft (sec. 141) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 142 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92) by extending the prohibition on obligation or expenditure of funds to retire or prepare to retire A–10 aircraft until the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the 

Air Force submit a report to the congressional defense committees 

describing their views on the results of the F–35A initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E). The provision would direct 

the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to provide a report 

to the congressional defense committees that includes the results 

and findings of the F–35A IOT&E, and also ensures the inclusion 

of comparison tests and evaluation of the F–35A and A–10C in conducting close air support, combat search and rescue, and airborne 

forward air controller missions. The provision would also require 

submission of a plan by the Secretary and Chief of Staff for addressing deficiencies and corrective actions identified in the report, 

and short- and long-term strategies for preserving the Air Force’s 

capability to conduct the close air support, combat search and rescue, and airborne forward air controller missions. Finally, the provision would direct the Comptroller General of the United States 

to assess the conclusions and assertions contained in the Secretary’s and Chief of Staff’s report on the F–35A IOT&E. 

The committee understands the F–35A is scheduled to complete 

IOT&E by fiscal year 2019. The committee is concerned that while 

the Secretary of Defense announced on February 2, 2016, that the 

A–10 would be replaced ‘‘with F–35 Joint Strike Fighters on a 

squadron-by-squadron basis,’’ the Air Force has announced its intention to start retiring A–10 aircraft in fiscal year 2018 even before the F–35A would complete IOT&E, and certainly before the F– 

35A could be certified as a viable replacement capability for the A– 

10 in its assigned missions. 

To ensure realism under combat conditions, the committee directs the A–10C and F–35A comparative testing required under 

this provision to include, as a minimum, both pre-planned and 

emergency divert missions to address effectiveness in realistic, 

complex ground firefight scenarios. These scenarios must include 

simulated enemy forces in close proximity to friendly forces, where 

the pilot is required to visually identify the target and friendly 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

forces in day and night conditions; armored targets; scenarios requiring continuous weapons delivery, command and control, extended time over target, and simulated collateral damage restrictions; deception scenarios with degraded visual environments; lowaltitude employment, including ‘‘shows of force’’ and strafe; survivability from simulated direct hits by small arms fire, light anti-aircraft artillery, and man-portable air defense systems; scenarios in 

which simulated aircraft systems are damaged or degraded; scenarios conducted without joint tactical air controller or higher 

headquarters control to test close air support aircraft suitability for 

airborne forward air controller de-confliction of fires; and scenarios 

including joint fires coordination and timing, including Joint Air 

Attack Team attacks with Department of the Army aviation assets 

and artillery de-confliction. 

Combat search and rescue missions must compare effectiveness 

in the rescue mission commander role, coordinating all aspects of 

an extended combat search and rescue mission, and including as a 

minimum: locating, identifying, and protecting isolated personnel 

with continuous firepower, controlling other fighters as airborne 

forward air controller, coordinating electronic attack, intelligence, 

surveillance and reconnaissance, aerial refueling, command and 

control, and rescue platform escort. 

Additionally, the committee expects the Secretary of the Air 

Force to provide the report required by section 142 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114– 

92), due by September 30, 2016, and based on that report, the committee may take further action on options for authorizing an A–10 

replacement program. 

Limitation on availability of funds for destruction of A–10 

aircraft in storage status (sec. 142) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

availability of fiscal year 2017 funds for the purpose of scrapping, 

destroying, or otherwise disposing of any A–10 aircraft in any storage status in the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group 

(AMARG) that have serviceable wings or other components that 

could be used to prevent total active inventory A–10 aircraft from 

being permanently removed from flyable status due to unserviceable wings or other components. 

The provision would also specify a notification requirement, and 

would require the Secretary of the Air Force to submit, with the 

fiscal year 2018 budget submission, and implement, a plan to prevent any total active inventory A–10 aircraft from being permanently removed from flyable status for unserviceable wings or any 

other required component over the course of the future years defense plan. 

Repeal of the requirement to preserve certain retired C–5 

aircraft (sec. 143) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the requirement in Section 141 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) for the Secretary of 

the Air Force to continue to preserve C–5 aircraft, which were retired by the Air Force during a period in which the total inventory 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

of strategic airlift aircraft was less than 301, in a storage condition 

that would allow recall of such aircraft to future service in the Air 

Force Reserve, Air National Guard, or active force structure. 

The committee recognizes that 27 C–5A aircraft are being inducted into or currently maintained in Type 1000 recallable storage. This type of preservation is costly and prevents the cost-effective reuse of needed C–5 parts, especially parts with diminishing 

manufacturing sources, necessary to sustain the total active inventory C–5 fleet. 

Repeal of requirement to preserve F–117 aircraft in recallable condition (sec. 144) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the requirement in section 136 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) to maintain F–117A aircraft in a condition that would allow recall of that 

aircraft to future service. 

The committee recognizes that since this legislation was originally enacted, all F–22A program of record aircraft have been fielded, the Marine Corps has declared initial operational capability 

(IOC) of the F–35B fighter, and the Air Force is expected to declare 

IOC of the F–35A aircraft within its planned window of August to 

December 2016. 

Limitation on availability of funds for EC–130H Compass 

Call recapitalization program (sec. 145) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

availability of funds for an EC–130H Compass Call recapitalization 

program unless the Air Force conducts a full and open competition 

for the replacement aircraft. 

The Senate report accompanying S. 2410 (S. Rpt. 113–176) of the 

Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2015 (S. 2410) required the Secretary of the Air Force to develop 

and submit a plan to replace, modernize, or rehost the current 

Compass Call capabilities. Subsequently, section 143 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 

114–92) required a plan for how the Air Force would recapitalize 

the capability requirement of the EC–130H Compass Call mission 

in the future, whether through a replacement program or by integrating such capabilities onto an existing platform. 

The committee is encouraged that the Air Force has submitted 

a plan. The plan appears to support the Air Force’s conclusions, as 

well as provide aircraft mission availability to the combatant commanders at rates at least equal to the current capability. 

However, the committee is concerned by a significant shift in policy direction. In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the Air Force felt compelled to quickly divest half of the EC–130H fleet with no plan for 

replacing that lost capability. This year, the Air Force proposed a 

plan that assumes replacing EC–130H capability is urgent, and 

that urgency does not allow enough time to conduct a full and open 

competition for the replacement platform. 

The committee believes the Air Force’s proposal to recapitalize 

the EC–130H Compass Call aircraft using a sole source purchase 

of ten business class aircraft would not give us any confidence that 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

the Air Force is achieving the maximum value for the American 

taxpayer. Additionally, allowing this sole source award to proceed 

could potentially prejudice source selections for other Air Force recapitalization programs, such as the program to replace the Joint 

Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft. 

Limitation on availability of funds for Joint Surveillance 

Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) recapitalization 

program (sec. 146) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

availability of fiscal year 2017 and beyond funds for the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) recapitalization 

program unless the contract for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) uses a firm fixed price contract structure. 

The committee believes a fixed price development and production 

contract structure is more appropriate for this program than a cost 

plus/incentive fee contract, as the program’s aim is to integrate 

mission systems onto a commercial derivative aircraft, similarly to 

the KC–46A tanker recapitalization program. 

The committee recognizes the JSTARS recapitalization program 

offers significant advantages: decreased logistics footprint, reduced 

sustainment costs, increased operational flexibility, and extended 

operations into anti-access/area denial environments. However, the 

committee does not believe the divestment of any E–8C aircraft 

prior to the JSTARS recapitalization program entering into low 

rate initial production is a prudent course of action toward meeting 

combatant commander warfighting requirements. The committee 

understands the Air Force is currently conducting a study, expected to be completed in March 2017, to determine the extent of 

fatigue damage or other structural integrity issues with the E–8C 

fleet. 

The committee is also concerned with the ambiguity of the Acquisition Decision Memorandum, published on March 23, 2016, that 

states the Air Force should maintain a goal of 20 percent space, 

weight, power, and cooling (SWAP–C) margin through Milestone B 

to mitigate technical risk. This ambiguous requirement could have 

the effect of limiting industry competition and reducing the number 

of eligible aircraft solutions prior to a down-select decision for the 

EMD phase. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, 

not later than December 1, 2016, to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives that includes options to accelerate the JSTARS recapitalization program initial operational capability (IOC) to (1) fiscal year 

2022, and (2) fiscal year 2023; and full operational capability (FOC) 

by fiscal years 2024 and 2025 respectively, along with the funding 

plan needed to support accelerating the program for both IOC and 

FOC options; an analysis concerning the option of transferring the 

JSTARS recapitalization program to an Air Force program office 

that can execute a rapid acquisition program; a clarification of the 

20 percent SWAP–C margin and how it will be applied to source 

selection criteria; and an interim update on the study examining 

E–8C fatigue damage and structural integrity. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

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

Report to Congress on independent study of future mix of 

aircraft platforms for the Armed Forces (sec. 151) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to obtain an independent study on the future 

mix of aircraft platforms for the Armed Forces. 

The committee is concerned that with many significant defense 

modernization programs scheduled to peak simultaneously in the 

middle of the next decade, informed strategic choices must be made 

on how the nation’s resources will be applied to meet 21st century 

challenges. These strategic choices will include decisions on an optimized force mix of long-range versus medium/short-range intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and/or strike platforms; 

manned versus unmanned platforms; observability characteristics; 

land-based versus sea-based; advanced or upgraded fourth-generation platforms of proven design; next generation air superiority capabilities; and promising, game-changing, advanced technology innovations. 

Limitation on availability of funds for destruction of certain 

cluster munitions and report on Department of Defense 

policy and cluster munitions (sec. 152) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

funds available for the destruction of cluster munitions until the 

Secretary of Defense submits a report on the Department’s policy 

on and plan for cluster munitions. The committee notes that pursuant to the Department of Defense 2008 Policy on Cluster Munitions 

and Unintended Harm to Civilians, the military services and combatant commands, after December 31, 2018 will no longer use cluster munitions which result in more than one percent unexploded 

ordnance. Additionally, cluster munitions sold or transferred by the 

Department after 2018 must meet this requirement. As a result, 

the Department is facing a situation that if not addressed immediately, will have significant—and negative—operational and budgetary consequences. The committee is aware that the Department 

of Defense is demilitarizing its legacy mechanical and contact-fuzed 

weapons while relying on policy compliant sensor-fuzed munitions 

to meet specific requirements within Pacific Command, European 

Command, and Central Command areas of operation. The committee has learned that certain munitions that must be removed 

from DOD inventories can be refurbished and upgraded to comply 

with policy requirements at a significant cost savings compared to 

the procurement of new systems. 

The committee has received testimony from multiple senior military leaders that critical munitions shortfalls are a top priority and 

of concern. The committee strongly supports efforts to limit harm 

to innocent civilians from area munitions, and is concerned that approximately one-half of the U.S. Air Force’s inventory of available 

area weapons will not meet the Department’s standard of less than 

one percent failure rate once the 2008 policy comes into effect on 

January 1, 2019. The committee directs the Department to make 

all necessary efforts to ensure that our warfighters are not deprived of a critical combat capability on January 1, 2019. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, not 

later than March 1, 2017, to provide the congressional defense committees a report on the Department’s policy and plans for cluster 

munitions. 

Medium altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft (sec. 153) 

The committee notes that U.S. Special Operations Command 

(SOCOM) is currently funding operations for a total of eight service-provided, but contractor-operated (also known as ‘‘GOCO’’) 

manned intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft that are currently supporting counterterrorism operations 

overseas. The committee understands that two of these aircraft 

have reached the end of their service life and are scheduled to be 

replaced by two similar DHC–8 contractor-owned, contractor-operated (COCO) Medium Altitude Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (MAISR) aircraft during fiscal year 2016. The fiscal 

year 2017 budget request for SOCOM includes $22.0 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, Overseas Contingency Operations, for the 

acquisition of these two MAISR aircraft to enable them to be operated as GOCO aircraft. The committee also understands that a 

SOCOM analysis has determined that the cost avoidance of acquiring versus leasing the aircraft is approximately $1.3 million per 

month with a break even return on investment of approximately 11 

months. 

The committee recognizes the continuing shortfall in the availability of ISR aircraft to support counterterrorism operations overseas. However, the committee is concerned with the piecemeal acquisition of ISR aircraft that do not clearly align with the 

SOCOM’s ISR Roadmap and do not contribute to the fielding of a 

long-term manned MAISR solution to meet requirements. The committee believes that acquisition of manned ISR aircraft should be 

based upon the results of the SOCOM ‘‘Next Generation Manned 

ISR Analysis of Alternatives’’ study scheduled to begin in July 

2016. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would 

prohibit the obligation or expenditure of MAISR funds for the acquisition of MAISR aircraft in fiscal year 2017 until the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, in consultation with the Commander of SOCOM, provides the 

congressional defense committees with a report on the manned ISR 

requirements of the command and how such an acquisition aligns 

with the SOCOM ISR Roadmap. 

Budget Items 

ARMY 

Survivability Counter Measures 

The budget request included $9.6 million in line item AZ3507 of 

Aircraft Procurement, Army (APA) for Survivability Counter Measures. The committee recommends an increase of $26.0 million in 

APA for aircraft Survivability Counter Measures. Additional fundVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

ing for APS was included in the Chief of Staff of the Army’s unfunded priority list. 

Stryker upgrades 

The budget request included $444.6 million in line item G85200 

of Procurement of Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army 

(W&TCV) for Stryker upgrades. The committee notes some funds 

are early to need for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends 

a decrease of $11.0 million in W&TCV for Stryker upgrades. 

M1 Abrams Tank (Modification) 

The budget request included $480.2 million in line item GA0700 

of Procurement of Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army 

(W&TCV) for M1 Abrams Tank (Modification). The committee recommends an increase of $82.0 million in W&TCV for the procurement and integration of active protection systems (APS). Additional 

funding for APS was included in the Chief of Staff of the Army’s 

unfunded priority list. 

M1 Abrams Tank (Modification) 

The budget request included $480.2 million in line item GA0700 

of Procurement of Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army 

(W&TCV) for M1 Abrams Tank (Modification). The committee recommends an increase of $58.0 million in W&TCV for the M1 

Abrams Tank industrial base improvement. 

Army Budget request realignment M4 Carbine Modification 

The budget request included $29.8 million in Procurement of 

Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (W&TCV). The committee notes other priorities in the FY 2017 budget. The committee 

recommends a decrease of $1.0 million in W&TCV. 

Army Budget request realignment Hand Gun 

The budget request included $0.0 million in Procurement of 

Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (W&TCV) for the 

Hand Gun. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million 

in W&TCV. 

Army ammunition reduction 

The budget request included $1.5 billion for Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA). Within that amount, $40.3 million was for 

LIN 0132E00700 CTG, 5.56MM, All Types; $39.2 million was for 

LIN 0612E02000 CTG, 7.62MM, All Types; $5.1 million was for 

LIN 1450EA3000 CTG, Handgun, All Types; $46.6 million was for 

LIN 1722E08000 CTG, .50 Cal, All Types; $7.7 million was for LIN 

2650E08200 CTG, 25MM, All Types; $118.1 million was for LIN 

3222ER8001 CTG, 40MM, All Types; $120.6 million was for LIN 

1120E22203 Cartridges, Tank, 105MM and 120MM, All Types; 

$64.8 million was for LIN 0530E1510 Artillery Cartridges, 75MM 

& 105MM, All Types; $6.1 million was for LIN 1430E91901 NonLethal Ammunition, All Types; $10.0 million was for LIN 

2624EA0055 Items Less Than $5.0 Million (AMMO); and $17.2 million was for LIN 4370EA0575 Ammunition Peculiar Equipment. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

The committee understands portions of these requests are ahead 

of need based on analysis by the Government Accountability Office. 

The committee believes these funds can be better aligned for other 

readiness priorities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends decreases to the fol- lowing: $2.6 million to LIN 0132E00700 CTG, 5.56MM, All Types; 

$0.3 million to LIN 0612E02000 CTG, 7.62MM, All Types; $1.3 million to LIN 1450EA3000 CTG, Handgun, All Types; $4.7 million to 

1722E08000 CTG, .50 Cal, All Types; $1.3 million to LIN 

2650E08200 CTG, 25MM, All Types; $6.3 million to LIN 

3222ER8001 CTG, 40MM, All Types; $2.8 million to LIN 

1120E22203 Cartridges, Tank, 105MM and 120MM, All Types; $4.0 

million to LIN 0530E1510 Artillery Cartridges, 75MM & 105MM, 

All Types; $0.2 million to LIN 1430E91901 Non-Lethal Ammunition, All Types; $0.5 million to LIN 2624EA0055 Items Less Than 

$5.0 Million (AMMO); and $3.7 million to LIN 4370EA0575 Ammunition Peculiar Equipment. 

High Mobility Multi-Purpose Vehicle 

The budget request included $00.0 million in Procurement of 

Wheeled and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (W&TCV) for the 

High Mobility Multi-Purpose Vehicle. The committee recommends 

an increase of $21 million in OPA for the High Mobility Multi-Purpose Vehicle. 

Modification of in Service Equipment 

The budget request included $219.5 million in line item number 

DA0924 of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Modification of InService Equipment. The committee notes other priorities in the 

budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends a decrease 

of $12.0 million in OPA for Modification of In-Service Equipment. 

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical 

The budget request included $437.2 million in line item number 

BW7100 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 2017. The committee 

recommends a decrease of $100.0 million in OPA for WIN–T. 

Distributed Common Ground System-Army (Military Intelligence Program) 

The budget request included $275.5 million in line item BZ7316 

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 2017. Therefore 

the committee recommends a decrease of $93.0 million in OPA for 

DCGS–A. 

Light Weight Counter Mortar Radar 

The budget request included $99.9 million in line item B05201 

of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Light Weight Counter Mortar Radar (LCMR). The committee notes unjustified growth in the 

budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends a decrease 

of $12.5 million in OPA for LCMR. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

Modification of In-Service Equipment (Lightweight Laser 

Designator Rangefinder) 

The budget request included $28.1 million in line item KA3100 

of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Modification of In-Service 

Equipment (Lightweight Laser Designator Rangefinder). The committee notes unjustified growth in the budget for fiscal year 2017. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $6.5 million in OPA for 

Modification of In-Service Equipment (Lightweight Laser Designator Rangefinder). 

Counterfire Radars 

The budget request included $314.5 million in line item BA5500 

of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Counterfire Radars. The 

committee recommends smoothing the production profile in the 

budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends a decrease 

of $36.0 million in OPA for Counterfire Radars. 

Maneuver Control System 

The budget request included $151.3 million in line item BA9320 

of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Maneuver Control System 

(MCS). The committee notes an unjustified increase in the budget 

for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends a decrease of 

$27.0 million in OPA for MCSs. 

Automated Data Processing Equipment 

The budget request included $108.0 in Other Procurement, Army 

(CPA) for automated data processing equipment. The committee 

notes higher priorities in the budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends a reduction of $9.4 million in OPA for automated data processing equipment. 

Army Contract Writing System 

The budget request included $1.0 million in Other Procurement 

Army (OPA) for Army Contract Writing System. The committee is 

concerned that the Army is planning to spend over $200.0 million 

on software to write contracts. 

The committee recommends a reduction of $1.0 million in OPA 

for Army Contract Writing System. The committee urges the Army 

to analyze lower cost alternatives for this business function. 

Distribution Systems, Petroleum and Water 

The budget request included $42.7 million in line item MA6000 

in Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Distribution Systems, Petroleum and Water. The committee notes higher priorities in the 

budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends a decrease 

of $10 million in OPA for Distribution Systems, Petroleum and 

Water. 

Mobile Maintenance Equipment Systems 

The budget request included $37.3 million in line item G05301 

of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Mobile Maintenance Equipment Systems. The committee notes an unjustified increase in the 

budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee recommends a decrease 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

of $5.0 million in OPA for Mobile Maintenance Equipment Systems. 

Construction Equipment Engineer Support Companies 

The budget request included $26.7 million in line item M05500 

of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Construction Equipment 

Engineer Support Companies (ESP). The committee notes an unjustified increase in the budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee 

recommends a decrease of $4.5 million in OPA for Engineer Support Equipment ESP. 

Army Watercraft Extended Service Program 

The budget request included $21.9 million in Other Procurement, 

Army (OPA), for Army Watercraft Extended Service Program. The 

committee notes higher priorities in the budget for fiscal year 2017. 

The committee recommends a decrease of $11 million in Army 

Watercraft Extended Service Program 

Modification of In-Service Equipment (Other Procurement, 

Army 3) 

The budget request included $67.4 million in line item MA4500 

of Other Procurement, Army (OPA), for Modification of In-Service 

Equipment (Other Procurement, Army 3). The committee notes unjustified growth in the budget for fiscal year 2017. The committee 

recommends a decrease of $5.0 million in OPA for Modification of 

In-Service Equipment (Other Procurement, Army 3). 

Navy 

F–35B Spares 

The budget request included $1.4 billion in line item number 605 

of Aviation Procurement, Navy (APN) for Spares and Repair Parts. 

The committee notes the Marine Corps is planning on the first 

operational shipboard deployments of the F–35B in 2018. Adequate 

spare parts are vital to maintain aircraft readiness and operational 

availability, particularly while operating at sea. Additional funding 

is necessary to ensure the deploying L-class ships have sufficient 

Afloat Spares Packages to support their F–35B detachments. This 

is a Commandant of the Marine Corps unfunded priority. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.8 million to 

APN, Spares and Repair Parts. 

Tomahawk missile 

The budget request included $186.9 million in line item 2101 of 

Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN) for procurement of 100 Tomahawk missiles. The Tomahawk remains a vital element of the nation’s long range strike capability and will remain so for the foreseeable future. The committee supports the Navy’s efforts to modernize the Tomahawk’s navigation, communications, and seeker to 

maintain its advanced capability, but remains concerned about the 

path forward. The Tomahawk’s replacement remains in the earliest 

of planning stages and its initial operating capability has been 

pushed back a further 4 to 6 years from 2024 to the 2028–2030 

timeframe. Nevertheless, the budget request funds production 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

below the minimum sustaining rate and seeks to end production of 

new Tomahawks after fiscal year 2017. The committee is concerned 

that the Navy’s plan presents significant risk in Tomahawk inventory levels and risks an unstable industrial base for the beginning 

of the recertification and modernization of existing Block IV missiles in 2019. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $84.2 million in line item 2101 of WPN to maintain production at the minimum sustaining rate of 196 missiles. 

AGM–88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile 

The budget request included $178.2 million in line item 2327 of 

Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN) for the AGM–88E Advanced 

Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM). The committee supports 

the need for a capable anti-radiation guided missile to counter 

modern integrated air defense systems. However, the committee is 

concerned with the continued troubles experienced by the AARGM 

in operational testing. The committee is also concerned about problems with production processes, which led to a recent partial production shutdown. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million 

for this program to restore program accountability. 

Ordnance support equipment 

The budget request included $59.1 million in line item 2500 of 

Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN). The committee recommends 

an increase of $7.0 million. 

Navy and Marine Corps ammunition reduction 

The budget request included $1.5 billion for Procurement of Am- munition, Navy & Marine Corps (PANMC) of which $16.7 million 

was for LIN 1121 120mm, All Types and $8.5 million was for LIN 

1660 Items Less Than $5 million. 

The committee understands portions of these requests are ahead 

of need based on analysis by the Government Accountability Office. 

The committee believes these funds can be better aligned for other 

readiness priorities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends decreases to the following in PANMC: $4.0 million to LIN 1121 120mm, All Types and 

$2.5 million was for LIN 1660 Items Less Than $5 million. 

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers 

The budget request included $3.2 billion in line item 9 of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy for procurement of Arleigh Burkeclass destroyers (DDG–51). The committee notes an additional destroyer was provided for in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), which included incremental funding authority, and the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–113), which included $1.0 billion in funding. The committee further notes an additional $433.0 million is required to fully fund this additional destroyer. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $49.8 

million to this program to provide the next increment of funding 

for the additional fiscal year 2016 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

Littoral Combat Ship 

The budget request included $1.1 billion in line item 11 of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy for procurement of two Littoral 

Combat Ships. The committee notes unjustified unit cost growth in 

the other cost ($24.0 million) and other electronics ($4.0 million) 

categories, which increased without justification despite a quantity 

reduction compared to fiscal year 2016. Therefore, the committee 

recommends a decrease of $28.0 million in procurement for this 

program. 

Amphibious ship replacement LX(R) 

The budget request included no funding in line item 13 of Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy for advance procurement of the amphibious ship replacement LX(R), which is expected to functionally 

replace LSD–41 and LSD–49 class ships. The committee supports 

accelerating the construction of LX(R) class ships, provided the 

ships are competitively awarded. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million for this program. 

Destroyer modernization 

The budget request included $367.8 million in line item 9 of 

Other Procurement, Navy for DDG modernization. The committee 

notes the Navy’s DDG modernization program increases the fleet’s 

Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Naval Integrated Fire Control—Counter Air (NIFC–CA) capacity, which improves the U.S. 

ability to pace high-end adversary weapons systems. One additional BMD/NIFC–CA modernization was a Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priority. Therefore, the committee recommends an 

increase of $65.0 million to this program. 

LCS common mission modules equipment 

The budget request included $27.8 million in line item 36 of 

Other Procurement, Navy for LCS common mission modules equipment. This line item contains $12.2 million for mission bay training 

devices—MCM, which includes $3.7 million for training and support items associated with the remote minehunting system that 

was cancelled in 2016. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $3.7 million for this program. 

Surveillance towed array sensor system 

The budget request included $36.1 million in line item 51 of 

Other Procurement, Navy for the surveillance towed array sensor 

system (SURTASS). The committee notes an additional SURTASS 

array will increase operational availability of ready spares to outfit 

Pacific Fleet assets. This was a Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priority. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase 

of $10.0 million to this program. 

Surface electronic warfare improvement program 

The budget request included $274.9 million in line item 53 of 

Other Procurement, Navy for AN/SLQ–32. The committee notes the 

Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 

III provides for upgraded electromagnetic sensing and electronic attack capabilities for surface ships. Procuring one additional unit 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

will increase fiscal year 2017 procurement from two to three systems, providing increased shipborne electronic attack and countertargeting capabilities. This was a Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priority. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase 

of $23.0 million to this program. 

Minesweeping system replacement 

The budget request included $56.7 million in line item 62 of 

Other Procurement, Navy for the minesweeping system replacement. Navy officials have stated systems procured in this line item 

are used for Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) training. In fiscal year 

2017, the request for this line item includes $20.5 million for two 

Knifefish systems and $4.0 million for two Unmanned Influence 

Sweep System trainers. The committee notes fiscal year 2017 is the 

first year of procurement for Knifefish and the Unmanned Influence Sweep System in LCS mine countermeasures mission modules 

line item 1601, and that the system will undergo developmental 

test and evaluation to verify it meets all technical requirements in 

fiscal year 2017. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease 

of $24.5 million for this program due to procurement ahead of need. 

Air Force 

UH–1N helicopter replacement program 

The budget request included $18.3 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the UH–1N helicopter replacement 

program. This program is intended to replace the over four decadeold helicopters currently in use for rapid security response team 

missions on the Air Force’s intercontinental ballistic missile fields. 

These aircraft are growing increasingly unreliable due to approaching the end of their service lives, are more costly to maintain, and 

do not meet the minimum requirements necessary for the missile 

field security mission. 

The committee believes the Air Force’s proposed approach to procure HH–60 helicopters from the U.S. Army’s current multi-year 

procurement contract, under The Economy Act of 1932, Title 31, 

United States Code, sections 1535 and 1536, represents the most 

prudent method to rapidly field the necessary capability, leverages 

the Air Force’s existing organic depot maintenance and supply 

chain for their current HH–60 and future Combat Rescue Helicopter fleets, avoids costly and lengthy development and testing of 

a completely new and different aircraft, and decreases both Army 

and Air Force aircraft procurement unit costs through economic 

order of quantity. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $302.3 million in APAF for the procurement of eight HH–60 Blackhawk aircraft and initial spares and support equipment. 

Fourth generation fighter capability upgrades 

The budget request included $97.3 million in Line Item F01600 

of Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for F–16 capability upgrades. Due to Air Force plans to field fourth generation fighters 

for a longer than expected period of time while awaiting deliveries 

in significant numbers of F–35A replacements, these aircraft must 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

be upgraded with systems that will make them more operationally 

effective and survivable in the threat environments of the early to 

mid-2020 decade. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $48.3 million for F–16 multi-mission computer and Multi-functional Information Distribution System—Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS– 

JTRS), an increase of $12.0 million for F–16 active missile warning 

system, an increase of $23.0 million for F–16 digital radar warning 

system, and an increase of $5.0 million for F–16 anti-jam global positioning system (GPS) upgrades. The committee recommends a 

total increase of $88.3 million in Line Item F01600 of APAF for 

these Chief of Staff of the Air Force fiscal year 2017 unfunded requirement list items. 

Budget request realignments 

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) and Other 

Procurement, Air Force (OPAF) documentation. The table below reflects these adjustments: 

Changes to Correct Submission Errors 

(in millions) 

Item Account Line 

Item 

Amount 

Quantity 

HC–130J .......................................................................................... APAF 6 +1 

MQ–9 ............................................................................................... APAF 15 ¥$87.0 

Initial Spares (MQ–9) ...................................................................... APAF 61 +$87.0 

Initial Spares (EC–130H) ................................................................ APAF 61 ¥$25.6 

Compass Call Mods ........................................................................ APAF 45 +$25.6 

AFNET ............................................................................................... OPAF 40 ¥$5.1 

Intel Comm Equipment ................................................................... OPAF 15 +$5.1 

Defense Wide 

Mentor Prote ́ge ́ reduction 

The budget request included $4.6 billion in LIN 30 Procurement, 

Defense-Wide, (PDW) of which $29.2 million was for Major Equipment, OSD. 

The committee understands that within this request was $23.1 

million for the Mentor Prote ́ge ́ program. The committee’s analysis 

of this program indicates that a number of firms participating in 

the program as Prote ́ge ́s have received, in some cases significant, 

federal contract awards prior to the establishment of their MentorProte ́ge ́ agreements. 

The committee notes that in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92), the conferees required the Secretary of 

Defense to submit a report not later than February 23, 2016 on 

changes to program policy and metrics that would ensure the program meets the goal of enhancing the defense supplier base in the 

most effective and efficient manner. The committee notes this reVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 

port has not been submitted in accordance with the law, leaving 

concerns to the ongoing validity of this program. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $23.1 million in LIN 30 PDW for Major Equipment, OSD. 

MH–60M training loss replacement 

The budget request included $150.4 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), Line 42, for rotary wing upgrades and 

sustainment. In August 2015, a U.S. Special Operations Command 

(SOCOM) MH–60M helicopter sustained heavy damage during an 

overseas training exercise and the aircraft was subsequently designated as a training loss. Accordingly, the committee recommends 

an increase of $18.6 million for special operations-peculiar modifications to one UH–60 provided to SOCOM by the Department of 

the Army for the replacement of the overseas training loss. 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

The budget request included $10.6 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), Line 51, for the acquisition and support 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 $14.8 million in PDW for the MQ–9 UAV. 

The committee strongly supports SOCOM’s efforts to accelerate 

fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging technologies 

on its fleet of MQ–9 UAVs. The committee has authorized additional funds above the budget request in each of the last 4 years 

to enhance these efforts and understands that SOCOM has successfully developed and acquired a number of new capabilities, including improved weapon effectiveness, target location and tracking, 

image resolution, and video transmission during that time. The 

committee expects SOCOM to update the committee periodically on 

its procurement efforts under the MALET MQ–9 UAV program. 

AC–130J A-kit procurement 

The budget request included $213.1 million in Procurement, Defense-wide (PDW), Line 53, to field precision strike package kits for 

AC–130J aircraft. As a result of a decision to integrate the 105mm 

gun on the AC–130J, U.S. Special Operations Command has requested a transfer of $13.1 million designated for precision strike 

package kits to PDW, Line 54, for AC–130J A-kit procurement. Accordingly, the committee recommends a transfer of this amount. 

Items of Special Interest 

Aegis radar improvements 

The U.S. Navy has 84 destroyers and cruisers in the fleet 

equipped with the Aegis Weapon System, which includes the AN/ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
29 

SPY–1 multifunction phased-array radar. The AN/SPY–1 is based 

on vacuum electronic device components, such as cross-field amplifiers, travelling wave tube transmitters, and microwave vacuum 

tubes. 

The committee understands newer, more efficient transmitters 

may be available that provide significant performance advantages, 

including: very low out-of-band emission, very low phase noise, reduced clutter, increased range, and greater electronic warfare capabilities. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

House of Representatives not later than 120 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act, a report on AN/SPY–1 operational availability and sustainment challenges across the DDG–51 and CG–47 

classes. The report shall also include the cost and benefits of options to address AN/SPY–1 obsolescence challenges, including the 

potential use of newer, more efficient transmitters. 

Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload 

The committee is concerned the Air Force is not fully implementing the tenets of the Department of Defense’s Better Buying 

Power and the acquisition reform principles enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 

114–92) with regard to the Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload 

(ASIP) program. 

The committee is concerned the Air Force may be overstating integration risks which result in excessive life cycle costs in pursuing 

an ASIP program design, resulting in late-to-need upgrades in response to user requirements, and may not fully capitalize on commercially available, mature technology that an open competition 

would deliver. 

The committee expects the Air Force to engage in a full and open 

competition for ASIP Increment 2B to achieve improved capability 

for combatant commanders at a lower cost. 

Army Modular Handgun System (MHS) 

The committee is concerned that the Army’s effort to buy a new 

modular handgun system has taken more than 10 years and produced a more than 350-page requirements document. 

The committee is pleased that the Army finally released a request for proposal on August 28, 2015, and has now received multiple proposals from industry. 

The committee supports an effort to accelerate the procurement 

of a low cost weapon system that meets Army requirements and 

that is potentially a commercial off-the shelf and non-developmental item. 

The committee recommends the Army rapidly and competitively 

acquire a handgun by leveraging new acquisition authorities as detailed in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92). The committee further recommends pursuing a firm fixed price contract in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations part 12. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

B–21 supply chain 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide 

a classified report to the congressional defense committees on foreign supply chain risk in the B–21 program. The report must be 

submitted with the President’s Fiscal Year 2018 budget request 

and shall include, at a minimum: 

(1) a description of any engineering or design activities performed outside the United States; 

(2) a comprehensive list of sub-assemblies, components, or 

parts that are being built, or will be built or assembled outside 

the United States; 

(3) an assessment of supply chain risk related to work performed on the B–21 outside the United States, including, but 

not limited to, risks associated with supply interruption; counterfeit, suspect-counterfeit or nonconforming parts or quality 

assurance; and 

(4) a description of actions taken by the Air Force to mitigate supply chain risks posed by work performed on the B–21 

outside the United States. 

B–52 radar replacement program 

In the fiscal year 2017 budget request, the Air Force is proposing 

to replace the B–52 mechanically-steered radar system, which 

dates to the 1960s, with a program considered a new start. In prior 

years, in reports directed by the Senate report accompanying S. 

3254 (S. Rept. 112–173) of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2013 and the Senate report accompanying S. 1197 

(S. Rept. 113–44) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, the Air Force continued to maintain such mechanically steered radars could be sustained through 2040. 

While the committee is pleased the Air Force is considering a replacement for the B–52 radar system, the committee directs the 

Secretary of the Air Force to report to the congressional defense 

committees, not later than February 28, 2017, on the outcome of 

the analysis of alternatives that will be conducted to initiate this 

program, and how it differs from the prior analysis of alternatives 

conducted in 2011. 

In addition, as part of this report the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to report to the congressional defense committees on the system degradation of the existing B–52 radar system and the AGM–86 Air-Launched Cruise Missile in terms of 

weapon accuracy throughout the expected service life of the AGM– 

86. 

C–130 engine enhancements 

The committee recognizes energy usage, specifically fuel consumption by the Air Force, continues to represent an overwhelming 

portion of Air Force operations and maintenance costs. To find 

ways to reduce fuel costs, the Air Force commissioned a study in 

2006, funded industry research and development, and began an 

Engine Enhancement Program. These efforts result in increased 

service life and fuel economy of the T56 engine, and improved operational performance of the C–130H aircraft, to include increased 

cargo capacity and range, as well as reduced takeoff distances. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 

Congress authorized and appropriated funding to procure and install T56 3.5 engine upgrades in previous fiscal years. The committee notes the T56 3.5 Engine Enhancement Program is included 

in the Air National Guard’s 2015 Weapons Systems Modernization 

Priorities as a ‘‘significant major item shortage.’’ 

The committee strongly encourages the Air Force to continue ongoing testing of the T56 3.5 engine upgrade and other C–130 propulsion system improvements to demonstrate capability improvements and fuel savings, and ultimately achieve reduced operations 

and sustainment costs. 

Comptroller General of the United States assessment of Department of Defense F–35 deployment planning efforts 

The committee recognizes the importance of the F–35 Lightning 

II program to our national defense. The F–35 will replace a variety 

of combat aircraft in the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, representing the future of tactical air for the Department of Defense 

(DOD). In July 2015, the Marine Corps declared initial operating 

capability for the F–35B. The Marine Corps plans to deploy its first 

squadron of aircraft to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni (Japan) 

in 2017 as a permanent change of station for VMFA–121. This will 

signal the first operational deployment of both the F–35B aircraft 

platform and its associated Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), and will provide an opportunity to prove operational 

concepts not only for the Marine Corps, but for the Air Force and 

Navy as well. Additionally, VMFA–121 is due to deploy aboard ship 

in 2018, the F–35’s first operational shipboard deployment. As the 

Marine Corps prepares to deploy the F–35B, opportunities also 

exist for DOD and the services to reexamine aircraft affordability 

and make adjustments as needed. The F–35 program is critical to 

the future of tactical air for the Armed Forces and DOD will need 

to operate and deploy the F–35 on a widespread basis in the coming years while managing costs. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting forth 

the results of a study, conducted by the Comptroller General with 

preliminary observations due no later than March 1, 2017 and a 

final report to follow, to review the DOD’s ongoing F–35B deployment planning efforts. This review should include: 

(1) The extent to which DOD has developed plans to support 

its initial F–35 deployment to Marine Corps Air Station 

Iwakuni, including those related to personnel, aircraft support 

equipment, base infrastructure, ALIS integration, logistics, and 

spare parts; 

(2) The extent to which the Marine Corps’ initial F–35B deployment to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni will enable U.S. 

Pacific Command to meet its operational requirements; 

(3) The challenges the F–35B program faces with its initial 

deployment to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, and the extent to which DOD plans to measure success, challenges, and 

share lessons learned with the Air Force and Navy; and 

(4) The extent to which DOD has developed plans to support 

its initial F–35 deployment aboard ship, including those reVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

lated to personnel, aircraft support equipment, ship modifications (including communication and data links), ALIS integration, logistics, and spare parts. 

DDG–51 destroyer production gap 

The committee is concerned a production gap may occur between 

the current DDG–51 multi-year procurement contract, which concludes with the procurement of two ships in fiscal year 2017, and 

the follow-on contract scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2018. The 

committee notes a previous production gap in this program resulted in increased costs for both construction shipyards, as well as 

the broader vendor base. The committee urges the Secretary of the 

Navy to prevent a DDG–51 production gap to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and House of Representatives with the fiscal year 2018 budget request that provides a plan to prevent a DDG–51 production gap or, 

should the Secretary be unable to prevent a gap, provide mitigation 

options. 

Department of Defense report on improvements to the munitions requirements process 

The committee remains concerned about the state of the Department of Defense’s munitions inventories. Years of budgetary neglect and high levels of operational use have stretched inventories 

in some critical munitions to dangerously low levels. While the 

committee supports the Department’s renewed focus on procuring 

munitions in higher quantities, the committee remains concerned 

the Department’s munitions requirements process remains inadequate to ensure inventories are managed without repeated descents into crisis. The committee understands the Department has 

made changes to the requirements process, improving the frequency and fidelity of required asset estimates. However, the committee remains concerned the process still does not adequately account for either activities short of major combat operations, such as 

current actions against Islamic State, nor transfers of munitions to 

our allies, which is an important element in support of our national 

military and diplomatic efforts. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and 

House of Representatives, within 180 days of the enactment of this 

Act, on ways to improve the munitions requirements process, with 

particular emphasis on better accounting for actions short of major 

combat operations and transfers of munitions to our allied partners. 

The required report should be classified but shall include an unclassified executive summary. 

E–3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) fleet 

Block 40/45 upgrade 

The committee fully supports the ongoing efforts by the Air Force 

to upgrade its fleet of E–3 Airborne Warning and Control System 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

(AWACS) aircraft and strongly encourages the Air Force to fully 

fund the Block 40/45 upgrade on its entire fleet of AWACS. 

EA–18G Growler requirement 

As electronic warfare technologies and capabilities proliferate 

throughout the globe, to allies, partners, and potential adversaries 

alike, the committee believes airborne electronic attack will be increasingly vital to our joint warfighting force. Currently, the EA– 

18G Growler is the nation’s premier airborne electronic attack 

(AEA) aircraft and will soon be the only tactical AEA aircraft platform. During a March 2016 hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John Richardson, stated that the current buy of 160 EA–18G Growlers was 

sufficient to do ‘‘the Navy’s part’’ of electronic warfare, but the Department was undergoing a process to study the need for Growlers 

to support the entire joint force. The committee believes the requirement for Growlers will not diminish, and will likely increase, 

as the Growler community continues to expand the tactics and concepts of operations of the aircraft’s electronic surveillance and electronic attack capabilities and the Next Generation Jammer begins 

to enter the fleet in the early 2020s. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report, within 180 days following the enactment of this Act, 

to either revalidate the current requirement for the EA–18G 

Growler total program of record quantity or identify a new requirement for the total number of EA–18G aircraft the Department 

would ultimately procure. The report should include the relevant 

portions of the defense strategy, critical assumptions, priorities, 

and force sizing construct used to revalidate the current requirement. If a new requirement is identified, the report should include 

the overarching plan for fielding complementary weapons systems 

to meet combatant commander objectives. 

The required report may be classified, but must include an unclassified executive summary. 

Enhanced tactical mobility for infantry brigade combat 

teams 

The committee is concerned about the 82nd Airborne Division’s 

urgent need for enhanced tactical mobility for infantry brigade 

combat teams outlined in the operational needs statement of March 

2014. This statement was approved by XVIII (Airborne) Corps and 

subsequently by U.S. Army Forces Command. The committee 

strongly encourages the Army to rapidly acquire these vehicles 

using new authorities granted in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). 

F–16 mission training centers 

The committee recognizes the ability to execute decisive air warfare requires realistic training. Various types of required real-world 

training activities are seldom conducted at Air National Guard 

bases due to limited availability of assets (i.e., lack of availability 

of dedicated adversary aircraft, realistic low level airspace for low 

altitude intercepts or engagements, and supersonic ranges). This 

lack of real-world training capability can be offset with modem and 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

up to-date live, virtual, and constructive technologies available 

today. 

The committee fully supports and encourages Air Force and Air 

National Guard efforts to field additional F–16 block 40/50 Mission 

Training Centers (MTC) that remotely connect to virtual networks 

to perform enterprise-wide training and mission rehearsal across 

diverse geographical locations. Additional MTC locations would 

provide Air National Guard aircrews the necessary continuity of 

training between live and virtual scenarios required to attain and 

sustain full combat mission readiness while reducing operations 

tempo, flying hour, and travel costs. 

High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) ambulance 

The committee recognizes the critical medical ground evacuation 

mission role filled by the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) ambulance. The committee is concerned that the 

Army’s current fleet of HMMWV ambulances in the active component is exceeding the expected useful life of the vehicle. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Army to develop a plan to deliver the 

next generation M997 A3 HMMWV ambulances focused on enhanced reliability and crew protection to accomplish their lifesaving mission. 

The committee supports the Army’s ongoing requirement to 

maintain a HMMWV ambulance fleet capable of meeting the continued and varied mission roles for both the active and reserve 

components. The committee is aware of the successful effort underway to modernize the HMMWV ambulance fleet for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve through the procurement of stateof-the-art HMMWV ambulances. The committee believes this model 

warrants consideration in order to field the maximum quantity of 

vehicles as expeditiously as possible. 

Munitions availability 

The committee notes that from August 2014 to December 2015, 

the U.S. military dropped $1.3 billion in smart bombs and other 

guided munitions on ISIL targets in Iraq and Syria. The Air Force 

alone has fired more than 20,000 missiles and bombs against ISIL. 

This has resulted in a shortage of precision guided munitions. The 

Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps have all voiced concerns about 

having insufficient munitions to meet requirements. In testimony 

before the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year, the 

Commander of U.S. Forces Korea confirmed that ‘‘[W]e must maintain an adequate quantity of critical munitions to ensure alliance 

supremacy in the early days of conflict on the Peninsula. This requirement is further amplified by the approaching loss of cluster 

munitions due to shelf life expiration and the impending ban.’’ 

High operational tempo has exacerbated what was already a critical situation. The committee is concerned by the fact the munitions industrial base has been strained to replenish previously depleted stocks, let alone keep up with current demand. 

Therefore, prior to submission of the Fiscal Year 2018 budget, 

the Department of Defense will submit a written plan and provide 

a report to the congressional defense committees in the House and 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

Senate on their plan to ensure sufficient munitions are funded, sustained and procured to meet planned Combat Commander requirements as well as existing and emerging contingency operational requirements. This plan should take into consideration emerging 

weapon systems, new technologies, replenishment of expended munition stockpiles, and the required removal of munitions due to age 

or capability, and upgrade and refurbishment of existing munitions. 

Navy maritime security barriers 

As noted in the Senate report (S. Rept. 114–49) accompanying 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (S. 

1376), the committee believes that the department must seek to 

continually improve force protection measures and that security at 

Navy shipyards and bases depends not only on land-based security 

measures, but also on effective maritime barriers. 

As the Commander of Navy Installations Command, Vice Admiral Dixon Smith, testified on April 5, 2016, current Navy maritime 

security barriers do ‘‘not meet the requirement for high-speed boats 

that could be used for a terrorist attack.’’ 

The committee understands the Navy is testing next generation 

maritime security barriers and notes Admiral Smith testified these 

barriers will have a better ability to stop vessels. 

The committee further understands that next generation maritime barriers may also provide improved protection against low 

profile surface threats, better ability to withstand multiple coordinated attacks, and better ability to endure environmental extremes. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and House of Representatives with the department’s fiscal year 

2018 budget request containing options to improve protection for 

Navy ships, shipyards, bases, equipment, and personnel, including 

the role that next generation maritime barriers could play in improving that protection. 

Ohio-class replacement submarine program 

The committee understands the Navy plans to use a cost-plus 

contracting strategy for the design of the Ohio-class replacement 

program and potentially for procurement of the lead submarine in 

the class. The committee believes the Navy and contractors will 

have sufficient time between the first contract award of procurement funds in fiscal year 2017 and the fiscal year 2028 delivery of 

the lead submarine to reassess the lead submarine contracting 

strategy. The committee recommends the Navy transition to fixed 

price contracts for this program as quickly as possible, including 

modifying the lead submarine contract, because maintaining cost 

and schedule are vital to ensuring the first Ohio-class replacement 

submarine meets its U.S. Strategic Command requirement to conduct its first patrol in 2031. 

Therefore, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to submit a report with the President’s budget for fiscal year 2018 to the congressional defense committees on how and when the Navy plans to 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

transition to fixed price contracts for this program, including options to modify the lead submarine procurement contract. 

Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) 

The committee continues to support the Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) upgrade to the M109A6 Paladin, the primary indirect fire weapons platform in the US Army’s Armored Brigade 

Combat Teams (ABCT). The PIM program upgrades both the 

M109A6 Paladin howitzer and its companion ammunition resupply 

vehicle, the M992 Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle 

(FAASV). PIM incorporates many new survivability enhancements 

to greatly increase the force protection levels of the crewmembers. 

The PIM program is critical to the US Army. It significantly improves force protection and survivability and reduces logistics burden for the Armored Brigade Combat team field artillery Soldiers. 

Patriot Product Improvement 

The committee notes that the Army has requested $49.5 million 

for the Patriot Product Improvement program. On July 21, 2015, 

General Mark A. Milley, USA, Chief of Staff of the Army, testified 

that, ‘‘Patriot plays a key role in not only acquiring and then destroying incoming fixed-wing aircraft, but also in intercepting and 

destroying incoming missiles. So Patriot is a very, very key system 

to the air defense of our allies and our own soldiers on the ground.’’ 

The committee believes that our service members should have the 

best available air and missile defense capabilities. The committee 

understands that the Patriot Product Improvement program would 

provide required material upgrades to incorporate lessons learned, 

enhance joint force interoperability, and improve performance to 

address emerging threats. The committee supports the Army’s request for Patriot Product Improvement funding. 

Radiation detection technology 

The Committee is encouraged that the Army National Guard recently placed an order to help fill a shortfall in modern radiation 

detection devices. The committee is concerned, however, that shortfalls in fielding the most current radiation detection devices, specifically personal dosimeters, continue to exist, and most notably 

within the Army. To ensure our troops and domestic homeland 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 disposition options for previously modified C– 

130H Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) aircraft 

The committee is encouraged by the Air Force’s progress in the 

restructured C–130H Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) Increments 1 and 2. The Air Force appears to have a solid path forward for AMP Increment 1 to upgrade all C–130H aircraft with 

safety upgrades, as well as airspace access compliance modifications by the deadline of January 1, 2020. The committee is also encouraged by the planned acceleration of the AMP Increment 2 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

phase well before the previously anticipated fiscal year 2042 completion date, moving estimated fleet completion forward to fiscal 

year 2028. 

The committee is concerned with the funding and manpower resources required to maintain the five previously modified C–130H 

AMP aircraft at their current location. The committee understands 

that again modifying the previously modified C–130H AMP aircraft 

into the restructured AMP Increments 1 and 2 configuration is 

likely cost-prohibitive. 

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, not later than December 

1, 2016, on: 

(1) The anticipated annual resource requirements for fiscal 

year 2017 and beyond to maintain the aircraft in their current 

status and location; 

(2) Potential options, including feasibility and costs, for declaring the five aircraft as excess to military requirements and; 

(a) opportunities for transfer to other government agencies; 

(b) foreign military sales; 

(c) sales to private entities; or (d) any combination of the 

options in subparagraphs (2)(a), (2)(b), and (2)(c); 

(3) Other disposition options. 

Review of Army salutes, honors, and visits of courtesy in relation to use of 75MM blank rounds 

The committee strongly concurs with the Chief of Staff of the 

Army’s readiness guidance for calendar year 2016–2017 that, 

‘‘readiness is #1 . . . and there is no other #1.’’ The committee is 

also concerned that in the current fiscal environment, the Army 

may be expending and stockpiling 75MM blank rounds for ceremonial purposes, when those resources could be used to fund more urgent readiness priorities. The committee recognizes and understands that this policy is in accordance with Army Regulation 600– 

25 ‘‘Salutes, Honors, and Visits of Courtesy’’ issued on September 

24, 2004. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

review Army Regulation 600–25 in regard to the use of 75MM 

blanks and provide an assessment and any recommended changes 

to that regulation to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by February 1, 2017. 

Shipbuilding guarantees 

The committee is concerned with the efficacy of the Navy’s use 

of guarantees in its shipbuilding contracts. In March 2016, the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that as a result of 

the Navy’s contract type and terms, the government is paying shipbuilders profit to repair defects that were determined to be the 

shipbuilders’ responsibility. The GAO recommended several actions 

aimed at improving the use of guarantees in Navy shipbuilding, including limiting profit for the correction of shipbuilder responsible 

defects. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

The committee understands the Navy agreed to study the issues 

in the GAO report and publish a complete response coordinated 

with the Office of the Secretary of Defense by September 30, 2016. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide the congressional defense committees the complete response at the same 

time this study is provided to the GAO. Further, as recommend by 

the GAO, in arrangements where the shipbuilder is paid to correct 

defects, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to structure contract terms such that shipbuilders do not earn profit for 

correcting construction deficiencies following delivery that are determined to be the shipbuilder’s responsibility. 

Unmet COCOM Cruise Missile Defense Requirement 

On March 10, 2016, Commander of U.S. Northern Command and 

North American Aerospace Defense Command Admiral William 

Gortney testified before the committee that the operational exercise 

of the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted 

Sensor System (JLENS) ‘‘has been an opportunity for us to see how 

well JLENS can fit into the existing Integrated Air Defense System 

(IADS) of the National Capitol Region (NCR).’’ Furthermore, he 

stated that, ‘‘the JLENS system shows great promise in defense of 

the NCR,’’ particularly in detecting cruise missile threats. 

The committee notes that certain adversaries are advancing their 

capability to deploy cruise missiles against the United States. The 

committee believes that technologies should be employed above the 

horizon to detect such cruise missile threats to the homeland. The 

committee is aware that the JLENS system could fill a sensitive 

capability gap within a layered missile defense architecture. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Commander of U.S. Northern Command, to 

submit to the congressional defense committees no later than September 30, 2016, a plan for meeting this capability gap for the 

NCR. This plan should consider such options as restarting and 

completing the JLENS operational exercise, including at alternative sites. 

USAF Eagle Vision program 

The committee is aware the Air Force’s Eagle Vision program is 

a deployable ground station for collecting commercial, unclassified 

and releasable satellite imagery. It provides timely, flexible, and 

tailored products and services to warfighters and our domestic first 

responders. Eagle Vision excels in military operations, contingency 

operations, foreign humanitarian assistance, operational planning, 

and exercise support as well as playing a major role in disaster response world-wide, with a particular focus on responses here in the 

United States for events such as hurricanes and floods. In 2014 

and 2015, the Eagle Vision program directly supported more than 

85 disaster relief efforts, and since its inception has deployed over 

40 times in support of major operations. However, the committee 

is concerned the Air Force has continually failed to address Eagle 

Vision program funding shortfalls, putting the system’s critical 

operational capabilities at risk year after year. 

Therefore, not later than 60 days following the enactment of this 

Act, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

a report to the congressional defense committees on the current 

funding status of the Eagle Vision program, the effects decreased 

funding levels will have on the Eagle Vision System’s capabilities 

to support domestic disaster relief operations, the funding plans for 

the future, as well as the long-term plan for the continued use of 

the Eagle Vision system. 

V–22 defensive weapon system 

The capabilities of the V–22 tiltrotor aircraft has led to significant demand for the aircraft within the U.S. military. The V–22 

may be limited in certain circumstances where a lack of on-board 

defensive weapons and the absence of armed escorts could result in 

situations with too much risk resulting from employing the aircraft. 

At various times, Marine Corps and Special Operations Command officials have expressed a desire for providing better armament for their respective versions of the V–22. However, the committee is unaware of any formal requirement for such a capability. 

With the increasing usage of these aircraft, it is important for the 

committee to understand whether there is such a need, and, if 

there is, how the Department of Defense intends to fill that need. 

To support this effort, the committee directs the Commandant of 

the Marine Corps and Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) to report to the congressional defense committees on: (1) requirements that may be identified by the Marine 

Corps and USSOCOM; and (2) how the Department of Defense intends to meet those requirements. The Commandant and Commander, USSOCOM should submit that report no later than the 

submission of the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2018. 

Virginia-class submarines 

The committee recognizes the need for more fast attack submarines and supports Navy’s plan to build two Virginia-class submarines per year with inclusion of the Virginia Payload Module beginning in fiscal year 2019. The committee is concerned that the 

President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request includes only one Virginia- class submarine procurement in fiscal year 2021. 

The committee commends the performance of the Virginia-class 

submarine program and supports the Navy’s budget request for 

$3.2 billion in procurement and $1.8 billion in advanced procurement for this program in fiscal year 2017. The committee notes 

that on April 6, 2016, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, 

Development, and Acquisition Sean Stackley testified, ‘‘The Virginia-class submarine program has delivered the last eight ships 

on budget and ahead of schedule.’’ 

The Navy currently has a validated requirement for 48 attack 

submarines, which was established in 2006. The committee believes that much has changed in the global security environment 

since 2006 and supports the Navy’s effort to develop an updated requirement for attack submarines. 

While the Navy currently has a fleet of 53 attack submarines, as 

Admiral John Richardson testified on March 15, 2016, the Navy is 

only ‘‘able to meet about 50 to 60 percent of combatant commander 

demands right now’’ for attack submarines. During the committee’s 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

hearing on the posture of U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Harry 

Harris, Jr. affirmed that fact when he observed that Virginia-class 

ships are ‘‘the best thing we have’’ and that he ‘‘cannot get enough 

of them fast enough’’ for his theater of operations. 

Due to the retirement of Los Angeles-class submarines, the committee notes that the number of attack submarines in the fleet will 

decline by 23 percent to 41 submarines in 2029. The committee is 

concerned that the declining size of the attack submarine fleet, 

combined with a more challenging security environment and growing demand for the unique capabilities that attack submarines provide, will create additional national security risks. 

The committee was encouraged by the March 15, 2016 testimony 

of the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations, as 

well as the April 6, 2016 testimony of Secretary Stackley and Vice 

Admiral Joseph Mulloy, who expressed a desire to procure two Virginia-class submarines in 2021 to mitigate the future attack submarine shortfall and highlighted an ongoing review into whether or 

not the Navy will accrue sufficient savings in the Ohio-class replacement and Virginia-class submarine programs to enable procurement of a second Virginia-class submarine in fiscal year 2021. 

The committee supports the efforts of Navy officials to pursue 

procurement of a second Virginia-class submarine in fiscal year 

2021, if the Navy can demonstrate the submarine industrial base 

will have the production and workforce capacity necessary to procure a second attack submarine in fiscal year 2021 without negatively impacting the Ohio-class replacement and Virginia-class submarine programs. 

The committee believes that it is important to provide the industrial base with advance notice of changes in the Virginia-class submarine procurement profile, which enables the Navy and industrial 

base to maximize efficiencies, increase savings, and provide the 

lead time necessary to ensure workforce and production capacity 

are sufficient for the additional workload. 

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN–T) 

The committee is aware that the Army’s Warfighter Information 

Network-Tactical (WIN–T) is intended to be the foundation for the 

Army’s tactical network modernization strategy and a critical component of the suite of tactical mission command systems currently 

being fielded. The Army assesses this program as essential to 

warfighter communications capabilities and will continue to deliver 

incremental improvements in command and control superiority 

over time. WIN–T is to introduce a mobile, self-forming/self-healing 

network using satellite and terrestrial on-the-move capabilities and 

high-bandwidth radio systems to keep mobile forces connected, 

communicating, and synchronized. It has two increments. 

WIN–T Increment 1 (Inc 1) provides Networking ‘‘At the Halt.’’ 

It is the Army’s current tactical network, originally fielded to 222 

brigades, division/corps headquarters, and signal battalions. Initial 

fielding was from 2004–2012. The Inc 1 capability was upgraded to 

use military satellites, reducing costs to commercial satellite leases. 

A subsequent upgrade to improve the efficiency of satellite communications and interoperability with other units will be completed in 

fiscal year 2016. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

WIN–T Inc 2 is intended to provide the Army with on-the-move 

networking capability. The WIN–T Inc 2 network retains capabilities delivered by WIN–T Inc 1.WIN–T Inc 2 employs satellite communications while on-the-move to extend the network in maneuver 

brigade down to the Company level for the first time. The program 

is in full rate production. Total WIN–T costs to date are over $5.7 

billion. The current program is intended to spend an additional 

$9.0 billion. The total program cost is estimated to be over $14.0 

billion. 

Currently the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) has contracted with an independent entity to conduct 

a comprehensive assessment of the WIN–T program. CAPE is assessing current and future requirements and capabilities to determine the technological feasibility, achievability, suitability, and 

survivability of a tactical communications and data network. 

The committee has observed many problems with WIN–T, especially in regard to Inc 2. Many problems have been observed 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 the total requirement and determining a new course of action in light of the above noted problems. 

The committee encourages the Army in its efforts to repair identified problems and to more carefully redefine its requirements for 

the WIN–T program. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(43) 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 

AND EVALUATION 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

appropriations for research, development, test, and evaluation activities at the levels identified in section 4201 of division D of this 

Act. 

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Modification of mechanisms to provide funds for defense 

laboratories for research and development of technologies for military missions (sec. 211) 

Since its establishment in section 219 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 

110–417), the availability of funding for defense laboratories for the 

research and development of technologies for military missions has 

been extremely beneficial for Department of Defense laboratories. 

Among other things, laboratory directors have been able to use section 219 funding to carry out basic and applied research, transition 

promising technologies, and perform minor military construction of 

laboratory infrastructure. To expand the potential and the benefits 

of this funding mechanism even further, the committee recommends a provision that would raise the limit of section 219 

funds authorized to 4 percent of all funds available to a laboratory. 

Through various discussions with the Department of Defense, the 

committee has become aware that while laboratory directors welcome the provision and expenditure of section 219 funds, several 

have been hampered in using these authorities by policies or regulations of their respective service enterprises. Not only do such policies and regulations, which often restrict the amount of section 219 

funds a lab can spend, undermine the purpose of providing this authority, but they also ignore the clear intent of the committee and 

of Congress as established in this statute. The committee directs 

all military services to examine policies and regulations impacting 

the expenditure of section 219 funds and to eliminate any restrictions on their use within 180 days of enactment of this Act. 

In addition, the recommended provision would remove the sunset 

date that is currently imposed on the section 219 provision. After 

7 years of implementation, the committee is satisfied that the section 219 program has been used effectively and has led to improvements in the operations of defense laboratories. The committee believes that the sunset provision is no longer necessary. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

Making permanent authority for defense research and development rapid innovation program (sec. 212) 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has established a Rapid Innovation Program to accelerate the fielding of innovative technologies, as authorized in the Ike Skelton National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111– 

383). The committee further notes that the Department has established a competitive, merit-based process to solicit proposals from 

interested contractors, review and select projects based on military 

needs and standardized evaluation criteria, and award contracts to 

execute program projects. The committee is encouraged that the 

military services and other defense entities participating in the 

program have practices and tools in place to manage and monitor 

the execution of projects. In recognition of the success of the program, the committee recommends a provision that would amend 

Section 1073 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) to repeal the sunset provision of the Rapid Innovation Program and make the authorization of the program permanent. 

Authorization for National Defense University and Defense 

Acquisition University to enter into cooperative research and development agreements (sec. 213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2165 and 1746 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 

the Defense Acquisition University and the National Defense University to enter into cooperative agreements, which involve the provision of grant money, and cooperative research and development 

agreements with universities, not-for-profit institutions, and other 

entities to support their designated missions. The committee notes 

that this kind of engagement can support efforts to promote the 

rapid transfer of technology from defense research activities to 

commercial development or deployment in military systems, as well 

as to develop new acquisition practices, models, and tools to support efforts at continuous acquisition reform. 

The committee also recognizes that the National Security Technology Accelerator is an important pilot program making vital contributions in the field of technology innovation. The committee 

urges the National Defense University to continue to give priority 

to the work of the National Security Technology Accelerator and, 

using the authority in the recommended provision, enable it to 

work through university partners for the execution of its mission. 

Manufacturing Universities Grant Program (sec. 214) 

The committee recommends a provision that would spur the Department of Defense to provide grants to institutions of higher education, including technical and community colleges, for the purposes of enhancing education in manufacturing engineering. The 

provision would help institutions of higher education strengthen 

their engineering programs, bolster their efforts to focus on manufacturing engineering and curricula, and meet the growing demands of the 21st century manufacturing. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

Increased micro-purchase threshold for basic research programs and activities of the Department of Defense 

science and technology reinvention laboratories (sec. 

215) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to increase the micro-purchase threshold (MPT) in Department of Defense basic research 

and laboratories activities from $3,000 to $10,000. In raising this 

limit, this provision would allow appropriate organizations, such as 

universities, defense labs, and other performers, to authorize personnel, as appropriate, to have higher limits on their government 

purchase cards to facilitate easy and administratively efficient purchasing of small dollar items. This increase provided in the provision would affect less than one percent of federal contract spending, 

but could allow hundreds of thousands of transactions to be conducted more efficiently. This proposal would not make changes to 

the thresholds in the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 (Public Law 71–798) 

or the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 

351–358). Nor would it change the threshold levels that are authorized during contingency operations or certain other types of emergencies. 

The committee believes that government purchase cards give 

agency end users an efficient tool to make simple purchases themselves and, at the same time, offer a number of additional benefits 

for both the agency and its vendors. In the two decades since the 

MPT was established, purchase cards have reduced transaction 

costs for government payment offices by lowering the number of 

budgetary/accounting entries that need to be processed in financial 

management systems, allowed agencies to earn rebates, and helped 

vendors receive timely payment without the burden of having to 

process government invoices. Equally important, by putting purchase cards into the hands of properly trained end users to make 

purchase directly, the burden of making micro-purchases has largely been lifted from the shoulders of contracting officers, allowing 

them to instead give greater attention to larger, more complex procurements, where their acquisition training and expertise can be 

put to better use and have greater impact. 

The committee notes that the MPT was adjusted for inflation in 2010 from $2,500 to $3,000 and that it would be adjusted again 

this year to $3,500, pursuant to authority provided in 41 United 

States Code 1908. While these adjustments will help agencies to leverage the efficiencies of the purchase card for additional small dollar transactions, the committee understands that there are many 

needs in the defense research enterprise between $3,000 and 

$10,000 that can be more efficiently acquired with a purchase card 

in the hands of a trained end user. Some of these routine needs did 

not exist in the 1990s or 2000s and therefore were not envisioned 

when the MPT level was first established. Such needs include digital services, web applications, application program interfaces, simple cloud services, scalable web hosting services, case management, 

platforms to support on-line interactive dialogues, IT systems monitoring, and tools to measure and improve digital customer experiences. All of these could be purchased easily by program and IT 

technical experts through existing government-wide and multiVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

agency contracts that include pre-negotiated terms and conditions 

which are well suited for small dollar purchases. 

The committee notes that data from the Council on Governmental Relations show that raising the MPT to $10,000 will be a 

fair and safe harbor. In addition, a survey by the Association of 

Independent Research Institutes showed that setting the MPT at 

$10,000 provides coverage for approximately 70 percent of total dollar expenditures while requiring only 3 percent of total transactions to be individually examined, which is highly effective. 

The committee notes that purchase card activity must be conducted in accordance with strong financial management controls 

that help agencies detect and prevent fraud, waste and abuse. In 

the past 10 years, federal agencies have deployed a number of systems and internal controls to reduce the risk of fraud, waste, 

abuse, and misuse associated with the purchase card. Also for the 

Department of Defense, the Office of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) maintains a robust website on the purchase card, which includes current policy documents and guides 

whose purpose is to help department officials establish and manage 

charge card programs. As required, DPAP publishes policies and 

procedures used by the department to ensure that the objectives of 

the purchase card program are realized and that an effective system of internal controls is in place to mitigate the potential for 

fraud, misuse, and abuse. Additionally, Defense policy requires all 

cardholders, approving officials, and certifying officials to complete 

basic purchase card training prior to assuming their official purchase card program roles and responsibilities. Purchase card refresher training is required every two years thereafter. The committee is encouraged that the department has implemented automated oversight systems to provide managers visibility of internal 

control effectiveness in mitigating the risk of improper purchases. 

Finally, the committee encourages the General Services Administration to continue to ensure there is appropriate transparency of 

purchase card activity so information on use of the purchase card 

below the micro-purchase threshold is available to the public, consistent with agency security requirements. 

Directed energy weapon system programs (sec. 216) 

The committee remains concerned about the Department of Defense’s inability to field an operational directed energy system. The 

committee is aware that the military services and industry partners have developed sufficient directed energy weapon capabilities 

for specific scenarios—like the High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL–MD) to counter rocket, artillery and mortar for base 

protection purposes and the Counter Electronics High Powered 

Microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) for disabling an adversary’s electronics while avoiding collateral damage. These programs, as well as other high energy laser weapon systems, have 

been tested and demonstrated, but have failed to transition to acquisition programs of record. 

The committee notes that directed energy capabilities have the 

potential to support many operational missions in cost effective and 

efficient manners. In response to these factors, the committee recommends a provision that would amend section 806 of the Bob 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 

(Public Law 107–314) to grant rapid acquisition authorities for directed energy weapon systems to accelerate the development and 

fielding of this technology and to help offset the gains of potential 

adversaries. 

The committee notes that since 1960, the Department of Defense has invested more than $6.0 billion in directed energy science and 

technology initiatives. However, the committee remains concerned 

that, despite this significant investment, the Department’s directed 

energy initiatives are not resourced at levels necessary to transition them to full-scale acquisition programs. The committee notes 

with concern that years of investment have not to date resulted in 

any operational systems with high energy laser capability. 

The committee highlights that the Defense Science Board Task 

Force on Directed Energy Weapon Systems and Technology Applications found that ‘‘directed energy offers promise as a transformational ‘game changer’ in military operations, able to augment 

and improve operational capabilities in many areas.’’ The task force 

further concluded that the range of potential applications is sufficient to warrant significantly increased attention to the scope and 

direction of efforts to assess, develop, and field appropriate laser, 

microwave, and millimeter wave weapons. Consistent with the 

findings of the task force, the committee believes that directed energy weapons systems offer significant benefits in terms of cost effectiveness, sustainability, magazine capabilities, and precision targeting. 

Limitation on B–21 Engineering and Manufacturing Development program funds (sec. 217) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation or expenditure of any fiscal year 2017 funds for the B– 

21 Long Range Strike Bomber engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) program until the Air Force discloses the value 

of the B–21 EMD contract award made on October 27, 2015, to the 

congressional defense committees. 

Pilot program on disclosure of certain sensitive information 

to contractors performing under contracts with Department of Defense federally funded research and development centers (sec. 218) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

pilot program to permit the Department of Defense to provide Defense contractors performing under a Defense federally-funded research and development center contract with access to sensitive information necessary to carry out their assigned functions and duties. 

The committee notes that the contractors at such centers are currently prohibited from acquiring timely access to sensitive information, even in instances when performance and advancement could 

be negatively impacted. The committee also notes that because 

such contractors are not federal employees, they are not subject to 

the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905), and therefore are required 

to enact non-disclosure agreements with each individual entity responsible for the provision of sensitive information. However, the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
48 

committee is concerned that non-disclosure agreements with private sector entities are often not feasible in a timely manner because such entities often do not respond to requests or may no 

longer exist. Particularly in cases where the federally-funded research and development center is maintaining a large database of 

sensitive information from many different entities, the committee 

is concerned that preventing contractors from accessing such information could be hugely detrimental to the work of the center. 

The committee notes that the recommended provision would enable the Department to more efficiently and effectively give contractors at such centers access to confidential commercial, financial, or proprietary information; technical data; or other privileged 

information owned by other defense contractors that is needed to 

perform mission critical work. The committee also notes that the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 35 recognizes that to discharge 

responsibilities to the sponsoring agency, a Defense contractor performing under a federally-funded research and development center 

contract must have access to government and supplier data, including sensitive and proprietary data, beyond that which is common 

to a normal contractual relationship. 

The committee notes that such contractors are considered ‘‘trusted agents’’ and have the highly-valued ability to provide cuttingedge and objective expert advice. These contractors provide the government with special long-term research and development assistance that cannot be met by either existing in-house or other contractor resources. Additionally, the committee notes that the acquisition regulations make clear that it is not the government’s intent 

for such contractors to use their status or access to information to 

compete with the private sector. 

The recommended provision would allow such contractors, upon 

agreement to protect such data, access to sensitive information necessary to carry out their function of providing long-term engineering, research, development, and other analytical needs that cannot 

be met by other employees or contractors. The provision would also 

make clear that such contractors are barred from using the information to gain a potential competitive advantage over other contractors. 

Pilot program on enhanced interaction between the Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency and the service 

academies (sec. 219) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of enhanced interaction between the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the service academies. 

Modification of authority for use of operation and maintenance funds for unspecified minor construction projects 

consisting of laboratory revitalization (sec. 220) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authority to use minor military construction to revitalize antiquated laboratories and to increase the scope of the projects that 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
49 

are allowed under this provision to $6.0 million. Additionally, this 

provision would extend the authorization to 2025. 

Budget Items 

Materials technology 

The budget request included $122.1 million in PE 0602105A for 

materials technology. The committee encourages the Army to continue to develop and rapidly field the Ground Vehicle Coating System (GVCS) that was developed by the Army Tank-Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) and the 

Army Research Laboratory (ARL) as an affordable, infrared signature management coating for ground vehicles that is a drop-in enhancement to the current Chemical Agent Resistant Coating 

(CARC) coating system used on all Army and U.S. Marine Corps 

assets. GVCS has been evaluated in field trials and provided significant survivability benefits. At less than $10,000 per vehicle, 

GVCS provides project managers with an affordable means of improving signature while having zero impact to vehicle space, 

weight, and power. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 

million in PE 0602105A to fund the Department of Defense chemical agent resistant coating commodity manager requirements to 

field ground vehicle coating system material. 

Sensors and electronic survivability 

The budget request included $36.1 million in PE 62120A for sensors and electronic survivability. The committee notes that a major 

thrust within the Department’s Third Offset Initiative is the development and deployment of advanced robotic systems that can work 

in partnership with warfighters to enhance combat effectiveness. 

To support continued development of advanced human-robotics 

interaction capabilities, the committee recommends a general program increase of $2.0 million in PE 62120A. 

Social science research 

The budget request included $26.0 million in PE 62785A for the 

manpower, personnel, and training technology program. The committee notes that this program element conducts applied behavioral 

and social science research to enhance the overall military experience for soldiers. While the committee agrees that understanding 

performance, behavior, attitudes, and resilience is important for 

maintaining a strong fighting force, it recognizes that this work is 

not unique to the Army and furthermore that other organizations 

both in and out of government are better equipped to carry out social science research. In particular, the committee notes that research into leadership and culture, as well as research on personnel, is duplicative of other efforts. The committee is not convinced that such work is a high priority for the Army. Therefore, 

the committee recommends a program decrease of $5.0 million in 

PE 62785A to reduce duplication while still preserving important 

portions of this program element, such as research into readiness 

and methods for reducing sexual harassment. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
50 

Army vehicle prototyping 

The budget request included $122.1 million in PE 63005A for 

combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology. The committee notes that the Tank Automotive Research Development and 

Engineering Center possesses the facilities, procedures, workforce, 

and leadership to fully develop armored fighting vehicle prototypes 

and encourages the Army to fully exploit the unique capabilities of 

the Center. The committee understands that the Center can develop concepts to meet emerging requirements; test developmental 

concepts with soldier involvement; model, virtually test, and modify 

designs; integrate new technologies; and manufacture, test, and 

demonstrate prototypes. The committee believes that if the Center 

is employed to its full potential, future acquisition efforts would be 

accelerated and developmental costs would be reduced. Accordingly, 

the committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million in PE 

63005A for the funding of Project 440: advanced combat vehicle 

technology for demonstration or prototyping. 

Electronic warfare technology 

The budget request included $27.9 million in PE 63270A for electronic warfare technology. The committee notes that each of the 

military services, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency have extensive programs and investments with a goal of advancing electronic warfare 

capabilities. The committee is concerned that these programs are 

not well-coordinated, nor are they leveraging the best available 

commercial technologies, particularly in areas such as dynamic 

spectrum-sharing. In particular, the committee notes that a significant portion of the budget request is for effective electronic warfare 

countermeasures. However, the committee notes that such countermeasures are not unique to the Army and therefore need coordination with other organization. To encourage the Army to collaborate 

more fully with others on electronic warfare countermeasures, the 

committee recommends a program decrease of $5.0 million in PE 

63270A. 

Advanced tactical computer science and sensor technology 

The budget request included $44.2 million in PE 63772A for advanced tactical computer science and sensor technology. The committee notes that this program element matures and demonstrates 

technologies that allow soldiers to effectively collect, analyze, transfer, and display situational awareness information in a networkcentric battlefield environment. The committee notes that much of 

the work performed in this program overlaps with efforts by other 

services. In addition, the committee understands that private sector firms are developing many of the same technologies that this 

program element is meant to address. Therefore, the committee 

recommends a program decrease of $5.0 million in PE 63772A, and 

encourages the Army to more closely coordinate its efforts with the 

services and with private sector. The committee notes that the recommended decrease would still allow the Army to continue research into the critical areas of the program element, such as command and control and situational awareness. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
51 

Small Arms Improvement 

The budget request included $7.6 billion for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army of which $10.6 million was for 

Small Arms improvement in PE 63827A Soldier Systems Advanced 

Development. The committee recommends an increase of $9.4 million to accelerate development of new small arms weapons and 

small arms ammunition improvements. 

Army contract writing system 

The budget request included $20.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 65047A, for army contract 

writing system. The committee is concerned that the Army is planning to spend over $200.0 million on software to write contracts. 

The committee recommends a reduction of $20.7 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, PE 65047A, for 

Army contract writing system. The committee urges the Army to 

analyze lower cost alternatives for this business function. 

Integrated Personnel and Pay System—Army 

The budget request included $7.5 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Army, of which $155.6 million was for PE 605013A Integrated Personnel and Pay System— 

Army (IPPS–A). 

The committee is concerned with the significant cost increases to 

the program for Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) services. Further, the committee is concerned regarding escalating program management support costs and facility and lease cost increases. 

The committee recommends a reduction of $20.0 million for PE 

605013A Integrated Personnel and Pay System—Army (IPPS–A) 

for Integrated Personnel and Pay System—Army Increment 2. 

Aircraft survivability development 

The budget request included $114.2 million in PE 0605051A for 

aircraft survivability development. The committee recommends an 

increase of $13.0 million in PE 0605051A. 

Additional funding for aircraft survivability development was included on the Chief of Staff of the Army’s unfunded priority list. 

Technical information activities 

The budget request included $33.3 million in PE 0605803A for 

technical information activities. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 0605803A. Additional funding for the 

Army geospatial enterprise will improve the Army’s ability to provide needed hardware and software to improve interoperability between mission command systems. 

Aerostat joint project—COCOM exercise 

The budget request included $45.5 million in PE 0202429A for 

aerostat joint project-combatant command exercise. Due to operational mishaps the committee recommends a decrease of $41.0 

million in PE 0202429A the aerostat joint project. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

Combat vehicle improvement programs 

The budget request included $316.8 million in PE 0203735A for 

combat vehicle improvement programs. The committee recommends 

an increase of $12.0 million in PE 0203735A for the integration of 

active protection systems (APS) on Army armored fighting vehicles. 

Additional funding for APS was included on the Chief of Staff of 

the Army’s unfunded priority list. 

Army Global Combat Support System Increment 2 

The budget request included $1,304.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for RDT&E Operational 

Systems Development, of which $25.2 million was for Army Global 

Combat Support System (GCSS) Increment 2. 

The committee is concerned that the Army has not completed Increment 1 of GCSS–Army and that the current plan for Increment 

2 software upgrades will cost in excess of $200 million over five 

years. The Committee recommends a reduction of $25.2 million in 

RDT&E, line 196, Program Element 33141A, for Army Global Combat Support System Increment 2 and for the Army to provide alternatives to the committee regarding the need for the capabilities 

provided by Army Global Combat Support System Increment 2. 

Distributed Common Ground/Surface System 

The budget request included $32.3 million in PE 0305208A for 

Distributed Common Ground/Surface System. The committee notes 

changing tactical requirements. Therefore the committee recommends a decrease of $32.0 million in PE 0305208A. 

Undersea warfare applied research 

The budget request included $126.3 million in PE 62747N for undersea warfare applied research. The committee notes that undersea warfare is a key tenet of the Third Offset strategy, but that the 

development of next generation capabilities in this domain is required to address challenges in sensing, signature control, propulsion, and advanced materials. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 62747N. 

Power projection advanced technology 

The budget request included $96.4 million in PE 63114N for 

power projection advanced technology. The committee notes that 

the Navy, Air Force, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 

Strategic Capabilities Office, and other elements within the Department of Defense are all pursuing advanced power projection 

technologies and systems. The committee is concerned that these 

efforts are not well-coordinated and have uncertain pathways for 

transition to programs of record. In addition, the committee notes 

that the budget request represents an almost 200 percent increase 

over the amount enacted for fiscal year 2016. The committee believes that such a large increase in budget is not warranted and 

is concerned about the ability of the programs to absorb the additional funding. Consequently, the committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million in PE 63114N, but directs that this reduction not be assessed against solid state laser maturation efforts. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

Capable manpower and power and energy 

The budget request included $249.1 million in PE 63673N for future naval capabilities advanced technology developments. The activities listed under this program element include capable manpower and power and energy. The committee believes that the 

work plans for fiscal year 2017 on these activities does not warrant 

the level of funding included in the budget request. For example, 

the committee notes that the research included in these two 

projects include development of new personnel and management 

methodologies, and capabilities in energy security. Both of these efforts could be better coordinated with other organizations performing similar research. Consequently, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63673N to be distributed appropriately from capable manpower and power and energy. 

Large diameter unmanned underwater vehicle 

The budget request included $165.8 million in PE 63502N for research, development, test, and evaluation of surface and shallow 

water mine countermeasures. The committee notes the Navy 

planned to spend $19.5 million in fiscal year 2016 on large diameter unmanned underwater vehicle product development. In fiscal 

year 2016, the Navy shifted the acquisition strategy from an industry prime contractor to a government lead system integrator. As a 

result, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.5 million to this 

program due to available prior year funds that were requested for 

source selection activities. 

Littoral Combat Ship mission modules 

The budget request included $160.1 million in PE 63596N for research, development, test, and evaluation of Littoral Combat Ship 

mission modules. The committee notes the Navy planned to spend 

$30.9 million in fiscal year 2016 to complete operational testing. 

Due to developmental test results, the Navy cancelled operational 

testing. As a result, the committee concurs with a Government Accountability Office finding and recommends a decrease of $30.9 million to this program due to available prior year funds. 

Amphibious ship replacement LX(R) 

The budget request included $6.4 million in PE 64454N for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDTE) of LX(R), which 

is expected to functionally replace LSD–41 and LSD–49 class ships. 

The committee supports accelerating the construction of LX(R) 

class ships, provided the ships are competitively awarded. The committee notes the President’s budget request reduced LX(R) RDTE 

funding in fiscal years 2017 through 2019 by a total of $29.0 million. Navy officials have stated an additional $19.0 million is required in fiscal year 2017 to maintain an accelerated schedule. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $19.0 million 

for this program. 

Extra large unmanned underwater vehicle 

The budget request included $75.6 million in PE 64536N for research, development, test, and evaluation of advanced undersea 

prototyping. The committee notes the President’s budget request 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 

for this program element provides for the prototyping and testing 

of extra large unmanned undersea vehicles (XLUUV), including 

procurement of five vehicles and the lease of one vehicle. Based on 

the Navy budget justification information, the committee supports 

the procurement of two XLUUVs and the lease of a second similar 

vehicle. Understanding the operational need, the committee views 

the risk of developing five XLUUV prototypes concurrently as excessive and supports funding only the two XLUUVs that will begin 

fabrication in fiscal year 2017. The committee recognizes leasing a 

commercially available vehicle will enable refinement of tactics, 

techniques, and procedures. Therefore, the committee recommends 

a decrease of $34.4 million for this program. 

Marine Corps cyber protection team fly-away kits 

The budget request included $4.9 million for the Cyber Operations Technology Development program, Navy exhibit R–1, line 

162, Program Element 36250M. The committee recommends an increase of $1.8 million to respond to a Marine Corps Unfunded Priority List (UPL) request for Cyber Protection Team (CPT) ‘‘flyaway’’ kit hardware and software necessary to hunt malicious cyber 

actors, triage vulnerabilities, and remediate the intrusions and exploitation of compromised computer networks. 

Management, technical, and international support 

The budget request included $87.1 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: 2098 ($4.3 million), 

2221 ($3.9 million), 0149 ($1.0 million), and 3330 ($1.6 million). 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.8 million 

to this program. 

Aerospace propulsion 

The budget request included $185.7 million in PE 62203F for 

aerospace propulsion. The committee notes that the Department is 

continuing efforts to improve the performance and efficiency of advanced engine technologies to reduce costs and increase operational 

effectiveness. The committee also notes that the National Research 

Council’s Air Force Studies Board recently found that ‘‘to accelerate 

the development of new engine technologies, the Air Force gas turbine S&T funding should be increased significantly’’, including in 

areas such as ‘‘high-temperature, high-heat-sink fuels for thermal 

management, lightweight structures, and signature control.’’ Consistent with this recommendation, the committee recommends an 

increase of $5.0 million in PE 62203F to support research on advanced turbine engine technologies. 

High energy laser joint technology office 

The budget request included $42.3 million in PE 62890F for high 

energy laser research. The committee notes that this program element funds defense high energy laser applied research through the 

High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office. However, the committee is concerned that the Joint Technology Office has not received sufficient funding in recent years to drive the maturation of 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
55 

high energy laser technology. As an example, the committee notes 

with concern that no laser technologies have yet been fielded or deployed, despite promising development and field tests. Given the 

importance of directed energy weapons systems in general as noted 

elsewhere in this Act, and of high energy laser systems in particular, the committee is concerned that budget request for this 

program element will be insufficient for supporting the joint technology office. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase 

of $5.0 million in PE 62890F for the high energy laser joint technology office. 

Silicon carbide for aerospace power applications 

The budget request contained $94.6 million in PE 63216F for 

aerospace propulsion and power. The committee notes that recent 

research in aerospace power electronics has concentrated on fundamental materials, devices, and power-handling capability. 

The committee believes that the Air Force should look for opportunities to accelerate the development of actual components to go 

into aircraft electrical systems, especially very high-current silicon 

carbide power modules. The committee recognizes that the increasing sophistication and energy requirements for new systems like 

avionics, motor drives, computing, sensors, and even high energy 

lasers, will place increasing demands on the power architectures 

available to the constrained size and weight of aircraft. The committee also believes that such advances will have beneficial effects 

when applied to legacy, as well as future generation, air platforms. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million 

in PE 63216F, for a total of $99.6 million, to support the development of application-specific power circuit development using silicon 

carbide modules. 

Electronic combat technology 

The budget request included $58.3 million in PE 63270F for electronic combat technology. The committee notes that the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense, Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency, Army, Navy, and Air Force all have new initiatives focused 

on outreach to Silicon Valley and are all exploring technology development programs related to command and control and networking technologies. The committee is concerned that these efforts 

are duplicative and not well-coordinated. For example, the committee notes that a significant portion of the budget request is for 

effective electronic countermeasures. However, such technologies 

are not unique to the Air Force and therefore need coordination 

with other organizations. To encourage the Air Force to collaborate 

more fully with others on electronic warfare, the committee recommends a general decrease of $5.0 million in PE 63270F. 

Battlespace knowledge development and demonstration 

The budget request included $58.1 million in PE 63788F for 

battlespace knowledge development and demonstration. While the 

committee is supportive of this program element in general and understands the importance of making concrete progress in this field, 

it also notes that the budget request represents a significant increase of over 25 percent above the amount enacted for fiscal year 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
56 

2016. The committee also notes that the amount enacted for fiscal 

year 2016 was itself an almost 35 percent increase over the amount 

enacted for fiscal year 2015. The committee is concerned about the 

ability of this program element to absorb such a steep ramp-up in 

funding. Consequently, the committee recommends a general decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63788F. 

B–21 long range strike bomber 

The budget request included $1.36 billion in PE 64015F for the 

B–21 long range strike bomber. Due to a lower than expected contract award amount to the selected vendor, the committee recommends a decrease of $302.3 million in PE 64015F. 

Operationally Responsive Space program 

The budget request included $7.9 million for the Operationally 

Responsive Space (ORS) program, Air Force exhibit R–1, line 42, 

Program Element 64857F. The committee recommends an increase 

of $10.0 million to accelerate the development of an operational 

demonstration of a Space Situation Awareness (SSA) satellite. This 

satellite is necessary for meeting U.S. Strategic Command requirements and will serve as risk reduction for a Space Based Space 

Surveillance Follow-on satellite. The committee also directs the 

ORS office to determine if the development of a small synthetic aperture radar satellite constellation could be used to meet any 

unmet combatant command requirements and to provide the congressional defense committees the results of that assessment no 

later than April 1, 2017. 

Advanced Pilot Training Program 

The budget request included $12.4 million in PE 65223F for the 

Advanced Pilot Training (APT) program. The Air Force decided to 

delay awarding the development contract from the fourth quarter 

of fiscal year 2017 until the first quarter of fiscal year 2018. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.9 million in PE 

65223F due to the availability of prior year funds. 

KC–46 aerial refueling tanker aircraft program 

The budget request included $261.7 million in PE 65221F for 

KC–46A tanker development. Due to fewer than expected engineering change proposals and lower than expected test support costs, 

the Air Force will not obligate or expend funds at the budgeted 

rate. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $140.0 million in PE 65221F due to availability of unobligated prior year 

funds. The committee understands that the reduction of these 

funds in fiscal year 2017 will not impact the program delivery 

schedule of the KC–46A tanker aircraft. 

Evolved Advanced Extremely High Frequency MILSATCOM 

The budget request included $228.1 million for the Evolved Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) MILSATCOM program, 

Air Force exhibit R–1, line 80, Program Element 65431F, BPAC 

657104. The committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million as 

a result of the delayed completion and submission to the congresVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
57 

sional defense committees of an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for 

the follow-on capability for secure, survivable anti-jam, anti-scintillation communications for strategic and tactical users. 

B–2 Defensive Management System Modernization 

The budget request included $315.6 million in PE 65931F for the 

B–2 Defensive Management System modernization program. The 

program experienced a contract award delay affecting fiscal year 

2016 funds. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of 

$26.7 million in PE 65931F due to availability of unobligated prior 

year funds. 

MQ–9 automatic takeoff and landing control system 

The budget request included $151.4 million in PE 25219F for 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). The committee recommends an increase of $35.1 million in PE 25219F for development and integration of MQ–9 Automatic Takeoff and Landing 

Control System (ATLCS) capability in support of the provision elsewhere in this Act for the transition to enlisted remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) operators. 

Air Force Cost Estimating Module (CEM) 

The budget request included $28.1 billion for Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force of which $10.5 million was for 

PE 901538F Financial Management Information Systems Development. 

The committee notes that $4.9 million of this request was for the 

Air Force Cost Estimating Modeling (CEM). The committee believes this funding is unjustified. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $4.9 million for PE 901538F Financial Management Information Systems 

Development for research and development of CEM and directs the 

Air Force to utilize or improve its existing cost estimating software 

as well as utilize resources from the office of Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation. 

Air Force Program Budget Enterprise Service (PBES) 

The budget request included $28.1 billion for Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force of which $10.5 million was for 

PE 901538F Financial Management Information Systems Development. 

The committee notes that $1.9 million of this request was for the 

Air Force Program Budget Enterprise Service (PBES). The committee believes this funding is unjustified. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $1.9 million for PE 901538F Financial Management Information Systems 

Development for PBES and directs the Air Force to utilize its existing enterprise research planning software systems as well as legacy 

systems to meet its budget formulation requirements. 

Budget request realignments 

The Air Force requested the committee make a realignment in 

the budget to correct an error in their submission of the Research, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
58 

Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force (RDTEAF) documentation. The table below reflects this adjustment: 

CHANGE TO CORRECT SUBMISSION ERRORS 

(in millions) 

Item Account Line Item Amount 

ISPAN Inc 5 ..................................................................................... RDTEAF 124 ¥$8.9 

ISPAN Inc 5 EMD ............................................................................. RDTEAF 124a +$8.9 

Shared Early Warning Sys ............................................................... RDTEAF 222 ¥$5.0 

Atmospheric Warning Sys ................................................................ RDTEAF 222a +$5.0 

Operational energy capability improvement increase 

The budget request included $3.4 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Defense-wide, of which $37.3 

million was for the PE 0604055D8Z Operational Energy Capability 

Improvement. 

The committee recognizes the combat requirement to improve 

operational effectiveness via targeted and competitive operational 

energy science and technology investments. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in RDT&E, PE 0604055D8Z, for Operational Energy Capability 

Improvement. 

Post intercept assessment acceleration 

The budget request included $439.6 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63896C, for Ballistic 

Missile Defense command and control in support of the Missile Defense Agency. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to allow earlier integration of command and control/battle 

management with the space-based kill assessment program by two 

years to field spiral 8.2–5 of increment 6 in fiscal year 2020. 

Israeli cooperative missile defense program 

The budget request included $103.8 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense Wide, PE 63913C, for Israeli 

Cooperative Programs in support of the Missile Defense Agency. 

The committee recommends an increase of $135.0 million in PE 

63913C to reduce development risk and continue the modernization 

of Israeli’s multi-tiered missile defense systems. The additional 

funding shall be apportioned as follows: $25.0 million for the 

Arrow-3 system; $50.0 million for the base-line Arrow program; and 

$60.0 million for the David’s Sling program. 

Ground based interceptor booster acceleration 

The budget request included $274.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 64874C, for improved homeland defense interceptors in support of the Missile Defense Agency. The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million to accelerate the development and initial fielding of an upgraded ground based interceptor booster to enhance survivability, 

mitigate current obsolescence and expand homeland defense capaVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
59 

bilities against emerging threats. This acceleration would allow for 

earlier flight testing and accelerate the initial fielding and replacement of older boosters in fiscal year 2021 versus fiscal year 2022. 

Redesigned kill vehicle risk reduction 

The budget request included $274.1 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 64874C, for improved homeland defense interceptors in support of the Missile Defense Agency. The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million to accelerate the system engineering and risk reduction testing 

to reduce schedule risks for a critical design review for the redesigned kill vehicle program in late fiscal year 2017 and the first 

flight test in fiscal year 2018. 

Multiple object kill vehicle technology maturation 

The budget request included $71.5 million in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 64894C, for the Multiple-Object Kill Vehicle in support of the Missile Defense Agency. 

The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million to fund 

technology maturation and risk reduction for key technologies, including advanced sensors and new propulsion systems critical to 

enabling the Multiple-Object Kill Vehicle. 

High altitude long endurance solar powered unmanned aircraft 

The budget request included $3.4 billion in Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Defense-wide, of which $10.4 

million was for the PE 0603923D8Z Coalition Warfare. 

The committee recognizes the combat requirement for more persistent and long endurance unmanned aircraft systems on the battlefield. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in RDT&E, PE 0603923D8Z, for high altitude long endurance 

solar powered unmanned aircraft systems. 

Corrosion control and prevention funding increase 

The budget request included $6.9 billion in Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for Advanced Component Development & Prototypes, of which $3.8 million was for PE 

0604016D8Z Department of Defense (DOD) Corrosion Program. 

The committee continues to be concerned that the Department 

consistently underfunds the DOD Corrosion Program. 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 $5.0 million in RDT&E, PE 0604016D8Z, for the DOD Corrosion Program. 

Directed energy systems prototyping 

The budget request included no money in PE 64342D8Z for defense technology offsets. The committee notes with disappointment 

that the administration did not view it as a priority to request 

funds through this program element. Particularly with the highVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
60 

profile emphasis placed on the Department of Defense’s Third Offset Strategy, the committee is disappointed to see this program be 

unfunded. In addition, as noted elsewhere in this report, the committee is deeply disappointed with how the technology offset funding enacted in fiscal year 2016 was allocated. As noted, none of the 

money was put towards directed energy, in contradiction to the 

clear intent of Congress that half of the money be used to bolster 

directed energy technologies. While the committee does not recommend additional unrestricted funds for the technology offsets 

program, 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 $25.0 million in PE 64342D8Z to be used only for the 

purposes of directed energy systems prototyping. 

Development test and evaluation 

The budget request included $19.5 million in PE 65804D8Z for 

development test and evaluation. The committee notes that the Department continues to underinvest in developmental test and evaluation activities. A lack of robust developmental testing inevitably 

results in failures in operational testing. The failures of programs 

to meet their established testing requirements lead to cost growth 

and schedule slippage, as the programs make expensive and necessary fixes to systems. The committee feels that more robust development testing, combined with more disciplined and technically 

realistic requirements generation will improve acquisition program 

outcomes. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of 

$5.0 million in PE 65804D8Z to support enhanced development test 

and evaluation capabilities. 

Information Systems Security Program at the National Security Agency 

The budget request included more than $1.1 billion for the Information Systems Security Program (ISSP) in the National Security 

Agency (NSA), which is approximately one-third of the total ISSP 

budget for the Department of Defense (DOD). The committee recommends, as follows, a net reduction of $30.0 million from NSA’s 

ISSP Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), (program element 33140G), and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) 

budgets, because of higher priorities, duplication of effort, and the 

need to reduce overhead costs: 

(1)Fusion, Analysis, and Mitigation project: 

¥$5.0 million in RDT&E 

¥$5.0 million in O&M 

(2) Information Assurance project: 

¥$10.0 million in O&M 

(3) Enterprise and Business Management subproject: 

¥$3.0 million O&M 

(4) Strategic Engagement, Integration, and Foreign Affairs 

project: 

¥$4.0 million O&M 

(5) Cryptographic Platform Engineering project: 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
61 

¥$3.0 million RDT&E 

¥$5.0 million O&M 

(6) Enterprise Trusted Systems for Advanced Cross Domain 

Solutions project: 

+$5.0 million RDT&E 

As noted above, the committee recommends an increase for crossdomain solutions because cross-domain systems represent one of 

the most significant vulnerabilities for classified networks—where 

they connect to less-secure networks. The committee is concerned 

that the budget for this NSA program to enhance the security of 

cross-domain solutions and to modernize them for cloud environments has been disproportionately cut in recent years. In addition 

to the increase of $5.0 million, the committee recommends that the 

DOD Chief Information Security Officer consider transferring resources to this project from the Active Cyber Defense and Cyber 

Situational Awareness subprojects, as these efforts appear redundant to other DOD programs and compete with commercial solutions and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency programs. 

Sharkseer 2.0 

The budget request included unspecified amounts for the 

Sharkseer program, Defense-Wide exhibit R–1, line 203, Program 

Element 33140G. The committee recommends an increase of $16.0 

million for research and development to extend the Sharkseer architecture, connections, and information sharing beyond the perimeter defense boundary. 

The committee has strongly supported the Sharkseer program 

since its inception as a novel effort to rapidly acquire and integrate 

advanced commercial cybersecurity technology for detecting intrusions and malware for which signatures are not already known. 

Sharkseer is being deployed at all Department of Defense (DOD) 

perimeter gateways to filter web traffic, and by all accounts is performing well. 

The committee has been concerned that DOD’s cybersecurity solutions have tended to be deployed in piecemeal fashion, as isolated, stand-alone capabilities. Perimeter defenses, endpoint/hostbased capabilities, continuous monitoring and asset management 

capabilities, the patchwork of incident response and remediation 

tools, intermediate-level regional security systems, ‘‘big data’’ analytics of masses of packet and session metadata, and the tools and 

activities of Cyber Protection Teams and Computer Network Defense Service Providers are not interoperable, are not tied together 

under overarching concepts of operation and architectures, and 

cannot seamlessly and instantly share machine-readable indicators 

of compromise or otherwise tip and cue each other. 

The committee is concerned that despite the billions of dollars invested in perimeter defense, the department’s ability to rapidly 

identify and remediate cyber vulnerabilities remains time and resource intensive. Because of this stove-piped nature of the existing 

architecture, the committee is concerned that the department’s 

ability to defend the Department of Defense Information Network 

against future adversaries will be limited by its ability to network 

its many sensors to identify malicious activities and rapidly isolate 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

and remediate that malicious activity in cyber relevant time 

frames. 

The committee is aware of the productive efforts of joint working 

groups, composed of experts from the Principal Cyber Adviser’s 

cross-functional team, the Joint Staff, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, and the Chief Information Officer, to define operational views, requirements, and 

plans for the foundational building blocks for integrated cyber operations, such as the Unified Platform. Likewise, United States 

Cyber Command staff are grappling with the same issues and exploring commercial technology solutions. The committee also notes 

the sustained efforts of the DOD Chief Information Security Officer 

(CISO) to create an integrated cybersecurity enterprise capability 

with limited resources and authority. 

The committee believes that the Sharkseer team has the vision, 

technical depth, and connections across the enterprise and in commercial industry to play an effective role in achieving the goal of 

an integrated cybersecurity enterprise. The committee directs the 

Sharkseer program to apply additional funding to develop and 

demonstrate integration of cybersecurity tools and processes across 

the network layers and systems, under the guidance of the DOD 

CISO and the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command. 

MQ–9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

The budget request included $17.8 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 $12.0 million in RDTEDW for the MQ–9 UAV. 

The committee strongly supports SOCOM’s efforts to accelerate 

fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging technologies 

on its fleet of MQ–9 UAVs. The committee has authorized additional funds above the budget request in each of the last 4 years 

to enhance these efforts and understands that SOCOM has successfully developed and acquired a number of new capabilities, including improved weapon effectiveness, target location and tracking, 

image resolution, and video transmission during that time. The 

committee expects SOCOM to update the committee periodically on 

its development efforts under the MALET MQ–9 UAV program. 

Sharkseer email protection 

The budget request for the Defense Information Systems Agency 

(DISA) does not include funds to sustain the effort to extend the 

Sharkseer ‘‘zero-day net defense’’ capability to the email traffic 

flowing across the gateway boundaries of the Department of Defense (DOD). Sharkseer is already deploying to all DISA Internet 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

gateway nodes to defend DOD networks against malicious hidden 

activity in web traffic. The committee believes it makes little sense 

to filter web traffic for previously unknown threats while leaving 

email traffic unprotected against the same types of threats. Congress provided additional funds in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) to assist DISA 

and the Sharkseer program office in the National Security Agency 

in getting started on this extension of zero day net defense to 

email. The committee recommends an increase of $11.7 million in 

DISA’s Defense-wide Operations and Maintenance account, and 

$16.3 million in Defense-wide Research, Development, Test and 

Evaluation (program element 33140K) to sustain this initiative. 

Items of Special Interest 

Active protection systems 

The committee encourages the Army, in cooperation with the 

United States Marine Corps, to rapidly acquire effective active protection systems (APS) to protect ground combat forces and weapon 

systems from projectiles including rocket propelled grenades and 

anti-tank, wire guided missiles. Key armored fighting vehicles such 

as M1 main battle tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Stryker vehicles, and armored assault vehicles should be given first priority for 

APS due to their mission profiles. The committee understands that 

APS technology is mature and fielded by some of our allies. The 

committee encourages the Army to acquire non-developmental, mature designs for integration and testing with our vehicles. The committee believes that such an effort will increase both force protection and combat power of our close combat maneuver forces. 

Advanced airlift airship technology 

The committee has maintained an ongoing interest in advanced 

lighter-than-air (LTA) airship technology that has the potential to 

add much needed cutting-edge capabilities for the Department of 

Defense. Among other things, airship technology can enhance logistics, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief (HA/DR), and Non-Combatant 

Evacuation Operations (NEO). 

The committee is aware that multiple advanced airship technology efforts during the past 20 years have all failed to establish 

conclusively the value of advanced lighter-than-air technology by 

not demonstrating clear proofs of technical viability and the benefits of superior operating utility. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), recognizing that 

Department of Defense airship development appeared disparate, directed the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior official with 

responsibility for Department airship programs, to delineate this 

official’s responsibilities and to submit reports on Department hybrid airship operational concepts and future development strategies. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 

(Public Law 113–66) further recognized the failure to consolidate a 

structured path forward and re-affirmed the committee’s belief in 

the transformational potential of advanced technology airships. 

That legislation noted U.S. Transportation Command’s stated opinVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

ion that airships possess the nascent capability to enhance mobility 

substantially. 

While some have advanced the idea of waiting for commercial 

firms to develop airship logistics capability, the committee is concerned that this strategy would allow the Department to evade development responsibility. However, the committee notes that several failed attempts by the commercial sector argue for the involvement of the expertise of the Department. The committee understands that properly identified, the required technologies already 

exist or are near final states of development. Within the wherewithal of the Department of Defense, these technologies could be 

demonstrated en route to a successfully executed advanced airship 

program. Engaged leadership and full program involvement of the 

Department is essential for advanced airship success. 

The committee also understands that there are obstacles to a 

successful commercial initiative including development risk, fiscal 

investment requirements, and the potential for disruptive change 

to existing airlift technologies. Nevertheless, the committee believes that the rewards of exemplar government technology investments are, today, ubiquitous within the commercial arena and 

clearly show how timely involvement may have later broad-based 

national benefits. 

The committee believes that a new advanced airship program 

must address two primary risk areas. First, for airship outsize airlift, the most pressing discrete problem remains cargo off-loading 

without the airship instantly becoming too light for safe operation. 

Development of a robust, responsive and wide bandwidth buoyancy-ballast system that supports full vertical flight capability is 

essential and must be demonstrated convincingly and early. Second, a system of systems, involving lift, control and unique lighterthan-air flight technology, represents a demanding integration 

challenge and should be resolved before committing to final airship 

design and development. 

An incremental early ‘‘iron bird’’ demonstration with proving 

metrics and appropriate program off-ramps may provide the best 

way to establish core program viability and a path towards a full 

airship demonstration. This would be more soundly based than previous program strategies and could resolve the most critical risks 

before committing to the full flight demonstration. 

The committee believes that there is a strong justification to pursue airlift airship concepts and encourages the Air Force, Army, 

United States Transportation Command, and other appropriate defense organizations to become more proactive in developing advanced airship mobility needs and capability requirements that 

both lead and stimulate emerging demonstration plans. 

The committee directs that no later than 180 days after the date 

of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall: 

(1) Reaffirm leadership and responsibilities for airship technical initiatives within the Department of Defense; 

(2) Develop a strategy for future Department airship technologies that takes ownership of maturation efforts consistent 

with airship outsize airlift capability to identify: 

(a) Critical technology challenges (in addition to the 

aforementioned) and methods to demonstrate viability; 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

(b) Development risks and lessons learned; 

(c) Impediments to successful demonstration, including 

an assessment of in-house understanding of airship technology; 

(3) Develop notional estimates for time, costs and other necessary resources to conduct an incremental demonstration for 

technical viability with suitable decision points and off-ramps. 

Advanced weapons technology 

The committee recognizes the increased risk of exposure to chemical and biological agents faced by deployed U.S. and coalition 

forces. The committee believes it is critical to have the ability to 

expedite collection and characterize these agents in near real time. 

To meet this requirement, the committee encourages the Secretary 

of the Air Force to accelerate the fabrication, prototyping and testing of capabilities to detect and classify chemical and biological 

agents that will provide needed battlefield intelligence and increase 

the protective posture of U.S. and coalition forces. 

Assessment of status of little used research and development infrastructure assets 

The committee is concerned that certain research and development infrastructure assets employed by the military services are 

prematurely decommissioned or otherwise dismantled prior to a 

general accounting and assessment of the value and utility of such 

assets to the Department of Defense as a whole. Given the immense expense involved in establishing and standing up infrastructure assets, it is critical that decision on the final disposition of 

such assets not be made on parochial, short-term considerations. 

The committee believes that these assets may still have broader defense-wide and national utility and that such utility needs to be assessed before any decisions are made. 

To help alleviate this concern, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to identify such ‘‘orphan’’ assets that support Research and Development and Test and Evaluation. The definition 

of these assets shall be the same as the definition developed for the 

study provided to the Congress in October 2010 pursuant to the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–84) to address ‘‘Orphan Assets’’. The committee directs 

the Secretary to submit a list of these assets, along with a description of the need for these assets, to the congressional defense committees no later than one year after the enactment of this Act. 

Bradley Fighting Vehicle Transmission Competition 

The committee is aware that the U.S. Army is testing an alternative transmission for the family of Bradley Fighting Vehicles, 

which includes the Armored Multipurpose Vehicle (AMPV) and Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) programs. Assuming a successful test, the committee understands that the Army will assess the 

cost and benefits of an alternative transmission and then conduct 

a full and open competition to integrate a new transmission into 

the family of Bradley Fighting Vehicles. The committee notes that 

the Fiscal Year 2017 budget request does not include funding to 

support the alternative transmission strategy. Therefore, the comVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

mittee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a 

report on the full and open competition for the family of Bradley 

Fighting Vehicle transmissions. The required report must be submitted no later than January 15, 2017, and include details regarding the Army’s test report on the alternative transmission, the acquisition strategy and schedule, and the funding plan to support 

the competition. 

Conformal phased array antennas 

The committee notes that there have been recent substantive improvements in antenna technology, providing enhanced capabilities 

to aircraft and unmanned aerial systems. Additionally, the committee is aware that these same platforms face environments 

where it would be useful for antennae to operate on different frequency bands and to be reconfigurable in flight. The committee believes that these enhanced capabilities could be critically important 

in improving sensing in constrained or contested aerial environments. Consequently, the committee encourages the Navy to examine research opportunities to develop the fundamental theory, modeling, demonstration, and control of super-adaptable conformal 

phased array antennae. 

Department of Defense technology offset program to build 

and maintain the military technological superiority of 

the United States 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has undertaken a third offset initiative to help maintain the military technological superiority of the United States. Much like the previous two 

offset initiatives, the committee is encouraged to learn that the Department recognizes that our adversaries are rapidly developing 

technologies and strategies that can rival those of the United 

States and that the Department, in theory, is taking steps to avert 

such a scenario. 

As the committee expressed in the Senate report accompanying 

S. 1376 (S. Rept. 114–49) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016, since World War II, the United States has 

never faced a more sophisticated and comprehensive array of challenges that threaten to undermine the integrity of the global security that the United States has underwritten for seven decades. 

Without rapid innovation and bold commitment to technology development and deployment, the committee believes that the United 

States could be in danger of ceding its authority as the unparalleled military leader in the world today. This concern is made all 

the more stark by the fact that our adversaries seem to be able to 

innovate advanced technologies more quickly and efficiently that 

the Department of Defense, which continues to be hampered by 

outdated practices and regulations. The committee believes that 

the ability and foresight necessary to pivot to critical technologies 

and bring them to development and deployment in an expedited 

manner is critical to maintaining the status of the United States 

in global security. 

In recognition of these issues, to express support for the Department’s third offset initiative, and to assist the Department in accelVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

erating the program as much as would be reasonable, the Congress 

established a technology offset program in section 218 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 

114–92). This program, as laid out in the authorizing legislation, 

would provide the Department of Defense with additional funds on 

an annual basis to carry out research, development, prototyping, 

deployment, and rapid fielding of critical offset technologies. In developing this initiative, the committee authorized the Secretary of 

Defense up to $400.0 million for use towards technology offsets. 

While the committee ultimately gave the Secretary latitude to determine the most critical technologies on which to expend these 

funds, it also recommended that the Department focus on six technologies that the committee believes to be most vital for maintaining our military technological superiority. In particularly, the committee noted its clear intent that approximately half of the authorized funds be used for technologies related to directed energy. Although the level of funding was ultimately reduced to $100.0 

million through the Defense appropriations process, the committee 

believed that the program could still serve as a test case to determine the Department’s commitment to and understanding of the 

technology offsets initiative. Despite the lower level of funding, the 

committee had intended to ramp up available funds in subsequent 

years as the Department demonstrated its ability to use the money 

wisely and effectively for technology offset activities. The committee is alarmed to learn that this initial $100.0 million 

funding has been allocated by the Defense Department to activities 

that are tangential, at best, to the technology offset initiative. In 

fact, of the $100.0 million, the committee believes that only $6.0 

million has been put toward true offset technologies. With such a 

breakdown, the committee is unfortunately left to conclude that the 

Department has used money to pay its bills, rather than focus on 

technologies that are vital to the military technological superiority 

of the United States. Most distressingly, the committee was disappointed to learn that none of the money was put toward directed 

energy technologies, thereby showing a comprehensive lack of regard for the clear intentions laid out by the committee and by the 

Congress as a whole. Taken together, the committee is concerned 

that the Department is not focusing on strengthening the core mission capability of our military in terms of offensive and defensive 

weapons systems. Directed energy can fundamentally change warfare, much like precision-guided weapons did when developed during the second offsets efforts. 

In addition, the authorizing legislation clearly lays out a procedure whereby the funds should be competed internally with clear 

criteria and identifying purposes and priorities for the use of the 

funds. The legislation also directs the Secretary to solicit applications from across the defense research and development enterprise 

for use of the funds. The committee was concerned to learn that 

unfortunately none of this occurred before the money was allocated. 

Given these circumstances, the committee has no choice but to 

refrain from providing additional funding authorization for the 

technology offset program. Given the Department’s clear disregard 

for the intent of the committee and of Congress in providing the 

technology offset funding, the committee is unable to justify further 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 

expenditure. Without some sort of assurance or demonstration from 

the Department that it can manage technology offsets funding in 

a responsible manner, the committee believes that any additional 

funding for this program would be similarly misused. 

The committee notes that the Department has said publicly that 

up to $18.0 billion is being devoted to offset technology. Despite repeated requests for a breakdown of this claim and an accounting 

for where this funding is being applied, the committee remains unaware of the specifics of how the technology offset program is being 

carried out. Given the Department’s performance regarding the authorized offset funds, the committee remains wary of the Department’s ability to truly carry out a third offset program and see it 

through to fruition. 

Digital polarimetric radar development 

The committee notes that there have been major advances in the 

field of radar development with respect to incorporating both polarimetric and phased array radar technology into an all-digital design. The committee considers the development of this technology 

as a critical enabler for the Navy in the development of increased 

sensing, discrete object tracking (especially small unmanned aerial 

vehicles), interference avoidance, spectral dominance, electronic 

warfare, dynamic aperture sharing, and multi-function/multi-objective capabilities. Consequently, the committee encourages the Navy 

to examine research opportunities to create an all-digital polarimetric phased array radar for future use in small object sensing 

and tracking, and dynamic aperture tasking for spectrally-contested and dense-target electronic warfare environments. 

Expedited hiring at Department of Defense laboratories 

The committee is concerned that it takes unreasonable amounts 

of time to hire experienced individuals at defense laboratories, 

sometimes exceeding over a year. As a result, a sizeable percentage 

of authorized billets at DOD laboratories remain vacant due to 

lengthy delays as well as competition from the private sector. This 

committee notes that these delays occur despite expedited authorities authorized by this committee in a series of provisions in previous National Defense Authorization Acts. 

Given the Department’s ‘‘Third Offset’’ strategy and the fact that 

these laboratories play a critical role in driving the key technologies of that strategy, the committee directs the Comptroller 

General to conduct an assessment of the different hiring structures 

at military laboratories across the services, compare the time it 

takes to hire personnel, assess whether certain laboratories are 

using existing expedited hiring authorities effectively, and what 

recommendations it has to enable laboratories to accelerate the hiring process. 

Human augmentation technology for industrial operations 

The committee commends the Office of Naval Research (ONR) 

Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) Program for its renewed efforts toward understanding the benefits of human industrial operations augmentation technology that improves the health and safeVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

ty of the workforce and reduces the total ownership cost (TOC) of 

Naval assets. 

The committee notes that the Navy Metalworking Center (NMC) 

and ManTech recently highlighted cost and labor savings on 

projects such as the DD 51 of over 20–30 percent through the use 

of exoskeleton-based human augmentation technologies. The committee continues to be interested in technological advances that 

help reduce the labor component of TOC by increasing productivity, 

improving quality, and reducing costs associated with workplace injuries related to repetitive motions. 

Following the success of this initial program, the Committee 

urges the Secretary of the Navy to continue to develop these technologies with a goal of broad implementation of commercially-available human industrial operations augmentation technologies for 

the construction, maintenance, repair, and disposal of Navy assets. 

Hypersonic wind tunnel capabilities 

The committee notes that a key element of the Third Offset 

strategy is the development of high speed and hypersonic capabilities to support defense missions such as global and precision strike; 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR); and access to 

space. The committee notes that advanced research and development in this area depends on world class testing facilities, including high speed wind tunnels, as well as world class technical and 

engineering talent. Recently, in its ’’Hypersonic Weapons and US 

National Security: A 21st Century Breakthrough’’ report, the independent Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies found that Congress and DOD must adequately support continued operation and 

upgrading of the national hypersonic technology infrastructure, 

particularly unique test tools and research facilities for undertaking both ground-based and full-flight testing and research. The 

committee notes that this bill authorizes a significant increase in 

support for hypersonics test capability, as requested by the President. Further, the committee recommends that the Department of 

Defense, working through the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency, the Test Resource Management Center, and the Air Force, 

continue to explore the development of wind tunnel test capabilities 

to support development of hypersonic military systems. 

Immunosuppression associated with Anthrax Prophylaxis 

Historic scientific literature has noted that certain compounds 

when combined with anthrax inhibit the immune response effecting 

the ability of a prophylaxis drug to effectively treat exposure or 

vaccines to protect from exposure. Unknown at the present is 

whether naturally occurring compounds such as aflatoxins when 

combined with anthrax causes such a suppression. The committee 

directs the Secretary of the Army to conduct a peer-reviewed study 

to assess the efficacy of such a combination or other such 

immunosuppression agents and, where applicable, develop a controlled experimental regime to assess the applicability of these 

combined agents. The peer-reviewed study and experimental plan 

shall be due to the congressional defense committees no later than 

February 28, 2017. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 

Integration of nanoscale techniques for improved battery 

technology 

The committee supports the efforts of the Department of Defense, 

including those of the military services, to improve battery technology. In addition, the committee recommends continued research 

and development of nanoscale techniques to improve battery technology as it relates to improving military capabilities on the battlefield. 

Laser weapon system demonstrator 

The Committee commends the Navy for initiating and funding 

the Laser Weapon Systems Demonstrator (LWSD) and believes 

that this is an important step toward maturing technologies that 

could ultimately enable the deployment of a shipboard maritime 

laser weapons system. While the Committee understands that the 

Navy envisions transitioning laser weapons to a formal Program of 

Record in the 2020s, it appears that the Navy has not programmed 

funding beyond the LWSD sea-based tests to support the installation of LWSD on a DDG or for the design and procurement of a 

formal maritime laser program. 

The committee expects that the Secretary of the Navy will keep 

the congressional defense committees updated on its plan to 

seamlessly transition the LWSD to a shipboard weapons system 

following sea-based testing and to a formal maritime laser Program 

of Record, technical progress toward developing the capability, and 

programmatic steps being taken to move to demonstration and deployment of advanced laser systems. 

Littoral Combat Ship propulsion and machinery control test 

capability 

The committee notes the operational benefits and cost savings 

that propulsion and machinery control test capabilities have provided the Navy, including for Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, 

Zumwalt-class destroyers, and Whidbey Island-class dock landing 

ships. The committee is concerned by a series of recent significant 

and costly engineering casualties on Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), 

including: mechanical failures contributing to USS Freedom being 

underway for just 35 percent of its deployment in the 7th Fleet 

area of responsibility in 2013, a fuel valve and combining gear failure on the USS Milwaukee in 2015, and a combining gear casualty 

on USS Fort Worth in 2016. The committee believes establishing a 

LCS propulsion and machinery control test capability would provide the Navy with a critical resource that is currently lacking to 

troubleshoot issues, identify root causes of casualties, and provide 

in-depth training to sailors. The net effect of such a test capability 

would be to reduce the time, cost, and inexperience associated with 

LCS propulsion and machinery control casualties. 

Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary of 

the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations to consider establishing an 

LCS propulsion and machinery control test capability for both the 

LCS Freedom and Independence classes. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
71 

Long-range threat detection 

The Committee is aware of advances the Department of Defense 

(DOD) is making in long-range threat detection to safely detect explosives and explosive constituent chemicals from long distances. 

The Committee encourages DOD to engage with industry and academia to pursue further innovation in this field, including the development of cost effective threat sensor systems to support defense 

missions. 

The Committee notes that DOD should emphasize capabilities 

that can provide real-time detection, with the greatest possible 

standoff and lowest false alarm rates, and which are portable 

enough to be used with mobile, aerial, and sea-based platforms. 

Mid-Tier Networking Vehicular Radio 

Modernizing battlefield communications is a critical priority for 

the Army. The Mid-Tier Networking Vehicular Radio (MNVR) provides the backbone for the Army’s tactical network, connecting 

lower-echelon radios those at the brigade and battalion level. These 

two channel networking radios reduce reliance on satellite communications for the Army’s command and control capability. The Committee fully funded this program and encourages the Army to 

maintain its testing schedule in order to meet fielding requirements. 

Military medical photonics 

The committee notes that military medical photonics research 

improves battlefield patient care using photomedicine technologies 

and exemplifies how mission-oriented research can benefit both 

military and civilian populations. The committee is encouraged by 

recent breakthroughs in this research, including major technology 

advances in burn and wound management, tissue imaging and 

bonding for vascular and reconstructive surgery, diagnosis and 

treatment of major eye diseases and trauma, critical care sensors 

and monitors, early assessment of inhalation airway injury, rapid 

imaging of coronary artery disease, and normalization of severe 

scarring from wounds of war. 

The committee notes that funding for military medical photonics 

research decreased significantly in the Department of Defense’s 

budget planning for fiscal years 2015 and 2016, but was subsequently restored to $6.0 million by the Department in each of those 

years in accordance with congressional guidance. This program has 

made great progress in the development of important, innovative 

technologies for battlefield medicine. The committee expects that 

the Department will continue to fund this important work at an 

appropriate level. 

MQ–XX 

The committee believes the Navy needs to rapidly introduce a 

carrier-launched unmanned aircraft into the carrier air wing. While 

the committee continues to believe that the Navy should develop a 

penetrating, air-refuelable, unmanned carrier-launched aircraft capable of performing a broad range of missions in a non-permissive 

environment, the committee believes the MQ–XX moves the Navy 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 

in the right direction while filling critical tanking and intelligence, 

surveillance and reconnaissance missions for the carrier air wing. 

The committee notes that on February 26, 2016, Chief of Naval 

Operations Admiral John Richardson stated, ‘‘I like this way forward for carrier-based unmanned aircraft to be sort of a poster 

child for how we should do acquisition. We’re going to get something on deck as soon as we can that will fulfill a valid need— 

tanking and ISR—on that aircraft carrier and for that air wing.’’ 

The committee is concerned that despite the service chief’s emphasis on this program, current plans will require 10 years to field 

the MQ–XX. According to Navy budget documents, the first MQ– 

XX land-based flight will not occur until fiscal year 2022 and the 

initial operational capability will not occur until fiscal year 2026. 

Given the years of effort and millions of dollars of investment already spent to bring an unmanned aircraft to the carrier, including 

the successful demonstration of the capability with the X–47B, the 

committee believes this timeline is unacceptably long and does not 

meet the CNO’s intent for a model acquisition program done at 

speed. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy 

to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and House of Representatives with the President’s budget 

request for fiscal year 2018, which includes: (1) a detailed MQ–XX 

program schedule through initial operational capability, and (2) detailed options to accelerate MQ–XX. 

Night Vision Device Reset 

The committee believes night vision systems are an essential capability for successful conventional military and counterterrorism 

operations, and one in which the United States must keep its qualitative advantage. 

The committee is concerned that more than half of the approximately 480,000 fielded AN/PVS–14 monocular night vision devices 

provide significantly lower level performance than those possessed 

by potential adversaries-leaving U.S. forces at a capability mismatch given the access of potential adversaries to more advanced 

French, Russian, and Chinese night vision devices. In addition, extensive delays in developing and fielding a digital image intensified 

alternative are being experienced by Special Operations Command 

and the Night Vision and Electronic Sensors Directorate, thus extending the anticipated use of the AN/PVS–14 to fiscal year 2030. 

The Report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2016 (Report 114–49) encouraged the Secretary of the Army 

to develop and implement a comprehensive night vision systems research, development, acquisition, reset maintenance, and 

sustainment strategy that improves readiness, identifies and delivers promising new or emerging technologies, and ensures the affordability of night vision systems by managing cost throughout 

their life cycle. The committee is troubled that the Army has not 

followed this recommendation, and is not taking appropriate action 

to provide necessary performance and reliability improvements for 

the legacy fleet of AN/PVS–14 systems, commensurate with the 

threat and extended service life. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to request funding as part of the fiscal year 2018 budget request to 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
73 

begin a performance reset of fielded AN/PVS–14 systems through 

the component upgrade of the image intensifier tubes or explain in 

writing why such an upgrade is not needed to meet combatant commander requirements and ensure U.S. service members possess 

night vision devices superior to their potential adversaries. 

Night Vision Reset 

The Senate report accompanying S. 1376 (S. Rept. 114–49) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 acknowledged that night vision systems are an essential capability for successful military and counterterrorism operations. With increased 

proliferation around the world of high performance night vision 

technologies, U.S. forces may face a capability mismatch as adversaries acquire higher performance level technology. The committee 

believes it is crucial that the Department of Defense maintains 

and, where possible, extends its technological advantage in night 

vision systems. 

The committee is aware that the Army is working to address the 

technological opportunities, operational requirements, and industrial base challenges associated with current and future night vision systems. Therefore, the committee continues to encourage the 

Secretary of the Army to develop and implement a comprehensive 

night vision systems research development, acquisition, reset maintenance, and sustainment strategy that improves readiness, identifies and delivers promising new technologies, and ensures affordability of night vision systems by managing cost throughout their 

life cycle. 

Plan to reduce the footprint of aged chemical and biological 

weapons facilities at Aberdeen Proving Ground 

The southern end of Aberdeen Proving Ground contains the laboratories for the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Command 

(ECBC). While many laboratories are new and state of the art, the 

ECBC contains a number of 50-year-old laboratories that are inactive but still must be fenced and have their ventilation systems 

functioning given the trace amounts of agents that are present in 

them. The result is a cost of several hundred thousand dollars each 

year to keep some of these laboratories in a warm status, which includes other activities such as ensuring they are structurally sound 

and do not leak. Because the cost of maintaining the laboratory 

each year is less than the 1 year tear down cost, they remain 

standing for a period of time such that the accumulated cost over 

the outyears would pay for their removal. Similar parallels exist at 

the Department of Energy with abandoned nuclear weapon production facilities. The committee directs the Corps of Engineers to report no later than February 28, 2017 on a plan to tear down these 

hazardous facilities, which ultimately will save taxpayers money 

over the long run. 

Review of balance between Department of Defense developmental and operational test and evaluation 

The committee notes that Congress has now re-established a developmental test and evaluation organization within the defense research and engineering enterprise. With this development, the comVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

mittee believes it is necessary to examine the functions and resources between the organizations of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E) 

and the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. To improve 

test and evaluation results for the Department’s acquisition programs in the most efficient manner, particularly given that DT&E 

will now be reporting to the Director Operational Test and Evaluation as directed elsewhere in this act, the developmental and operational test and evaluation organizations must maintain a balance 

of resources and oversight activities. 

The committee notes that during the 2000s, the resources and influence of the developmental test and evaluation organization declined while operational test and evaluation assumed a more comprehensive role, including absorbing resources and functions formerly within the purview of the developmental test and evaluation 

organization. For example a number of programs were transferred 

to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, such as Joint 

Test & Evaluation, the Center for Countermeasures (CCM), munitions effectiveness, and aircraft survivability. In addition, the Operational Test and Evaluation organization co-opted developmental 

test and evaluation aspects of acquisition programs. 

When the developmental test and evaluation organization was almost non-existent, this enlargement of responsibilities under operational test and evaluation was essential. However, that role needs 

to be re-examined in light of a stronger developmental organization. As a result, the committee believes it would be useful for the 

Department of Defense to review the roles and resources of the current developmental and operational test and evaluation organizations to address a number of issues and questions. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to form a study 

panel to review the appropriate balance between developmental 

and operational test and evaluation activities and the resources required to accomplish related activities within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The panel will develop recommendations for alternative approaches and resource levels and such recommendations should be completed no later than one year after the enactment of this Act. 

The committee recommends that the panel address the following 

questions: 

(a) How can the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation 

(DOT&E) with duties established in section 139 of title 10, 

United States Code, and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation (DASD (DT&E)) 

with duties established in section 139b of title 10, United 

States Code, at the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) level 

approach oversight within the weapons development cycle to 

avoid overlap but be mutually supporting without sacrificing 

the independence of either organization? 

(b) Does participation and assessments of program progress 

during phases prior to operational test and evaluation bias the 

independent objectivity of the operational test and evaluation 

organization? 

(c) Are staffing and other resources between the two test and 

evaluation oversight organizations commensurate with the efVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

fort of each relative to the portion of the programs that their 

oversight entails? 

(d) Are there programs under the purviews of the Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center with duties established in Section 196 of Title 10, United States Code, 

or the DASD (DT&E) that should be managed within operational test and evaluation, such as the Resource Enhancement Program and Joint Mission Environment Test Capability? 

(e) Are there programs under the purview of the DOT&E or 

the DASD (DT&E) that should more appropriately be under 

the purview of other Office of Secretary of Defense organizations? 

(f) Overall are the DASD (DT&E) and the DOT&E organizations effectively carrying out the missions as described in title 

10, United States Code, and are there impediments to meeting 

those responsibilities. In addition are they engaged in activities 

outside their mission areas? 

(g) Are the activities of the test and evaluation organizations 

complementary, not duplicative or disruptive, to the activities 

of the military departments? 

(h) What are the implications for the balance between the 

two organizations now that DT&E will be reporting to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation? 

Silicon Carbide Technology 

The Committee supports the Army’s investment to advance 

power and energy technology to meet requirements for higher electric power loads at forward operating bases through efficient generators, extend silent watch capabilities for ground vehicles, and 

improve vehicle performance. Silicon Carbide MOSFET based high 

performance power modules have been identified as an enabling 

technology that meets Army requirements for power distribution 

and management as part of generator and battery systems. The 

Army is encouraged to increase support for demonstration and deployment of silicon carbide power electronics under the Research, 

Development and Engineering Command Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center. 

Simulation training 

The Committee supports the Department of Defense’s continued 

expansion of the full range of simulation training as a cost-effective 

means by which military units can improve tactical decision-making skills through training in realistic scenarios otherwise only 

found in theater combat operations. Well-trained units ultimately 

save lives when deployed to combat situations. The Department of 

Defense should continue to ensure the most efficient and effective 

training programs are available through a combination of both government-owned and operated simulators, as well as simulation support from a dedicated commercial activity capable of providing frequent hardware and software updates. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

Single appropriation for developmental test and evaluation 

and test resources 

The committee notes that prior to 1999, the Department of Defense had a strong developmental test and evaluation organization 

with a single appropriation for development test and evaluation 

support (including test resources) with all related program elements included within one appropriation. The committee understands that in 1999, developmental test and evaluation was reorganized and downsized and the appropriations were transferred to 

other program elements, primarily to the operational test and evaluation office. 

The committee further notes though, that in 2009, the Weapon 

Systems Acquisition Reform Act (Public Law 111–23) re-established 

a strong developmental test and evaluation organization. Unfortunately, the related issue of resources was not addressed in the legislation and, as a result, developmental test and evaluation programs and projects remain scattered throughout defense-wide appropriations. 

To correct this oversight, the committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to include in the budget transmitted to Congress pursuant 

to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, for each fiscal year 

a separate statement of estimated expenditures and proposed appropriation for the fiscal year for the activities of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test & Evaluation 

(DASD (DT&E)) and the Director, Test Resources Management 

Center (TRMC) for carrying out assigned duties and responsibilities. The Secretary of Defense shall re-establish a separate Research, Development, Test and Evaluation appropriation for Development Test & Evaluation and Test Resources as existed in the Department prior to fiscal year 1999. The reestablished appropriation 

will include all Program Elements currently administered by the 

DASD (DT&E) and the Director, TRMC including the Central Test 

and Evaluation Investment Program and Department of Defense 

Test and Evaluation Science and Technology. This reestablished 

development test and evaluation appropriation will be administered by the DASD (DT&E) and the Director, TRMC. 

This change would consolidate the developmental test and evaluation-related resources in a single appropriation similar to what 

existed prior to 1999, which would allow for better congressional 

oversight and more efficient execution. This change would also provide Congress better visibility on resources being directed to developmental test and evaluation and test infrastructure. This change 

would also increase efficiency and minimize the possibility that resources can be realigned between program elements without congressional approval. 

Study on best practices for laboratory management techniques 

In previous years, the committee has taken many steps to 

unshackle the Department of Defense laboratories from federal 

rules and regulations that the committee believed to be overly burdensome and to be having a deleterious effect on the abilities of the 

laboratories to carry out the critical mission with which they are 

charged. Among other things, the committee has granted the labVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

oratories greater autonomy and authority to make their own decisions regarding personnel, workforce, funding allocation, and general laboratory administration and management. 

The committee has undertaken these efforts because it believes 

that the Department of Defense laboratories, along with the scientific and technical experts that they employ, are a unique national resource carrying out work that is vital to the national security interests of the United States. In recognition of the special status that the laboratories and employees occupy in terms of service 

to the Nation, the committee felt an obligation to ensure that all 

necessary tools were made available as necessary. 

To be sure, while the committee has taken many steps, many 

more remain. As an ultimate goal, the committee hopes to ensure 

that laboratories and lab employees have the desired flexibility to 

experiment and innovate in a supportive environment on an accelerated timescale that meets the needs of the defense services and 

of those engaging in the Nation’s conflicts. 

As the committee has carried out its reforms in this arena, it has 

discovered that the Department has scientific organizations that 

are managed under a number of different governance models. For 

instance, the traditional service laboratories, such as the Army Research Lab, the Navy Research Lab, and the Air Force Research 

Lab, are all government owned and operated, meaning that all employees are direct federal employees. As a contrast, institutions like 

Lincoln Lab and the Applied Physics Lab are federally funded research and development centers, paid for by the government, but 

run by institutes of higher education. In addition, the committee is 

aware that laboratories of other federal agencies are managed 

under completely different models. For instance, the laboratories of 

the Department of Energy are government-owned, but operated by 

private companies, meaning that all employees are private sector 

contractors. 

While the committee appreciates that different missions and different objectives often require different management and governance, it also recognizes that with the launch of the Department of 

Defense’s third offset initiative, greater pressure is being placed on 

the defense laboratories, indeed the entire defense research enterprise, to be more innovative and quicker in bringing new technologies to production and deployment. The committee is struck 

that it seems unreasonable to expect such increased output and efficiency from the laboratories without a commensurate overhaul of 

management and governance structures. 

At the same time, the committee has yet to see a comprehensive 

accounting of best practices for government laboratory governance. 

As a result, the ability of the committee to move forward smartly 

with additional reforms, designed to fully unleash the inherent capabilities of the lab in an efficient manner, is somewhat hampered. 

As much as the committee would like to undertake comprehensive 

defense lab governance reform, it remains wary of doing more 

harm than good. 

To remedy this gap in the committee’s knowledge and expertise, 

the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States 

to complete a study of the various laboratory governance models 

employed at federal government laboratories, both defense and 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

non-defense. This study should identify all different governance 

models used across the government, the benefits and drawbacks of 

each model, and how successful each governance model has been 

at fostering efficiency and innovation. The study should also compare the relative autonomy given to each of the different lab directors, and conclude with recommendations on best governance practices. The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit this 

study to the congressional defense committees no later than 1 year 

after the enactment of this Act. 

Subsurface threat detection systems 

The committee notes that the Navy has requested $45.7M in PE 

0603123N for force protection advanced technologies, including 

funding for sensors and countermeasures for use against unmanned underwater threats and divers. The committee expects the 

Navy to continue and expand these efforts, commensurate with 

these growing threats. 

The improved turbine engine program (ITEP) for Army rotary wing aviation 

The committee recognizes the importance of more efficient fuel 

consumption and enhanced power benefits that collectively increase 

the combat capability under the improved turbine engine program 

(ITEP) for Army rotary wing aviation. For example, the committee 

understands that the ITEP will increase the combat range of Black 

Hawk and Apaches by at least 85 percent. However, the committee 

also understands that underfunding ITEP will result in a program 

schedule delay that could defer engine fielding to Black Hawk and 

Apache units. Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the 

Army to review the program funding profile for the key preliminary 

design phase of this competitive program to ensure resources are 

properly allocated across the future years defense program. Additionally, the committee strongly encourages the Army to examine 

all possible options to accelerate development and fielding of the 

engine so that the increased capabilities can be realized sooner. 

Third offset technology—industrial base concerns 

The Committee acknowledges the critical role that the Third Offset strategy plays in assuring long-term national security but to 

date, has not received a clear interpretation of what this strategy 

consists of. Without a clear explanation from the Department of 

Defense, the Committee is concerned about the viability of the U.S. 

industrial base to support the Third Offset strategy. Therefore, the 

Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committee a report on the Third Offset strategy, including how Third 

Offset programs will overcome capability or capacity challenges 

posed by U.S. adversaries, as well key capability shortfall areas 

that 3rd offset does not address. It will further submit its top five 

acquisition priorities, how they fit into the Third Offset strategy 

and to what extent the Department believes the U.S. industrial 

base can fill gaps in ability to support the strategy. The committee 

directs the Department submit both the strategy report and its acquisition findings and views to the Senate Armed Services Committee no later than one year after the enactment of this Act. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

Troposcatter Systems 

The committee is concerned that warfighters lack needed communication capability in environments where satellite communications 

are degraded or denied. The committee is aware of the Army ’s effort to leverage advances in troposcatter systems in order to close 

this strategic gap. Given current budget constraints, the committee 

urges the Army to assess the ability of off-the-shelf, non-developmental solutions to meet Army requirements while reducing cost 

and risk. 

United States Special Operations Command, Airborne High 

Energy Laser 

The committee notes that United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has identified an unfunded requirement for fiscal 

year 2017 to accelerate the exploration of tactics, techniques and 

procedures, and concept of employment of an Airborne High Energy 

Laser (AHEL) on an AC–130 aircraft. The committee agrees that 

directed energy capabilities, potentially including the AHEL, may 

offer possible tactical and operational advantages over conventional 

capabilities for certain missions requiring clandestine activities and 

the ability to disable vehicles, infrastructure, weapons, and other 

equipment. Such capabilities may also offer advantages in terms of 

cost effectiveness, sustainability, and precision. 

The committee supports the experimentation proposed by 

SOCOM and understands that defense research laboratories and 

industry are currently working to advance directed energy systems 

for integration on various types of military aircraft. The committee 

directs SOCOM to fully coordinate its activities with the High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office in order to avoid duplication of 

efforts and encourages the Department to pool resources from relevant offices in support of this unfunded requirement. 

Working capital fund efficiencies 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense and 

other federal government organizations will continue to experience 

constrained budgets for several years in the near-term, and that 

under such circumstances, federal organizations cannot afford to 

duplicate capabilities that may exist in other government organizations. 

The committee also notes that working capital funded organizations are uniquely capable of managing within their budgets while 

supporting other organizations since the organizations being served 

pay for the services received. In addition, the committee notes that 

an increased client base for working capital funds results in a larger base upon which to spread overhead cost, which in turn can reduce cost for all customers. 

The committee notes with concern that the leadership of some 

Department of Defense organizations may choose to reduce the 

flexibility allowed for working capital organizations to expand their 

base beyond the work for their parent organization. Such policies 

could necessitate other organizations to acquire duplicate capabilities. 

As a result, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that all working capital funded facilities within the DepartVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

ment of Defense are allowed to provide services to all other Department of Defense organizations and all other federal organizations 

that request such services. The committee expects that, to the extent allowed by budget limitations, these services will be provided 

regardless of which organization operates the working capital funded facility and regardless of workforce staffing levels. The committee expects that such direction will be given to working capital 

funded facilities no later than 180 days after the enactment of this 

Act. 

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—Energy and the Environment 

Modified reporting requirement related to installations energy management (sec. 302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subsection (a) of section 2925 of title 10, United States Code, by significantly reducing the contents of the Department of Defense’s Annual Energy Management Report. 

Additionally, the committee clarifies that the intent for reporting 

of all commercial utility outages caused by threats and hazards 

should include all four categories of utility service: electrical, potable water, wastewater, and natural gas. Accordingly, the committee 

believes the Department should appropriately revise the data collection template’s instructions to capture such disruptions and outages. 

Report on efforts to reduce high energy cost at military installations (sec. 303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with the assistant secretaries responsible for 

energy installations and environment for the military services and 

the Defense Logistics Agency, to conduct an assessment of the efforts to achieve cost savings at military installations with high energy costs. 

Utility data management for military facilities (sec. 304) 

The committee recommends a provision that recognizes the importance of energy management for improving resiliency and 

achieving the Department of Defense’s Federal energy reduction 

goals. Therefore, to reduce energy costs, the committee directs the 

Department of Defense, in consultation with the Department of Energy, to develop a pilot program to investigate the utilization of 

utility data management services to perform utility bill aggregation, analysis, third-party payment, storage and distribution. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 

Of the amounts to be appropriated for Operation and Maintenance, Navy for SAG BSIT, Enterprise Information, the Secretary 

of Defense is authorized to transfer funds for the purposes of the 

pilot program. 

Linear LED lamps (sec. 305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2–4.1.1.2 of the Department of Defense’s Unified Facilities Criteria to allow linear light emitting diode lamps for facilities and installation retrofits. The committee notes that these fixtures may 

consume less energy, improve safety, realize life-cycle cost savings, 

and provide a return on investment. 

Subtitle C—Logistics and Sustainment 

Deployment prioritization and readiness of Army units (sec. 

311) 

The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the Department of Defense, that would amend chapter 1003 of title 10, 

United States Code, and would revise the Army’s deployability rating system and the manner in which the Army is required to track 

prioritization of deployable units. 

The committee notes this provision would require the Secretary 

of the Army to maintain a readiness rating system for units of all 

components of the Army that provides an accurate assessment of 

the deployability of a unit and those shortfalls of a unit that require additional resources. 

Revision of guidance related to corrosion control and prevention executives (sec. 312) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in coordination with the Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight, to revise the corrosion-related guidance to clearly define specific roles of the corrosion control and prevention executives of the 

military departments. 

Repair, recapitalization, and certification of dry docks at 

Naval shipyards (sec. 313) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow savings 

derived from foreign currency fluctuations to be made available for 

the repair, recapitalization, and certification of dry docks at Naval 

Shipyards. 

Subtitle D—Reports 

Modifications to Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress 

(sec. 321) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 482 of title 10, United States Code, to further streamline the 

Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress (QRRC). 

The committee remains very concerned that the QRRC’s delivery 

to Congress lacks timeliness, remains hampered by parallel processes, and contains overlapping assessments which are then collecVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
82 

tively hindered by unnecessarily prolonged approval processes 

within the Department of Defense. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Department to separate 

and alternate semi-annual assessments with semi-annual reports 

on remedial actions and recovery models in the next QRRC. The 

committee also strongly urges the Department to remove the senior 

readiness fora summaries in Annex A in order to avoid duplication. 

Additionally, the committee directs the Department to reduce duplication of the content currently provided in Annexes B and C of 

the QRRC, to the maximum extent practicable. 

The committee remains unsatisfied with the content reported in 

Annex F—Risk assessment of dependence on contractor support— 

as required by section 482(g) of title 10 United States Code. The 

committee strongly urges the Department to significantly improve 

the reporting quality in the next iteration of the QRRC. 

Lastly, because the content of Annex G—Cannibalization rates 

report—is unclassified, the provision would require the Department 

to provide Annex G to the congressional defense committees in a 

separate unclassified report containing the information collected 

pursuant to section 117(c)(7) of title 10, United States Code. 

Report on HH–60G sustainment and Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) program (sec. 322) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees that sets forth a plan to modernize, sustain training, and 

provide depot maintenance for all components of the HH–60 helicopter fleet. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Repurposing and reuse of surplus military firearms (sec. 

331) 

The committee recommends a provision that would transfer excess firearms to Rock Island Arsenal to be repurposed for military 

use as determined by the Secretary of the Army. 

Additionally, the provision would allow for the transfer of M–1 

Garand rifles and caliber .22 rimfire rifles currently in the Navy 

and Marine Corps inventory at Defense Distribution Center, Anniston, or Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane to be used as awards 

for competitors in marksmanship competitions that are held by the 

Navy or the Marine Corps. 

Limitation on development and fielding of new camouflage 

and utility uniforms (sec. 332) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation or expenditure of funds for the development or fielding 

of new camouflage or utility uniforms or families of uniforms until 

one year after the Secretary of Defense notifies the congressional 

defense committees. 

The committee notes that the Joint Clothing and Textiles Governance Board that is charged with developing policies related to 

combat uniforms has only met four times since 2010. The committee remains concerned that a lack of guidance has led to confuVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
83 

sion amongst the services with how to ensure the best technology 

is integrated into all uniforms while maintaining compliance with 

existing Department of Defense policies. The committee understands that different operational environments will require different materials to provide protection from different threats. 

Hazard assessments related to new construction of obstructions on military installations (sec. 333) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Section 358 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 

2011 (Public Law 111–383) to ensure that due diligence and proper 

assessment is given so energy projects do not interfere with operational training of the military services. 

Plan for modernized Air Force dedicated adversary air 

training enterprise (sec. 334) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force to submit to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, 

not later than March 3, 2017, 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 Air Force. 

The committee is concerned that although the Air Force has not 

been seriously challenged by an adversary that has caused significant friendly losses in air warfare for over four decades, technological advances, increased defense spending, and more aggressive 

military posturing by contemporary potential adversaries bring 

that concern back to the forefront. The Air Force’s experience over 

Southeast Asia during the Vietnam conflict catalyzed a wholesale 

change in strategy, doctrine, and training, but not before suffering 

significant losses at the hands of an enemy initially perceived as 

substantially less capable. 

The committee recalls that in response to this undesirable circumstance, the Air Force emplaced a robust training regimen of advanced dissimilar air combat training, large force employment exercises such as RED FLAG and COPE THUNDER, and perhaps 

most importantly, an institutional commitment to fielding a dedicated air adversary training capability in the form of a full fighter 

wing equivalent of 72 aircraft in aggressor adversary air training 

units. This training capability remained in place from the early 

1970s until the end of the 1980s, when defense budget pressures 

drove a 92 percent reduction in dedicated adversary air training assets from their peak level. 

The committee believes these dedicated adversary air training 

assets undoubtedly contributed to the eventual defeat of the Union 

of Soviet Socialist Republics, and also played a significant part in 

training Air Force units who subsequently dominated Saddam Hussein’s air force in the first Gulf War. However, 25 years of continuous combat operations, divestment of over 60 percent of combat 

aircraft squadrons, and constantly declining defense budgets have 

combined with resurgent and emergent nation-state threats to necessitate a reexamination of how the Air Force will maximize trainVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
84 

ing and readiness as necessary pillars of its fifth generation-enabled force into the future. 

Independent study to review and assess the effectiveness of 

the Air Force Ready Aircrew Program (sec. 335) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of the Air Force to commission an independent review 

and assessment of the assumptions underlying the Air Force’s annual continuation training requirements, and the efficacy of the 

overall Ready Aircrew Program in the management of Air Force’s 

aircrew training requirements. The provision would also direct the 

Comptroller General of the United States to assess the matters 

contained in the Secretary’s report on the independent review and 

assessment. 

The Air Force has raised concerns regarding training shortfalls 

for both fourth and fifth generation combat aircraft aircrews 

against the annual continuation training requirements established 

in their Ready Aircrew Program (RAP). RAP defines the required 

individual training events, proficiency levels, and the appropriate 

mix and quantities of live training sorties and simulator missions 

for combat air forces. A number of factors have contributed to existing training shortfalls, including operations tempo, maintenance 

personnel levels, aging aircraft, limited and obsolete range infrastructure, and nonavailability of training support assets, such as 

dedicated adversary air training aircraft, among other factors. Additionally, the Air Force’s reduced number of combat squadrons, 

and the reduced numbers of primary assigned aircraft to most of 

the remaining squadrons, combine to provide fewer cockpit positions to absorb and train new pilots to experienced proficiency levels. Finally, ongoing combat operations, the future fielding of large 

numbers of F–35As, and a potential A–10 fleet divestment further 

exacerbate these training challenges. 

The committee is also concerned with assumptions underlying 

the annual training requirements that have not been adjusted in 

recent years to ensure that aircrews are training for the full range 

of core Air Force missions. For example, the Air Force has historically established annual training requirements for experienced or 

inexperienced aircrews based on whether a combat aircrew has 

achieved 500 flying hours in a primary aircraft. However, some 

new aircrew personnel can quickly meet the experienced flying 

hour level through operational deployments, even though the type 

of deployed flying operations may not represent the required experience across the full range of core missions. 

Mitigation of risks posed by certain window coverings with 

accessible cords in military housing units in which children reside (sec. 336) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to remove and replace window coverings with 

accessible cords from military housing units in which children 

under the age of 9 reside and require housing contractors to phase 

out window coverings with accessible cords. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
85 

Tactical explosive detection dogs (sec. 337) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2583 of title 10, United States Code, to require all new contracts involving tactical explosive detection dogs (TEDD) to include 

a provision that would transfer the TEDD to the 341st Training 

Squadron after the end of their useful service life and reclassify 

them as military animals to follow the adoption procedures set 

forth by section 2583. 

STARBASE Program (sec. 338) 

The committee recommends a provision that would continue funding for the STARBASE Program by up to $25.0 million for 

SAG 4GT3 Civil Military Programs in Operation and Maintenance, 

Defense-Wide for fiscal year 2017. The committee believes 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. 

Access to Department of Defense Installations for drivers of 

vehicles of online transportation network companies 

(sec. 339) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

secretary of defense to establish policies, terms, and conditions 

under which online transportation networks and their drivers shall 

be permitted access to military installations to serve base personnel. 

Women’s military service memorials and museums (sec. 340) 

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. The committee notes that a funding offset of $5.0 million is derived from the Army’s plan to accelerate the opening of another 

museum from fiscal year 2022 to fiscal year 2019. Accordingly, the 

committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million to SAG 435 

Other Service Support within the Operations and Maintenance, 

Army budget request. 

Budget Items 

Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard readiness 

unfunded priorities increases 

The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $791.5 million was for SAG 

111 Maneuver Units, $1.3 billion was for SAG 116 Aviation Assets, 

$1.0 billion was for SAG 123 Land Forces Depot Maintenance, 

$336.3 million was for SAG 211 Strategic Mobility, $902.8 million 

was for SAG 322 Flight Training, and $778.7 million was for SAG 

423 Logistics Support Activities. 

The budget request also included $2.6 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), of which $491.7 million was 

for SAG 113 Echelons Above Brigade and $347.4 million was for 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
86 

SAG 121 Force Readiness Operations Support. The budget request 

also included $6.8 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Army 

National Guard (OMARNG), of which $708.2 million was for SAG 

111 Maneuver Units, $37.1 million was for SAG 121 Force Readiness Operations Support, and $219.9 million for SAG 123 Land 

Forces Depot Maintenance. 

The committee notes that, within the Army’s unfunded priorities 

list, the Chief of Staff of the Army has identified specific amounts 

in these readiness accounts that could help accelerate readiness recovery. The committee notes that these recommended increases will 

help restore the Army Prepositioned Stock Sustainment (APS) program in support of the European Reassurance Initiative and increase throughput for depot work. Additionally, this increase will 

help defray lodging costs for enlisted soldiers who sometimes must 

travel hundreds of miles for reserve duty. Lastly, the Chief of Staff 

of the Army testified before the committee that home station training for the Army National Guard to prepare for additional Combat 

Training Center rotations was one of his top unfunded readiness 

priorities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the following increases: 

$50.0 million for SAG 111 Maneuver Units; $68.0 million was for 

SAG 116 Aviation Assets; $19.4 million for SAG 123 Land Forces 

Depot Maintenance; $25.0 million for SAG 211 Strategic Mobility 

for APS; $36.6 million for SAG 322 Flight Training; and $4.0 million for SAG 423 Logistics Support Activities in OMA; $46.0 million 

for SAG 113 Echelons Above Brigade for Lodging in Kind and 

Home Station Training and $0.3 million for Force Readiness Operations Support for range improvements in OMAR; and $70.0 million for SAG 111 Maneuver Units for Home Station Training; $2.4 

million for SAG 121 Land Forces Operations Support; and $54.6 

million for SAG 123 Land Forces Depot Maintenance in OMARNG. 

Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization increases 

The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $2.2 billion was for SAG 132 

Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization. The budget 

request also included $2.7 billion in Operation and Maintenance, 

Army Reserve (OMAR), of which $214.9 million was for SAG 132 

Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization. The budget 

request also included $6.8 billion in Operation and Maintenance, 

Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $676.4 million was for 

SAG 132 Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization. 

The budget request included $39.4 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $1.6 billion was for SAG 

BSM1 Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization. The budget request also included $927.6 million in Operation and Maintenance, 

Navy Reserve (OMNR), of which $27.5 million was for SAG BSMR 

Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization. 

The budget request included $5.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of which $632.6 million was for 

SAG BSM1 Sustain, Restoration, & Modernization. The budget request also included $270.6 million in Operation and Maintenance, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
87 

Marine Corps Reserve (OMMCR), of which $25.4 million was for 

SAG BSM1 Sustain, Restoration and Modernization. 

The budget request included $37.5 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.6 billion was for SAG 

011R Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization. The 

budget request also included $3.1 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve(OMAFR), of which $113.4 million was for 

SAG 011R Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization. 

The budget request also included $6.7 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG), of which $245.8 million was for SAG 011R Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization. 

The committee notes that throughout all unfunded requirement 

lists provided by the individual services, Facilities Sustainment, 

Restoration & Modernization (FSRM) remained a shortfall for 

every service. The committee believes FSRM funding is crucial to 

rebuilding and maintaining readiness. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the following increases: 

$354.4 million in OMA for SAG 132 Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization; $21.5 million in OMAR for SAG 132 Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization; $32.1 million in 

OMARNG for SAG 132 Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration & 

Modernization; $160.9 million in OMN for SAG BSM1 

Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization; $5.8 million in 

OMNR for SAG BSMR Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization; $39.3 million in OMMC for SAG BSM1 Sustain, Restoration, 

& Modernization; $5.5 million in OMMCR for SAG BSM1 Sustain, 

Restoration and Modernization; $157.7 million in OMAF for SAG 

011R Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization; $11.7 

million in OMAFR for SAG 011R Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization; $14.0 million in OMANG for SAG 011R Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization. 

Army advertising reduction 

The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $550.6 million was for SAG 

331 Recruiting and Advertising. 

The committee understands that within the Recruiting and Advertising request was an increase of $50.8 million, or 27 percent of 

the budget request, to fund additional marketing and advertising 

efforts. The committee also understands that the National Commission on the Future of the Army recommended that Congress authorize, and that the Secretary of the Army direct the consolidation 

of marketing functions under the authority of the Army Marketing 

Research Group to ensure unity of effort across all three Army 

components: Regular Army, Army Reserve and Army National 

Guard. The committee believes the budget request is not in line 

with that recommendation and believes these funds can be better 

aligned for other readiness priorities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $35.0 million in OMA to SAG 331 Recruiting and Advertising. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
88 

Army museum reduction 

The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $1.1 billion million was for 

SAG 435 Other Service Support. 

The committee understands that within the Other Service Support request was an increase of $29.5 million to accelerate the 

opening date for the National Museum of the U.S. Army from fiscal 

year 2022 to fiscal year 2019. The committee notes that the Army 

has consistently stated that readiness is the service’s number one 

priority. The committee agrees with that statement and believes 

these funds should be realigned to support higher priority readiness requirements. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $29.5 million in OMA to SAG 435 Other Service Support. 

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase 

The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $441.1 million was for SAG 

138 Combatant Commands Direct Mission Support. 

The committee notes that United States Southern Command 

(SOUTHCOM) identified intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance as an unfunded priority. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMA of 

$6.7 million for SAG 138 Combatant Commands Direct Mission 

Support for SOUTHCOM airborne intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance. 

Printing reductions to active service components and defense-wide 

The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), $39.4 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $5.9 billion for Operation and Maintenance, 

Marine Corps (OMMC), $37.5 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $32.5 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW). 

The committee notes that readiness is a top priority of the services and the Department of Defense. The committee notes the 

printing budget for active service components as follows: (1) Army 

$228.8 million, (2) Navy $48.6 million, (3) Marine Corps $95.5 million, (4) Air Force $59.6 million, and (5) defense-wide $9.1 million. 

The committee believes that the printing budget for the active service components is excessive and portions should be realigned to 

fund unfunded requirements as requested by the Service Chiefs. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed reduction to the following: $34.3 million to OMA, $7.3 million to OMN, 

$14.3 million to OMMC, $8.9 million to OMAF, and $1.4 million to 

OMDW. 

Distributed Common Ground System-Army 

The budget request included $33.8 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $126.9 million was for the 

Distributed Common Ground Station-Army (DCGS–A). 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
89 

The committee is aware that the DCGS is a multi-service program that is intended to provide a family of fixed and deployable 

multi-source ground processing systems that support a range of Air 

Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Army intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance systems. 

The committee notes that DCGS–A is operationally suitable and 

effective when operating from fixed sites and providing direct support to operational and strategic forces. However, the committee 

also notes that DCGS–A is not suitable or effective in providing a 

reliable capability to tactical forces operating in the field. Army 

Brigade Combat Teams and battalions are required to improvise to 

overcome unreliable hardware and complex software. Operator 

knowledge and proficiency is low because of this complexity and 

unit readiness is negatively impacted. 

The committee notes that since 2007 total program cost of DCGS–A has been in excess of $3.0 billion. Costs to complete the 

program are estimated to be in excess of an additional $7.0 billion. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an undistributed de- crease in OMA of $63.0 million for DCGS–A. 

Foreign currency fluctuations 

The budget request included $33.8 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Army (OMA), $39.5 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.0 billion for Operation and Maintenance, 

Marine Corps (OMMC), $37.5 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $32.6 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW). 

The committee believes that when foreign currency fluctuation 

(FCF) rates are determined by the Department of Defense, the balance of the FCF funds should be considered, particularly if the balance is close to the cap of $970.0 million. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has informed the committee that as of March 

2016, the Department does not plan to transfer in any prior year 

unobligated balances to replenish the account for fiscal year 2016. 

GAO analysis projects that the Department will experience a net 

gain in fiscal year 2017 due to favorable foreign exchange rates. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of: $59.2 million to OMA, $14.6 million to OMN, $2.9 million to OMMC, $33.5 

million to OMAF, and $10.6 million to OMDW for FCF. 

Bulk fuel savings 

The budget request included $33.8 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), $39.5 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.0 billion for Operation and Maintenance, 

Marine Corps (OMMC), $37.5 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $32.6 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW). 

The committee understands that as of March 2015, the Department has overstated its projected bulk fuel costs for fiscal year 

2017. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the following decreases: 

$123.3 million to OMA, $238.4 million to OMN, $24.7 million for 

OMMC, $394.6 million to OMAF, and $41.1 million to OMDW for 

bulk fuel savings. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
90 

Army National Guard psychological health increase 

The budget request included $6.8 billion in Operation and Main- tenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $245.0 million 

was for SAG 434 Other Personnel Support. The committee understands that within this request was $7.4 

million for 69 Director of Psychological Health (DPH) positions 

within the Army National Guard. This level of funding is insufficient to cover the full validated requirement of 157 DPH positions. 

The committee notes that the Army National Guard has one of the 

highest rates of suicides in the military and that over 60 percent 

of those suicides were soldiers who never deployed and are not eligible for behavioral healthcare provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. For these members of the Army National Guard, the 

DPH can administer on-site screening, counseling and referral to 

community resources when needed. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMARNG of $9.5 million to SAG 434 Other Personnel Support. 

Army National Guard underexecution reduction 

The budget request included $6.8 billion in Operation and Main- tenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $245.0 million 

was for SAG 434 Other Personnel Support. 

Based on analysis by the Government Accountability Office, the 

committee understands this subactivity group has historically 

underexecuted its appropriated funding. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in OMARNG of $5.0 million for SAG 434 Other Personnel Support. 

Navy readiness unfunded priorities increases 

The budget request included $39.4 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $1.0 billion was for SAG 1A5A 

Aircraft Depot Maintenance, $564.7 million was for SAG 1A9A 

Aviation Logistics, and $0.0 million was for SAG 4B2E Environmental Programs. 

The committee notes that, within the Navy’s unfunded priorities 

list, the Chief of Naval Operations has identified specific amounts 

in these readiness accounts that could help accelerate readiness recovery. The committee notes that these recommended increases will 

increase aviation depot maintenance and E–6B and F–35 

sustainment capabilities. The committee further notes that these 

recommended increased will help crucial environmental restoration. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the following increases 

in OMN: $34.0 million for SAG 1A5A Aircraft Depot Maintenance, 

$16.0 million for SAG 1A9A Aviation Logistics, and $18.0 million 

for SAG 4B2E Environmental Programs. 

Navy enterprise information reduction 

The budget request included $39.4 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $790.7 million was for SAG 

BSIT Enterprise Information. 

Based on analysis by the Government Accountability Office, the 

committee understands this subactivity group has historically 

underexecuted its appropriated funding. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
91 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $54.3 million to SAG BSIT Enterprise Information due to low execution in 

prior years. 

United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase in security programs 

The budget request included $33.8 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $1.1 billion was for SAG 411 

Security Programs. 

The committee notes that United States Southern Command 

(SOUTHCOM) identified intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance as an unfunded priority. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMA of 

$6.0 million for SAG 411 Security Programs for SOUTHCOM airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. 

Naval History and Heritage Command reduction 

The budget request included $39.4 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Navy (OMN) of which $285.9 million was for SAG 

4A5M Other Personnel Support. 

The committee understands that within this request was $10.0 

million for an increase to the Naval History and Heritage Command. The committee believes these funds can be better aligned for 

other readiness priorities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 million to OMN for SAG 4A5M Other Personnel Support. 

Marine Corps readiness unfunded priorities increases 

The budget request included $5.9 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC) of which $674.6 million was for 

SAG 1A1A Operational Forces, $947.4 million was for SAG 1A2A 

Field Logistics, $206.7 million was for SAG 1A3A Depot Maintenance, $632.6 million was for SAG BSM1 Sustain, Restoration & 

Modernization. The budget request also included $39.4 billion for 

Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $564.7 million 

was for SAG 1A9A Aviation Logistics. 

The committee notes that, within the Marine Corps’ unfunded 

priorities list, the Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified 

specific amounts in these readiness accounts that could help accelerate readiness recovery. Specifically, the committee understands 

the Marine Corps has identified exercise program shortfalls, aviation readiness gaps in depot maintenance, enterprise network defense, explosive ordnance disposal mission equipment needs, rifle 

optics modernization, nano-UAS capabilities, and shortfalls in facilities demolition. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the following increases 

to OMMC: $63.7 million for SAG 1A1A Operational Forces, $28.1 

million for SAG 1A2A Field Logistics, $7.8 million for SAG 1A3A 

Depot Maintenance, and $39.2 million for BSM1 Sustainment, Restoration and Maintenance. Additionally, the committee recommends an increase to OMN for $5.4 million for SAG 1A9A Aviation Logistics. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
92 

Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard readiness unfunded priorities increases 

The budget request included $37.5 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.6 billion was for SAG 

011C Combat Enhancement Forces, $7.1 billion was for SAG 011M 

Depot Maintenance and $1.5 billion was for SAG 021M Depot 

Maintenance. The budget request included $3.1 billion in Operation 

and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve (OMAFR), of which 230 million was for SAG 011G Mission Support Operations. The budget request also included $6.7 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air 

National Guard (OMANG) of which $7.0 billion was for SAG 011M 

Depot Maintenance. 

The committee notes that, within the Air Force’s unfunded priorities list, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force has identified specific 

amounts in these readiness accounts that could help accelerate 

readiness recovery. The committee notes that this recommended increase will improve shortfalls of the HC/HH–60 C4I platform. The 

committee further notes that this recommended increase will improve Air National Guard depot maintenance efforts. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.8 mil- lion for SAG 011C Combat Enhancement Forces, $150.4 million for 

SAG 011M Depot Maintenance, and $66.4 million for SAG 021M 

Depot Maintenance in OMAF and $29.0 million for SAG 011G Mission Support Operations in OMAFR. The committee also recommends an increase in OMANG of $43.2 to SAG 011M Depot 

Maintenance. 

Air Force advertising reduction 

The budget request included $37.5 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $104.7 million was for 

SAG 033A Recruiting and Advertising. 

The committee understands that within the Recruiting and Ad- vertising request was an increase of $29.2 million to fund additional marketing and advertising efforts. The committees notes this 

request would more than double the Air Force’s advertising budget. 

The committee believes these funds can be better aligned for other 

readiness priorities. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $27.0 million in OMAF to SAG 033A Recruiting and Advertising. 

Special Operations Command civilian compensation 

The budget request included $5.4 billion in Operations and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), of which $751.8 million is for civilian compensation. The committee notes that the budget request for SOCOM civilian compensation for fiscal year 2017 is $72.7 million more than 

what was enacted for fiscal year 2016, which represents an approximately 10 percent increase. The committee recommends a reduction of $45.3 million to be applied to higher priority requirements. 

Defense Logistics Agency Price Comparability Office 

The budget request included $358.0 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-Wide for the Defense Logistics Agency 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
93 

(DLA), of which $61.4 million was for the Price Comparability program. 

The committee recommends a reduction of $5.8 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for the Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA) Price Comparability program which would return 

the program to its fiscal year 2015 budget level. 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency foreign partner engagement programs 

The budget request included $496.8 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, of which $270.2 million is for the Global Train 

and Equip Program, $58.6 million for the Regional Centers, $21.8 

million is for the Wales Initiative Fund/Partnership for Peace, 

$26.8 million for the Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program, 

$25.6 million for the Defense Institution Reform Initiative, $9.2 

million for the Ministry of Defense Advisors program, $2.6 million 

for the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies. The committee recommends a transfer of $414.8 million to the Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund in Title 14 of this Act. 

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 .............................. +5.0 

Total ............................................................................................. +30.0 

Office of Economic Adjustment reduction 

The budget request included $32.5 billion for Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide of which $155.3 million was for SAG 

4GTM Office of Economic Adjustment. 

The committee understands that within this request was $19.2 

million for non-defense funding related to a public health lab. The 

committee notes there is an additional $13.0 million in prior year 

funding that has not yet been obligated for this project. The committee notes that with over 1.3 million people visiting Guam from 

countries with ‘‘emerging infections,’’ the addition of 5,000 marines 

would have a limited impact. Therefore, the committee encourages 

the administration to seek funding for any needed civilian lab from 

appropriate civilian sources. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $32.2 million to SAG 4GTM Office of Economic Adjustment and recommends 

that the Department seek to reprogram the prior year funds to 

higher priority requirements. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
94 

Defense-wide funding decrease for base realignment and 

closure planning and support 

The budget request included $32.5 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $1.4 billion was for 

SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense. The committee understands that $4.0 million was to be used for 

base realignment and closure (BRAC) planning and support. The 

bill recommended by the committee would prohibit the expenditure 

of funds for a new BRAC round. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense. 

Department of Defense rewards program reduction 

The budget request included $1.4 billion in the Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which $6.6 million was for the Department of Defense (DOD) rewards program. 

The committee continues to be concerned that the DOD rewards 

program has been hampered by historical under-execution. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million to SAG 4GTN for the DOD rewards program. 

Funding for Secretary of Defense delivery unit 

The budget request included $32.6 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $1.5 billion was for 

SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense. The committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million in OMDW to SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense for a delivery unit for the Secretary 

of Defense to bring in professionals with deep experience in management consulting, organization transformation, and data analytics to assist with key reforms and business transformation priorities. The provision underlying this change in funding levels is discussed in greater detail in title IX of this committee report. 

National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service 

The budget request included $171.3 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance. 

The committee recommends an undistributed increase of $15.0 

million in Operation and Maintenance that would establish the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service as an 

independent commission, which shall remain available until expended. Additional information on this recommended increase can 

be found in Title X, Subtitle H. 

Funding for waiver of long-term temporary duty travel per 

diem rates 

The budget request included $171.3 billion in Operation and Maintenance. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in Operations and Maintenance to authorize a waiver of temporary duty travel per diem rates up to the full rate in long-term 

temporary duty travel activity. The provision underlying this 

change in funding levels is discussed in greater detail in title XI 

of this committee report. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
95 

Modeling of an Alternative Army Design and Operational 

Concept 

The budget request included $32.6 billion for Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, of which $85.7 million was for the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff (SAG 3PL1). The committee recommends an 

increase of $10.0 million to SAG 3PL1 for the modeling of an alternative Army design and operational concept. Additional funding 

would allow the Secretary of Defense to establish an office to study 

and evaluate the reconnaissance strike group concept as recommended by the National Commission on the Future of the Army. 

Items of Special Interest 

Additive manufacturing recommendations 

The committee recognizes the advances being made by the Department of Defense (DOD) in the rapidly emerging additive manufacturing (AM), or 3-D printing environment. The committee 

strongly encourages DOD to more aggressively pursue AM capabilities that are innovative, adaptive, improve readiness, and enables 

the military services to be more self-sustainable, while developing 

the ability to qualify and certify AM produced items. The committee commends the Navy, in particular, for its leadership in this 

area regarding its AM roadmap and recognizing the potential AM 

could improve DOD capabilities in the areas of on-demand 

warfighting systems, agile supply chains, expeditionary 

sustainment, personalized medical care, and energetics. For example, the committee commends the Navy for its testing and flight 

critical part demonstration of a V–22 nacelle link and fitting. 

However, it is clear that industry remains at the forefront, leading the way in AM. While there are multiple nascent efforts in AM, 

there are unique Navy and Marine Corps challenges such as afloat 

stabilization, fire hazards, and space constraints that must be addressed to fully realize the benefits of AM for widespread implementation. The committee is aware of the many demonstration and 

prototyping efforts, but it is still unclear when DOD will implement 

and more fully benefit from these advances in AM. 

The committee understands that DOD may already have some 

appropriate authorities to enter into public-private partnerships, 

however, the committee strongly encourages faster AM adoption 

and learning across DOD, as well as collaboration and opportunities to seek efficiencies as each of the military services make investments in AM. Further, the Government Accountability Office 

noted in its 2015 report on AM that DOD needs to systematically 

track and disseminate the results of AM efforts across DOD. As a 

result, DOD may not have the information it needs to leverage resources and lessons learned from AM efforts and thereby facilitate 

the adoption of the technology across DOD. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees no later 

than February 1, 2017. The report should include, but not be limited to: (1) details from each of the military services regarding their 

current AM efforts to include fiscal years 2016 and 2017 planned 

and completed demonstrations and prototyping efforts; (2) details 

regarding joint-development projects and efficiencies achieved 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
96 

through intra-service collaboration; (3) details regarding AM qualification and certification efforts for materials, processes and components; (4) a recommendation regarding the expanded use of Working Capital Funded pilot programs, potential changes to public-private partnerships within the defense industrial base, or any other 

potential changes in law that could enable DOD to better demonstrate and execute AM end use component fabrication. 

Addressing unacceptable conditions at al Udeid Air Base 

The committee remains concerned by reports that 

servicemembers have been exposed to unacceptable living conditions, including black mold, in latrines and living quarters at al 

Udeid Air Base in Qatar. 

The committee continues to believe that all servicemembers deserve safe and healthy living conditions. 

The committee understands that the Air Force is implementing 

a four-point plan to maintain, repair, renovate, and replace substandard facilities at al Udeid Air Base. The committee expects the 

Air Force to keep the committee updated on its efforts at al Udeid 

Air Base and to address any remaining problematic living conditions across United States Central Command, including at al 

Udeid, without delay. 

Advertising activities among the military service components 

The committee understands that as part of its efforts to meet 

yearly military recruitment goals, the Department of Defense 

(DOD) requested almost $575.0 million for fiscal year 2017. The 

committee notes that preliminary findings from the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) indicate that DOD has taken steps to 

coordinate some advertising activities among the military service 

components, but it has not developed a formal process for coordination and addressing inefficiencies to ensure information sharing 

among the services. The GAO found examples of possible unnecessary duplication, overlap, and fragmentation that may result from 

the absence of coordination. For example, the Air Force has three 

advertising programs that contract with three advertising agencies, 

but officials could not provide a rationale for requiring separate 

programs. 

The committee also notes that the GAO found the military service components vary in their ability to determine whether their activities are generating leads for potential recruits. For example, 

while the Marine Corps has developed a framework to assess the 

effectiveness of its advertising including leads generated from advertising activities at the local level, Army officials stated they do 

not have reliable data to evaluate whether locally executed advertising activities are generating leads, and the Army National 

Guard does not require state units to report on the performance of 

their advertising activities. The committee concurs with the GAO 

finding that without fully measuring advertising performance, especially at the local levels, DOD may be unable to ensure advertising dollars are used efficiently and effectively to help meet recruiting goals. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
97 

Additionally, the committee remains concerned that some military service components are paying sport teams to provide recognition ceremonies for service members—a practice later deemed unacceptable by DOD—suggest that the absence of DOD oversight 

may have contributed to some activities of questionable appropriateness. Without a Department-wide policy that clearly defines 

its oversight role, DOD lacks reasonable assurance that advertising 

is carried out in an effective and appropriate manner. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 

consultation with officials from the military service components 

and the Joint Advertising Market Research Studies office, to develop a formal process for coordination on crosscutting issues to facilitate more effective use of advertising resources. As part of this 

process, the Secretary shall review existing advertising programs to 

identify opportunities to reduce unnecessary duplication, overlap, 

and fragmentation and obtain potential efficiencies. The Secretary 

shall also clearly define DOD’s role in overseeing the advertising 

activities of military service components, clarify issues related to 

sports related advertising and marketing, and outline procedures 

that should guide the components’ advertising activities for other 

types of advertising, such as concerts or other event advertising 

and digital advertising. 

Additionally, the committee directs the secretaries of the military 

departments to review and ensure that each military service component fully measures advertising performance. This review shall 

include both the identification of measurable goals in advertising 

plans and contracts, and ensure that the military service components have access to the necessary performance data to determine 

the effectiveness of their advertising for lead generation activities. 

The above mentioned formal process and review should be prepared in a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 2017. 

Army Foundry Military Intelligence Program 

The committee urges the Army to use the Army Foundry Military Intelligence Training Program for maximum training effect. 

Army Regulation 350–32 states that ‘‘Foundry enables Army intelligence personnel to sustain intelligence skills pertinent to their 

unit’s mission, to improve their individual and collective technical 

and analytical skills, and to receive required accreditation and certification training to successfully execute intelligence missions in 

support of the unit’s mission.’’ The appropriated funds for this account are limited and intended to support this vital training of soldiers. 

The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to review and 

certify to Congress that Foundry Military Intelligence Training 

Program funds are being used for the purposes outlined in Army 

Regulation 350–32. The secretary’s report is to be sent to the committee within 180 days of the enactment of this bill. 

Army requirements for footwear technology 

The committee understands that the Army procures a wide range 

of footwear products that incorporate expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membrane technology. The committee further 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
98 

understands that Army product description documents, currently 

used in footwear Requests For Proposals seek to achieve a small 

set of capabilities that are subsequently addressed with 35-year-old 

ePTFE technology. 

The committee is aware that ePTFE technology, other new membrane technologies, and associated laminates have advanced significantly over the years and can address current Army requirements and future Army needs, while achieving enhanced and diverse sets of capabilities, comfort, and performance. 

Accordingly, 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 than December 15, 2016. 

This report shall provide a detailed review to include evaluation 

and testing outcomes, of new ePTFE membrane, laminates, and 

other membrane technologies that can meet current requirements 

and address a wider set of current and future Army footwear capability needs and objectives. In addition, this report shall also suggest potential revisions to current requirements and associated 

footwear product descriptions that could expand access to these 

new technology advancements. 

Assessment of Navy and Marine Corps training requirements 

The committee notes that the Navy and Marine Corps will continue to confront an increasingly complex security environment 

that will demand a wide range of missions, such as defeating terrorist organizations in the Middle East and responding to worldwide humanitarian crises. The committee understands that to meet 

these evolving challenges, the services have developed plans to synchronize training and deployment schedules to improve readiness 

and are reemphasizing training for core skills that degraded during 

a decade of counterinsurgency operations. 

The committee is concerned, however, that factors such as equipment availability due to maintenance delays and access to training 

ranges can affect the services’ ability to conduct training for their 

core capability areas. The committee is further concerned that the 

military services continue to face an environment of uncertain and 

constrained budgetary resources for the foreseeable future. 

The committee notes, for example, in fiscal year 2013, the Department of Defense’s operation and maintenance accounts, specifically those which fund the military services’ training programs, 

were reduced by approximately $20.0 billion under the spending 

caps agreed to in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112– 

25). Due to these reductions, the services curtailed some training 

or reduced the number of larger training exercises. 

The committee is aware that some targeted investments have 

been made since fiscal year 2013 to improve training readiness, but 

remains concerned about the Navy and Marine Corps’ ability to 

balance training investments with available resources. As a result, 

the committee believes the services will need to fundamentally reexamine the requirements for training their forces and explore 

whether they can achieve additional efficiencies or cost savings in 

their training approaches, such as by increasing reliance on virtual 

or simulator technologies to meet some training tasks. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
99 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate the extent to which the Navy and 

Marine Corps have: (1) processes that establish requirements and 

resource needs to train forces for core capability areas; (2) conducted training for core capability areas and identified any factors 

that limit this; and (3) integrated the use of virtual training to prepare forces for the full range of military operations. 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to brief the Senate Committee on Armed Services 

not later than February 15, 2017, on preliminary findings of the 

Comptroller General’s evaluation with a final report to be completed by April 1, 2017. 

Assessment on duplication and inefficiencies within the Defense Logistics Agency and United States Transportation Command 

The committee notes that the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) 

provides the military services with a full spectrum of logistics services, including the storage and distribution of consumable items, 

such as spare parts, fuel, and construction material, across the 

world. Additionally, DLA aims to position inventory to meet customer needs in a timely manner through its network of distribution 

warehouses while ensuring that the efficiency of its transportation 

network, which is also referred to as supply alignment. 

The committee also notes that the U.S. Transportation Command 

(TRANSCOM) provides air, land, and sea transportation for DOD 

and is the manager of the DOD Transportation System, which relies on military and commercial resources to support DOD’s transportation needs. In particular, TRANSCOM manages the Defense 

Transportation Coordination Initiative program, which is focused 

on improving the efficiency of transportation and distribution of 

freight through a commercial partnership with a world-class logistics provider. 

The committee believes that while DLA and TRANSCOM have 

different missions in support of the warfighter, there may be efficiencies that could be created reorganizing or consolidating the two 

agencies. Additionally, the committee is concerned that some of the 

functions that currently reside with either organization may be better suited for the service-level functions. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to direct an assessment of the Defense Logistics Agency and the United 

States Transportation Command conducted by an independent, 

non-governmental entity that has recognized credentials and expertise in business operations and military affairs appropriate for this 

assessment. The assessment should include but not be limited to: 

(1) DLA’s use of TRANSCOM’s Defense Transportation Coordination Initiative program; (2) DLA’s efforts to improve supply alignment and TRANSCOM’s role in DLA’s efforts; (3) DLA’s and 

TRANSCOM’s efforts to identify and implement transportation and 

distribution efficiencies; (4) the role of the individual services in the 

identified functions of DLA and TRANSCOM and whether there 

would be any efficiencies gained by moving any functions from DLA 

and TRANSCOM to the services; (5) identification of senior flag officer positions no longer required at DLA and TRANSCOM due to 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
100 

consolidation and delegation of functions; (6) recommendation regarding future need for TRANSCOM to remain a combatant command due to consolidation and delegation of functions; and (7) any 

other recommendations on ways that a reorganization, or consolidation of these entities could improve efficiencies including the 

shifting of any functions out of either organization back to the military services. 

The committee further directs that a briefing on preliminary 

findings be given to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than December 15, 

2016, with the final report to be delivered in conjunction with the 

annual budget submission for fiscal year 2018. 

Battery standardization plan 

The committee notes that in 2014, the Army conducted a study 

that determined the Army communications-electronics (CE) battery 

list had over 200 batteries on it and estimated the net gain would 

average five new batteries each year. The committee is aware that 

the Army is developing a formal requirement for battery modernization and interface standardization that seeks to standardize 

soldier-worn CE batteries down to six battery components. The 

committee understands this would be the foundation of an Army 

standard family of batteries. 

The committee remains supportive of the efforts of the Army and 

the other military services to improve soldier-worn CE batteries 

and increase combat capability. However, the committee is concerned that soldier-worn technology modernization should also 

maximize inventory efficiencies reducing logistical inefficiencies as 

CE and soldier-worn batteries continue to proliferate. The committee also believes this is an issue across all of the military services. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

provide a plan to the congressional defense committees no later 

than March 31, 2017 on: (1) How the Department of Defense (DOD) 

will develop formal requirements for battery modernization and 

interface standardization that seek to minimize the inventory of 

batteries and battery components; (2) Leveraging commercial innovation and products; (3) Using the products of research and development efforts in DOD, the Department of Energy, and the commercial sector; and (4) Working with DOD research and development programs to support efforts of standardization. 

Civil Air Patrol (CAP) 

The Committee notes the Air Force’s fiscal year 2017 budget request does not fully fund the CAP’s fiscal year 2017 requirement 

for $30.24 million in Operations and Maintenance, only funding at 

85 percent of the requirement. The committee is concerned this 

lack of funding will greatly degrade CAP’s ability to conduct state 

and local emergency response and counter-drug missions. Additionally, reduced funding may also adversely impact thousands of community youth programs and eliminate crucial aircraft and national 

communications upgrades. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Commander, Air Education 

and Training Command to submit a report and provide a briefing 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
101 

to this committee, no later than 180 days after the enactment of 

this Act, to present historical funding trends for the CAP, and assess the CAP’s current mission shortfalls due to funding gaps. 

Clarification of the Department of Defense’s authority to 

perform environmental response actions on other agency’s lands in the case of aircraft crashes 

The Committee notes that Section 2691 of title 10, United States 

Code, currently allows a military department to restore the lands 

of another federal agency damaged by an aircraft crash, when 

there is a pre-existing land use agreement with the other agency. 

Additionally, even absent such agreement, the 1986 law creating 

the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), 10 

U.S.C. 2700 et. seq., authorizes the Department of Defense (DOD) 

to perform environmental response actions at property under the 

jurisdiction of another federal agency if such property is contaminated by the crash of a DOD aircraft. 

Clarification on the importance of operation and maintenance savings 

The committee recognizes that, in addition to energy savings, the 

military services should consider funding sources for Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) to include energy and projectrelated operation and maintenance (O&M) savings, which are both 

equally permitted under the ESPC statute. Therefore, O&M savings should not be limited by the administration or an agency, and 

should be utilized to improve resiliency and achieve Federal energy 

reduction goals. 

Comprehensive review of the Army sustainable readiness 

model 

The committee notes that the Army is redesigning its process for 

generating forces with a goal of having units that are able to sustain a desired level of readiness over longer periods of time when 

not deployed on a given mission, called the sustainable readiness 

model (SRM). The committee understands that the SRM will rotate 

forces through a cycle of deployments over time, just as the Army 

did under the previous force generation concept, the Army force 

generation process (ARFORGEN). However, unlike ARFORGEN, 

the committee understands that SRM will have a tiered aspect that 

will ensure that some capabilities and unit types will be resourced 

to a higher readiness level than others. The committee notes that 

the Army’s objective is to have 66 percent of the active component 

force in a Category 1 or 2 ready status at any moment in time to 

rapidly respond to a major contingency, however, the Army has not 

yet determined exact readiness goals for the Army National Guard 

and Army Reserve. 

The Chief of Staff of the Army has directed that the SRM be implemented by fiscal year 2017. The committee is concerned that implementing SRM will require fundamental shifts in how the Army 

organizes, trains, equips, and manages the force. Among other 

things, the Army will need to ensure that a unit’s collective training events, command changes, and personnel rotations are well 

synchronized, and that units returning from deployment do not sufVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
102 

fer significant and abrupt personnel transfers that prevent them 

from redeploying on short notice to meet unforeseen demands. Over 

the next 12 months, the Army also will need to establish and codify 

the roles, responsibilities, and processes for coordinating these force 

management actions across the total Army, and for making the resource allocation decisions needed to implement SRM as the Army 

intends. 

To inform committee oversight of the Army’s plan to fundamentally restructure its force generation process, the committee directs 

the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a comprehensive review of the Army’s SRM force generation concept. The 

assessment that supports this review should compare and contrast 

SRM with ARFORGEN, including similarities and differences in 

the goals, objectives, resource requirements, and supporting force 

management processes. Additionally, the review shall provide the 

Comptroller General’s assessment on the Army’s goals, plans, and 

progress for implementing sustainable readiness, including: (1) The 

Army’s governance of the transition to and implementation of the 

SRM concept; (2) the readiness goals and resources required to sustain readiness; (3) potential changes to the Army’s processes for 

manning, equipping, and training forces in order to support Sustainable Readiness; and (4) any other aspects of the sustainable 

readiness concept the Comptroller General deems significant. 

The committee directs that the Comptroller General should provide a briefing of preliminary findings of the review to congressional defense committees by February 15, 2017, followed by one or 

more reports no later than April 1, 2017. 

Comptroller General review of emerging contaminants on 

military installations 

Defense operations at military bases often require the use of hazardous materials, including solvents and corrosives; fuels, paint 

strippers and thinners; metals such as lead, cadmium, and chromium; and unique military substances such as nerve agents and 

unexploded ordinance, the release of which has resulted in environmental contamination. One of the primary purposes of the Defense 

Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) is to help protect the 

life, health, and safety of military service members and their families by among other things, the ongoing process of detecting the 

discharge of environmental contaminants when they occur and the 

associated environmental remediation as needed. It is especially 

important to protect installation drinking water systems and supplies from contamination. 

A class of unregulated drinking water contaminants exists that 

either lack human health standards or have an evolving science 

and regulatory status, which raises questions about how this class 

of contaminants is tested for and managed on military installations, including whether the military services are being consistent 

in their approaches to this. The use and releases of these emerging 

contaminants raises concerns about the ability of the military services to ensure a safe and healthful work environment on or near 

installations. Such contaminants have been tested for and found 

from time to time on some installations. For example, the Department of Defense (DOD) has been testing for RDX, a white crysVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
103 

talline solid used in explosives and demolition blocks. Moreover, 

DOD has detected perchlorate in groundwater and drinking water 

samples taken at an installation whose missions included launching rockets. Once a release has been confirmed, environmental remediation activities may be needed to respond to the release, offer 

a structure for cleanup, and protect public health. 

A key concern of the committee is the need to ensure that DOD 

maintains installation mission capability and a safe and healthful 

environment on military installations. For this reason, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a review of DOD’s program to effectively manage emerging 

contaminants in sources of drinking water to protect readiness, 

people, and the environment. The Comptroller General is further 

directed to provide a report by April 10, 2017 or a briefing by that 

date with a final report as soon as practicable thereafter to the congressional defense committees. At a minimum, the study should 

answer the following questions: 

(1) To what extent have DoD and its components issued and 

effectively implemented guidance to ensure adequate control, 

detection and remediation in the event that emerging contaminants are released to the environment? 

(2) What is known about the effectiveness of DoD’s and its 

components’ programs to protect public health and the environment from emerging contaminants in such areas as installation 

drinking water systems and supplies? 

(3) Have the military departments adopted and implemented 

consistent policies and procedures? 

(4) To what extent are DoD and its service components using 

guidelines, policies, and advisories established by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and 

other federal agencies regarding emergent containments. What 

challenges do they face when interpreting and applying such 

resources? 

(5) What is the current status of drinking water infrastructure across military installations? 

Comptroller General review of F–22A global force posture 

The committee is concerned the proliferation of increasingly capable integrated air defense systems (IADS) by emerging and reemerging potential adversaries have created regions where fourthgeneration airborne systems likely cannot operate. Additionally, potential adversary air-to-air capabilities are rapidly approaching 

parity with, and in some cases, surpassing, the capabilities of U.S. 

and allied fourth generation fighter aircraft. 

Based on these factors, the committee is concerned the global 

force posture of America’s only currently fielded and fully operational fifth-generation fighter, the F–22A, may not be optimized to 

deter, and if necessary, quickly defeat any potential adversary hostile actions in a variety of regions around the globe. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting forth 

the results of a study conducted by the Comptroller General, with 

preliminary observations due no later than March 3, 2017 and a 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
104 

final report to follow. The review, assessment, and recommendations by the Comptroller General should include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Most efficient and combat effective F–22A squadron size 

in numbers of primary assigned aircraft and deployable unit 

type code packages; 

(2) Optimal ratio in the F–22A fleet of primary mission aircraft inventory to backup aircraft inventory and attrition reserve aircraft; 

(3) Consideration of small fleet size characteristics and constraints; 

(4) Optimal ratio of overseas versus continental United 

States (CONUS) stationed F–22A units; 

(5) Optimal locations for overseas regional and CONUS stationing of F–22A units to provide most effective presentation of 

fifth-generation airborne forces to regional combatant commanders; 

(6) Consideration of F–22A global force posture in anticipation of increased fielding of F–35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft; 

and 

(7) Other information such that the Comptroller General 

considers appropriate to include in the report. 

Cyber implementation at the combat training centers 

The committee recognizes and is strongly encouraged by the 

cyber training support to corps and below (CSCB) pilot program 

implemented through the cyber opposing forces support during 

every Joint Readiness Training Center and National Training Center rotation. The committee understands that the CSCB pilot prepares combat training centers (CTC) to execute cyberspace operations and is intended to inform Army-wide doctrine, organization, 

training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities development. The committee further understands that any future changes in the cyber force will be informed through the CSCB 

pilot, subsequent lessons learned, and the 2016 CTC Program Comprehensive Review, which will conduct an analysis for increased 

contested cyberspace activity at the CTCs. 

Cybersecurity guidelines for micro-grids 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 

congressional defense committees no later than March 30, 2017 on 

established cybersecurity guidelines for micro-grids and installation 

energy and utility systems. The guidelines should recognize that 

installation energy managers may not currently have the expertise 

to identify and mitigate cybersecurity threats and that cybersecurity managers tasked with maintaining the functionality of the 

electricity grid may not have the expertise to be able to provide solutions required to maintain the functionality of a micro-grid or installation. The report should be unclassified, but may contain a 

classified annex as deemed appropriate. 

Defense Logistics Agency overhead costs 

The committee notes the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) sources 

and provides nearly every consumable item used by our military 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
105 

forces worldwide. The committee also notes the Department of Defense (DOD) uses the defense-wide working capital fund to cover 

DOD’s costs for providing services and purchasing commodities 

under three DLA activity groups: supply chain management, energy management, and document services. The committee understands the defense-wide working capital fund is reimbursed 

through DLA’s sale of commodities and services to the military 

services and other customers, such as other federal agencies and 

foreign military sales. The committee further understands that 

DLA incorporates overhead costs into the reimbursement rates it 

charges its customers, which DLA uses to offset facilities 

sustainment, restoration, and modernization; transportation; storage, and other costs. 

The committee is interested in the potential for improving DLA’s 

overhead cost estimates, which could, in turn, contribute to more 

accurate budget estimates and potential savings. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate: (1) the nature and size of DLA activities financed by overhead costs reimbursed through the defensewide working capital fund; (2) how DLA calculates overhead costs 

for the commodities and services it manages through the defensewide working capital fund; (3) how DLA’s estimated overhead costs 

have compared to actual costs since fiscal year 2009, and factors 

that have contributed to any differences; and (4) the options, if any, 

DLA has considered in adjusting its approach to determining overhead costs in light of any differences between estimated and actual 

overhead costs. 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to brief the Senate Armed Services Committee not 

later than March 15, 2017, on preliminary findings of the evaluation with a final report to be due by June 30, 2017. 

Defining readiness and interoperability for commercial carriers 

The committee notes that the National Airlift Policy (NAP) was 

established to ensure that military and commercial air carrier resources are able to meet defense mobilization and deployment requirements. The committee further notes that section 5 of the NAP 

states, ‘‘Consistent with the requirement to maintain the proficiency and operational readiness of organic military airlift, the 

Department of Defense (DOD) shall establish appropriate levels for 

peacetime cargo airlift augmentation in order to promote the effectiveness of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) and provide training 

within the military airlift system.’’ The committee further notes 

that section 9517 of title 10, United States Code, states, ‘‘[I]t is the 

policy of the United States to maintain the readiness and interoperability of Civil Reserve Air Fleet carriers by providing appropriate levels of peacetime airlift augmentation to maintain networks and infrastructure, exercise the system, and interface effectively within the military airlift system.’’ 

The committee is concerned, however, that there is no clear definition of what constitutes ‘‘readiness’’ or ‘‘interoperability’’ in regard to commercial carriers. The committee understands that this 

has led to misunderstandings about how best to promote the effecVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
106 

tiveness of the CRAF and what constitutes training within the 

military airlift system. The committee also recognizes that the absence of definitions has resulted in different assessments of what 

level of commercial augmentation is sufficient to meet DOD’s readiness and interoperability requirements. The committee notes that 

according to DOD’s Report, as mandated by the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), commercial augmentation levels will remain well above the minimum 

required for readiness and interoperability for the foreseeable future. The committee believes, however, a definition of readiness 

and interoperability, with associated metrics, would help determine 

if the level of commercial augmentation is achieving the intent of 

the National Airlift Policy and title 10. The committee notes this 

will provide a more realistic assessment of the ability of commercial carriers to operate within the military airlift system. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

develop definitions of readiness and interoperability for CRAF and 

suitable metrics to determine that readiness and interoperability 

are achieved, to include an explanation of the weighting of ground 

based activities, as specified in the ‘‘Level of Readiness of CRAF 

Carriers’’, and engagements versus level of commercial aircraft activity at DOD aerial ports. In determining those definitions, the 

committee directs the Department to consult with its CRAF partners through its semi-annual meetings and other forums. 

Additionally, the committee directs the Department to include 

those definitions and metrics in the next ‘‘Level of Readiness of 

CRAF Carriers’’ report to Congress due concurrently with the submission of the President’s budget for fiscal year 2018. 

Demilitarization of conventional munitions 

The committee notes that at current funding levels, the stockpile 

of conventional munitions awaiting demilitarization is projected to 

grow from approximately 480,000 tons to more than 700,000 tons 

by 2021. 

The committee notes that in light of current budget constraints, 

coupled with an increased emphasis on training within all of the 

military services, destruction or sale of these munitions should be 

a last resort. The committee further notes that even though the 

stockpile awaiting to be demilitarized is growing, it is concerning 

that procurement of some munitions continues to rise. The committee believes that procedures for how these munitions are classified as suitable for use or that they must be demilitarized could 

lead to cost savings and increased military readiness. In addition, 

the Government Accountability Office noted in its 2016 annual report on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication that DOD could potentially reduce its storage, demilitarization, and disposal costs by 

hundreds of thousands of dollars by transferring excess serviceable 

conventional ammunition, including small arms ammunition, to 

federal, state, and local government agencies. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

submit an assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives no later than February 

1, 2017. The assessment shall include: (1) a review of the requirements for how excess munitions are utilized for operational or 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
107 

training purposes prior to being classified for demilitarization and 

any recommendations for how to improve this process to reduce 

both the stockpile and new procurement costs; (2) options for reducing risk, enhancing efficiency, and achieving cost reductions, such 

as maximizing the proximity of demilitarization operations to demilitarization asset storage locations in order to minimize cost and 

risk associated with transportation; and (3) a parallel timeline for 

how procurement of munitions and the demilitarization of munitions will continue until the stockpile is below 50,000 tons. 

The committee further encourages the Secretary to leverage expertise from industry and academia to advance affordable demilitarization technologies. 

Department of Defense transportation protective services 

The committee notes that as a result of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) review of the policies and procedures used by 

the Department of Defense (DOD) in the handling of hazardous 

material shipments, the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2015 directed U.S. Transportation Command 

(USTRANSCOM) to submit a report that examines the data limitations of the Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) Safety and Accountability Program and report on what changes, if any, should be made to the 

process used by DOD to determine hazardous material carrier eligibility and evaluate performance of carriers within the Transportation Protective Service (TPS). 

Accordingly, based on the GAO review and USTRANSCOM report, the committee directs the Commander of USTRANSCOM to 

provide a report to the Congressional Defense and Commerce Committees no later than November 1, 2016. The report should include 

a review and updates to the existing plan, as required, to ensure 

that USTRANSCOM has a comprehensive program that evaluates 

the safety of commercial carriers and their ability to move DOD 

hazardous TPS cargo. Additionally, the report should include 

USTRANSCOM’s strategy and timeline for developing and implementing ways to incentivize carrier safety performance. Finally, 

the committee encourages USTRANSCOM continue to coordinate 

with the Department of Transportation on proven safety technologies for inclusion in future requirements for carriers transporting the most sensitive or extremely dangerous cargo. 

Department of Defense weapon system sustainment strategy 

The committee notes that one of the Department of Defense’s 

(DOD) most pressing concerns continues to be the readiness of its 

weapon systems and the cost to sustain readiness. The Department 

spends billions of dollars each year to sustain its weapon systems. 

The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 directed a 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) review of the growth in 

operating and support costs of major weapon systems. The GAO 

found that the Department did not have key information to manage 

life-cycle costs. The committee believes that the development of a 

sustainment strategy that includes goals, performance measures, 

and key initiatives could help to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of sustaining DOD weapon systems. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
108 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

submit a report on the strategy for weapon system sustainment to 

the congressional defense committees in the House and Senate no 

later than January 2, 2017. The strategy should cover the entire 

logistics lifecycle from production through battlefield use, retrograde and organic repair or modification, or disposal. The strategy 

will include at a minimum the following elements: (1) key 

sustainment principles and their inclusion at every step of the acquisition processes; (2) product support; (3) supply chain integration; (4) asset visibility; (5) data rights; (6) software sustainment; 

(7) sustainment engineering; (8) private and public maintenance, 

repair, and overhaul; (9) nuclear sustainment; (10) war reserve material; (11) distribution; and (12) operational contracting. 

Department of Defense’s use of executive agents 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has various 

management approaches that it uses to improve efficiency in its 

programs and activities. For example, the committee is aware that 

the Secretary of Defense has designated executive agents across 

the Department to provide defined levels of support for operational 

missions, or administrative or other designated activities that involve two or more Department components. The committee is also 

aware that prior work by the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) found that the Department had opportunities to improve executive agent management efforts for foreign language support. 

The committee believes that given the Department’s use of executive agents for numerous programs and activities, additional opportunities may exist to gain further efficiencies in areas outside of 

the GAO’s previous review. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate the Department’s use of executive 

agents, to include an assessment of the following: (1) A description 

of the types of programs and activities for which DOD has established executive agents; (2) The Department’s use of executive 

agents to focus its resources in specific areas in order to maximize 

fragmentation, unnecessary overlap, or duplication; (3) The Department’s evaluation of the performance of its executive agents’ efforts 

for effectiveness and efficiency in meeting program needs; (4) Additional opportunities for the Department to gain further efficiencies 

in executive agent management efforts; (5) Identification of specific 

statutory, regulatory, practice, resource allocation, or cultural impediments to the most effective and efficient use of executive 

agents as a management practice by the Department; and (6) Identification of best practices in the use of executive agents. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General to brief the Senate Committee on Armed Services not later than March 15, 2017, 

on preliminary findings of the evaluation with a final report to follow by June 30, 2017. 

Development and procurement of combat personal protective equipment for different body types 

The committee believes the expanding role of women in combat 

positions provides an opportunity to improve the personal protective equipment (PPE), organizational clothing, and individual 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
109 

equipment (OCIE) for both male and female warfighters to ensure 

the best fit to gain a tactical advantage through increased maneuverability. The committee recognizes the advances made to date regarding weight reduction in PPE and OCIE, and further believes 

that the Department should continue to seek to take advantage of 

the best technology available to reduce PPE and OCIE weight for 

all servicemembers. 

The committee notes that the Department has often acquired individual equipment such as boots, helmets, combat clothing, and 

body armor for soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in a piecemeal manner. The committee encourages the services to consider 

appropriately addressing the unique needs of both male and female 

service members through a comprehensive acquisition strategy that 

seeks to improve OCIE and PPE through an integrated combat ensemble designed to meet validated operational requirements. 

The committee understands that on June 26, 2015, the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology provided guidance to the services to take immediate steps to ensure 

that combat equipment is properly designed and fitted for female 

servicemembers. The committee also understands that the services 

are conducting anthropometric studies on their male and female 

servicemembers that will help each service properly outfit and 

equip their respective servicemembers. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 

coordination with the service chiefs, to submit a report no later 

than February 1, 2017 to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives. The report shall include: 

(1) an acquisition strategy, by service branch, for the PPE and 

OCIE needs of both male and female service members; (2) the Department’s plan to provide improved PPE and OCIE developed for 

all service members to meet validated operational requirements; 

and (3) any plans for budgeting, development, and procurement of 

female-specific equipment needs, validated through the requirements process, including helmets, clothing, and body armor. The 

report may be classified, or for official use only, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary, but if classified should include an unclassified executive summary. 

Encouraging the use of the Innovative Readiness Training 

(IRT) program 

The committee is aware of the readiness challenges facing the 

Armed Forces due to the constraints put forth by sequestration. 

Additionally, the committee is aware of the Innovative Readiness 

Training (IRT) program, which contributes to military readiness 

and provides realistic training in a joint environment for National 

Guard, Reserve, and Active-Duty members, preparing them to 

serve during a national crisis at home or abroad. 

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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
110 

crises. The committee is also aware that states that utilize the IRT 

program include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, 

Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, 

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, 

North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Texas. 

The committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense to 

continue to fully utilize IRT programs that provide hands-on and 

mission-essential training and that are available to active, reserve 

and National Guard forces. 

Energy resiliency metrics 

The committee remains interested in the capability of the Department of Defense (DOD) to assign a value to energy resiliency 

and mission assurance for its installations. The committee believes 

that having appropriate energy resiliency and mission assurance 

metrics could enable DOD and installation commanders to document the value of energy security to better inform infrastructure 

investment decisions. The committee is concerned that the Department and the military services may not currently or consistently 

evaluate the impact of energy disruptions and outages on its facilities and installations. For example, current methods by which utility disruptions and outages are tracked and evaluated by DOD may 

not account for costs associated with loss of mission capability. The 

committee is also concerned that energy resiliency and mission assurance evaluations and planning may vary within each military 

service as well as across DOD. Additionally, a consistent valuation 

methodology could encourage industry to develop new business 

models and third party financing mechanisms to help DOD achieve 

greater energy resiliency and mission assurance on its installations. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees no later than March 

30, 2017 with established metrics to evaluate the costs, risks, and 

benefits associated with energy resiliency and mission assurance 

against energy supply disruptions on military facilities and installations. The metrics should take into account financial and operational costs and risks associated with sustained losses of power resulting from natural or man-made disasters or attacks that impact 

military installations. 

Enhanced transparency in Department of Defense fuel rate 

pricing 

The committee is encouraged that in response to concerns raised 

by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) the Department of 

Defense (DOD) has adjusted its methodology for determining the 

fiscal year 2017 fuel rate price by basing it on the Gas and Oil 

price index included in the Administration’s economic assumptions 

and incorporating relevant data on actual fuel prices prevailing 

during the most recent fiscal year. The committee notes that the 

GAO’s November 2015 report, however, highlighted the fact that 

the Department still had not fully documented its process for selecting a methodology for estimating its fuel rate pricing. In order 

to account for real-time changes in the world-wide fuel market, the 

committee believes the Department should retain reasonable flexiVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
111 

bility in determining and applying an appropriate methodology underlying the estimate of the next fiscal year’s fuel rate price. 

The committee remains concerned about the quality and transparency of information available to Congressional decision makers 

and Department fuel customers concerning the methodology selected each year and its application to relevant data used in estimating fuel rate prices for the next fiscal year. A well-documented 

methodology allows decision makers and other stakeholders to understand and evaluate the Department’s budget requests and make 

informed decisions concerning annual funding levels. The committee notes the Department’s budget justification materials for fiscal year 2017 do not specify the process by which the Department 

evaluated any methodological options for developing its fuel rate 

pricing. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit detailed guidance to the congressional defense committee no 

later than February 1, 2017 on how DOD will take steps to develop 

and implement a process for the annual review and selection and 

application of an appropriate methodology for estimating fuel rate 

prices for the next fiscal. The detailed guidance should also include 

the process for the identification of an appropriate methodology to 

assess the accuracy of estimated fuel rate prices as compared with 

actual fuel prices for the most recent fiscal year, and the establishment of a detailed process for the annual development of estimated 

fuel rates prices for the next fiscal year, to include requiring documentation of the rationale for using one methodology over another 

for estimating the next fiscal year’s fuel rate price, including the 

limitations and assumptions of underlying data and establishing a 

timeline for developing annual estimated fuel rate prices for the 

next fiscal year. 

Lastly, the committee will continue to monitor the Department’s 

efforts and may direct further action if the process for determining 

fuel pricing does not achieve greater transparency. 

Examination and recommendations regarding reimbursement process major range test base facilities 

The committee notes that major range test base facilities 

(MRTFBs) operate under the reimbursable research, development, 

test, and environment model of billing for direct costs of service, 

which is different than at typical operational training ranges. The 

committee further notes that the Test Resource Management Center of the Office of the Secretary of Defense recently reported to 

Congress that it has not identified problems with reimbursement 

procedures for units training at MRTFBs. The committee remains 

concerned that a number of optimal and potentially lower cost 

training opportunities are declined by operational training units 

due to the difficulty of locating funds to reimburse MRTFBs. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives no later than February 1, 2017. 

The report shall: (1) examine how the reimbursement process for 

the MRTFBs relate to operational unit payment procedures and (2) 

include any recommendations for legislative or administrative action to make it easier for operational units to comply with the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
112 

MRTFBs reimbursement process, including any recommendations 

specific to White Sands Missile Range, Utah Test and Training 

Range, Yuma Proving Ground, and Aberdeen Test Center. 

Expanding the number of younger cyber security professionals on Department of Defense contracts 

The committee is concerned that current labor category practices 

on Department of Defense (DOD) contracts may unnecessarily discriminate against younger cyber security professionals. These 

workers are often the best and brightest workers in the cyber security field but the committee has been informed that they are finding it increasingly difficult to be included on contractor teams to 

address DOD cyber security needs. This is because in many cases 

DOD procurement officials are requiring specific tenure requirements for the contracting workforce and younger workers do not 

have the years of experience required by these labor category requirements. 

While the Department rightly desires to have experienced scientists and engineers working on federal contracts, by not including or funding labor categories for students, interns, co-ops, and recent college graduates in the cyber security field it may be eliminating some of the most promising software developers from being 

considered for work on a DOD contract. The committee believes 

that Silicon Valley companies would not make such a mistake. Another possible strategy for the Department to pursue would be to 

forgo specific labor category requirements and write performance 

specifications that would allow contractors to bring together the 

best team that they see fit to address the cyber challenge. To inform the committee on the best path forward to address acquisition 

policy in these situations, the committee directs the Principal 

Cyber Advisor to the Secretary of Defense to assess current approaches to accessing the next generation of cyber professionals on 

DOD contracts and brief the committee on how labor categories are 

being used to contract for cyber security support, an identification 

of current best practices for cyber support acquisition, and any recommendations necessary to more adequately address the cyber security contracting workforce. 

Expansion of Surface Warfare Officer School basic division 

officer course 

The committee notes the strides that have been made in improving training for new surface warfare officers (SWO). From 2004 

until the establishment of the basic division officer course (BDOC) 

in 2012, newly commissioned SWOs reported to their first ships 

with little to no training. Once aboard their ships, ensigns completed on-the-job training and computer-based training to earn 

qualifications. 

The committee further notes that in contrast, other Navy unrestricted line communities provided and continue to provide new officers with initial training prior to reporting to their first command 

to achieve basic skills and proficiency (e.g., submariners attend the 

submarine officers basic course and nuclear training, aviators attend flight training, and SEALs attend Basic Underwater 

Demolitions/SEAL training). In 2012, the surface warfare commuVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
113 

nity launched the basic division officer course to provide an intensive, 8-week course of instruction designed to provide foundational 

classroom training to newly reported prospective SWOs. The committee notes that shiphandling training at BDOC is conducted exclusively on simulators. 

The committee commends the Navy on establishing SWOs 

BDOC, but believes more should be done. Yard patrol craft have 

been used at the U.S. Naval Academy for decades to teach navigation, seamanship, and shiphandling to midshipmen. Similar benefits, specifically tailored to the qualifications that new SWOs must 

attain, could be gained by relocating yard patrol craft to BDOC locations. These benefits provide fundamental skills in an at-sea 

training environment, including: shiphandling, navigation, radar 

operation, bridge resource management, seamanship, and maintenance. 

Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary of 

the Navy to consider reactivating and relocating three yard patrol 

craft from Annapolis, Maryland to the SWO School BDOC in Norfolk, Virginia and three yard patrol craft from Annapolis, Maryland 

to the BDOC in San Diego, California. 

Expeditionary equipment and forward operating bases 

The committee notes that the Base Camp Integration Lab (BOIL) 

at Fort Devens, Massachusetts provides the Army with an operational base camp to integrate and evaluate more effective technologies in power generation, shelter, energy management 

microgrids, and water reuse, which combine into a more effective 

forward operating base called the Force Provider Expeditionary 

(FPE) module. These combined BCIL improvements and FPE modules reduce forward operating base fuel consumption by more than 

50 percent. The committee believes that by reducing reliance on energy sources and becoming more efficient, the military services become more agile and effective in combat, which reduces the risk to 

servicemembers’ lives, frees up assets to conduct combat missions 

rather than provide security for resupply convoys, and ultimately 

saves taxpayer’s money. 

The committee recognizes and is very encouraged by the Army’s 

FPE modules, as well as similar efforts by the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Energy Office, which focuses on extending the operational 

reach of the Marine Air Ground Task Force. 

Additionally, the committee recognizes and is very encouraged by 

the Air Force’s Forward Operating Base of the Future located at 

the Basic Expeditionary Airmen Skills Training (BEAST) site—including Basic Expeditionary Airfield Resources (BEAR). The committee continues to believe that the Department of Defense has a 

critical requirement to leverage technologies that will enhance combat capability and may deliver energy efficient returns on investment. For example, one retrofitted zone of the BEAST site will reduce the energy footprint by 85 percent. Additionally, the medium 

shelters procured through the BEAR program reduce heat and air 

conditioning requirements by at least 35 percent. 

The committee understands that the Army has deployed FPE 

modules to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Africa in support of the Ebola 

response during Operation United Assistance. The committee is 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
114 

also encouraged by collaborative efforts that have occurred between 

the Army FPE and Air Force BEAR to share lessons learned. The 

committee notes that the Army currently has 232 FPE modules in 

its inventory, with 21 currently deployed to Iraq, seven in Afghanistan, one in Cameroon, and many others at prepositioned stocks 

around the globe. 

However, the committee is concerned that it appears more effective and efficient base camp technologies are not widely known assets across the military departments. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

prepare a report or briefing to the committee no later than February 1, 2017 detailing how the military services can broaden the 

use of FPE modules, BEAR, and Marine Corps expeditionary energy systems, including any plans to modify unit tables of equipment or programs of record to include FPE modules, BEAR, and 

Marine Corps expeditionary energy systems. 

Flame resistant uniforms 

The committee understands that the military services continue to 

evaluate emerging flame resistant technologies that may have the 

potential to provide a more cost-effective level of protection to a 

wider range of service members. The committee also understands 

that the Army and the Marine Corps have conducted a study to 

evaluate commercial flame resistant applications that could be 

more affordable, provide enhanced protective qualities, are more 

breathable, and are more durable when compared to current flame 

resistant uniforms. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army and 

the Commandant of the Marine Corps to provide an assessment to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives by February 1, 2017 that outlines developmental 

efforts to date, assesses technology readiness, and describes future 

efforts to appropriately resource and equip flame resistant protective postures for military personnel. Additionally, the committee 

strongly encourages both services to review and consider any necessary and appropriate updates to personal protective equipment 

requirements to include potentially equipping flame resistant protective postures based on the threat and operating environment. 

Foreign language training report 

The committee notes the importance of foreign language proficiency to ensure military readiness objectives are met by the numerous defense agencies and military services, including the intelligence community. The committee notes that in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), 

the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 

that identifies the capability gaps in advanced foreign language 

proficiency within the military services and other relevant U.S. federal government agencies that support Department of Defense and 

military operations. The committee notes that the Department has 

not met the mandated deadline for this report. 

To avoid possibly legislating on this matter without the Department’s input, the committee directs the Department to submit the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
115 

report as mandated in the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2016 as soon as possible. 

Impacts to the defense industrial base from carryover reductions 

The committee notes that depot maintenance carryover consists 

of funded orders that are not completed by the end of the fiscal 

year, which is frequently the result of the Department of Defense 

(DOD) receiving appropriations from Congress late in a fiscal year, 

often with not enough time to execute scheduled work. Cuts to carryover in the operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts have a 

disproportionately negative impact on production orders, systems, 

and the defense industrial base workforce. Reductions to carryover 

in O&M increase depot rates by reducing future workload and ultimately decreases the military services and customer buying power. 

In an era of unstable budget certainty and frequently late appropriations, having an appropriate amount of carryover on-hand can 

provide a continuous and effective means of production across fiscal 

years in the event of a continuing resolution. The committee notes 

that excessive carryover, as determined by specified service-range 

limits, should not be construed as appropriate carryover. Rather, 

appropriate carryover is the amount that falls between the high 

and low thresholds. 

The committee remains very concerned that indiscriminate cuts 

to carryover directly correlates to the loss of work at DOD depots, 

shipyards, and air logistics centers, which in turn negatively impacts units and the warfighter. 

At a time when readiness cannot afford to take unnecessary cuts, 

appropriation reductions to carryover in Army O&M within the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114–113) resulted in a plethora of negative operational impacts to warfighter 

readiness: (1) the loss of approximately 332,000 direct labor hours 

prevented the overhaul and repair of two M1 Abrams tanks, 24 

Stryker vehicles, 12 Paladin systems, 13 M777A2 medium howitzers, 24 M119A2 towed howitzers, seven M113 vehicles, 13 M88 recovery vehicles, over 2,000 individual and crew served weapons, approximately 3,000 gas masks, eight M9ACE earthmovers, and reduced combat vehicle evaluations prior to induction to depot maintenance at Anniston Army Depot and Pine Bluff Arsenal (for gas 

masks); (2) the loss of approximately 197,000 direct labor hours 

prevented the repair and overhaul of two MH–60H Special Operations aircraft, two UH–60 Blackhawk helicopters, and one AH– 

64D aircraft at Corpus Christi Army Depot; (3) the loss of approximately 164,000 direct labor hours prevented the inspection, repair, 

and overhaul of 42 systems, to include PATRIOT missile re-certifications and overhaul of PATRIOT sub-systems and 46 programs 

that support the repair of high mobility artillery rocket system and 

13 forklifts at Letterkenny Army Depot; and (4) the loss of approximately 504,000 direct labor hours prevented the inspection, repair, 

and overhaul of eight AN/TPQ–37 fire finder radar systems, three 

AN/TRC–70 tropospheric scatter microwave radio terminals, 20 

AN/TRC–190 line-of-sight multi-channel radio terminals, 154 AN/ 

ASM–146/147/189/190 Avionics and electronics shop vans, 145 

standard integrated command post system shelters, a variety of 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
116 

communications security equipment supporting strategic and tactical command environments, 12 strategic satellite communications 

terminals, and field support for the Guardrail system at 

Tobyhanna Army Depot. 

The result of the Consolidated Appropriations Act cuts to Army 

O&M for carryover meant that equipment that needed repairs to 

fill unit shortages did not occur for the following Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard units in North Carolina, Texas, 

Mississippi, Indiana, Hawaii, New York, Kentucky, Illinois, Louisiana, Oregon, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, California, 

Kansas, Georgia, Colorado, Washington, Germany, South Korea, 

Kuwait, and Southwest Asia. 

Additionally, a $24.0 million cut to Navy O&M in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 for carryover negatively impacted 

the operational readiness of our Marines by preventing the depot 

maintenance of: 18 MRAP CAT IIs, 7 M1A1 tanks, 226 .50 caliber 

machine guns, 2 medium tactical vehicle replacements, 11 scout 

sniper scopes, 2 mine clearing blades, 7 radios, 2 generators, 1 communication system, and 1 tactical water purification system at a 

cost of approximately 71,000 direct labor hours at Albany, Georgia 

and Barstow, California. These reductions also had the expected effect of reducing the depot workforce by 44 positions. 

Accordingly, the committee remains strongly against unnecessary 

carryover cuts to O&M accounts as they directly attribute to reduced workload for the defense industrial base and negatively impact warfighter readiness at a time where readiness should remain 

Congress’ top priority. 

Installation security 

The committee notes that in the 15 years since 9/11, the services 

have taken different approaches to vetting and screening individuals that require access to military installations. Despite insider 

events like those at the Washington Navy Yard and Fort Hood, the 

Department of Defense (DOD) and the services continue to work internally to develop and deploy credentialing and physical access 

control systems (PACS), while at the same time often using commercial systems that meet all stated requirements at little or no 

cost to the Department. In some instances, installations that have 

not contracted with commercial providers are not scanning credentials at all because internally developed DOD systems are not 

working properly, are still in development, and are very expensive 

to deploy by the services and to maintain by base commanders. 

Today, there are dozens of military installations that are not scanning credentials, leaving these facilities vulnerable to a range of 

risks. This situation is indefensible especially when the services 

have years of experience successfully using commercial 

credentialing and PACS systems. The Army’s current plan for its 

Automated Installation Entry (AIE II+) PACS system would have 

full deployment at Army garrisons by 2022—21 years post 9/11. By 

contrast the U.S. Coast Guard has already deployed a commercial 

enterprise based credentialing and PACS system at 12 stations 

with each installation taking less than 5 weeks. The committee 

strongly believes the Secretary of Defense and the services need to 

update DOD policy and guidance concerning internally developed 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
117 

credentialing and PACS efforts to ensure that commercial systems 

are being utilized to the fullest extent possible. 

Item unique identification implementation and verification 

The committee continues to monitor the Department of Defense’s 

(DOD) strategy for improving asset tracking and in-transit visibility. The committee supports the Department’s goal of enhancing 

asset visibility through item unique identification (IUID), automatic identification technology (AIT), and automatic identification 

and data capture (AIDC) processes. However, the committee remains concerned with the Department’s level of compliance with its 

own policy. Specifically, the committee remains concerned that 

DOD continues to lack a plan and timeline to adopt, implement, 

and verify its revised policy IUID, AIT, and AIDC across the Department and the defense industrial base. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than November 1, 

2016 on its new policies, timelines, procedures, staff training, and 

equipment 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. 

Joint-Military Service approach to prepositioning 

The committee notes that in section 321 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66), Congress directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to submit to the 

congressional defense committees a plan for implementing a 

prepositioning strategic policy that establishes a coordinated jointmilitary service approach for DOD’s prepositioned stock programs, 

in order to maximize efficiencies across the department, not later 

than 120 days after the date of the Act—that is, by April 24, 2014. 

However, DOD has not yet developed the required strategy or implementation plan, as directed; instead, DOD has informed the 

committees that it would develop Department-wide guidance in the 

form of a DOD directive for managing DOD’s prepositioned stock 

programs before developing an implementation plan, which it 

would submit within 120 days after the DOD directive had been 

approved. However, DOD has not identified a timeline for completing the directive and meeting the requirements of section 321 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. 

As early as May 2011, GAO recommended that DOD develop a 

department-wide strategy on prepositioned stocks and that it 

strengthen joint oversight of its prepositioned stock programs to integrate and synchronize at a DOD-wide level the services’ 

prepositioned stock programs, in order to maximize efficiency in 

managing prepositioning across the department and to reduce potentially unnecessary duplication. 

The committee remains concerned about DOD’s lack of progress 

in developing a prepositioned stock strategy and implementation 

plan. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
118 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

submit to the congressional defense committees no later than September 1, 2016 a timeline by which it will complete the Department-wide directive and implementation plan, and to include in the 

timeline the major steps DOD plans to take in implementing the 

plan, with target dates for accomplishing each of them that can be 

used to monitor progress and report results. 

Modernization of emergency power generation 

The committee notes that the emergency power generation systems frequently used in Army National Guard armories can be 

plagued by unreliable operation in addition to high operation and 

maintenance costs. The committee notes that the Army has plans 

and programs in place to address the operational requirements, 

technological opportunities, and industrial base challenges associated with the strategic goal of a net zero energy, water, and waste 

policy. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees no later than March 

1, 2017 with a comprehensive strategy, including a development 

and implementation plan, that replaces or improves emergency 

power generation readiness, reduces system maintenance, and improves fuel flexibility to ensure the sustainability of all Department 

emergency power generation systems in operation. 

National Test and Training Range Improvements 

The committee is aware of the critical role our national assets of 

test and training ranges play in providing full-spectrum readiness 

critical for all of our Services, and large live training exercises as 

one of the key components to this training. 

National test and training ranges such as the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC), Pacific Missile Range Facility, Nevada 

Test and Training Range (NTTR), Utah Test and Training Range 

(UTTR), China Lake Complex, White Sands Missile Range 

(WSMR), the National Training Center (NTC), Eglin Gulf Test and 

Training Range (EGTTR), as well as other United States-based 

ranges, are critical to hosting realistic service, joint, and coalition 

large force training exercises such as RED FLAG, RED FLAG– 

Alaska, Northern Edge, Army Network Integration Evaluation, and 

other large force training exercises. The committee also recognizes 

the need for secure and modem range complexes to host coalition 

and international partner training exercises. 

Additionally, the committee recognizes the critical importance of 

expansive and tactically relevant training ranges that contain high 

fidelity air-to-air, surface-to-air, surface-to-surface, subsurface, and 

command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and cyber assets to simulate anticipated 

threat environments for the coming decades. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Service Secretaries, to develop a strategic plan 

for identifying requirements and priorities, resourcing for national 

test and training range infrastructure improvements and addressing encroachment mitigation. The Committee directs the Secretary 

to provide both a written plan and briefing to the congressional deVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
119 

fense committees no later than 180 days following the enactment 

of this Act. 

New Hampshire water contamination 

As the committee noted in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Report (114–29), the Air Force in coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES), 

and the City of Portsmouth—discovered the presence of 

perfluorochemicals (PFCs) in the Haven Well in Portsmouth, New 

Hampshire. On August 3, 2015, the EPA issued a final order directing the Air Force to clean up the contamination at the Haven 

Well. According to the order, the Air Force has caused or contributed to the presence of the chemicals in the well in Portsmouth due 

to the Air Force’s use of fire-fighting foam at the former Pease Air 

Force Base. 

Research has associated exposure to these chemicals to adverse 

health effects including but not limited to increased cholesterol, increased blood pressure, liver damage and possibly cancer. Portsmouth residents who believe they were at risk of exposure have requested tests to check their blood serum levels of PFCs. 

The PFC contamination detected at the Haven Well has also 

been detected at the Harrison and Smith wells. The Air Force has 

committed to using the best available technology to treat the water 

at the wells and return it to safe drinking water levels. 

While unrelated to the contamination at Pease, the committee 

notes that an increasing number of communities across New 

Hampshire have reportedly identified the presence of 

perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and that potential health effects of 

using water contaminated by PFOA remain unknown. According to 

reports, levels of PFOA have been detected in the public and private water supplies in the communities of Merrimack, Litchfield, 

Bedford, Londonderry, and Dover. Public and private wells in these 

communities are being tested by the NHDES. The EPA has identified PFOA as an ‘‘emerging contaminant’’ and in 2009, the Agency 

issued a provisional health advisory for drinking water of 400 ppt 

for PFOA. 

The committee believes the Air Force should work collaboratively 

with NHDES and EPA to share lessons learned from Haven Well. 

No later than September 1, 2016, the Air Force should provide the 

committee with: (1) an update on the Haven well cleanup; (2) an 

update on the Air Force’s efforts to identify and notify all affected 

or impacted by the contamination; (3) an assessment of the Air 

Force’s role, if any, in the new contaminations; and (4) a summary 

of the Air Force’s support, where appropriate, for NHDES and the 

EPA with respect to the latest contaminations. 

Objective training readiness reporting 

The committee is aware that some of the military services have 

efforts underway to establish objective and uniform standards to 

measure the training readiness of military forces. The committee 

notes, for example, that the Army is standardizing lists of mission 

essential tasks for like units below the brigade level and developing 

objective evaluation criteria that commanders will use to evaluate 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
120 

unit training against these critical tasks. The committee further 

notes that according to Army senior leadership, these initiatives 

will facilitate accurate and uniform readiness evaluations and enable the service to make risk-informed resourcing and force allocation decisions. 

The committee notes that these initiatives to more objectively 

evaluate training readiness may continue the practice of giving 

commanders the flexibility to subjectively upgrade or downgrade 

the overall readiness of their units in certain circumstances based 

on the commander’s judgement in light of a mission analysis, 

among other factors. While recognizing that commanders may require some degree of flexibility in assessing their units’ training 

readiness based on subjective factors, the committee stresses the 

importance of accurate readiness reporting and encourages all of 

the military services to define objective and uniform standards to 

assess training readiness. 

Accordingly, the committee further encourages the military services to limit the use of subjective readiness upgrades, which could 

mask the department’s progress transitioning from a force trained 

to conduct counterinsurgency operations to one trained for a broader range of military operations. The committee will continue to 

monitor the military services’ development of objective and uniform 

standards to evaluate training readiness and may direct further action, including limiting the use of subjective upgrades, if these 

standards are not fully utilized in readiness reporting. 

Physical security of sensitive conventional ammunition 

items at Department of Defense and contractor locations 

The committee notes that Security Risk Category I (SRCI) ammunition items, including certain man-portable missiles and rockets, are extremely lethal and a potential threat if they were to be 

used by unauthorized individuals or groups. To help protect these 

items and minimize the risk of loss or theft, it is critical that the 

Department of Defense (DOD) have strong physical security measures at DOD and contractor locations. 

The committee notes that the Government Accountability Office’s 

February 2015 report on SRCI ammunition items found that enhanced policy and procedures are needed to improve management 

of sensitive conventional ammunition, specifically the timeliness, 

completeness, and accuracy of information to maintain full accountability and visibility of SRCI ammunition items. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate the extent to which: (1) DOD and the 

military services, in accordance with policies and procedures, have 

established and maintained physical security measures at DOD 

and contractor locations, and (2) these identified physical security 

measures differ between selected DOD depots and retail locations, 

as well as at selected contractor locations. 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General to brief 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives no later than March 30, 2017, on preliminary findings of the Comptroller General’s evaluation with a report to follow 

no later than June 1, 2017. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
121 

Public shipyard funding and capital investment to support 

defense operations 

The committee notes that ongoing operational demands for Navy 

ships remain high and continue to increase, with some key current 

demands going unmet. The committee recognizes that the Navy is 

working to maximize the operational availability of the existing 

fleet and rebuild its warfighting readiness after more than a decade of continued deployments. The Navy has identified shipyard 

performance—namely the ability to complete maintenance availabilities on time—as one of the key risks to its plans to maximize 

the availability of the fleet. 

The committee notes that any delay in completing a maintenance 

availability results in lost operational days for Navy ships, which 

in turn compresses time available for training and reduces ships’ 

operational availability to combatant commanders. Maintenance 

delays also can lead to unsustainable risk mitigation strategies 

such as deferring maintenance and extending deployments which 

can jeopardize reaching ships’ service lives and retention of the 

force. 

In the late 1990s, the Navy converted its shipyards from financing under the Navy Working Capital Fund to funding through direct appropriations, referred to as ‘‘mission funding’’. In 2010, the 

Government Accountability Office found that the Navy had experienced unfunded shore readiness that contributed to growth in the 

backlog of capital investments at the shipyards and noted that the 

average age of facilities and drydocks was 61 and 81 years old, respectively. The ability of the shipyards to meet their mission— 

keeping the fleet operational—depends on maintaining the shipyards’ infrastructure and equipment, and to do this the Navy and 

the committee need an accurate picture of whether the Navy has 

the means to accomplish this so the committee can best exercise 

oversight and make knowledgeable funding decisions. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to evaluate: (1) the impact, if any, the change 

from working capital funding to mission funding has had on shipyard capital investment and performance and (2) the extent, if any, 

the Navy’s shipyard planning has addressed its restoration and 

modernization needs to support operational readiness. The Comptroller General may also include other related matters as deemed 

appropriate. 

The committee further directs the Comptroller General to brief 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives no later than March 30, 2017, on preliminary findings of the Comptroller General’s evaluation with a report to follow 

by May 15, 2017. 

Rebuilding readiness 

The committee notes that due to the consistent high pace of operations coupled with significant downsizing of some of the military 

services, the past decade has witnessed a disturbing decline in 

readiness. The Department of Defense (DOD) has stated that rebuilding readiness is one of its overarching priorities and submitted 

to Congress plans for readiness recovery last year. However, preliminary work from the Government Accountability Office evaluVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
122 

ating DOD’s efforts to rebuild readiness shows that DOD lacks 

comprehensive readiness goals or a strategy for achieving those 

goals. 

Therefore, the committee has grown increasingly concerned about 

the state of military readiness and whether DOD has a viable plan 

for rebuilding it. To inform its oversight, the committee directs 

DOD to submit a detailed plan to the congressional defense committees for rebuilding readiness by September 30, 2016. DOD’s 

plan should, at a minimum, include: comprehensive readiness goals 

and a strategy for achieving the goals; metrics for measuring 

progress at specific milestones; identification of external factors 

that may impact recovery plans and potential mitigations; and 

plans for Department-level oversight of service readiness recovery 

plans including methods for evaluating the effectiveness of readiness recovery efforts. The committee further directs the Comptroller General of the United States to evaluate DOD’s plan for rebuilding readiness and provide a briefing to the Committees on 

Armed Services by February 1, 2017 on any preliminary findings 

with a report to the congressional defense committees to follow no 

later than May 1, 2017. 

In evaluating DOD’s readiness recovery plan, the Comptroller 

General should consider the extent to which DOD’s plan addresses 

the root causes of degraded readiness; and he may, at his discretion 

and in consultation with the committee, provide additional reports 

that address these root cause issues in more detail. Specifically, he 

should consider doing a detailed evaluation of different options for 

approaching readiness and the consequences of each option. In the 

past, DOD has varied its approach to the way it collects and reports readiness—applying uniform policies and practices across 

DOD in some cases, while providing the military services and combatant commands wide latitude and flexibility in other cases. 

Additionally, DOD has varied: the way it applied plans and scenarios to determine force structure and readiness requirements and 

the way it has managed personnel tempo in mobilizing and deploying its forces. The different approaches to these, and other, areas 

can directly affect: readiness requirements, the levels of readiness 

that are reported, the resultant readiness gaps that need to be 

filled, and ultimately the funding requirements for the weapons 

systems, maintenance, personnel, and training that are needed to 

rebuild readiness. 

Report on equipment purchased under sole source contracts 

The committee notes that it is important for the Department of 

Defense (DOD) to utilize competition when procuring services and 

equipment. The committee further notes that increased competition 

provides DOD the opportunity to obtain lower prices, better technology, and the ability to review the marketplace should there be 

a need for multiple sources. Finally, the committee notes the dangers of utilizing sole source contracts when due diligence was not 

done to assess alternatives in the marketplace. 

The committee is concerned that too often DOD has used sole 

source contracts thus limiting competition from potential suppliers. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
123 

and the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 2017. The 

report should include a list of each contract awarded by the DOD 

during fiscal years 2011 through 2015 using procedures other than 

competitive procedures or cases where solicitations resulted in only 

one responsive bidder for the procurement of equipment, weapons, 

weapon systems, components, subcomponents, or end-items with a 

contract value equal to or greater than $3.0 million. The report 

shall include for each product listed: (1) an identification of the 

items purchased under the contract; (2) the rationale for using an 

exception or waiver to award the contracts using procedures other 

than competitive procedures; and (3) a list of potential alternative 

manufacturing sources from the public and private sector that 

could be developed to establish competition for those items. 

Report on M240 Sustainment and the small arms industrial 

base 

The committee appreciates the recent report regarding 

sustainment of the industrial base for the M240. The committee, 

however has concerns that the industry was not consulted in the 

preparation of the sustainment plan. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to provide a report 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of 

Representatives no later than September 30, 2016. With input from 

industry, the report should include: (1) the Army’s sustainment 

plan for the M240 to include an assessment of the necessity of establishing an M240 recapitalization program. If a recapitalization 

plan is necessary, the timeline and strategy for establishing such 

a program should be included; and (2) the Army’s plans to ensure 

the health of the domestic small arms industrial base, including 

both original and spare parts manufacturers. 

Report on non-combat training requirements for Army, 

Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps servicemembers 

The committee notes the important training servicemembers participate in for both combat and non-combat activities. The committee believes that both types of training are important to develop 

and maintain not only a lethal, fighting force but also a responsible 

and professional one. The committee is concerned, however, that at 

times some non-combat training may be duplicative and take time 

away from what could be used for critical combat training. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 

consultation with the service secretaries, to submit a report to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives no later than November 1, 2016. The report shall 

include non-combat related training requirements for all components with: 1) A list and description of all non-combat training requirements, divided by each service, to include designation for 

training that must remain current or is required for pre-deployment; 2) A description of the method required for accomplishing the 

training; 3) A description of the average amount of time required 

to complete the training, including the time spent enforcing the 

training requirements and the required time spent on instructor 

training, if required; 4) The number of times the training is reVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00159 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
124 

quired and the duration of time that the training is valid; 5) A description of the applicability of the individual training to the 

servicemember’s primary job performance; 6) A description of the 

total amount of time a servicemember is required to complete the 

non-combat training requirements; and 7) An identification and description of any negative impact to primary job performance that 

is a result of the non-combat training requirements. 

The report shall include recommendations for any non-combat 

training that the Secretary of Defense believes should be eliminated. The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may 

include a classified annex if required. 

Report on reset and sustainment of material handling 

equipment 

The committee notes the continued efforts of the military logistics community to provide vital resources for the warfighter. However, the committee is concerned by the lack of a comprehensive 

and appropriately resourced sustainment strategy for Material 

Handling Equipment (MHE) and RT240 Rough Terrain Container 

Handlers (RTCH), despite the Army’s inventory of roughly 1 million International Standards Organization, or ISO, containers in 

Southwest Asia. 

The committee believes that the incorporation of state-of-the-art 

systems that enhance logistical through-put and provide greater 

item unique identification and in-transit visibility of assets should 

be considered with the goal of increasing efficiency and reducing 

fuel requirements. The committee is concerned that if left without 

an overarching strategy, expeditionary logistics equipment like the 

RTCH will continue to deteriorate with age. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

provide an assessment no later than February 1, 2017. This assessment should include: (1) an inventory of all RTCH (RT240 and 

DV43), to include the number over 10 years old, and numbers nonmission capable; (2) the readiness rates of these systems and any 

known block obsolescence issues; (3) any divestment plans of obsolete RTCH equipment within the future years defense program; (4) 

a comprehensive and appropriately resourced sustainment strategy, beginning in fiscal year 2017, to prevent future capability 

gaps. 

Requirements model for restoration and modernization 

funds at Department of Defense installations 

The committee remains concerned that fiscal constraints as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 have unnecessarily hampered vital investments in restoration and modernization (R&M) 

accounts. Deferred work and existing backlogs of R&M exacerbate 

the conditions of our installations, which increases risk to the 

Armed Forces’ ability to accomplish their missions, meet quality of 

life standards, and compounds long-term costs. 

Accordingly, the committees directs the Secretary of Defense to 

develop a model of requirements for R&M funds and provide the 

congressional defense committees with an initial model to be delivered in conjunction with the budget submission for fiscal year 2018. 

The R&M model should address both vertical and horizontal infraVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
125 

structure and include age of facilities, miles of roads, miles of utilities, and acreage in addition to any other appropriate considerations determined by the Secretary. The R&M model should not 

rely on prior year funding levels to estimate future requirements. 

Additionally, the Secretary should pilot the use of the initial model 

in fiscal years 2017 and 2018, request feedback from installations 

in each of the services on the accuracy and sufficiency of the model 

to reflect the diverse needs of all installations, and refine the R&M 

model as necessary. Lastly, once the R&M model is complete, the 

Secretary shall submit a written plan to the congressional defense 

committees detailing how the Department will use the model for 

funding R&M requirements. The plan should include how each 

military service will resource the personnel for carrying out the 

modeled requirements including, but not limited to, contract officer 

staffing to ensure timely use of the funding provided. 

Resiliency through improved utilization of CHP and WHP 

The committee strongly supports the U.S. Army’s Energy Security & Sustainability strategy and the use of heat recovery technologies, such as combined heat and power (CHP) and waste heat 

to power (WHP), to improve its current and future capabilities and 

enhance mission effectiveness. CHP and WHP technologies help 

make critical infrastructure more resilient, and—when interconnected with energy storage systems or onsite renewable generation assets, through micro-grid and smart grid technologies—can 

provide standby power during grid outages. 

To reduce risks posed by a vulnerable energy grid, and in accordance with Executive Orders 13624 (‘‘Accelerating Investment in Industrial Energy Efficiency’’) and 13693 (’’Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade’’), the committee encourages the Department of Defense (DOD) to expand deployment of CHP and 

WHP on military property. The committee also directs the DOD to 

convene a forum to identify ways to encourage further use of these 

technologies on military bases to better enhance mission assurance 

and to leverage the use of existing and new renewable energy generation investments. 

Review of Navy Coastal Riverine Forces 

The committee notes that the Navy’s Coastal Riverine Force operates in harbors, rivers, bays, across the littorals and ashore, conducting maritime security operations ranging from defending high 

value assets and critical maritime infrastructure to conducting offensive combat operations. The committee understands that in 

2012, the Navy merged Riverine Forces and Maritime Expeditionary Security Forces to form the Coastal Riverine Force. The 

committee further understands that the Coastal Riverine Force is 

organized into 2 Groups with 7 Squadrons—3 homeported on the 

west coast and 4 homeported on the east coast—operating more 

than 100 boats, from 25-foot patrol boats to the new 85-foot Mark 

VI patrol boat. Coastal Riverine Force units have deployed worldwide in recent years to Korea, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Egypt 

among other locations. 

The committee notes that in January 2016, U.S. sailors aboard 

two U.S. riverine patrol craft were detained by Iran’s Revolutionary 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
126 

Guard. Footage of the incident aired widely in the media. According to news reports, a subsequent Navy investigation found that 

several factors may have contributed to the vessels’ capture including mechanical problems with one boat’s diesel engines and satellite communications gear, and parts shortages, among others. The 

committee is interested in understanding the factors that contributed to the detention of these sailors, in particular the material 

condition of the boats and equipment, and steps taken to prevent 

such incidents in the future. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of 

the United States to undertake a comprehensive review of the 

readiness of the Navy’s coastal riverine force and to provide a briefing on preliminary observations by February 1, 2017 with a report 

to follow to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives to address the following elements: (1) 

what are the current and historical readiness status of the Navy’s 

coastal riverine units including any trends in reported readiness in 

personnel, material condition of vessels, maintenance, and training 

and any major areas of deficiencies?; (2) what impact, if any, do the 

above identified deficiencies have on maintaining needed 

warfighting capabilities?; (3) to what extent have actions been 

taken by the Navy to address the above identified deficiencies including the development of any further plans and identification of 

resource needs to address them?; and (4) any other related matters 

as deemed appropriate by the Comptroller General. 

Software-based foreign language training and sustainment 

The committee understands that foreign language training, including the sustainment of foreign language competencies, is an 

important component of training for many service members and 

Department of Defense (DOD) civilians. 

The committee expects DOD to continue to identify best practices, including for United States Special Operations Command and 

defense-related intelligence activities, that exploit emerging technology to more effectively integrate software-based training with 

human instruction to deliver efficient language training and 

sustainment. 

As foreign language training best practices are identified, the 

committee encourages DOD to explore opportunities to make software-based foreign language training and sustainment available to 

service members and DOD civilians at the lowest possible overall 

cost to minimize capability gaps. 

Study on power storage capacity requirement 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 

congressional defense committees no later than March 30, 2017 on 

the costs and benefits associated with requiring 25 percent of National Guard and Reserve facilities to have at least a 21-day onsite power storage capacity to assist with providing support to civil 

authorities in case of manmade or natural disasters. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
127 

Synthetic and simulation training to enhance small arms 

weapons skills and combat readiness 

The committee recognizes that synthetic training systems can enhance small arms weapons skills training effectiveness for U.S. 

military personnel, while reducing direct and indirect training time 

and costs. The committee is aware that by leveraging software capabilities, these systems can demonstrate that collection and analysis of trainee performance data can accelerate warfighter training 

results, while providing resource programmers the ability to assess 

program fidelity and ensure effective test and evaluation metrics 

are implemented to achieve successful, cost-wise weapons training 

results, including live fire proficiency. 

For example, the committee is aware that synthetic small arms 

training systems utilized by Navy commands, including Navy Expeditionary Combat Command and Naval Special Warfare Command, and at U.S. Army and joint training sites, including the 

Joint Multi-National Training Center under U.S. Army (Europe), 

can leverage data collection and metric analysis to improve training efficiency and ensure training effectiveness transfers to live fire 

qualifications and skills sustainment. This capability could allow 

commanders to maintain and track individual and squad-level 

training records, provide trend analysis and forecast models to reduce training time and accurately determine live fire transfer readiness, enable customization to train to multiple proficiency levels 

and hone training as threats evolve, and demonstrate clear and repeated live fire transfer proficiency. 

As investments are made in small arms simulator training systems to meet warfighter operational objectives and force protection 

requirements, the committee strongly encourages all military departments, schools, and commands to appropriately adopt more advanced, innovative small arms weapons and crew served training 

systems, such as those described above, that are capable of demonstrating consistent and successful live fire transfer and combat 

readiness in cost efficient and time effective manner. 

Additionally, the committee supports the Department of Defense’s continued expansion of the full range of simulation training 

as a cost-effective means by which military units can improve tactical decision-making skills through training in realistic scenarios 

otherwise only found in combat operations. The committee strongly 

encourages the Department to continue to ensure the most efficient 

and effective training programs are available through a combination of both government-owned and operated simulators, as well as 

simulation support from a dedicated commercial activity capable of 

providing appropriate hardware and software updates. 

Third party financed energy projects 

Department of Defense (DOD) installations serve as platforms 

from which military forces employ and are critical to joint military 

operations around the world. The committee continues to be strongly supportive of the DOD’s efforts to enter into third party financed 

power purchase agreements (PPAs), which improve combat capability and provide energy resiliency for the military services along 

with the appropriate stewardship of taxpayer funding. Projects developed using PPAs and third party financing have little to no upVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
128 

front cost to DOD, and the committee supports the adage that any 

project that saves money is money that can otherwise be spent on 

training and readiness. 

The committee recognizes and strongly encourages DOD to pursue PPAs that provide electricity to installations at below market 

rates for 25–30 years with the capability for islanded operations, 

ensuring the appropriate inverter functionality is included in the 

PPA agreement. When possible, the committee also encourages the 

inclusion of micro-grids for critical assets that enable a more flexible allocation of power on the installation which can also improve 

resiliency and mission assurance. 

For example, the committee notes that in Georgia, the Marine 

Corps is using a third party financed energy savings performance 

contract (ESPC) to generate enough renewable Electricity on base, 

through a biomass steam turbine generator, to support all of Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany’s electrical needs. Additionally, 

the ESPC will include other energy conservation measures such as 

light emitting diode lighting, boiler retrofits, and a smart grid to 

allow for automated load shedding, fault location and isolation, and 

utility islanding in the event of a grid outage at Albany. The committee recognizes and is supportive of the efforts at Marine Corps 

Logistics Base Albany to maximize the use of resilient energy to 

achieve net-zero installation status and greater energy security in 

their mission to support Marine Corps units and the defense industrial base. 

Additionally, the committee recognizes and is strongly supportive 

of the Air Force’s Office of Energy Assurance and its plans to design cost-competitive energy projects to enhance resiliency and notably, has successfully reduced energy intensity across installations 

by over 24 percent since 2013, despite utility prices increasing 29 

percent since 2003. The committee also recognizes and is supportive of the micro-grid deployed to the Hawaii Air National 

Guard Wing to increase energy security for its F–22 alert aircraft. 

Additionally, the Air Force is developing a 19 megawatt photovoltaic array at Nellis Air Force Base, in addition to a 14 megawatt 

array that started producing power in 2007. The project enables 

Nellis with a substation and feeder line that insulates the base and 

allows continuous operations should the local power grid go down. 

Lastly, natural gas peaking plants at Tinker Air Force Base and 

Warner Robins Air Force Base can be islanded and provide the 

base with energy security during grid outages. 

For the Army, the committee is strongly encouraged by and supportive of the Army’s largest single renewable energy project to 

date at Fort Hood, Texas. The project is expected to save the Army 

at least $168.0 million over the course of the contract, which is a 

solar and wind project that will have a capacity of 65 megawatts 

and will be micro-grid capable to enhance energy security. Other 

Army projects include a large-scale renewable solar projects at Redstone Arsenal, Anniston Army Depot, and Fort Rucker which represent an 18-fold increase in total solar capacity installed in the 

state of Alabama. These projects will purchase energy at or below 

the costs of conventional energy. Additionally, an Army project in 

Georgia, totaling over 90 megawatts led to a six-fold increase in 

photovoltaic capacity for the state. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
129 

Historically, DOD had frequently taken an approach to improving grid resiliency that entailed placing hundreds of backup diesel 

generators at the point of load. Instead, the committee strongly encourages DOD to pursue alternative and renewable energy projects 

which have capability, cost, and reliability benefits that provide additional resiliency and flexibility to route power during grid outages. 

Accordingly, the committee continues to strongly encourage DOD 

to continue to use PPAs and other authorities to take full advantage of private sector financing for renewable energy projects that 

improve energy resiliency, increase mission assurance, and offer 

cost savings. 

Third party financed energy savings performance contracts 

The committee strongly supports and encourages the Department 

of Defense’s (DOD) continued approach of leveraging third party financing mechanisms for large-scale energy projects. The committee 

has also observed the positive benefits of DOD increasing use of 

private sector financing and expertise for energy projects that support DOD infrastructure. 

In particular, the committee has been encouraged by the Department’s continued use of Energy Savings Performance Contracts 

(ESPCs) which guarantee energy savings to pay for the investment 

in energy-related equipment. 

The committee also recognizes the continued importance of appropriate oversight with respect to third-party financed energy 

projects. Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to report to the congressional defense 

committees no later than March 30, 2017 with a review of: (1) The 

extent of the deferred maintenance backlog across DOD buildings 

and facilities, as well as the quality of life and financial impact of 

such continued deferral and backlog; (2) The extent to which, if 

any, the DOD budget is sufficient to address the deferred installation maintenance backlog; (3) The extent to which, if any, DOD 

would have otherwise been able to address large-scale energy 

projects without the availability of third-party financing mechanisms; and (4) The total amount of investment and costs DOD has 

avoided since 2009 by leveraging third-party financing mechanisms 

compared to if DOD used direct appropriations to acquire largescale renewable energy projects. 

Warfighter technology 

The committee is aware of the work being done by the 

Warfighter Technology directorate in improving the protection, survivability, mobility and combat effectiveness of our Nation’s Army. 

Key to these efforts is continued research in areas of advanced ballistic polymers for body armor, fibers to make uniforms more fire 

resistant, lightweight structures for advanced shelters are all examples of tangible benefits to the Soldier. 

The Committee notes that the FY17 President’s Budget decreased funding for the Warfighter Technology Directorate by 

roughly $2 million as compared to FY16 levels. In order to ensure 

the Army remains at the cutting edge of technology in these critical 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
130 

areas, the Committee urges the Army to ensure that proper resources are available for this research. 

The Committee is aware there is a clear need and future requirements to broaden this effort to the development of lightweight 

multifunctional materials and systems integration in the areas of 

(1) soldier protection, and (2) expeditionary basing, collective protection, and sustainment. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(131) 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Subtitle A—Active Personnel 

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2017, as shown below: 

Service FY 2016 

Authorized 

FY 2017 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2017 

Request 

FY 2016 

Authorized 

Army .......................................................................... 475,000 460,000 460,000 0 ¥15,000 

Navy ........................................................................... 329,200 322,900 322,900 0 ¥6,300 

Marine Corps ............................................................. 184,000 182,000 182,000 0 ¥2,000 

Air Force .................................................................... 320,715 317,000 317,000 0 ¥3,715 

DOD Total ......................................................... 1,308,915 1,281,900 1,281,900 0 ¥27,015 

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 2017, as shown below: 

Service FY 2016 

Authorized 

FY 2017 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2017 

Request 

FY 2016 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 342,000 335,000 335,000 0 ¥7,000 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 198,000 195,000 195,000 0 ¥3,000 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 57,400 58,000 58,000 0 +600 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 38,900 38,500 38,500 0 ¥400 

Air National Guard .................................................... 105,500 105,700 105,700 0 +200 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 69,200 69,000 69,000 0 ¥200 

DOD Total ......................................................... 811,000 801,200 801,200 0 ¥9,800 

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 2017, as shown 

below: 

Service FY 2016 

Authorized 

FY 2017 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2017 

Request 

FY 2016 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 30,770 30,155 30,155 0 ¥615 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 16,261 16,261 16,261 0 0 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 9,934 9,955 9,955 0 +21 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
132 

Service FY 2016 

Authorized 

FY 2017 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2017 

Request 

FY 2016 

Authorized 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 2,260 2,261 2,261 0 +1 

Air National Guard .................................................... 14,748 14,764 14,764 0 +16 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 3,032 2,955 2,955 0 ¥77 

DOD Total ......................................................... 77,005 76,351 76,351 0 ¥654 

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 2017, as shown below: 

Service FY 2016 

Authorized 

FY 2017 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2017 

Request 

FY 2016 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 26,099 25,507 25,507 0 ¥592 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 7,395 7,570 7,570 0 +175 

Air National Guard .................................................... 22,104 22,103 22,103 0 ¥1 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 9,814 10,061 10,061 0 +247 

DOD Total ......................................................... 65,412 65,241 65,241 0 ¥171 

The provision also authorizes variance from the end strengths 

described above in accordance with the variance authorities found 

in subsections (f)(1) and (g)(1)(B) of section 115 of title 10, United 

States Code. 

Fiscal year 2017 limitation on number of non-dual status 

technicians (sec. 414) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2017, as 

shown below: 

Service FY 2016 

Authorized 

FY 2017 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2017 

Request 

FY 2016 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................................... 350 350 350 0 0 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 595 420 420 0 ¥175 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 90 90 90 0 0 

DOD Total ......................................................... 2,635 2,460 2,460 0 ¥175 

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, 2017, as shown below: 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
133 

Service FY 2016 

Authorized 

FY 2017 Change from 

Request Recommendation FY 2017 

Request 

FY 2016 

Authorized 

Army National Guard ................................................. 17,000 17,000 17,000 0 0 

Army Reserve ............................................................. 13,000 13,000 13,000 0 0 

Navy Reserve ............................................................. 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0 

Marine Corps Reserve ............................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0 

Air National Guard .................................................... 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................... 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0 

DOD Total ......................................................... 69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0 

Technical corrections to annual authorization for personnel 

strengths (sec. 416) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make a technical correction to section 115 of title 10, United States Code. 

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 .................................................. ¥880.5 

Rejection of Department of Defense Budgeted Retired Reforms .... ¥400.0 

Rejection of Air Force Pilot Bonus Increase for All Platforms ....... ¥2.5 

Defense Officer Personnel Management Act Reforms ..................... +100.0 

Foreign currency fluctuation adjustment ......................................... ¥0.73 

Total ............................................................................................. ¥1,183.73 

The committee recommends a total reduction in the Military Personnel (MILPERS) appropriation of $1183.73 million. This amount 

includes: (1) A reduction of $880.45 million to reflect the Government Accountability Office’s most recent assessment of the average 

annual MILPERS underexecution; (2) A reduction of $400 million 

to account for the rejection of a Department of Defense legislative 

proposal to change the vesting date for Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) 

contributions from two years of service to five and other matters; 

(3) A reduction of $2.5 million for the rejection of an Air Force proposal to increase the maximum aviation continuation bonus from 

$25,000 from $35,000 for all platforms; (4) An increase of $100 million to support reforms to the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act; (5) An adjustment of $0.73 million to reflect the foreign 

currency fluctuation. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(135) 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy 

Reform of distribution and authorized strength of general 

and flag officers (sec. 501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 525a to title 10, United States Code, to establish the authorized distribution of general and flag officers for the Army, 

Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, effective December 31, 2017. 

The provision would require a 25 percent reduction in the number 

of general and flag officers in the military departments. The provision would also sunset the authorized distribution of general and 

flag officers in section 525 of title 10, after December 31, 2017. 

The provision would add a new section 526a, to title 10, United 

States Code, to limit the number of general and flag officers on Active Duty in the military departments and to exclude from those 

limits the specified number of general and flag officers serving in 

joint duty assignments. The provision would require a 25 percent 

reduction in the number of general and flag officers in the military 

departments and the joint pool. The provision would also sunset 

the authorized distribution of general and flag officers in section 

526 of title 10, after December 31, 2017. 

The provision would add a new section 12004a, to title 10, 

United States Code, to establish the authorized distribution of general and flag officers in an active status in the reserve component, 

effective December 31, 2017. The provision would require a 25 percent reduction in the number of general and flag officers in active 

status in the reserve component, including general officers of the 

National Guard of the States and territories and general officers 

serving in the National Guard Bureau, but excluding officers serving as adjutants general or assistant adjutants general of a state. 

The provision would also sunset the authorized distribution of general and flag officers in section 12004 of title 10, after December 

31, 2017. 

Repeal of statutory specification of general or flag officer 

grade for various positions in the Armed Forces (sec. 

502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend or repeal various statutory specifications in title 10, United States Code, 

to remove the requirement that an officer serving must hold a specified general or flag officer grade for certain positions in the Armed 

Forces. The Committee determined that in order to effectively manage the reduction in the number of general and flag officers prescribed elsewhere in this Act, that the Secretary of Defense must 

be given the flexibility to assign appropriate officer grades to posiVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
136 

tions. The provision would not prohibit the position from being 

filled by an officer with the same, or a higher, or lower grade than 

the law currently requires. 

Temporary suspension of officer grade strength tables (sec. 

503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 523(a) and 12011(a) of title 10, United States Code, to remove 

the limitations on the total number of commissioned officers authorized to serve on Active Duty or on full-time reserve component 

duty in the pay grades of O–4 through O–6 as of the end of the 

fiscal year for fiscal years 2017 through 2021. The committee determined that providing relief from statutory caps on the numbers of 

officers of the active and reserve components serving in pay grades 

from O–4 to O–6, for a 5-year trial period, would allow the secretaries of the military departments to adjust the shape of their officer corps to affect talent management-based promotion systems 

and more quickly adapt to changing war fighting requirements and 

available talent supply. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives, describing the use of this authority, the 

specific categories of adjustments in control grades and the number 

and percentages of such adjustments, and an assessment of the impact of the authority as implemented on the desired officer grade 

composition of the military departments. The report shall specifically address the use of this authority for military intelligence officers, foreign area specialists, judge advocates with a military justice skill identifier, and officers with expertise in cyber matters. 

The report will reflect the officer control grade composition on the 

last day of the fiscal year, and shall be submitted annually not 

later than October 31. 

The committee recognizes the value of flexibility in personnel authorities, yet remains concerned that the authority under this section must not be used to promote ‘‘grade creep’’ that bloats senior 

officer ranks. 

Enhanced authority for service credit for experience or advanced education upon original appointment as a commissioned officer (sec. 504) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 533 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize service secretaries to credit an applicant for an original appointment in a commissioned grade with an amount of constructive credit limited to 

the amount required for an original appointment in the grade of 

colonel in the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps, or in the grade 

of captain in the Navy. The provision would authorize the secretary 

concerned to award constructive credit for leadership experience, 

professional credentials, and technical expertise to directly commission officers up to the grade of O–6. The authorities created by this 

provision would be similar to existing authorities used to commission professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and chaplains. The authorities would also extend to branches, career fields, and occupational specialties that may be designated by the services as having 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
137 

technical track status. It would also enhance the ability to rapidly 

assess highly qualified personnel for emergent warfighting areas 

such as cyber. 

Authority of promotion boards to recommend officers of 

particular merit be placed at the top of the promotion 

list (sec. 505) 

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 

to be placed at the top of the promotion list. 

Promotion eligibility period for officers whose confirmation 

of appointment is delayed due to nonavailability to the 

Senate of probative information under control of nonDepartment of Defense agencies (sec. 506) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 629(c) of title 10, United States Code, to provide that the period for promotion eligibility of an officer would not expire during 

the period when the Senate is unable to obtain information necessary to give its advice and consent to the appointment concerned 

because the information is under control of a department or agency 

of the federal government other than the Department of Defense. 

Length of joint duty assignments (sec. 507) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 664 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the qualifying 

period for joint duty assignments from 3 years to not less than 2 

years. The proposal would repeal the average tour length requirement and repeal the authority for shorter tour lengths for officers 

initially assigned to critical occupational specialties. 

The committee is concerned that joint duty assignments must 

provide an adequate opportunity for officers to gain meaningful experience with and exposure to joint requirements. The committee 

determined that a period of not less than 2 years is an acceptable 

period of time to achieve this desired result. In addition to clarifying that a qualifying joint tour length must be not less than 2 

years it allows officers additional time to attain service-specific 

warfare professional development experience. 

Modification of definitions relating to joint officer management (sec. 508) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 668 of title 10, United States Code, to update the definitions 

of joint matters and joint duty assignment for the purpose of joint 

officer management. The provision would also repeal the definition 

of critical occupational specialty. 

Continuation of certain officers on Active Duty without regard to requirement for retirement for years of service 

(sec. 509) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 36 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize service secretaries to allow officers in a grade above O–4 who are serving in 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
138 

military occupational specialties designated by the secretary to remain on Active Duty for up to 40 years of active service. 

Extension of force management authorities allowing enhanced flexibility for officer personnel management 

(sec. 510) 

The committee recommends a provision that would: 

(a) amend section 4403(i) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102–484) to extend 

Temporary Early Retirement Authority through December 31, 

2025; 

(b) amend section 638a(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, 

to extend through December 31, 2025 authority for service secretaries to manage authorized officer personnel strength by 

shortening the period of continuation of service by officers on 

Active Duty, to authorize involuntary early retirement for certain officers on Active Duty, and to consider officers for involuntary discharge who are not eligible for retirement; 

(c) amend section 1175a(k)(1) of title 10, United States Code 

to extend through December 31, 2025 authority to provide voluntary separation pay and benefits; and 

(d) amend section 1370(a)(2)(F) of title 10, United States 

Code to extend through fiscal year 2025, authority for early retirement of up to 4 percent of the authorized Active-Duty 

strength of officers in the grades of O–5 and O–6 without reduction in grade, in each fiscal year. 

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Management 

Authority for temporary waiver of limitation on term of 

service of Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau (sec. 

521) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 10505(a)(4) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to extend the term of office of the Vice Chief 

of the National Guard Bureau for up to 90 days to provide for the 

orderly transition of officers appointed to the positions of the Chief 

and the Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau. 

Authority to designate certain Reserve officers as not to be 

considered for selection for promotion (sec. 522) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the secretaries of the military departments to defer promotion consideration 

for reserve component officers in a non-participatory (membership 

points only) status. Currently, section 14301 of title 10, United 

States Code, requires servicemembers identified on the Reserve Active Status List to be considered for promotion to the next higher 

grade. This includes certain categories of reservists on the Reserve 

Active Status List who, by Department of Defense guidance, are in 

the Individual Ready Reserve and the Standby Reserve and who 

remain eligible for promotion consideration, but are not actively 

participating in Reserve duty because they are in a status in which 

they are receiving membership only points for Reserve credit. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
139 

Under current law, some individuals assigned to the Individual 

Ready Reserve may be discharged from the reserve component 

upon their second deferral for promotion because they are considered to have twice failed for promotion. This provision would provide the reserve component flexibility to remove individuals from 

promotion consideration during a period when they are least competitive for promotion, and would allow the services to retain 

servicemembers with significant military training as well as civilian technical and professional skills that could contribute to their 

potential for selection for promotion should the individual return to 

active participation in military service. 

Rights and protections available to military technicians 

(sec. 523) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 709 of title 32, United States Code, to clarify the employment 

rights and protections of military technicians such that when a 

military technician files an appeal of a personnel action that concerns an activity that occurs while the member is in a military status or concerns fitness for duty in the reserve components, current 

statutory limitations concerning such appeals will continue to 

apply. With respect to an appeal concerning any other activity occurring while the member is in a civilian status, the provisions of 

section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–16) 

shall apply. 

Extension of suicide prevention and resilience programs for 

the National Guard and Reserves (sec. 524) 

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, 2022. 

Inapplicability of certain laws to National Guard technicians performing Active Guard and Reserve duty (sec. 

525) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 709 of title 32, United States Code, to clarify that the provision that grants military leave to individuals appointed to the civil 

service does not apply to members of the Active Guard and Reserve, just as it does not apply to members on Active Duty. 

Subtitle C—General Service Authorities 

Responsibility of Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces for 

standards and qualifications for military specialties 

within the Armed Forces (sec. 531) 

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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
140 

Leave matters (sec. 532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 701 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize up to 6 weeks 

of uncharged leave that may be taken by a servicemember who is 

the primary caregiver in the case of the birth of a child or the 

adoption of a child. In the case of leave taken following the the 

birth of a child, the availability of primary caregiver leave would 

commence after completion of medical convalescent leave resulting 

from the birth of such child. 

The provision would also increase the amount of uncharged leave 

authorized for a secondary caregiver in the case of the birth of a 

child or the adoption of child. The provision would authorize 21 

days of uncharged leave for a birth parent or an adoptive parent 

who is the secondary caregiver. The provision would repeal subsections of section 701 relating to spouse and adoption leave as obsolete. 

The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe 

in regulation definitions of eligible primary and secondary caregivers for the purposes of this benefit, and to establish regulations 

for requesting and approving uncharged leave associated with 

births to a military family, and with adoptions by a military family, 

and would allow a military member to accept a 1-week extension 

of a servicemember’s military service obligation for every week of 

such leave approved and taken. The implementing regulations 

would authorize the secretary concerned to waive service obligation 

extensions related to this leave as an incentive for re-enlistments. 

The provision would also create a new section 704a of title 10, 

United States Code, that would prohibit leave to be authorized, 

granted or assigned, including uncharged leave, unless expressly 

authorized by law. The committee considers this provision necessary to clarify that military leave is established by law and may 

not be created without express congressional authority. 

Transfer of provision relating to expenses incurred in connection with leave canceled due to contingency operations (sec. 533) 

The committee recommends a provision that would relocate the 

authority to reimburse members of the Armed Force for expenses 

incurred in connection with leave cancelled due to contingency operations from section 453 of title 37, United States Code, to title 

10, United States Code. 

Reduction of tenure on the temporary disability retired list 

(sec. 534) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1210 of title 10, United States Code, to reduce the maximum 

tenure for servicemembers placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), due to an injury or illness eligible for disability 

retirement, from 5 years to 3 years. The committee notes that this 

provision addresses a recommendation from the Government Accountability Office in 2009 for Congress to shorten the maximum 

tenure for placement on the TDRL. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
141 

Prohibition on enforcement of military commission rulings 

preventing members of the Armed Forces from carrying 

out otherwise lawful duties based on member gender 

(sec. 535) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit a 

military commission established under chapter 47A of title 10, 

United States Code, from acting by order, ruling, finding, or otherwise that a member of the Armed Forces may not perform duties 

otherwise lawfully assigned if the prohibition is based solely on the 

gender of the servicemember. The provision would also vacate any 

such order issued before the date of enactment of this Act. 

Board for the Correction of Military Records and Discharge 

Review Board matters (sec. 536) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1552 of title 10, United States Code, to require that a board 

convened to consider a claim for correction of military records by 

a former servicemember (1) who had been deployed in support of 

contingency operation and who was subsequently diagnosed as experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic 

brain injury (TBI), or (2) who was diagnosed while serving in the 

military as experiencing a mental health disorder include a clinical 

psychologist or psychiatrist, or a physician with training on mental 

health issues connected with PTSD or TBI. The proposal would require the military department concerned, or the Department of 

Homeland Security, to make available to the public on an Internet 

website information regarding claims considered by the service 

board for correction of military records in a calendar quarter. 

The committee also recommends a provision that would modify 

section 1553 of title 10, United States Code, to require similar information be made available to the public on an Internet website 

information regarding claims considered by the service discharge 

review boards in a calendar quarter. 

The committee endorses the supplemental guidance issued by 

former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on September 3, 2014, to 

military boards for correction of military/Naval records considering 

discharge upgrade requests by veterans claiming PTSD. This guidance requires the boards to give liberal consideration to petitions 

for changes in characterization of service to service treatment 

record entries which document one or more symptoms which meet 

the diagnostic criteria of PTSD or related conditions. The committee directs that similar guidance be provided to military discharge review boards and that in cases where PTSD or PTSD-related conditions may be reasonably determined to have existed at 

the time of discharge, all boards will consider those conditions as 

potential mitigating factors for any misconduct that resulted in a 

discharge less than an honorable discharge. 

Reconciliation of contradictory provisions relating to qualifications for enlistment in the reserve components of the 

Armed Forces (sec. 537) 

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


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
142 

Forces with the requirements for enlistment in the active components. 

Subtitle D—Military Justice and Legal Assistance Matters 

Part I—Retaliation 

Report to complainants of resolution of investigations into 

retaliation (sec. 541) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations that would require 

that the results of an investigation of a retaliation complaint by a 

member of the Armed Forces be reported to the member who initiated the complaint. The report would inform the member whether 

the complaint was substantiated, unsubstantiated, or dismissed. 

The provision would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security to prescribe similar regulations to report on retaliation complaints by a member of the Coast Guard. 

Training for Department of Defense personnel on sexual assault trauma in individuals claiming retaliation in connection with reports of sexual assault in the Armed 

Forces (sec. 542) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe training on the nature and consequences of sexual assault trauma to individuals in the Department of Defense who investigate claims of retaliation. 

Inclusion in annual reports on sexual assault prevention 

and response efforts of the Armed Forces of information 

on complaints of retaliation in connection with reports 

of sexual assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 543) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1631(b) of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2011 (10 U.S.C. 1561 note) to require the annual 

report on sexual assault and response efforts to include information 

on complaints of retaliation in connection with reports of sexual assault in the Armed Forces. 

Metrics for evaluating the efforts of the Armed Forces to 

prevent and respond to retaliation in connection with 

reports of sexual assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 544) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office of the Department 

of Defense to establish and issue metrics to be used by the military 

departments to evaluate the efforts of the Armed Forces to prevent 

and respond to retaliation in connection with reports of sexual assault in the Armed Forces. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
143 

Part II—Other Military Justice Matters 

Discretionary authority for military judges to designate an 

individual to assume the rights of the victim of an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice when 

the victim is a minor, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased (sec. 546) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 806b(c) of title 10, United States Code (Article 6b(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize military judges to 

decide on a case-by-case basis whether it is appropriate to appoint 

an individual to assume the victim’s rights in all cases under the 

UCMJ in which the victim of an offense is under 18 years of age 

(unless the victim is a member of the Armed Forces) or is incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased. The proposal would bring Article 

6b(c), UCMJ, in line with the discretion federal civilian judges have 

to appoint an individual to assume the victim’s rights under the 

Crime Victims’ Rights Act (18 U.S.C. 3771). The proposal would 

help protect minors in those situations where they are mature 

enough to communicate their desires themselves or through counsel. The American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional 

Conduct, upon which the service rules are based, presume the competency of minors to exercise their rights, unless or until they demonstrate they are not able to do so. 

Appellate standing of victims in enforcing rights of victims 

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 547) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 806b of title 10, United States Code (article 6b of the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize victims to file pleadings as a real party in interest when the Government files appellate pleadings implicating the victim’s rights relating to Military 

Rule of Evidence (MRE) 412, relating to the admission of evidence 

regarding a victim’s sexual background; MRE 513, relating to the 

psychotherapist-patient privilege; or MRE 514, relating to the victim advocate-patient privilege. The provision would also amend section 806b of title 10, United States Code (article 6b of the UCMJ) 

to afford a victim with the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely 

notice of any appellate matters. 

Effective prosecution and defense in courts-martial (sec. 

548) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

service secretaries to carry out a program to ensure that trial and 

defense counsel detailed to prosecute or defend a court-martial 

have sufficient experience and knowledge to effectively prosecute or 

defend the case, or that there is adequate supervision and oversight of the trial counsel and the defense counsel to ensure effective 

prosecution and defense in the court-martial. The provision would 

also require service secretaries to establish and use a system of 

skill identifiers to identify judge advocates with skill and experience in military justice proceedings to identify judge advocates to 

provide supervision and oversight of less experienced judge advocates prosecuting and defending in military courts-martial. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
144 

The committee is concerned that junior judge advocates may be 

detailed as trial counsel or defense counsel in complex cases where 

the judge advocate does not have the skill and experience to effectively address the complex issues in the case. In those cases where 

the judge advocate does not have the requisite skill or experience, 

the committee expects the service secretaries, acting through their 

Judge Advocates General, or Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant in the case of the Marine Corps, to provide adequate supervision and oversight to ensure that the case is professionally 

and competently prosecuted and defended. 

Pilot programs on military justice career track for judge advocates (sec. 549) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of each military department to conduct a 5 year pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of a career military 

justice litigation track for judge advocates in the Armed Forces. 

The pilot programs would include a military justice career track 

that leads to senior judge advocates with military justice expertise 

in prosecuting and defending complex cases in military courts-martial. The provision would use authority provided elsewhere in this 

Act to suspend limitations on the number of certain senior commissioned officers on active duty, under section 532(a) of title 10, 

United States Code. The provision would require the use of skill 

identifiers to identify judge advocates participating in the pilot programs. The provision would also require promotion boards to give 

the same opportunity for promotion as all other judge advocates 

being considered for promotion. 

The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit 

reports on the pilot programs not later than 4 years after the date 

of enactment of this Act. 

Modification of definition of sexual harassment for purposes 

of investigations of complaints of harassment by commanding officers (sec. 550) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1561(i) of title 10, United States Code, to modify the definition 

of sexual harassment. The committee is concerned that the existing 

definition of sexual harassment has caused the military services to 

consider sexual harassment as a violation of equal opportunity policy instead of an adverse behavior that data have demonstrated is 

on the spectrum of behavior that can contribute to an increase in 

the incidence of sexual assault. 

Extension and clarification of annual reports regarding sexual assault involving members of the armed forces (sec. 

551) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1631 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383) that would extend the requirement for the annual report on sexual assault in the military 

under that section through February, 2025, and require the reports 

to be submitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives not later than March 31 each 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
145 

year. The provision would also clarify the scope of sexual assaults 

covered by the report to include all reported sexual assaults, regardless of the age of the offender or victim or the relationship status between the offender and victim, including, at a minimum, all 

sexual assault reports received by the Sexual Assault Prevention 

and Response Program, or equivalent, and the Family Advocacy 

Program, or equivalent, of each Armed Force. 

Expansion of authority to execute certain military instruments (sec. 552) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1044d of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a person 

authorized to act as a notary under section 1044a of title 10, 

United States Code, or a state-licensed notary employed by a military department or the Coast Guard, who is supervised by a military legal assistance counsel, to notarize military testamentary instruments. The provision would also amend section 1044a(b) to authorize all civilian paralegals serving at military legal assistance 

offices, supervised by a military legal assistance counsel, to act as 

a notary. 

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

553) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 942(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code (Article 142(b)(2) of 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice) to modify the terms of two 

civilian judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed 

Forces (‘‘the court’’) to avoid disruption that may occur to the operations of the court when two judicial vacancies occur simultaneously. 

The provision would modify the daily rate of compensation for 

senior judges performing judicial duties with the court so that they 

would be paid the difference between the pay of a judge of the 

court and their federal retired pay, consistent with the process employed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the United States Bankruptcy Courts. 

The provision would authorize the judges of the court to administer oaths in a similar manner as other federal judges. 

The provision would repeal the provision in article 142(b)(3) that 

precludes more than three judges of the court from being from the 

same political party. The party balance requirement was included 

in the original Uniform Code of Military Justice, which established 

the Court of Military Appeals (as the Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces was originally named) as a new three-judge Court. 

The committee has determined that the party balance requirement 

has outlived its usefulness. It does not appear that any other federal court is subject to a party balance requirement. 

Subtitle E—Member Education, Training, and Transition 

Limitation on tuition assistance for off-duty training or education (sec. 561) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2007 of title 10, United States Code, to limit the tuition assistVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00181 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
146 

ant program for off-duty training and education to education programs likely to contribute to the professional development of the 

servicemember. The committee notes that this provision was recommended in the final report of the Military Compensation and 

Retirement Modernization Commission. The committee strongly 

recommends this limit as essential to good stewardship of the tuition assistance program. 

The committee also notes that this amendment preserves the important distinction between off-duty education programs funded by 

tuition assistance that primarily benefit professional development 

of service members while currently serving in the Armed Forces 

and programs addressed elsewhere in this Act that support the 

transition to civilian life by providing access to civilian credentials 

based on military training and experience. 

Modification of program to assist members of the Armed 

Forces in obtaining professional credentials (sec. 562) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2015 of title 10, United States Code, to include within the program to assist members in obtaining professional credentials those 

credentials that were acquired during military service, but which 

were not necessarily obtained incident to the performance of their 

military duties. The provision would also eliminate the requirement that credentialing programs be accredited by third party accreditation bodies, and instead would require that credentialing 

programs meet certain other quality assurance benchmarks. 

Access to Department of Defense installations of institutions 

of higher education providing certain advising and student support services (sec. 563) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 101 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of 

Defense to grant access to all Department of Defense installations 

any institution of higher education that has a Voluntary Education 

Partnership Memorandum of Understanding with the Department 

for the purposes of student advising and support services. 

Priority processing of applications for Transportation Worker Identification Credentials for members undergoing 

discharge or release from the Armed Forces (sec. 564) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to consult, and enter into a memorandum of 

understanding, with the Secretary of Homeland Security to afford 

a priority in the processing of applications for Transportation 

Worker Identification Credentials (TWIC) by members of the 

Armed Forces who are undergoing separation, discharge or release 

from the Armed forces. The provision would require adjudication of 

such applications not later than 14 days after the application is 

submitted, unless an appeal or waiver applies, or if other documentation is required. The priority for separating servicemembers 

shall commence not later than 180 days after enactment of this 

Act. The provision also requires a report on the implementation of 

this provision one year after enactment of this Act. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
147 

The committee recommends that the memorandum of understanding required under this provision should provide, to the greatest extent practicable, that the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) accept validated security clearance information from the 

Department of Defense, including the National Agency Check with 

Law and Credit (NACLC), to meet the expeditious processing of applications required under this provision. The committee understands that the Department of Defense’s security clearance checks 

meet or exceed the requirements currently required and conducted 

by the TSA. 

The committee is yet again disappointed that the Department of 

Defense and the Department of Homeland Security have failed to 

take necessary action to implement priority processing of TWIC applications for transitioning servicemembers who are qualified and 

motivated to serve in the maritime industry. The Joint Explanatory 

Statement accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2016 (P.L. 114–92) expressed the disappointment of 

conferees in the lack of progress in providing the prioritized treatment of such applications. The committee expects the Department 

of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security to now work 

to implement the priority required by this provision, and without 

further delay. 

Subtitle F—Defense Dependents’ Education and Military 

Family Readiness Matters 

Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members of the Armed 

Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees 

(sec. 571) 

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. 

Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 572) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, defense-wide, for impact aid payments for children with disabilities (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. 

Impact Aid amendments (sec. 573) 

The committee recommends a provision that would: 1) amend 

sections 7003(b)(2)(B)(i)(I), 7003(b)(2)(B)(i)(II)(bb), and 

7003(b)(2)(B)(i)(IV) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 (most recently amended by Public Law 114–95) to: 1) make 

a technical correction to the current statute to prevent the inadvertent disqualification of some local school districts from the ImVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00183 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
148 

pact Aid heavily impacted program whose boundaries are within 

the perimeter of military installations; 2) provide additional time 

to collect data on the effects to the Impact Aid heavily impacted 

program; and 3) adjust eligibility criteria to meet congressional intent. 

One-year extension of authorities relating to the transition 

and support of military dependent students to local educational agencies (sec. 574) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 547(c)(3) of the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (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, 2016, to 

September 30, 2017. The provision would also require the administration to submit detailed budget justification information with any 

annual budget request that includes a request for the future extension of these authorities. 

Comptroller General of the United States analysis of unsatisfactory conditions and overcrowding at public schools 

on military installations (sec. 575) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report, within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, which provides 

an analysis of the condition and capacity of public schools on military installations. The provision would require the analysis to include schools omitted from the July 2011 Department of Defense 

analysis of such schools. 

Enhanced flexibility in provision of relocation assistance to 

members of the Armed Forces and their families (sec. 

576) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1056 of title 10, United States Code, to permit enhanced flexibility in giving relocation assistance to members of the Armed 

Forces and their families. The provision would allow the Department of Defense to adapt the delivery of relocation assistance to 

meet the evolving needs of military servicemembers and their families by leveraging technology to improve access, efficiency, and responsiveness of the relocation assistance program, especially in situations where servicemembers reside overseas or away from a military installation with a relocation assistance program. Finally, the 

provision would establish the position of Program Manager of Military Relocation Assistance in the office of the Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. 

Reporting on allegations of child abuse in military families 

and homes (sec. 577) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to 

prescribe regulations to ensure that the family advocacy program 

office at a military installation to which a member of the Armed 

Forces is assigned is provided an immediate report of credible inVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00184 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
149 

formation obtained by any individual in the chain of command of 

the servicemember, that a child in the family or home of the servicemember has suffered an incident of child abuse. The provision 

would require a similar report by any member of the Armed Forces 

in a profession described by subsection 226(b) of the Victims of 

Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13031) who has reason to suspect that a child in the family or home of a servicemember has suffered an incident of child abuse. 

Background checks for employees of agencies and schools 

providing elementary and secondary education for Department of Defense dependents (sec. 578) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require certain local educational agencies receiving impact aid under subchapter VII of chapter 70 of title 20, United States Code, and each 

Department of Defense (DOD) domestic dependent elementary and 

secondary school, within 2 years of enactment of this Act, to establish policies and procedures requiring a criminal background check 

for each school employee of the agency or school. Additionally, this 

provision would: (1) prohibit the employment of a school employee 

at the agency or school if the employee refuses to consent to a 

criminal background check, makes a false statement in connection 

with a criminal background check, or has a conviction for certain 

specific felonies; (2) require periodic updates of background checks 

in accordance with policies established by local educational agencies or DOD domestic schools; (3) authorize a school employee, 

upon request, to receive a copy of the criminal background check, 

and the employee would have a right to appeal the accuracy and 

completeness of the background check; and (4) authorize a local 

educational agency or school to share the results of a criminal 

background check with another educational agency considering an 

employee for employment. Finally, the provision would authorize 

certain federal and state officials to charge reasonable fees for conducting a criminal background check not to exceed the actual costs 

for processing and administering the background check. 

Support for programs providing camp experience for children of military families (sec. 579) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to provide financial or non-monetary support 

to qualified non-profit organizations to assist those organizations in 

carrying out programs to support the attendance of children of 

military families at a camp or camp-like setting. 

Comptroller General of the United States report on Exceptional Family Member Program (sec. 580) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, on the effectiveness of each Exceptional Family 

Member Program of the Armed Forces. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
150 

Repeal of Advisory Council on Dependents’ Education (sec. 

581) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

1411 of the Defense Dependents’ Education Act of 1978 to abolish 

the Advisory Council on Dependents’ Education. 

Subtitle G—Decorations and Awards 

Authorization for award of the Medal of Honor to Charles S. 

Kettles for acts of valor during the Vietnam war (sec. 

586) 

The committee recommends a provision that would waive the 

time limitations specified in section 3744 of title 10, United States 

Code, to authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to 

Charles S. Kettles, for acts of valor on May 15, 1967, during the 

Vietnam War, while as Flight Commander in the United States 

Army, 176th Aviation Company, 14th Aviation Battalion, Task 

Force Oregon, Republic of Vietnam. 

Authorization for award of the Medal of Honor to Gary M. 

Rose for action of valor during the Vietnam war (sec. 

587) 

The committee recommends a provision that would waive the 

time limitations specified in section 3744 of title 10, United States 

Code, to authorize the President to award the Medal of Honor to 

Gary M. Rose, for acts of valor from September 11 through 14, 

1970, during the Vietnam War, while a member of the United 

States Army, Military Assistance Command Vietnam-Studies and 

Observation Group (MACVSOG). 

Authorization for award of the Distinguished Service Cross 

to Chaplain (First Lieutenant) Joseph Verbis LaFleur 

for acts of valor during World War II (sec. 588) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to award the Distinguished Service Cross to 

Chaplain (First Lieutenant) Joseph Verbis LaFleur for acts of valor 

while interned as a prisoner of war by Japan, from December 30, 

1941 to September 7, 1944. 

Posthumous advancement of Colonel George E. ‘‘Bud’’ Day, 

United States Air Force, on the retired list (sec. 589) 

The committee recommends a provision that would posthumously 

advance Colonel George E. ‘‘Bud’’ Day, United States Air Force, to 

the rank of brigadier general on the retired list of the United 

States Air Force. Colonel Day’s benefits would not be affected by 

this action. 

Subtitle H—Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters 

Applicability of Military Selective Service Act to female citizens and persons (sec. 591) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the 

Selective Service Act (Public Law 65–12) to include women in the 

requirement to register for selective service, to the same extent 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
151 

men are currently required, beginning January 1, 2018. The committee notes that the ban of females serving in ground combat 

units has been lifted by the Department of Defense, and as such, 

there is no further justification to apply the selective service act to 

males only. 

Senior Military Acquisition Advisors in the Defense Acquisition Corps (sec. 592) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 1725 to title 10, United States Code, to establish positions 

known as ‘‘Senior Military Acquisition Advisors’’ in the Defense Acquisition Corps. The provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish in the Defense Acquisition Corps positions to be 

known as ‘‘Senior Military Acquisition Advisors’’’. Senior Military 

Acquisition Advisors will be appointed by the President, by and 

with the advice and consent of the Senate. Eligible officers include 

officers in the grade of colonel or captain in the Navy, with extensive defense acquisition experience, and who are eligible for retirement. Senior Military Acquisition Advisors will be authorized to remain in service in support of their Service Acquisition Executive 

and be assigned as an adjunct professor at the Defense Acquisition 

University. 

Senior Military Acquisition Advisors would be competitively selected and would provide senior level acquisition expertise to the 

Service Acquisition Executive of their military department for the 

remainder of their career. An officer who is continued on active 

duty under this program is not eligible for consideration for selection for promotion. A Senior Military Acquisition Advisor will serve 

no longer than a 5-year term. When a Senior Military Acquisition 

Advisor retires with a minimum of 3 years of service, the officer 

may, at the discretion of the President, be retired as a brigadier 

general or rear admiral (lower half), but without increase in retired 

pay or other compensation by reason of retirement of an officer in 

the grade of brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half). 

Annual reports on progress of the Army and the Marine 

Corps in integrating women into military occupational 

specialties and units recently opened to women (sec. 

593) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a report to be delivered to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives by the Chief of Staff of 

the Army, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Commander of the United States Special Operations Command annually on April 1, 2017 and each year thereafter through 2021 on the 

progress of integrating women into military occupational specialties 

and units recently opened to women. 

Elements of the report shall include: (1) The status of genderneutral standards throughout the Entry Level Training continuum; 

(2) The propensity of applicants to apply for and access into newlyopened ground combat programs, by gender and program; (3) Success rates in Initial Screening Tests and Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) Classification Standards for newly-opened ground 

combat military occupational specialties, by gender; (4) Attrition 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
152 

rates and causes of attrition throughout the Entry Level Training 

continuum, by gender and military occupational specialty; (5) Reclassification rates and causes of reclassification throughout the 

Entry Level Training continuum, by gender and military occupational specialty; (6) Injury rates and causes of injury throughout 

the Entry Level Training continuum, by gender and military occupational specialty; (7) Injury rates and nondeployability rates in 

newly-opened ground combat military occupational specialties, by 

gender and military occupational specialty; (8) A comparative analysis of injury rates, causes of injury, and nondeployability rates in 

similar military occupational specialties of allied countries, including Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, and a comparative analysis of the mitigation factors used by the United 

States and such countries; (9) Lateral move approval rates into 

newly opened military occupational specialties, by gender and military occupational specialty; (10) Reenlistment and retention rates 

in newly-opened ground combat military occupational specialties, 

by gender and military occupational specialty; (11) Promotion rates 

in newly-opened ground combat military occupational specialties, 

by grade and gender; and (12) Actions taken to address matters relating to equipment sizing and supply, and facilities, in connection 

with the implementation by such Armed Forces. 

Report on career progression tracks of the Armed Forces 

for women in combat arms units (sec. 594) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a description of the career progression track for entry level and laterally moved female service members both officer and enlisted of each Armed Force for positions 

that have been opened as a result of the December 3, 2015, decision by the Secretary to open all previously closed military occupations to women. 

Repeal of requirement for a chaplain at the United States 

Air Force Academy appointed by the President (sec. 595) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

9337 of title 10, United States Code, that requires a chaplain at the 

United States Air Force Academy appointed by the President. The 

section is not required because the Air Force and the other military 

departments already assign chaplains to the service academies 

under existing service personnel assignment procedures. 

Extension of limitation on reduction in number of military 

and civilian personnel assigned to duty with service review agencies (sec. 596) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1559 of title 10, United States Code, to extend the limitation 

on reducing the number of military and civilian personnel assigned 

to duty with the service review agencies through December 31, 

2019. 

The committee determined that the service review agencies must 

continue to be staffed at a level to accommodate expeditious review 

of cases and to reduce backlog. The committee notes that recent 

changes to eligibility for service record and discharge reviews may 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
153 

have increased the number of former servicemembers seeking review, particularly for members who were separated for misconduct 

that may be attributed to the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder, whether or not diagnosed at the time of the misconduct, and 

for members separated for homosexual conduct prior to the repeal 

of ‘‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’’. The service review agencies must continue to be staffed with an adequate number of personnel to perform their important work. 

Items of Special Interest 

Assessment of Joint Professional Military Education 

The committee believes that Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) is a key component of growing joint-qualified officers, and in developing leaders capable of planning, fighting, and 

winning tomorrow’s wars. The committee also believes, however, 

that the delivery of JPME, and Professional Military Education 

(PME) provided by the military services, can be improved. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the 

delivery of Joint Professional Military Education in the military 

services, including an assessment of: (1) the current statutory and 

regulatory framework authorizing, regulating, and potentially restricting development of better methods and models of delivering 

JPME; (2) the curricula of JPME and PME, and whether they are 

adequately preparing tomorrow’s leaders; (3) the quality of faculty, 

both military and civilian; (4) whether institutions that deliver 

JPME and PME afford faculty sufficient academic freedoms and career progression opportunities to attract and retain talented instructors; (5) whether any JPME or PME courses, programs, or 

schools should be added or eliminated; and (6) any other aspect of 

JPME or PME that the Secretary deems appropriate. The Secretary shall provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives by no later than 

April 1, 2017, on the results of this review. 

Comptroller General of the United States assessment of Department of Navy personnel strategies for unmanned 

systems 

Unmanned systems have become an integral part of the Department of Defense’s warfighting capabilities as demonstrated in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. In recent years, much focus has been on the Air 

Force and the Army regarding their use of unmanned aerial systems. However, the Navy is also rapidly increasing its use of unmanned systems and has recently established a deputy assistant 

secretary of the Navy for unmanned systems. The Navy’s use of unmanned systems not just in the air, but also on the sea and undersea, creates unique challenges that must be addressed. As the Secretary of the Navy has noted, unmanned systems are inherently 

different from their manned counterparts, and policies and procedures must be in place for the design, development, testing and 

evaluation of unmanned systems. The committee also believes the 

associated unique personnel issues of the Department of the Navy’s 

unmanned systems must be considered and addressed. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
154 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting forth 

the results of a study, conducted by the Comptroller General with 

preliminary observations due no later than March 1, 2017, and a 

report to follow, to examine the Department of Navy’s personnel 

strategies for unmanned systems, including unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned surface vehicles and unmanned underwater vehicles. The report shall include an examination of the extent to which 

the Navy and the Marine Corps have done the following: (1) analyzed the personnel requirements for positions required to operate 

aerial, surface, and underwater systems including the existing and 

future critical skills and competencies needed; (2) examined alternative populations, such as civilians and contractors, as well as the 

type of military personnel used, officer, enlisted, or a mix, that 

could be assigned to unmanned systems; (3) conducted a cost benefit analysis to determine the risks and advantages of the varying 

personnel assignment strategies they are pursuing for unmanned 

operators; and (4) developed strategies to recruit and retain personnel to operate unmanned using compensation tools available. 

Comptroller General of the United States review of pilot 

programs on career flexibility to enhance retention of 

members of the armed forces 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to review career intermission pilot programs implemented 

pursuant to section 533 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), as 

amended by section 523 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), and the reports prepared 

and submitted under section 533(k) of that Act, and to provide a 

report on the results of the study to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by December 31, 2016. At a minimum, the review should assess: 

(a) whether the authorities of the pilot program have provided an effective means to enhance the retention of members 

of the armed forces possessing critical skills, talents, and leadership abilities; 

(b) the career progression in the armed forces of individuals 

who participated in the pilot program and whether their careers have been adversely affected; 

(c) the usefulness of the pilot program in responding to the 

personal and professional needs of individual members of the 

armed forces; 

(d) the extent to which the designation as a pilot program 

has discouraged participation by qualified applicants; and 

(e) the costs incurred in the program to date, and an assessment of the expected annual costs in the expanded program as 

modified by section 523 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 to remove limits and restrictions on 

participation. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
155 

Comptroller General report on the continuum of offenses involving unwanted sexual behavior in the armed forces 

Over the past decade, the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

made significant strides to address problems in its ranks regarding 

hazing, sexual harassment, domestic violence, and sexual assault. 

As DOD has grappled with these problems, however, it has historically found that the reporting of these incidents is under-reported 

and fragmented. Defining such behaviors as ‘‘hazing,’’ ‘‘sexual harassment,’’ ‘‘domestic violence,’’ and ‘‘sexual assault’’ has been difficult because these behaviors frequently overlap, and because efforts to combat unacceptable behaviors must be founded on clearly 

understood definitions that precisely distinguish between unacceptable and criminal behavior. These difficulties have been complicated by the fact that DOD and the services assign responsibility 

for preventing these behaviors and setting policies regarding unwanted sexual behaviors to separate offices with different chains of 

command and different reporting databases and reporting mechanisms. As a result, DOD lacks a comprehensive view of the continuum of offenses involving sexual behavior and can therefore not 

adequately target policies to prevent them, hold perpetrators accountable, and care for those who are victims. Because of this fragmentation and lack of focus for DOD’s sexual prevention efforts, 

the committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States 

to provide preliminary observations to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services no later than April 1, 2017, that are based on the 

following questions: 

(a) To what extent do offices and programs in DOD that are 

responsible for setting policy and preventing the various types 

of unwanted sexual behavior involving servicemembers perform the same or similar functions? 

(b) To what extent do these offices coordinate and collaborate 

with each other to share information and leverage resources? 

(c) To what extent are policies and databases that contain information on incidents on unwanted sexual behavior coordinated to ensure that DOD has a complete picture of the continuum of such behavior and to target policies to prevent them 

and punish perpetrators? 

CONUS Education Options Assessment 

The Department of Defense (DOD) currently operates schools or 

contracts with local education agencies to provide K–12 education 

for over 25,000 students in nine states. The Department estimates 

that its annual cost to provide that education is over $23,000 per 

student. The committee is aware that DOD contracted with the 

RAND National Defense Research Institute to assess the options 

for providing K–12 education of military children residing on military installations in areas of the United States on which the Department of Defense Education Activity either operates schools or 

contracts with local education agencies to operate schools. The committee understands that RAND considered six alternatives for the 

provision of education to children attending those schools and provided its assessment to the Department in May 2015. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the RAND report 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
156 

to the committee no later than September 1, 2016, together with 

the Department’s views of the recommendations contained therein. 

Department of Defense consultation with outside experts to 

improve sexual assault prevention and response programs 

A November 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled ‘‘Sexual Assault: Actions Needed to Improve DoD’s 

Prevention Strategy and to Help Ensure it is Effectively Implemented,’’ found that ‘‘DoD has identified five performance measures 

to assess the effectiveness of its prevention efforts, but these measures are not fully developed as they are missing many of the 10 

key attributes that GAO has found can contribute to assessing program performance effectively. . . .’’ GAO listed five recommendations, and according to the report, the Department of concurred 

with all of them. 

As the Department implements reforms to address these recommendations and to improve the Department’s sexual assault 

prevention and response strategy, the committee expects the Department to consult closely with outside experts in the field of sexual assault awareness, prevention, and response. 

Department of Defense identity numbers 

The committee recognizes the identity security issues that arise 

for members of Congress and their respective staff who deal with 

the Department of Defense (DoD) on a regular basis. Without DoD 

identify numbers, members of Congress and staff are required to 

provide their Social Security numbers for identification purposes on 

paperwork and to visit the Pentagon. Repeatedly divulging this information heightens the risk of identify theft, exacerbating the risk 

already faced by members of Congress. Therefore, the committee 

urges the DoD to provide an alternative option to identify these individuals, including issuing Department of Defense identity numbers to members of Congress or their staff who deal with the DoD 

on a regular basis, as this will also help standardize identification 

with the DoD employees. 

Disclosure of Military Sexual Trauma During Separation 

Examinations 

The committee understands that current Department of Defense 

policy requires all members of the military services who are scheduled to be separated from Active Duty after serving for 180 days 

or more to take a comprehensive Separation History and Physical 

Examination (SHPE). The purpose of the SHPE is to ensure all 

medical conditions incurred or aggravated during the 

servicemembers military service are identified and documented 

prior to separation or retirement from military service. The Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have established a coordinated, standardized examination process that 

supports the VA disability compensation program and the DoD 

SHPE program. Under an agreement between DoD and VA, VA 

providers complete the examination for servicemembers who file a 

claim for VA benefits prior to discharge. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
157 

The committee is concerned that the current procedure followed 

by VA providers to conduct a SHPE discourages a servicemember 

who was the victim of military sexual trauma from disclosing the 

assault. Unlike Department of Defense health care providers, VA 

providers are not currently permitted to take a restricted report of 

a sexual assault. Separating servicemembers who have a VA-provided SHPE are instructed that any discussion about a sexual assault will be included in their Service Treatment Records and could 

change a restricted report to an unrestricted report. 

The Committee is concerned that the inability of a servicemember to disclose military sexual trauma at the time of the SHPE undermines the purpose of the SHPE to produce a comprehensive 

record of all of the servicemember’s medical conditions incurred or 

aggravated during military service and could compromise the ability of the servicemember to receive the full scope of VA benefits to 

which the servicemember is entitled. Furthermore, the Committee 

understands the personal strength and courage it requires for a 

victim of military sexual trauma to file a restricted or unrestricted 

report of a sexual assault, and the committee believes that no servicemember should be discouraged from reporting a sexual assault. 

The Committee believes that when barriers to reporting are identified every effort should be made to eliminate them. 

The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to establish a policy that 

enables all Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs health care providers who administer separation exams to 

take a restricted report of a sexual assault. The policy should also 

ensure that information regarding military sexual trauma that is 

received in connection with a restricted report of sexual assault can 

be appropriately considered for the purpose of disability benefits 

administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

DoD report on implementation of GAO recommendations on 

hazing 

The GAO recently conducted a study to address the extent to 

which DOD and the Coast Guard, which falls under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), have developed and implemented policies to address incidents of hazing, and have visibility 

over hazing incidents. The GAO made twelve recommendations in 

their report, among them that DOD and the Coast Guard regularly 

monitor policy implementation, issue guidance on the collection and 

tracking of hazing incident data, and evaluate the prevalence of 

hazing. DOD concurred with all twelve GAO recommendations and 

stated an intention to address them. The committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 

the progress of their implementation of the GAO recommendations 

by the close of the fiscal year 2016. 

Employment of members of the National Guard, Reserves, 

and veterans of the Armed Forces 

The committee remains concerned about members of the National Guard, Reserves, and veterans of the Armed Forces finding 

civilian employment. The committee recognizes that the Secretary 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
158 

of Defense, in coordination with the Department of Labor and the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit this year to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report required by section 583 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291), on the feasibility of improving 

the efforts of the Department of Defense to provide job placement 

assistance and related employment services to members of the reserve components. The committee is committed to reviewing that 

report and taking any recommended actions to improve the processes by which members of the National Guard, Reserves, and veterans of the Armed Forces may find and obtain civilian employment. 

Enhancing the capabilities of Army military intelligence 

personnel 

The committee is concerned that as the Army continues its efforts to regionally align its forces, the U.S. Army Human Resources 

Command does not have a way to quickly administratively identify 

its military intelligence personnel who have experience and expertise relevant to specific geographical regions of the world. 

Furthermore, as the Department of Defense continues its efforts 

to provide unique broadening assignments and opportunities to 

servicemembers, the committee urges the Department to place special focus in providing opportunities to military intelligence 

servicemembers as a way to enhance the capabilities of the military 

intelligence corps and provide the Army with the ability to quickly 

identify personnel who have had regionally focused or overseas assignments, language proficiency, and relevant advanced degrees. 

In order to enhance our military intelligence capabilities, the 

committee urges the Army to create a regional focus identifier for 

military intelligence personnel to provide the Army with a greater 

ability to assign or surge servicemembers to support missions in 

specific geographical regions of the world where certain military intelligence servicemembers are best suited through their military, 

academic, and other relevant experience. 

Enlisted representation 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to appoint senior 

noncommissioned officers (in the pay grades of E7, E8, or E9) as 

members on Department of Defense boards, panels, or bodies of a 

similar nature, where the topic involves the consideration of compensation and benefits (including pay and allowances, health care, 

retirement, and other benefits) of enlisted members of the Armed 

Forces. 

F–35A maintainer shortage report 

The committee is aware of the aircraft maintainer shortage that 

is impacting the stand up of F–35A squadrons and impacting the 

combat readiness and sustainment of all other Air Force squadrons. As a result of this shortage, the USAF is hiring contract 

maintainers through 2019 in non-deploying squadrons in order to 

ensure the Air Force is able to stand up new F–35A squadrons, as 

well as meet basic operations and maintained schedule for training 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
159 

and combat missions across the entire inventory. While the committee is supportive of increasing the number of USAF aircraft 

maintainers in order to fill the shortage of active-duty maintainers 

across the force, the committee remains concerned about a longterm plan to address these shortages. The contract maintainers 

will only meet the Air Force requirements through 2019. Beyond 

2019, the Air Force still has a total force aircraft maintainer shortfall, and will need to access at least 4,000 active duty maintainers 

to replace the contract maintainers, maintain the training pipelines, reduce the deploy-to-dwell ratio, and maintain the Congressionally mandated 1,950 fighter aircraft floor. 

To address this shortfall, the committee recommends that the Air 

Force should thoroughly assess and consider the number of additional active duty, guard, and reserve maintainers that they need 

in order to meet full-spectrum readiness across the entire force. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force 

to develop a plan to increase or reallocate authorized end strength, 

to include in the reserve components and to give consideration to 

the most effective and efficient use of the total force, to ensure that 

installations receiving new F–35As across the Air Force post-2019 

have the necessary maintainers to ensure their operation. The committee directs the Secretary to provide a written plan to the congressional defense committees no later than 90 days following the 

enactment of this Act. 

Impact of basic allowance for housing changes on the Military Housing Privatization Initiative 

The committee notes that recent changes in the basic allowance 

for housing (BAH), as requested by the Department of Defense, 

were implemented without an appropriate level of consideration on 

the impact such changes would have on military housing privatization initiative (MHPI) projects. The committee notes that elsewhere 

in this Act, reforms to the basic allowance for housing that take 

into account actual costs should be applied equally to MHPI 

projects. The Department of Defense has continued to view the 

BAH as compensation, and has thus treated it like a piggy bank 

to return to for savings by slicing percentages across the board. 

However, this committee wishes to preserve the tax-free allowance 

for housing, taking into account dependency status and those living 

in MHPI projects and the actual costs of the value of that housing. 

The BAH is intended to provide housing as an in-kind benefit to 

service members, a benefit which should not involve increased costs 

to those members living in the Department of Defense contracted 

MHPI projects. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States, by August 1, 2017, to conduct an audit of each MHPI 

project in the United States to assess the solvency of each project 

and the impact recent changes to BAH may have on the long-term 

sustainability of such projects. 

Military to mariner transition 

Some industry experts project that the commercial maritime industry will face a shortfall of workers over the coming decade. The 

Navy and the Maritime Administration rely on the availability of 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
160 

merchant mariners to crew the Ready Reserve Force ships in wartime. The Committee therefore urges the Department of Defense 

(DOD) to work with relevant stakeholders, including the Maritime 

Administration and the Coast Guard, to assess whether a shortage 

is likely, and to develop plans to address a potential merchant mariner shortage if such a shortage is predicted. 

The Committee recognizes the ability of transitioning 

servicemembers with maritime experience to help fill this void, and 

that DOD could take steps to assist transitioning servicemembers 

in receiving credentials for maritime service in the private sector. 

The Committee recommends that DOD do the following: (1) maximize the transferability of active duty military servicemembers’ career skills to similar civilian merchant marine industry positions 

by aligning, where possible, required knowledge, skills, and abilities for military positions with knowledge, skills, and abilities for 

certification for maritime careers; and (2) develop a military skills 

translator that could relate military qualifications to equivalent 

commercial certifications, identify gaps in current resources available to help servicemembers transition to the merchant marine industry, as well as provide courses and training to address qualification discrepancies. 

Pilot deficiencies 

It is the sense of the Senate that the services may not be taking 

adequate action to remedy the shortfall of fighter pilots in the near 

and long term. The Air Force is currently short more than 500 

fighter pilots, and expects this to surpass 800 by 2022. Some other 

Air Force pilot communities, particularly the remotely piloted aircraft community, also have shortages, while there are more pilots 

than needed to meet requirements in other communities. The 

Navy, while meeting current requirements, also anticipates a fighter pilot shortfall in the early 2020s. 

The Committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to conduct a report on available force management tools, as 

well as how these tools are used by military services with pilots, 

to manage their pilot accessions and force management priorities 

to right size their different communities. The Committee encourages the Comptroller General of the United States to provide a detailed account of all approaches currently taken by services and 

recommend regulatory or process changes to service force management practices, as warranted, as well as appropriate statutory 

changes. 

Process required for adjudication of suspension or termination of institutions with a voluntary education partnership memoranda of understanding with Department 

of Defense 

The committee is concerned that Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1322.25 does not provide adequate administrative procedures for the fair and expeditious adjudication of complaints 

about educational institutions that have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DOD for a Voluntary Education Partnership. As a result, there is no clear guidance on the 

rights and responsibilities of the DOD or of the educational instituVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00196 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
161 

tion prior to and following a DOD decision to suspend or terminate 

a MOU. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, not later 

than December 30, 2016, to modify the DODI 1322.25 to delineate 

administrative procedures that would ensure that such complaints 

are resolved fairly and expeditiously and establish guidance on the 

rights and responsibilities of the DOD and the subject educational 

institutions after such a complaint has been made. 

Religious accommodation in the military 

The committee commends the Army on recent decisions to grant 

religious accommodation to soldiers of the Sikh faith that will allow 

these soldiers to faithfully serve the Army while adhering to the tenets of their faith. The committee strongly encourages all the military services to provide accommodations such as those provided to 

these soldiers to the maximum extent possible. The committee believes any restriction based on the health and safety of the force 

must be narrowly drawn and objectively imposed on a factual caseby-case basis. Further, the committee does not consider that socalled uniformity of appearance, in isolation from other factors, remains a compelling government interest in the context of a force 

as varied and diverse as ours. Indeed, over the past 15 years our 

military has operated in areas of the world where the predominant 

religions require articles of faith be worn, or hair be worn unshorn. 

The committee concludes that the greater and more compelling interest is to allow our servicemembers to demonstrate in full view 

the diversity of the United States military. 

The committee strongly encourages the Department and the military services to formally adopt policies that allow for the consideration of requests for religious accommodation prior to enlistment or 

commissioning and allow such accommodations, once granted, to 

remain in effect for the servicemember throughout a career. This 

will ease administrative burden of processing these requests and 

will empower commanders to consistently apply clear and operationally relevant standards. Most importantly, it will provide 

peace of mind and certainty for service members who have served 

and continue to serve their nation faithfully. 

Report on litigation billets 

Based on the need to retain senior judge advocates with litigation experience, the Secretaries of the military departments should 

study the feasibility of designating military justice litigators as eligible for continuation under subsection (a) of section 503 of this 

Act. The Secretaries shall also submit to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report 

on the manner in which the judge advocates general corps under 

the jurisdiction of such Secretary (and, in the case of the Marine 

Corps, the judge advocate command element) would best be organized and staffed to provide billets for judge advocates in grades 

0–5 and 0–6 who have experience as courtroom litigators in order 

to provide such corps with an adequate pool of experienced litigators to serve as trial counsel and defense counsel in general courtsmartial for the prosecution of violent offenses under chapter 47 of 

title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice). 

If additional billets are required to provide a corps with such a pool 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
162 

of litigators, the report on such corps shall specify the number of 

additional billets so required. 

Sexual assault prevention strategy 

A November 2015 report by the Government Accountability Office evaluating the Department of Defense’s (DoD) sexual assault 

prevention strategy cites several shortfalls. The report recommends 

that the Department implement a comprehensive evidence-based 

approach to determine the success of prevention-focused activities. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report 

on how it will address the issue of sexual assault prevention, and 

encourages DoD to seek expertise from outside experts to validate 

the approach the Department is taking. 

Space available seating for veterans with service-connected 

disabilities 

The committee continues to support the Department of Defense’s 

(DoD) program to provide transportation on aircraft on a spaceavailable basis for eligible individuals. The committee recognizes 

that the department has the authority to include veterans with 

service-connected disabilities in the space available program. If 

there is excess capacity on some space available flights, the committee encourages the department to assess the feasibility and advisability of providing access to the space available program for 

veterans with 100% service-connected, permanent disability. 

Transition Assistance Program and reserve component 

members 

The committee is concerned that the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) sometimes fails to meet the unique needs of National 

Guard and Reserve members returning from an active-duty deployment, especially the needs of those who have deployed, and 

transitioned, multiple times, which oftentimes results in an unnecessary duplication of TAP required attendance. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to collect data about National Guard 

and Reserve members’ transition experiences and to make recommendations to the committee on how to better serve the transition needs of this population, or alternatively to suggest a transition program specifically designed for the National Guard and Reserve. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(163) 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER 

PERSONNEL BENEFITS 

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances 

Fiscal year 2017 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

pay raise of 1.6 percent for all members of the uniformed services 

effective January 1, 2017. 

Publication by Department of Defense of actual rates of 

basic pay payable to members of the Armed Forces by 

pay grade for annual or other pay periods (sec. 602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Department of Defense to ensure that pay tables of basic pay for 

members of the uniformed services published by the Department 

reflect the operation of the pay cap contained in section 203(a)(2) 

of title 37, United States Code, to more accurately reflect the rates 

of basic pay that may actually be received by service members 

whose basic pay is affected by that cap. 

Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in 

rates of basic allowance for housing under certain circumstances (sec. 603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority of the Secretary of Defense to temporarily increase the rate of basic allowance for housing in areas impacted by 

natural disasters or experiencing a sudden influx of personnel. 

Reform of basic allowance for housing (sec. 604) 

The committee recommends a provision that would reform the 

basic allowance for housing (BAH) benefit for members of the uniformed services, applicable January 1, 2018. The provision would 

require a system that utilizes actual costs up to a maximum allowable amount. No service member will see a change in their allowance until such time as they undergo a permanent change of duty 

station outside their military housing area after January 1, 2018. 

The committee notes with disappointment the March 2016 Department of Defense report submitted in response to the Congressionally-directed reporting requirement contained in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). This directive required the Department to assess how best to modify the current 

BAH system to accurately capture actual housing costs. The Department, however, expressed its opposition to limiting BAH to actual housing costs and views BAH as simply another form of compensation. The Department includes BAH, a tax-free housing benVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
164 

efit, as a part of its calculation of ‘‘Regular Military Compensation,’’ 

which it uses as an approximation of a civilian salary, and indeed, 

makes this comparison in determining the adequacy of military 

pay. 

The committee has concerns about how BAH, as an entitlement, 

and the perception of BAH among servicemembers, has evolved 

over the past 20 years. BAH, and the iterations of the benefit that 

came before, was intended to provide a housing benefit for service 

members in recognition of the transient nature of military service, 

and in further recognition of the reality that civilian spouses are 

often unemployed and sacrifice careers of their own. Indeed, that 

the housing allowance was and is intended as primarily a housing 

benefit is demonstrated by its tax-free nature, the differentiation 

based on dependency status, and the fact that servicemembers occupying government quarters, including junior enlisted personnel 

required to reside in barracks or on a ship, are ineligible to receive 

BAH. This disconnect between what the allowance is for and how 

it is promoted and perceived is exacerbated by the significant increases in the benefit over the past 16 years. While 

servicemembers paid as much as 22 percent of their housing costs 

out of pocket in the decades preceding the change to the current 

system in the late 1990s, by 2006, out-of-pocket expenses were 

eliminated entirely, and indeed, in certain circumstances, as demonstrated by a recent US Army Audit Agency (USAAA) audit, the 

benefit now far exceeds the actual cost of housing borne by some 

servicemembers. 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 by more than $200 million in fiscal year 2014 

alone, and recommended modifying BAH to bring actual costs more 

in line with the provided benefit. 

For the forgoing reasons, the committee recommends substantial 

reform of the housing benefit. Accordingly, the Secretary of Defense 

is directed to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 

2017, a report that describes the new BAH calculation will be implemented. Such a report shall include the following elements: (1) 

proposed regulations that the Secretary of Defense will implement 

for the purpose of administering the basic allowance for housing inside the United States consistent with this provision; (2) any legislative changes the Secretary believes are necessary to execute this 

change in application of the BAH; (3) an analysis of whether a system that establishes a single rate, similar to the basic allowance 

for subsistence, as applied by rank and grade nation-wide with a 

variable allowance for high-cost areas would be a preferred option 

for BAH delivery as an alternative to this provision; and (4) an assessment of the impact of these changes on retention and overall 

military compensation, particularly pertaining to members who reside with other members and members who share accommodations. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
165 

Repeal of obsolete authority for combat-related injury rehabilitation pay (sec. 605) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

328 of title 10, United States Code, relating to an obsolete authority for combat-related injury rehabilitation pay. 

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment bonus, 

the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus, special pay for 

enlisted members assigned to certain high-priority units, the Ready 

Reserve enlistment bonus for persons without prior service, the 

Ready Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with 

prior service, the Selected Reserve enlistment and reenlistment 

bonus for persons with prior service, travel expenses for certain inactive-duty training, and income replacement for reserve component members experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for 

Active-Duty service. 

One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate accession 

bonus, education loan repayment for certain health professionals 

who serve in the Selected Reserve, accession and retention bonuses 

for psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses, incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, special pay for Selected Reserve health professionals in critically short wartime specialties, 

the accession bonus for dental officers, the accession bonus for 

pharmacy officers, the accession bonus for medical officers in critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus for dental 

specialist officers in critically short wartime specialties. 

One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for 

nuclear officers (sec. 613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending period of active service, the nuclear career accession 

bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus. 

One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities 

(sec. 614) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend for 1 

year the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the general 

bonus authority for officers, special bonus and incentive pay authorities for nuclear officers, special aviation incentive pay and 

bonus authorities for officers, and special bonus and incentive pay 

authorities for officers in health professions, and contracting bonus 

for cadets and midshipmen enrolled in the Senior Officers’ Training 

Corps. The provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
166 

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. 

Conforming amendment to consolidation of special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 616) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 332 of title 10, United States Code, to correct an inequity that 

will exist when the Department transitions to a general bonus authority on October 1, 2017. This amendment will increase the maximum bonus authority under the new general bonus authority to 

$20,000 to match the maximum bonus level under the old authority. Maintaining the current bonus level will enable the Services to 

retain the ability to recruit and retain reserve component officers. 

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances 

Maximum reimbursement amount for travel expenses of Reserves to attend inactive duty training outside of normal 

commuting distance (sec. 621) 

The Committee recommends a provision that would amend section 478a(c) of title 37, United States Code, to allow for a higher 

reimbursement amount on a case-by-case basis for certain members 

of the Reserve component traveling to attend inactive duty training 

outside of normal committing distances. 

Period for relocation of spouses and dependents of certain 

members of the Armed Forces undergoing a permanent 

change of station (sec. 622) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 1784b of title 10, United States Code, to provide greater 

flexibility for families to determine the sequencing of permanent 

change of station moves when the member and family must move 

separately to accommodate particular circumstances requiring such 

a division, including the accommodation of dependent educational 

obligations and spousal employment and education needs. The provision would also require the Comptroller General to submit to 

Congress within one year after the enactment of this Act a report 

assessing potential actions of the Department of Defense to enhance the stability of military families undergoing permanent 

changes of station. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
167 

Subtitle D—Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor 

Benefits 

Part I—Amendments in Connection With Retired Pay 

Reform 

Election period for members in the service academies and 

inactive Reserves to participate in the modernized retirement system (sec. 631) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1409 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the timing for 

cadets and midshipmen at the service academies to opt-in to the 

new military retirement system enacted in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). The 

provision would also clarify the timing of such elections for reservists who are on Inactive Duty during the election period otherwise 

provided for under the new retirement system. 

Effect of separation of members from the uniformed services on participation in the Thrift Savings Plan (sec. 

632) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal paragraph (2) of section 632(c) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). This amendment 

makes a technical correction for the new military retirement plan 

enacted in that Act relative to defining separation from service 

under the Thrift Savings Plan. 

Continuation pay for members who have completed 8 to 12 

years of service (sec. 633) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 356 of title 37, United States Code, to modify the continuation 

pay for members under the new military retirement system enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92) to provide the Secretary of Defense with 

the flexibility to offer continuation pay in the window between 8 

and 12 years of service in exchange for a 3 years of service or 

greater commitment as the Secretary deems appropriate for retention. 

Combat-related special compensation coordinating amendment (sec. 634) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1413a of title 10, United States Code, to make a technical and 

conforming amendment to Combat-Related Special Compensation, 

to bring that authority in line with the new military retirement 

system enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
168 

Sense of the Congress on Roth contributions as default contributions of members of the Armed Forces participating in the Thrift Savings Plan under retired pay reform (sec. 635) 

The committee recommends a provision which states the sense of 

the Congress that the Department of Defense should explore making the default contributions of a full Thrift Savings Plan member 

under the new military retirement plan enacted in the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114– 

92) to be designated as Roth contributions until the member elects 

not to designate such contributions as Roth contributions. The Congress believes this will benefit and aid enlisted and junior troops 

in saving for their retirement. 

Part II—Other Matters 

Extension of allowance covering monthly premium for 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance while in certain 

overseas areas to cover members in any combat zone or 

overseas direct support area (sec. 641) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 437 of title 37, United States Code, to expand the areas eligible for the allowance for covering monthly premiums for the 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance to include any designated 

combat zone or an area directly supporting a designated combat 

zone. 

Use of member’s current pay grade and years of service, 

rather than final retirement pay grade and years of 

service, in a division of property involving disposable 

retired pay (sec. 642) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1408 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the division of 

military retired pay in a divorce decree to the amount the member 

would be entitled based upon the member’s pay grade and years of 

service at the time of the divorce rather than at the time of retirement with the spousal share of the retired pay computed on the retired pay as adjusted by the annual increases in military pay. This 

provision is prospective only and would not affect existing divorce 

settlements. 

Permanent extension of payment of special survivor indemnity allowances under the survivor benefit plan (sec. 

643) 

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 at 

the monthly rate currently payable for fiscal year 2017. 

Authority to deduct Survivor Benefit Plan premiums from 

combat-related special compensation when retired pay 

not sufficient (sec. 644) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1452 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the deducVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00204 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
169 

tion of Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) premiums from monthly combat related special compensation (CRSC) when retired pay is insufficient to cover the premiums. 

The committee notes that under current SBP law, only a member’s retired pay may be reduced for payment of the SBP premiums. In the event that the amount of the required premium deductions exceeds the amount of retired pay available to be reduced, 

there is no statutory authority to reduce the combat-related special 

compensation. Instead, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) must pay the full amount of CRSC to the member, and 

the member must then remit the SBP premium payment separately back to DFAS. This provision would allow for the deduction 

of SBP premiums from CRSC when the member is in receipt of 

both retired pay and CRSC so that the member does not have the 

extra administrative burden of paying the government through a 

separate check and risking interest accrual on such payments. 

Sense of the Congress on options for members of the Armed 

Forces to designate payment of the death gratuity to a 

trust for a special needs individual (sec. 645) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

Sense of the Congress that the Department of Defense should explore options to allow servicemembers to designate that, upon their 

death, the death gratuity may be paid to a trust that is legally established under any federal, state, or territorial law. This would 

provide greater financial and estate planning capability for a servicemember to provide for those who require the protections of a 

trust, such as minor children or incapacitated adults, or those with 

special needs. 

Independent assessment of the Survivor Benefit Plan (sec. 

646) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to provide for an independent assessment of 

the Department of Defense Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) by a federally-funded research and development center (FFRDC). The assessment conducted shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

(A) A statement of the purposes behind the SBP, how that program 

interacts with other federal programs to provide for survivors of 

military members and retirees, and a comparison with civilian sector benefits offered to both government and private sector employees intended to provide financial stability and resources for spouses 

and other dependent individuals when a primary family earner 

dies; (B) The effectiveness of the SBP in providing survivors with 

intended benefits, including the provision of survivor benefits for 

survivors of members dying on Active Duty and those in a reserve 

status; and (C) Whether the provision of survivor benefits might be 

better accomplished through alternative insurance products available commercially for similar purposes, to what extent the Government may subsidize such a product so that there are no increased 

costs to the Government, and the extent to which such products 

might meet the needs of survivors, especially those on fixed incomes, to maintain financial stability. Not later than 1 year after 

the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
170 

a report on the independent assessment to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives containing the findings of the assessment, together with comments by 

the Secretary on the assessment and recommended statutory 

changes, if any. 

Subtitle E—Commissary and Non-Appropriated Fund 

Instrumentality Benefits and Operations 

Protection and enhancement of access to and savings at 

commissaries and exchanges (sec. 661) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2481, 2483, 2484, and 2487 of title 10, United States Code, 

to require the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a 

comprehensive strategy to optimize management practices across 

the defense commissary system and the exchange system that reduces their reliance on appropriated funding without reducing benefits to commissary patrons or revenues generated by non-appropriated fund entities. This provision would authorize the Secretary 

to carry out an alternative pricing program, evaluated against specific, measurable benchmarks and a documented baseline level of 

savings, within the defense commissary system to establish prices 

for goods and services in response to market conditions and customer demand. Furthermore, the provision would authorize the 

Secretary to convert the commissary system to a non-appropriated 

fund entity or instrumentality if the Secretary determines that the 

alternative pricing program met established benchmarks for success for a period of at least 6 months. If conversion to a non-appropriated fund entity or instrumentality occurs, the Secretary would 

ensure that no employee of the defense commissary system, as of 

the date of enactment of this Act, would incur a loss or decrease 

in pay resulting from the conversion. This provision would also authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish common business 

processes, practices, and systems to optimize the operations of the 

entire defense resale system, including authorizing the use of appropriated and non-appropriated funds on contracts or agreements 

for the acquisition of common systems. Finally, the provision would 

authorize the Secretary to supplement appropriated funds for defense commissary system operations with additional funds derived 

from improved management practices and the alternative pricing 

program. 

Pilot program on privatization of the Defense Commissary 

System (sec. 662) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, within 180 days after the date of enactment 

of this Act, to conduct a pilot program, of not less than 2 years and 

at no more than five commissaries, assessing the feasibility and advisability of privatization of the Defense Commissary System. The 

provision would authorize the Secretary to include such elements 

as necessary to assess the feasibility and advisability of privatization. In conducting the pilot program, the Secretary may include an 

online component such that eligible beneficiaries may order and 

purchase goods and products through the Internet and receive 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
171 

those items through home delivery. The provision would require 

the Secretary to establish specific, measurable benchmarks of success for the provision of high quality grocery merchandise, discount 

savings to patrons, and customer satisfaction. Within 180 days 

after completion of the pilot program, the Secretary would submit 

a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives that, with other report requirements, 

provides an assessment of the feasibility and advisability of 

privatizing the Defense Commissary System. 

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Compliance with domestic source requirements for footwear furnished to enlisted members of the Armed 

Forces upon their initial entry into the Armed Forces 

(sec. 671) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to furnish athletic footwear directly to members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps instead of 

providing a cash allowance. Such footwear must comply with section 2533a of title 10, United States Code. 

Authority for payment of pay and allowances and retired 

and retainer pay pursuant to power of attorney (sec. 

672) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 602 of title 37, United States Code, to authorize payment of 

certain pay and allowances of a servicemember or retired servicemember to an individual to whom the member has granted authority to manage these funds pursuant to a valid and legally executed 

durable power of attorney. This proposal will enable members to 

responsibly and proactively plan their personal affairs in the event 

of their incapacitation, and to allow those durable powers of attorney to be recognized by the military departments and the Department of Defense. 

The provision would also amend section 602 of title 10, United 

States Code, to require a bond only in the case of a person acting 

for the benefit of the incapacitated member who is designated by 

the secretary concerned under this section, and only if the amount 

of payments would be more than $25,000. 

Items of Special Interest 

Military forty-year pay table revision advisability report 

The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives no later than March 1, 2017, a study on the advisability and feasibility of reforming the 40-year pay table and retirement benefit to cap retired pay based on the highest grade 

achieved, irrespective of years of service performed. Such a structure would allow only members of the highest rank and highest 

years of service to earn the highest retirement benefit. Caps should 

be considered separately for commissioned and non-commissioned 

officers, warrant officers, and enlisted personnel. This study should 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
172 

include an assessment of cost savings, impact to morale and retention, secondary effects to promotion rates, and benefits to force 

management. This study shall also consider cost-saving measures 

that still allow a member with 20 years of total service to retire 

but prevent officers with prior enlisted service to use non-commissioned time served to increase their retirement percent eligibility. 

It should also consider the suitability of special pay or bonuses as 

a retention tool as an alternative to increasing the retired pay multiplier, to compensate specific occupational specialties such as chaplains and limited duty officers, specialties that have limited promotion rates but great longevity benefits. 

The Committee report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 2015 (P.L. 114–92) directed the Secretary of Defense to review the military’s pay tables, focusing on whether the 

40-year pay table was still justified as a retention tool. The Department of Defense stated it opposed reverting back to the 30-year pay 

table because the 40-year pay table accomplishes the Department 

of Defense’s objectives of fielding an experienced and ready force 

capable of retaining its most senior members. Although an analysis 

showed that the Department of Defense did experience greater retention of general and flag officers and senior non-commissioned officers, the most significant percentage increases in service over 30 

years were in the group of field grade officers. At an additional cost 

of $1.2 billion per year and growing, cost-saving reforms need to be 

investigated to keep the 40-year pay table. These reforms must ensure that the increased incentives inherent to the 40-year pay table 

targets groups that have experienced the greatest retention challenges. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(173) 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS 

Military health system reform overview 

In January 2015, the Military Compensation and Retirement 

Modernization Commission provided the Congress its recommendations to modernize the military compensation and retirement systems. Building on those recommendations, the committee achieved 

enactment of historic reforms to the military retirement system in 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). These reforms expanded retirement benefits to the 

majority of military servicemembers excluded under the old system 

while saving taxpayers approximately $13.0 billion in discretionary 

spending over the next 10 years and approximately $12.0 billion 

per year in steady state mandatory spending. Modernizing the military retirement system demonstrated that true reform can deliver 

better and expanded benefits to military servicemembers while saving taxpayer dollars. 

In addition to its recommendations to modernize the military retirement system, the Commission recommended major reform of 

the military health system. Those recommendations offered a plan 

to improve and sustain operational medical force readiness, improve access to care, and expand beneficiaries’ choices of health 

plans. 

The committee has taken a very deliberate approach to enacting 

major military health system reform legislation. For more than a 

year, the committee has worked diligently to understand the implications and unintended consequences of any plan to reform the 

military health system a large, complex health program with over 

9.4 million eligible beneficiaries. During this time, the committee 

held hearings with civilian healthcare experts and Department of 

Defense (DOD) officials, studied the attributes of high-performing 

civilian health systems, examined many published reports on military and civilian healthcare, visited military treatment facilities, 

held numerous meetings with military and veterans service organizations, and conducted sensing sessions with military and civilian 

hospital personnel. Most importantly, the committee visited with 

beneficiaries to better understand their current experiences with 

the military health system and to determine whether the existing 

system meets their needs. This extensive work has made invaluable contributions to the committee’s oversight of the military 

health system. 

Since 2001, battlefield injury survival rates have been higher 

than at any time in our nation’s history. The committee applauds 

military healthcare personnel for professionally and compassionately caring for wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers over 

the last 15 years. Clearly, battlefield medicine is a pocket of excellence in the military health system that must be maintained. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
174 

However, it is also clear that the military health system, designed decades ago, has increasingly emphasized delivering peacetime healthcare at the expense of strengthening operational medical force readiness. Prior to 2001, medical force readiness suffered 

immeasurably, forcing the military Services to build a more robust 

combat casualty care capability to meet the demands of the wars 

in Afghanistan and Iraq. For example, the committee understands 

that OB/GYN physicians substituted as trauma surgeons in combat 

theaters because the Services had too few qualified trauma surgeons to meet combatant command requirements. 

Bloated medical headquarters staffs—over 12,000 persons 

strong—have failed to take quick action on what needs to be fixed 

in the direct care component of the military health system. Despite 

the lack of additional capacity to enroll patients in bottle-necked 

primary care clinics, beneficiaries continue to be forced to receive 

care at military hospitals. The Services claim they need more patients in their hospitals to maintain medical force readiness, but 

the most common health services performed by military providers 

relate to pregnancy, childbirth, and pediatric care—health services 

not typically necessary to ensure medical force readiness training. 

In addition, the current stove-piped military health system command structure leads to inevitable turf wars among the military 

Services and the Defense Health Agency, paralyzing decision-making and stifling healthcare innovation. Data show that military 

healthcare providers have much lower productivity than their comparable civilian counterparts, which severely limits beneficiaries’ 

access to healthcare services. Although set at an unreasonably low 

level, DOD’s productivity goal for physicians—40 percent of the 

Medical Group Management Association median—cannot be met by 

many military medical providers. While some lower productivity 

should be expected due to unique medical force readiness training 

requirements, the committee does not believe that these requirements should hinder productivity significantly. 

Moreover, a recent study shows that the Services underestimate 

the true costs of officer and enlisted medical personnel compared 

to the total costs for government civilians and contractors. The 

study concluded that the complete cost to the taxpayer of military 

medical personnel far exceeded the cost of civilian healthcare providers with comparable skills. Data also show that the total cost to 

provide healthcare services in military treatment facilities is greater than the cost of providing the same types of services in the private sector yet the Department continues to advocate that military 

treatment facilities are less expensive than private sector facilities. 

The private sector component of the military health system is not 

without its own flaws. Beneficiaries complain about the cumbersome authorization and referral process for specialty care and a 

lack of access to care in large TRICARE provider networks. The 

current TRICARE program’s myriad outmoded regulations and 

policies focus on ‘‘the system’’ rather than doing the right thing for 

beneficiaries. TRICARE’s obsolete medical support contract strategy results in high acquisition costs, routine bid protests, implementation delays, high management costs, and costly contract extensions. Under those contracts, the Department, and ultimately 

the taxpayers, remain solely at risk for the cost of all healthcare 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
175 

services provided, and the rigid adherence to fee-for-service provider reimbursement fails to encourage individual and institutional 

network providers to provide higher quality care, better access to 

care, and higher patient satisfaction at lower costs to the Department and the taxpayers. 

As the committee formulated its defense health reform initiatives, we determined not to increase TRICARE fees unless we could 

create more value—provide higher quality care, better access to 

care, and a better experience of care. Based on the above findings 

and many others, the committee developed a comprehensive legislative package that would provide a gold-standard, integrated 

healthcare delivery system, creating high value for all beneficiaries. 

The committee mark contains numerous provisions to meet the following reform objectives of the committee. Improve and maintain 

operational medical force readiness: (1) creates specialized care centers of excellence at major military medical centers; (2) expands 

military-civilian trauma training sites and requires integrated 

trauma team training; (3) requires establishment of personnel 

management plans for important wartime medical specialties; (4) 

requires development of quality of care outcome measures for combat casualty care; (5) requires greater focus on medical research to 

understand better the causes of morbidity and mortality of service 

men and women in combat; (6) requires development of a trauma 

care registry; (7) requires development of standardized tactical 

combat casualty care training; and (8) expands eligibility for care 

in military treatment facilities to veterans and certain civilians. 

Enhance access to high quality healthcare: (1) creates local highperforming military-civilian integrated health delivery systems; (2) 

expands telehealth capabilities in the military health system; (3) 

creates specialized care centers of excellence at major military medical centers; (4) requires contracts for turn-key primary care/urgent 

care clinics at military treatment facilities; (5) authorizes a pilot 

program to give commercial health insurance coverage to reserve 

component members and their families; and (6) requires a standardized medical appointment system across the military health system. 

Improve beneficiaries’ health outcomes: (1) increases beneficiary 

involvement and shared responsibility to improve health outcomes 

and to lower costs—targets smoking cessation and weight reduction; (2) incentivizes participation in disease management programs; and (3) and incentivizes use of high-value providers. 

Create health value: (1) expands and improves access to care by 

requiring a standardized appointment system in military treatment 

facilities; (2) expands the full range of telehealth services available 

to beneficiaries; (3) authorizes lower co-payments for high-value 

pharmaceuticals and medical services; (4) eliminates the requirement for pre-authorization for specialty care referrals; (5) requires 

a plan to improve pediatric care and related services; (6) 

incentivizes participation in disease management programs; (7) authorizes enrollment of eligible beneficiaries in federal dental and vision insurance programs managed by the Office of Personnel Management; (8) authorizes new TRICARE health plans; and (9) eliminates existing cost-shares for services provided under the current 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
176 

TRICARE Standard plan and replaces them with fixed co-payments 

to lower overall costs for beneficiaries. 

Modernize TRICARE medical support contracts: (1) incorporates 

value-based healthcare methodology and value-based provider reimbursement into TRICARE contracts; (2) expands access to the 

full range of telehealth capabilities; (3) allows contractors to use 

the latest innovations in the private sector health plan market; (4) 

transfers financial risk to contractors and healthcare providers; (5) 

focuses contracts on building networks of high-value providers; and 

(6) requires a competitive, continuously open contracting strategy. 

Drive efficiencies and eliminate waste: (1) right-sizes the footprint of the military health system to meet operational medical 

force requirements and the medical readiness of the Armed Forces; 

(2) realigns the medical command structure and shrinks headquarters staffing creating greater efficiency in the management of 

the military health system; (3) eliminates graduate medical education training programs not directly supporting operational medical readiness requirements and the medical readiness of the 

Armed Forces; (4) authorizes conversion of military healthcare provider positions to civilian or contractor positions; (5) requires a 

multi-year study by the Comptroller General of the United States 

to find healthcare waste throughout the military health system; (6) 

requires centrally-managed, performance-based professional staffing contracts; and (7) modernizes TRICARE medical support contracts. 

Lower the per capita costs of healthcare for DOD and beneficiaries: (1) authorizes very modest increases in existing single and 

family annual enrollment fees by $68 and $135 respectively for 

working-age military retirees; (2) authorizes changes to co-payments for medical services but allows DOD to lower co-payments 

for high-value services and raise co-payments for low-value services; (3) increases pharmacy co-payments incrementally over a 9- 

year window but authorizes DOD to give preferential status to any 

non-generic pharmaceutical agent on the uniform formulary by establishing the same co-payment as the co-payment of a generic 

product under the retail and mail order programs; (4) authorizes 

appointment no-show fees in military treatment facilities; and (5) 

incentivizes participation in disease management programs. 

Demand performance accountability: (1) establishes performance 

accountability for military healthcare leaders throughout the military health system; (2) establishes rigorous criteria for selection of 

military treatment facility commanders; and (3) establishes minimum lengths of tours of duty for military treatment facility commanders. 

The committee believes these significant reforms constitute a 

critical first step in the evolution of the military health system 

from an under-performing, disjointed health system into a highperforming integrated health system that gives beneficiaries what 

they need and deserve: the right care at the right time in the right 

place. True transformation, however, will require a cultural change 

across the entire military health system—a change from a systemfirst culture to a patient-first culture. Such a cross-service cultural 

shift is essential to building trust with beneficiaries and creating 

health value for them. The committee expects military health sysVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00212 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
177 

tem leaders and their private sector partners to begin immediately 

advancing a patient-first culture throughout the military health 

system. 

Subtitle A—Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits 

Reform of health care plans available under the TRICARE 

program (sec. 701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, to reform health care plans 

available under the TRICARE program. The provision would establish three health plan choices for families of Active-Duty 

servicemembers, and retired military members and their families: 

(1) TRICARE Prime, a managed care option; (2) TRICARE Choice, 

a self-managed option; and (3) TRICARE Supplemental, an option 

for retired members and their families, other than TRICARE-ForLife beneficiaries, who have other health insurance. Beneficiaries 

would be required to enroll in one of the TRICARE options during 

an annual open enrollment period in order to obtain care through 

the TRICARE Program. 

Under this provision, the Department would offer TRICARE 

Prime in areas near military treatment facilities (MTFs). ActiveDuty family members would be authorized to enroll in TRICARE 

Prime, and there would be no cost shares. Retirees and their family 

members would be authorized to enroll in TRICARE Prime in areas 

where an MTF has a significant number of health care providers, 

including specialty providers, and sufficient capability to support 

efficient operations of the MTF. A TRICARE Prime enrollee would 

be required to obtain a referral for care from a designated primary 

care manager prior to obtaining care under the TRICARE program. 

A referral to network providers for specialty care services would 

not require a beneficiary to obtain a pre-authorization. The provision would require the Secretary to ensure that beneficiaries have 

the same level of access to care within timelines that meet or exceed those of high-performing health systems in the private sector. 

The committee believes this should enable beneficiaries to obtain 

same-day appointment access to most primary and some specialty 

health care services. 

This provision would establish TRICARE Choice in other locations in the country, and beneficiaries may receive care from any 

health care provider selected by the member subject to any restrictions established by the Secretary. 

This provision includes a cost-share table for calendar year 2018 

for both TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Choice that would establish rates for annual enrollment fees, annual deductibles, annual 

catastrophic caps, and co-payments for inpatient visits, outpatient 

visits, and other services. The provision would gradually increase 

the annual enrollment fee for military retirees and their families 

under TRICARE Choice over a period of 5 years through 2023. 

Subsequently, annual enrollment fees for military retirees and 

their families in TRICARE Choice after 2023, and for military retirees and their families under TRICARE Prime after 2018, would 

increase by the annual percent of the Consumer Price Index for 

Health Care Services, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
178 

Additionally, the provision would increase the deductible, co-payment, and annual catastrophic cap amounts after 2018, by the annual cost of living adjustment for military retired pay. 

The provision would authorize the Secretary to adopt special coverage and reimbursement methods, amounts, and procedures to encourage the use of high-value services and products and to discourage the use of low-value services and products. 

Under this provision, retirees and their family members with 

other health insurance would be authorized to enroll in the 

TRICARE Supplemental option. The provision establishes an annual enrollment fee that would be one-half of the fee for the 

TRICARE Choice option. Under TRICARE Supplemental, 

TRICARE would pay the deductible and co-payment amounts 

under the beneficiary’s primary health plan, not to exceed the 

amount TRICARE would have paid as primary payer to an out-ofnetwork provider. 

A number of existing TRICARE programs would remain unchanged under this provision: (1) Extended Health Care Option 

Program; (2) TRICARE Reserve Select; (3) TRICARE Retired Reserve; (4) TRICARE Dental Program; and the (5) Continued Health 

Care Benefits Program. This provision would not affect the required cost-shares under the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program, but the annual enrollment fee, annual deductible, and annual catastrophic cap established in this section would apply to the 

pharmacy program. With this provision, the cost-share requirements for remote area dependents would be the same as those established under the TRICARE Prime Option but without a referral 

requirement. 

Modifications of cost-sharing requirements for the 

TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program and treatment of 

certain pharmaceutical agents (sec. 702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify costsharing amounts for the TRICARE pharmacy benefits program for 

years 2017 through 2025. After 2025, the Department could establish cost-sharing amounts equal to the cost-sharing amounts for the 

previous year adjusted by an amount, if any, to reflect increases in 

costs of pharmaceutical agents and pharmacy dispensing fees. With 

this provision, beneficiaries would continue to receive pharmaceuticals at no cost in military medical treatment facilities. 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
179 

mail order programs. Finally, the provision would 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 lowvalue agents. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 

(Public Law 114–92) authorized modest cost-share amount increases for certain pharmaceuticals obtained through the TRICARE 

retail pharmacy network or the mail order pharmacy in fiscal year 

2016, but it did not include the Administration’s proposal to increase cost-share amounts in subsequent years. In conference deliberations with the House of Representatives last year, the conferees 

agreed to reconsider broader proposed cost-share amount changes 

submitted by the Administration with the fiscal year 2017 budget 

request. The committee believes the Department should use savings generated from pharmaceutical cost-share increases to improve health outcomes and the experience of care for beneficiaries 

of the military health system. 

Eligibility of certain beneficiaries under the TRICARE program for participation in the Federal Employees Dental 

and Vision Insurance Program (sec. 703) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 8951 and 8981 of title 5, United States Code, to require the 

Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement with the Director 

of the Office of Personnel Management to offer eligible beneficiaries 

the opportunity to purchase dental and vision insurance currently 

available to federal employees under the Federal Employees Dental 

and Vision Insurance Program. The committee believes this provision would extend highly regarded dental and vision insurance coverage to certain eligible beneficiaries and provide better opportunities, through enhanced benefits, for improved dental and vision 

health. 

Coverage of medically necessary food and vitamins for digestive and inherited metabolic disorders under the 

TRICARE program (sec. 704) 

The committee recommends a provision that amend section 1077 

of title 10, United States Code, to provide TRICARE program coverage for medically necessary food, including the equipment and 

supplies necessary to administer that food, and vitamins for digestive disorders and inherited metabolic disorders. 

Enhancement of use of telehealth services in military health 

system (sec. 705) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, within 1 year of the date of enactment of this 

Act, to incorporate the use of telehealth services throughout the direct and purchased care components of the military health system. 

The provision would require the Department to make telehealth 

services available to: (1) improve access to primary care, urgent 

care, behavioral health care, and specialty care; (2) perform health 

assessments; (3) provide diagnoses, treatments, interventions, and 

supervision; (4) monitor individual health outcomes of covered 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
180 

beneficiaries with chronic diseases or conditions; (5) improve communication between health care providers and patients; and (6) reduce health care costs for beneficiaries and the Department of Defense. 

This provision would require the Secretary to establish standardized payment methods to reimburse health care providers for telehealth services provided to covered beneficiaries in the purchased 

care component of the TRICARE program to incentivize the provision of telehealth services. The provision would also require the 

Secretary to reduce or eliminate co-payments or cost-shares for covered beneficiaries for receipt of telehealth services. 

The Secretary would be required to submit an initial report, 

within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, describing the full range of telehealth services to be 

available in the direct and purchased care components of the military health system. Within 3 years after the date of incorporation 

of telehealth services throughout the military health system, the 

Secretary would be required to submit a final report to the committees describing the impact made by use of telehealth services in the 

direct and purchased care components of the military health system. 

Early this year, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs published a memorandum that authorized the provision of 

telemedicine services at a patient’s location. The committee considers this policy a good first step, but the additional conditions applied to the policy unduly restrict beneficiaries’ full use of the same 

telehealth capabilities readily available in the private sector. The 

committee believes the Department should amend its published 

conditions for the provision of telemedicine services to ensure beneficiaries everywhere have full access to those services. 

Evaluation and treatment of veterans and civilians at military treatment facilities (sec. 706) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

veteran or civilian to be evaluated and treated at a military treatment facility if the Secretary of Defense determines that: (1) the 

evaluation and treatment of the individual is necessary to maintain 

the medical readiness skills and competencies of health care providers at the facility; (2) health care providers at the facility have 

the competencies, skills and abilities to treat the individual; and (3) 

the facility has available space, equipment, and materials. 

The provision would authorize a military treatment facility to bill 

and accept reimbursement for services provided to a civilian patient. Under this provision, the Secretary of Defense would be required to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs whereby the Secretary of Veterans Affairs would reimburse a military treatment facility for the costs of 

any health care services provided to individuals eligible for health 

care services from the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

By authorizing military health care providers to treat eligible 

veterans and certain civilians in military treatment facilities, this 

provision would help the Department of Defense to ensure that 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
181 

military health care providers maintain their operational medical 

force readiness skills and core competencies. 

Pilot program to provide health insurance to members of 

the reserve components of the Armed Forces (sec. 707) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program jointly with the 

Director of the Office of Personnel Management (Director), of at 

least 5 years duration, to provide commercial health insurance coverage to eligible reserve component members who enroll for either 

individual, self plus one, or self and family coverage. If the Secretary, and the Director, determine that a pilot program is feasible, 

the Director would contract with qualified health insurance carriers to provide eligible beneficiaries with a variety of high quality 

health benefits plans, which could vary by plan design, covered 

benefits, geography, and price. Reserve component members and 

their family members would not be eligible to enroll in a health 

plan in the pilot program if they are eligible to enroll in a health 

benefits plan under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. 

Under the pilot program, the Secretary could contract with qualified health insurance carriers to provide coverage for health care 

services provided at military treatment facilities to pilot program 

participants, and the Department would receive payment from 

those carriers for any services provided at those facilities. Family 

members of an eligible reserve component member could remain 

covered under the pilot program even when the reserve component 

member became ineligible for coverage while serving on Active 

Duty for a period greater than 30 days. 

In addition, an eligible reserve component member would be responsible for payment of all cost sharing amounts applicable to the 

health benefits plan plus an annual premium amount equal to 28 

percent of the total annual amount of the premium under the plan. 

During a period in which a reserve component member served on 

Active Duty for more than 30 days, the premium amount and cost 

shares would be zero for eligible family members. 

In consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the 

Secretary would provide recommendations and data to the Director 

on matters regarding military treatment facilities, matters unique 

to eligible reserve component members and their families, and any 

other guidance necessary to administer the pilot program. The Secretary and the Director would jointly establish a funding mechanism for the pilot program, and the Secretary would make funds 

available to the Director, without fiscal year limitation, for payment of health plan costs and administrative expenses. 

Pilot program on treatment of members of the Armed 

Forces for post-traumatic stress disorder related to military sexual trauma (sec. 708) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program, of not more than 

3 years duration, to award competitive grants to community partners to provide intensive outpatient programs to treat members of 

the Armed Forces suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder reVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
182 

sulting from military sexual trauma, including treatment for substance use disorder, depression, and other issues related to those 

conditions. Under this provision, a community partner would be a 

private health care organization or institution that: 1) provides 

health care to servicemembers; 2) provides evidence-based treatment for psychological and neurological conditions common to 

servicemembers; 3) provides health care, support, and other benefits to family members of servicemembers; and 4) provides health 

care under the TRICARE program. The government share of the 

costs of programs carried out by community partners could not exceed 50 percent in this pilot program. 

Subtitle B—Health Care Administration 

Consolidation of the medical departments of the Army, 

Navy, and Air Force into the Defense Health Agency 

(sec. 721) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to disestablish the medical departments of the 

Armed Forces and consolidate all activities of those departments 

into the Defense Health Agency. The Secretary could not undertake 

this action until 60 days after submission of the Department’s consolidation plan to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives. The provision would also require 

the Comptroller General of the United States to review the consolidation plan and submit that review to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives within 180 

days after the Secretary submits the plan to the committees. 

Under this provision, the Defense Health Agency would be led by 

an officer of the Armed Forces holding the grade of lieutenant general or vice admiral and be responsible for the medical operations 

of the Department of Defense. The resultant Defense Health Agency would consist of four subordinate organizations: 1) an organization responsible for all military medical treatment facilities; 2) an 

organization responsible for medical professional recruitment and 

retention activities, medical education and training, research and 

development activities, and executive agencies for medical operations or activities; 3) an organization responsible for activities and 

duties of the current Defense Health Agency; and 4) an organization responsible for activities and duties to improve and maintain 

operational medical force readiness capabilities and to ensure 

sustainment of combat casualty care and trauma readiness of military health care providers. A major general or rear admiral upper 

half would serve as head of each subordinate organization. 

The provision would give broad authorities to the Director of the 

Defense Health Agency, under the supervision and control of the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, to conduct the 

medical operations functions of the Department. In addition, the 

provision would amend sections 3036, 5137, and 8036 of title 10, 

United States Code, to establish the duties and responsibilities of 

the Surgeons General of the military Services as principal advisor 

to the service secretary and service chief as well as chief medical 

advisor of that Service to the Defense Health Agency. Finally, the 

provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
183 

on consolidation, by January 1, 2017, to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 

After careful study, the committee concludes that a single agency 

responsible for all medical operations of the Department of Defense 

would best improve and sustain operational medical force readiness 

and the medical readiness of the Armed Forces; improve beneficiaries’ access to care and the experience of care; improve health 

outcomes; and lower the management cost of the military health 

system. 

In January 2015, the Military Compensation and Retirement 

Modernization Commission provided the committee its recommendations to modernize the military health system. The commission made important recommendations to improve and sustain 

military medical force readiness, to improve access to care, and to 

expand beneficiaries’ choices of health plans. 

Unfortunately, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the 

Services have made insufficient progress over the past year to improve health care delivery services for beneficiaries. The committee 

continues to hear from beneficiaries voicing problems with access 

to health care services—obtaining medical appointments quickly; 

receiving timely referrals for specialty care; receiving coordinated 

care in military hospitals and in the private sector; and receiving 

urgent care when primary care appointments are unavailable. It is 

clear to the committee that the existing medical command structure of the Department—a structure that numbers almost 12,000 

military, civilian and contract staff members—has failed to recognize and rapidly correct systemic problems in health care delivery 

in military hospitals and clinics. The committee believes that the 

current, inefficient organizational structure of the military health 

system paralyzes rapid decision-making and stifles innovation in 

producing a modern health care delivery system that would better 

serve all beneficiaries. A streamlined organizational structure, 

eliminating redundancy and generating greater efficiency, would 

yield significant monetary savings to the Department and lead to 

true reform of the military health system while improving the experience of care for beneficiaries. 

Accountability for the performance of the military health 

care system of certain positions in the system (sec. 722) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military departments, within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act, to incorporate performance accountability measures into the annual 

performance reviews of certain leadership positions in the military 

health care system. The provision would prohibit payment of a performance bonus to a civilian employee of the Department of Defense occupying a position, specified in the provision, unless the operations of the military health care system met or exceeded performance measures during the period of the employee’s annual performance review. The Secretary of Defense would submit a report 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, which 

describes the incorporation of performance accountability measures 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
184 

in the annual performance reviews of leadership positions in the 

military health care system. 

Selection of commanders and directors of military treatment facilities and tours of duty of commanders of such 

facilities (sec. 723) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop common qualifications and core 

competencies required for selection of commanders or directors of 

military medical treatment facilities. The provision would also establish a minimum length of 4 years for tours of duty, with limited 

exceptions, for those commanders or directors to ensure greater 

stability in health system executive management at each facility 

and throughout the military health system. 

The committee is concerned that military treatment facility commanders typically rotate to new duty stations every 2 years, and 

these frequent transfers lead to great instability in the management of hospitals and clinics. The rapid turnover of military hospital commanders creates turmoil in hospital executive leadership 

and management, negatively affecting the performance of the local 

facility and the overall performance of the entire military health 

system. The committee believes this provision would steady the executive management of military hospitals and clinics and improve 

the performance of those facilities. 

Authority to convert military medical and dental positions 

to civilian medical and dental positions (sec. 724) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 49 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Department 

of Defense to convert military medical and dental positions to civilian positions if: 1) conversion would not result in a loss of a military-essential position; 2) conversion would not result in degradation of medical care or the medical readiness of the Armed Forces; 

and 3) conversion to a civilian position would be more cost effective. 

The committee believes this provision would give the military services more flexibility to achieve the most efficient medical and dental force mix aligned with their operational missions and to correct 

skill and specialty imbalances within the medical and dental forces. 

In May 2014, the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) published 

a comprehensive DOD-commissioned study on medical total force 

management. In the study, IDA determined that the military services underestimate the true costs of officer and enlisted medical 

personnel compared to the total costs for government civilians and 

contractors. IDA calculated that the complete cost to the taxpayer 

of military medical personnel far exceeded the cost of civilian 

health care providers with comparable skills. 

Since the military services seemingly underestimate the full cost 

of medical personnel, they incorrectly rely on more military medical 

personnel than civilians and contractors to provide health care 

services to beneficiaries. This problem primarily occurs in the Navy 

and Air Force as their staffing models generally favor using more 

military medical personnel than civilians or contractors. In contrast, the Army has a more civilian-intensive medical labor force. 

If the Navy and Air Force military-to-civilian staff ratios closely 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
185 

matched Army ratios, IDA calculated short-term savings to taxpayers of $500.0 million per year and long-term savings of $1.0 billion per year. The committee believes this provision would enable 

the Department to garner significant short and long-term budgetary savings that could be used to enhance the health care experience of beneficiaries or to improve overall military readiness. 

Authority to realign infrastructure of and health care services provided by military treatment facilities (sec. 725) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

secretary of a military department to realign the infrastructure of 

or modify the health care services provided by a military treatment 

facility (MTF) if a realignment or modification would better: 1) ensure the delivery of safe, high quality health care services; 2) adapt 

the delivery of health care in a facility to rapid changes in private 

sector health care delivery models; or 3) maintain the medical force 

readiness skills and core competencies of health care providers in 

a facility. Before taking any action under this provision, the Secretary of Defense would be required to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on proposed realignments of infrastructure of or modifications of health care services at MTFs. Within 60 days after the 

Secretary submits a report under this provision, the Comptroller 

General of the United States would submit a review of such report 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives. 

Acquisition of medical support contracts for TRICARE program (sec. 726) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a new competition of all medical 

support contracts, except the overseas medical support contract, 

with private sector entities under the TRICARE program by January 1, 2018, upon expiration of each such contract. New contracts 

would be competitively procured and automatically renewable for a 

period of not more than 10 years unless notice for termination is 

provided by either party not later than 180 days before contract 

termination. The Department would award contracts with a combination of local, regional and national private sector entities to develop individual and institutional networks of high-performing 

health care providers. The Secretary could not exercise an option 

to extend an existing medical support contract with a private sector 

entity that would delay the award of a new contract. 

Within 1 year of the award of new medical support contracts, the 

Secretary would be required to issue an open broad agency announcement to allow potential contractors to propose innovative 

ideas and solutions to meet the medical support contract needs of 

the Department. A medical support contract awarded through the 

open broad agency announcement would be deemed to meet the requirements under section 2304 of title 10, United States Code, relating to use of competitive procedures to procure services. 

For new medical support contracts, the Department would be required to include, to the extent practicable: (1) maximum flexibility 

in network design and development; (2) integrated medical manVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
186 

agement between military medical treatment facilities and network 

providers; 3) maximum use of the full range of telehealth services; 

(4) use of value-based reimbursement methods that transfer financial risk to health care providers and medical support contractors; 

(5) use of prevention and wellness incentives to encourage beneficiaries to seek health care services from high-value providers; (6) 

a streamlined enrollment process and timely assignment of primary care managers; (7) elimination of the requirement to seek authorization of referrals for specialty care services; (8) the use of incentives to encourage certain beneficiaries to engage in medical 

and lifestyle intervention programs; and (9) the use of financial incentives for contractors and health care providers to receive an equitable share in cost savings resulting from improvement in health 

outcomes and the experience of care for beneficiaries. 

In establishing new medical support contracts, the provision 

would require the Secretary to: (1) assess the unique characteristics of providing health care services in rural, remote, or isolated 

locations, such as Alaska, Hawaii, and locations in the contiguous 

48 states; (2) consider the various challenges inherent in developing robust provider networks in those locations; and (3) develop 

a provider reimbursement rate structure in those locations that ensures timely access to care, high quality primary and specialty 

care, and improvement in health outcomes. Additionally, the Secretary could not modify existing medical support contracts or enter 

into new contracts in rural, remote, or isolated locations until the 

Secretary certifies to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives that those contracts 

would ensure timely access to care, high quality care, better health 

outcomes, and a better experience of care. The provision would also 

require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a 

report, by January 1, 2019, that assesses the compliance of the Secretary with the requirements of this section. 

The committee views this provision as critically important to reform of the TRICARE program. The Department’s contract strategy 

for the next generation of TRICARE managed care support contracts, commonly known as the T–2017 contracts, does not acknowledge the rapid changes in delivery of health care services in 

the private sector. The T–2017 contract strategy fails to focus on 

development of high-value provider networks, and the Department 

remains fixed on reimbursing network providers solely on the number and types of services provided rather than on improvement in 

beneficiaries’ health outcomes and the experience of care. 

Moreover, the Department’s current strategy of essentially 

awarding 5-year contracts (1 base-year with 4 option-years) results 

in a winner-take-all approach that limits competition and stifles 

adoption of innovations in health care delivery. The Department 

and the American taxpayers continue to assume all financial risk 

in those contracts while that risk, if transferred to health care providers and medical support contractors, would encourage more efficient, effective delivery of health care services. The committee firmly believes that multiple local, regional, and national TRICARE 

medical support contracts, which transfer financial risk from the 

government to contractors and health care providers, would improve beneficiaries’ health outcomes, simplify the onerous, costly 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
187 

contracting process, and ultimately lower health care costs for the 

Department. 

Authority to enter into health care contracts with certain 

entities to provide care under the TRICARE program 

(sec. 727) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to enter into contracts to provide health care, 

including behavioral health care, to covered beneficiaries under the 

TRICARE Program with any of the following: (1) the Department 

of Veterans Affairs; (2) an Indian tribe or tribal organization that 

is party to the Alaska Native Health Compact with the Indian 

Health Service; and (3) an Indian tribe or tribal organization that 

has entered into a contract with the Indian Health Service to provide health care in rural Alaska or other locations in the United 

States. 

Improvement of health outcomes and control of costs of 

health care under TRICARE program through programs 

to involve covered beneficiaries (sec. 728) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, by January 1, 2018, to implement programs 

to increase involvement of covered beneficiaries in making health 

care decisions and to encourage beneficiaries to share more responsibility for the improvement in their health outcomes through participation in medical and lifestyle intervention programs. This provision would also authorize the Secretary to charge and collect a 

fee from a covered beneficiary, other than an Active-Duty servicemember, for failure to notify a military treatment facility, within 

24 hours of a scheduled appointment with a health care provider, 

that the beneficiary will be unable to attend the appointment. The 

Secretary of Defense would be required to submit a report to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives, by January 1, 2020, that describes implementation of the programs mandated under this provision. 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense should 

make a greater effort towards controlling health care costs for 

high-need, high-cost patients. Recent studies show that comprehensive care management programs can improve a patient’s health 

outcomes and quality of life while reducing costs for the patient 

and the patient’s health plan. This provision would incentivize 

those beneficiaries with chronic diseases or conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, or depression, or those exhibiting unhealthy behaviors, such as tobacco use or obesity, to participate in comprehensive 

medical or lifestyle intervention programs designed to improve 

beneficiaries’ health outcomes and functional status while controlling health care costs for those beneficiaries and the Department. 

In addition, the committee is concerned about the high number 

of failed medical appointments in the military health system. From 

October 2014 through September 2015, there were over 1.6 million 

scheduled appointments missed by all categories of beneficiaries— 

Active-Duty servicemembers missed over 700,000 of those scheduled appointments. Although other patients likely filled some 

missed appointments, the military services could not provide accuVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00223 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
188 

rate data to demonstrate that fact to the committee. The large 

number of failed appointments negatively affects access to care for 

all beneficiaries at great financial costs to the Department and taxpayers. It is clear to the committee that the military services must 

take this problem more seriously by implementing programs to 

minimize the number of failed appointments in military hospitals 

and clinics. 

Establishment of centers of excellence for specialty care in 

the military health system (sec. 729) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish regional centers of excellence for 

the provision of specialty care to covered beneficiaries at major 

medical centers of the Department of Defense. The provision would 

authorize the Secretary to establish satellite centers, when and 

where appropriate, particularly to provide specialty care for posttraumatic stress and traumatic brain injury. 

Furthermore, the provision would specify the types of centers of 

excellence that the Secretary could establish while allowing for the 

establishment of additional centers when appropriate. The centers 

of excellence established under this provision would serve as the 

primary sources for specialty care within the direct care health system, and health care providers throughout the system would refer 

beneficiaries to those facilities. The provision would require the 

Secretary to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives, within 180 days 

of the date of enactment of this Act, which provides a plan to establish specialty care centers of excellence in the military health system. 

After careful study, the committee concludes that establishment 

of specialty care centers of excellence in the military health system 

would result in the delivery of superior health care for specialized 

procedures, therapies, and services, and improve health outcomes 

for beneficiaries. By concentrating military specialty care providers 

in regional major medical centers, such as Walter Reed National 

Military Medical Center, Brook Army Medical Center, Keesler 

Medical Center, Womack Army Medical Center, Naval Medical 

Center Portsmouth, Naval Medical Center San Diego, and Madigan 

Army Medical Center, the Department would enhance operational 

medical force readiness by allowing military health care providers 

to practice and train in multi-disciplinary, team-oriented environments treating complex, high acuity patients. This modern approach to the delivery of specialty medical care in the military 

health system would closely mirror the approach used by high-performing health systems in the private sector such as the Cleveland 

Clinic. 

Program to eliminate variability in health outcomes and improve quality of health care services delivered in military treatment facilities (sec. 730) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a program, not later than January 

1, 2018, to: (1) establish best practices for the delivery of health 

care services for certain diseases or conditions at military treatVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00224 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
189 

ment facilities; (2) incorporate those best practices into the daily 

operations of military treatment facilities participating in the program; and (3) eliminate variability in health outcomes and improve 

the quality of health care services delivered at military treatment 

facilities. Under this provision, the Secretary would conduct the 

program in three phases and be required to complete each phase 

within 180 days following initiation of that phase. The initiation of 

phases two and three would immediately follow completion of the 

previous phase. 

The provision would require the Secretary, during the conduct of 

the program, to continuously monitor and adjust the health care 

services delivered at military treatment facilities and the number 

of patients enrolled at those facilities to ensure: (1) a high degree 

of safety and quality in the delivery of health care at those facilities; and (2) the delivery of only those health care services critical 

for maintaining operational medical force readiness and the medical readiness of the Armed Forces. 

Establishment of advisory committees for military treatment facilities (sec. 731) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to establish an advisory committee for each 

military medical treatment facility. Each advisory committee would 

include six beneficiaries eligible for health care services in the military health system: (1) two Active-Duty servicemembers; (2) two 

Active-Duty family members; and (3) two military retirees. The 

committee recognizes that beneficiaries need an official forum to 

provide guidance on the operations of military treatment facilities. 

Advisory committee members would regularly engage with the executive management of each military treatment facility to discuss 

concerns and to provide feedback on matters relating to the provision of health care services in the facility. 

Standardized system for scheduling medical appointments 

at military treatment facilities (sec. 732) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to implement, by January 1, 2018, a standardized medical appointment scheduling system at military treatment 

facilities throughout the military health system. Under this provision, no military treatment facility would have the authority to use 

an appointment scheduling system other than the standardized 

system. Each military treatment facility would make available a 

centralized appointment system that allows beneficiaries to make 

appointments, either by telephone or by an internet-connected device, including by smartphone application, through an online scheduling system available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The online appointment system would be able to send automated email 

and text message reminders to patients. 

The committee regularly hears from beneficiaries that the multiple medical appointment systems used across the military health 

system lead to extended delays in getting timely care and result in 

poor patient satisfaction. The committee believes the current appointment scheduling systems lead to waste, inefficiency, and lower 

provider productivity. The Department should quickly implement a 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
190 

new appointment scheduling system, universally applied in each 

military treatment facility, which enables beneficiaries to make appointments rapidly and stress-free. The new, standardized appointment system should enable beneficiaries to make appointments at 

least 1 year in advance, and it should send automatic appointment 

reminders by email, telephone or text message. 

Display of wait times at urgent care clinics, emergency departments, and pharmacies of military treatment facilities (sec. 733) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

commander or director of a military treatment facility, by January 

1, 2018, to display in a conspicuous location at each urgent care 

clinic, emergency department, and pharmacy in a military treatment facility an electronic sign that displays the current average 

wait time either to be seen by a qualified medical provider or to 

receive a filled prescription of a pharmaceutical agent. The provision would prescribe how the commander or director should determine the average wait times for beneficiaries at urgent care clinics, 

emergency departments, and pharmacies in military treatment facilities. 

Improvement and maintenance of combat casualty care and 

trauma care skills of health care providers of Department of Defense (sec. 734) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to implement measures to improve and maintain the combat casualty care and trauma care skills for health 

care providers of the Department of Defense by January 1, 2018. 

The provision would require the Secretary to: (1) conduct a comprehensive review of combat casualty care and wartime trauma 

systems from January 1, 2001 to the present time; (2) expand military-civilian trauma training sites to provide enhanced training for 

integrated combat trauma teams; (3) establish a personnel management plan for important wartime medical specialties; (4) develop 

standardized tactical combat casualty care instructions and training for all servicemembers; (5) develop a comprehensive trauma 

care registry; (6) develop quality of care outcome measures for combat casualty care; and (7) conduct research to understand better 

the causes of morbidity and mortality of servicemembers in combat. 

Adjustment of medical services, personnel authorized 

strengths, and infrastructure in military health system 

to maintain readiness and core competencies of health 

care providers (sec. 735) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to implement measures, within 180 days of 

the date of enactment of this Act, to maintain the critical wartime 

medical readiness skills and core competencies of health care providers within the Armed Forces. The provision would require the 

Secretary to implement a measure to ensure the military Services 

do not substitute a medical specialty required for medical force 

readiness with another medical specialty. Additionally, the provision would require the Secretary to: (1) modify medical services; (2) 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
191 

reduce authorized strengths of military and civilian personnel; and 

(3) reduce or eliminate unnecessary infrastructure in the military 

health system such that military treatment facilities would provide 

only those services required to maintain the critical wartime medical skills and core competencies of health care providers and to ensure the medical readiness of the Armed Forces. 

Moreover, this provision would require the Comptroller General 

of the United States to provide a report, within 18 months of the 

date of enactment of this Act, which assesses the Department’s implementation of this provision, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 

In May 2014, the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) published 

a comprehensive DOD-commissioned study on medical total force 

management and noted that the total active military medical force 

‘‘generally exceeds the Service-identified military essential requirement.’’ In the report, IDA stated that the military services have 

‘‘historically understaffed operationally required specialties like 

surgery while over-staffing beneficiary care specialties like pediatrics and obstetrics.’’ The IDA report also found that the military 

services’ estimates of medical operational requirements ‘‘significantly exceed historic deployment levels and staffing requirements 

for deployable units.’’ 

The IDA report clearly showed that the military services’ medical 

force authorized strengths exceed current operational medical force 

readiness requirements. The committee expects the Department to: 

(1) adjust downward the total medical force mix to coincide with rational and appropriate operational medical force requirements; (2) 

eliminate health care services provided in military treatment facilities that do not directly support operational medical force readiness 

and the medical readiness of the Armed Forces; and (3) eliminate 

excess infrastructure in military hospitals and clinics. In making 

these necessary adjustments, the Department should ensure eligible beneficiaries unable to receive health care services in military 

treatment facilities have access to high-value primary and specialty 

care services in the private sector. 

Establishment of high performance military-civilian integrated health delivery systems (sec. 736) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, by January 1, 2018, to establish high performance military-civilian integrated health delivery systems 

through partnerships with other health systems, including local or 

regional health systems in the private sector and the Veterans 

Health Administration. One of the objectives of these partnerships 

would be to transfer health care services, non-essential for maintenance of medical readiness skills of military health care providers, 

from military treatment facilities to the private sector. The Department of Defense would accomplish these partnerships either 

through memoranda of understanding or contracts between military treatment facilities and private sector health systems, such as 

health maintenance organizations, regional health organizations, 

integrated health systems, and health care centers of excellence, as 

well as the Veterans Health Administration. Under this provision, 

covered beneficiaries would be eligible to enroll in and receive medVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00227 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
192 

ical services in the private sector component of established military-civilian integrated health networks. The Secretary of Defense 

would be required to incorporate value-based reimbursement methodologies into any memoranda of understanding or contracts to reimburse private sector entities for medical services provided to covered beneficiaries. 

The committee believes that implementation of this provision 

would improve health outcomes and enhance the experience of care 

for beneficiaries as local military treatment facilities create strong 

synergistic relationships with private sector health systems to form 

integrated high performance health systems. These formal relationships would foster innovation in military treatment facilities, enhance operational medical force readiness, improve access to specialized medical care, and strengthen care coordination through integration of all activities of these new health delivery systems. 

Contracts with private sector entities to provide certain 

health care services at military treatment facilities (sec. 

737) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to enter into centrally-managed, performancebased contracts with private sector entities to augment the delivery 

of health care services at military treatment facilities with limited 

or restricted ability to provide services such as primary care or expanded-hours urgent care. Under this provision, contracts would be 

designed to purchase improvement in health outcomes for covered 

beneficiaries seeking health care services in military treatment facilities. 

The provision would require the Secretary to submit a plan to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, that includes: (1) a description of the number and types of contracts the 

Secretary intends to procure; and (2) a description of the performance measures used in procuring performance-based contracts. 

Modification of acquisition strategy for health care professional staffing services (sec. 738) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 725(a) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 

113–291), which would require the Department of Defense to implement a performance-based, strategic-sourcing contract for acquiring health care professional staffing services for the military 

health system. The provision would require all components of the 

military health system to use the contract, and the Department 

would be required to develop a process for obtaining a waiver, 

based on documented rationale, to use another contract or acquisition approach. 

The committee remains frustrated that the Defense Health Agency and the military services have delayed any progress towards developing a unified contracting strategy to procure medical and dental staffing services in military treatment facilities. The current individual contracting strategy for medical and dental staffing services leads to higher costs for procurement and significantly delayed 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
193 

staff augmentation in military treatment facilities. This inefficient 

contracting strategy ultimately hinders access to care for beneficiaries. 

Reduction of administrative requirements relating to automatic renewal of enrollments in TRICARE Prime (sec. 

739) 

The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the 

administrative costs of the TRICARE program by removing an annual requirement that the managed care support contractors generate and mail an enrollment renewal letter to all beneficiaries enrolled in TRICARE Prime. The committee notes that the Department of Defense currently uses multiple avenues to notify beneficiaries of annual changes to the TRICARE Program. This provision would eliminate an unnecessary administrative process and 

save taxpayers up to $2.4 million per year. 

Subtitle C—Reports and Other Matters 

Pilot program on expansion of use of physician assistants to 

provide mental health care to members of the Armed 

Forces (sec. 751) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to commence a physician assistant psychiatric 

fellowship pilot program, within 1 year of the date of enactment of 

this Act, to assess the feasibility and advisability of expanding the 

use of physician assistants specializing in psychiatric medicine. The 

pilot program would consist of two rounds with each round taking 

a maximum of 2 years to complete. Under this provision, the Secretary would select a least five individuals to participate in the 

pilot program for each round. The provision would require the Secretary to use existing graduate medical education programs of the 

Department to the greatest extent possible in carrying out the pilot 

program. Within 180 days after the date the Secretary completes 

the first round of the psychiatric fellowship pilot program, the Secretary would submit an initial report to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the 

program. Subsequently, the Secretary would submit a final report 

that updates the initial report within 90 days after termination of 

the pilot program. The authority for the pilot program would terminate upon completion of the second round of the psychiatric fellowship program. 

Implementation of plan to eliminate certain graduate medical education programs of Department of Defense (sec. 

752) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to implement a phased plan, within 1 year of 

the date of enactment of this Act, to eliminate those graduate medical education programs of the Department that do not directly 

support the medical force readiness requirements for health care 

providers within the Armed Forces. The Secretary would provide a 

report, within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act, which 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
194 

provides the Department’s plan to eliminate graduate medical education programs non-essential for medical force readiness. 

The military services currently train military health care professionals in a mix of federal and civilian graduate medical education 

(GME) programs. The military services’ data show that over 5,000 

students received training in over 700 programs in academic year 

2014–2015. Additionally, the military services required over 3,700 

faculty and support staff to conduct their in-house training programs. Further evaluation of the military services’ data reveals 

there are numerous GME programs funded by the military services, which have little to no direct relationship to the support of 

operational medical force readiness requirements. The committee 

understands that the military services have, for decades, relied on 

GME programs to recruit health care professionals, especially physicians and dentists, into military service, but the military services 

should now reevaluate their GME programs and right-size them to 

match realistic operational medical force readiness requirements. 

Cost savings resulting from right-sizing GME programs could be 

used to improve overall military readiness. 

Modification of authority of Uniformed Services University 

of the Health Sciences to include undergraduate and 

other medical education and training programs (sec. 

753) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 2112(a) and 2113 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize 

the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences to grant 

certificates, certification, and undergraduate degree programs in 

addition to advanced degrees. 

Memoranda of agreement with institutions of higher education that offer degrees in allopathic or osteopathic 

medicine (sec. 754) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to create memoranda of agreement with local 

or regional allopathic or osteopathic schools of medicine to establish 

military treatment facilities as affiliate teaching hospitals. By sharing training facilities, staffing, and material resources, these new 

academic affiliations could help improve and sustain operational 

medical force readiness and possibly serve as productive recruiting 

grounds for new military physicians. 

Extension of authority for joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 755) 

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, 2017, to September 30, 2018. 

Prohibition on conduct of certain medical research and development projects (sec. 756) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of Defense and each service secretary from funding or 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
195 

conducting a medical research and development project unless the 

secretary concerned determines that the project would protect, enhance, or restore the health and safety of members of the Armed 

Forces. 

Authorization of reimbursement by Department of Defense 

to entities carrying out state vaccination programs for 

costs of vaccines provided to covered beneficiaries (sec. 

757) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to reimburse an entity carrying out a state 

vaccination program for the cost of providing vaccines to covered 

beneficiaries. Under this provision, the amount of reimbursement 

could not exceed the amount that the Department would reimburse 

an entity for providing vaccines to covered beneficiaries under the 

TRICARE program. 

Maintenance of certain reimbursement rates for care and 

services to treat autism spectrum disorder under demonstration program (sec. 758) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, on the date of enactment of this Act, to reinstate the reimbursement rates in effect on March 1, 2016, for the 

provision of applied behavior analysis therapy and to preserve 

those rates throughout the duration of the Comprehensive Autism 

Care Demonstration program conducted under section 705 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 

Law 112–239; 10 U.S.C. 1092 note), as extended and modified by 

the Secretary. 

The committee is concerned that certain changes to provider reimbursement rates implemented by the Department of Defense on 

April 1, 2016, have negatively affected both access to care and continuity of care for TRICARE beneficiaries seeking applied behavior 

analysis therapy. The committee believes it is vitally important to 

ensure that TRICARE beneficiaries with autism spectrum disorder 

receive timely, uninterrupted services under the Department’s 

demonstration program. 

Incorporation into certain surveys by Department of Defense of questions on service women experiences with 

family planning services and counseling (sec. 759) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, within 90 days after the date of enactment 

of this Act, to begin action to integrate into certain surveys administered by the Department of Defense questions designed to obtain 

information on the experiences of service women with family planning and counseling. 

Assessment of transition to TRICARE program by families 

of members of reserve components called to Active Duty 

and elimination of certain charges for such families (sec. 

760) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, to 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
196 

complete an assessment of the extent to which families of members 

of the reserve components of the Armed Forces serving on Active 

Duty, pursuant to a call to or order to Active Duty for a period of 

more than 30 days, experience difficulties in transitioning from 

health care arrangements relied upon when the member is not in 

such an Active-Duty status to health benefits under the TRICARE 

program. Within 180 days after completing the assessment, the 

Secretary shall submit a report detailing the results of the assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives. This provision would also amend section 

1079(h)(4)(C)(ii) of title 10, United States Code, to expand the authority of the Secretary to eliminate balance billing for families of 

members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces serving on 

Active Duty. 

Requirement to review and monitor prescribing practices at 

military treatment facilities of pharmaceutical agents 

for treatment of post-traumatic stress (sec. 761) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, to: 

(1) conduct a comprehensive review of the prescribing practices at 

military treatment facilities of pharmaceutical agents for the treatment of post-traumatic stress (PTS); (2) implement a process or 

processes to monitor the prescribing practices at military treatment 

facilities of pharmaceutical agents discouraged from use under the 

clinical practice guideline for management for PTS published by 

the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA); (3) implement a plan to address any deviations from 

that guideline in the prescribing practices of pharmaceutical agents 

for management of PTS; and (4) implement a plan to address any 

instances where benzodiazepines and opioids are concurrently prescribed. 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 

lacks a uniform process to review and monitor prescribing practices 

for the treatment of PTS at military treatment facilities. A recent 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) report highlighted the Department of the Army’s failure to monitor, on an ongoing basis, the 

prescribing of medications to treat PTS. Since the GAO report only 

studied prescribing policies and procedures of the Army’s health 

care providers, the committee is unaware of the extent to which 

this shortfall may extend to the other Services. Without ongoing 

monitoring of the prescribing of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines 

to servicemembers with PTS, the Services may be unable to identify and address prescribing practices inconsistent with the DOD/ 

VA clinical practice guideline. 

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

762) 

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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
197 

Comptroller General report on health care delivery and 

waste in military health system (sec. 763) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States, within 1 year after the 

date of enactment of this Act, and at least annually thereafter for 

4 years, to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives, a report assessing and 

identifying potential waste and inefficiency relating to the delivery 

of health care within the military health system. 

Items of Special Interest 

Cancer research programs 

The Department of Defense must ensure that research funded 

through various peer-reviewed cancer research programs primarily 

focus on cancers of significance to military populations. In support 

of this effort, the committee believes the Department should further promote collaborative research between Department of Defense researchers and non-military research institutions on these 

cancer research programs. These collaborations could leverage the 

research experience, knowledge, and infrastructure of civilian research partners and lead to greater advances in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancers important to maintaining the 

health of servicemembers. The committee directs the Department 

to prioritize coordination with non-military research institutions 

that are designated centers of excellence in cancer research by the 

National Institutes of Health. 

Capability to transport and treat military personnel exposed to highly infectious emerging diseases 

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to ensure 

that the Department has the capability to transport and treat military personnel who are exposed to and may become infected with 

a highly infectious emerging disease. The committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a letter report to the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, 

not later than September 1, 2016, describing the Department’s plan 

for: (1) transportation and treatment of military personnel exposed 

to highly infectious emerging diseases; and (2) training of medical 

personnel involved in the treatment and transportation of 

servicemembers with highly infectious emerging diseases. 

Chronic pain 

The committee recognizes the considerable human and economic 

impact of chronic pain on servicemembers, as well as the current 

lack of scientific evidence on both the short- and long-term safety 

and efficacy of many chronic pain treatments. Further, the committee notes that there is an urgent need to identify, research, and 

develop safe, effective drug and non-drug therapies that can replace the use of addictive medications in the treatment of chronic 

pain. The committee recognizes the Department of Defense’s initial 

steps to generate the necessary evidence base to inform the safe, 

effective management of chronic pain in developing the Pain Assessment Screening Tool and Outcomes Registry (PASTOR). HowVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00233 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
198 

ever, the committee remains concerned with the Department’s 

progress in implementing PASTOR across the Military Health System (MHS). The Committee directs the Department to submit to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives, not later than September 6, 2016, a report describing the Department’s plan to implement PASTOR across the 

MHS. 

Collar technology 

The committee remains concerned about servicemembers sustaining traumatic brain injuries (TBI) in training and in combat. 

Although research, rehabilitation, and treatment continues for 

those servicemembers who sustain TBI, the committee recommends 

that the Department of Defense explore new technologies and 

equipment that may help either to prevent or reduce the incidence 

of TBI. The committee is aware of innovative ‘‘collar technology’’ 

that has shown promise in greatly reducing the occurrence of TBI 

in athletic and animal testing. This technology improves blood flow 

in the brain, which serves to cushion and protect the brain against 

an impact to the skull. The committee encourages the Department 

to study this new technology. 

Comptroller General report on military health professional 

recruitment 

The military health system faces numerous challenges as it 

strives to deliver quality health care, including recruitment of 

health care professionals in an increasingly competitive civilian job 

market and a projected nationwide shortage of certain health care 

professionals. The Department of Defense (DOD) has two primary 

sources for accessing medical professionals into its officer corps— 

health professions scholarships for education and training in civilian institutions and direct provision of education and training at 

the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences 

(USUHS). For fiscal year 2017, DOD has requested almost $275.0 

million for its pre-commissioning health professions scholarship 

program and over $242.0 million for funding USUHS. Medical officers graduating from USUHS serve an average of 14 years following completion of residency training while medical officers graduating from civilian institutions serve an average of seven years 

after residency training. DOD also offers bonuses and special pays 

for healthcare professionals, which vary by specialty. The actual effectiveness of DOD’s current health professions accession and retention tools, in terms of cost and recruitment effectiveness, remains uncertain to the committee. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to conduct a thorough review of the recruitment and 

retention of health care professionals and to provide preliminary 

observations by February 27, 2017, to the Committees on Armed 

Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Subsequently, the Comptroller General shall provide a full report to the 

same committees at a date agreed upon at the time of the preliminary briefing. The review shall address, at a minimum, the following: (1) an assessment of the cost and benefits of DOD’s programs and policies for accessing and retaining military health care 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
199 

providers; and (2) an evaluation to determine whether DOD has developed a plan to address the potential shortage of health care professionals, such as physicians, dentists, nurses, and mental health 

providers, and to ensure an adequate pipeline of fully trained military medical personnel. 

Comptroller General report on TRICARE managed care support contracts acquisition strategy and program administration requirements 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to conduct a comprehensive review of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) TRICARE managed care support contracts acquisition strategy and program administration requirements to include 

the Department’s efforts to identify and incorporate best practices 

to improve the overall cost efficiency and quality of health care delivery. This review should include the identification of any incentives or barriers that affect the Department’s ability to provide efficient and effective health care services. 

The Comptroller General shall provide preliminary observations 

not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives. Subsequently, the Comptroller General shall provide a full report to the same committees at a date agreed upon 

at the time of the preliminary briefing. The review shall address, 

at a minimum, the following: (1) the extent to which DOD has 

made efforts to streamline the acquisition process and reduce the 

life cycle costs of its managed care support contracts, including the 

identification and use of industry best practices, if applicable; (2) 

incentives and barriers that may affect the efficiency and cost effectiveness of DOD’s acquisition strategy; (3) the extent to which DOD 

has made efforts to modify program administration requirements to 

improve outcomes such as beneficiaries’ health outcomes and satisfaction, as well as any cost efficiencies associated with health care 

delivery, including the identification and use of industry best practices, if applicable; and (4) incentives and barriers that may affect 

DOD’s health care delivery outcomes. 

Dental implants 

The Committee is aware of efficient, effective endosseous implant 

technologies available to serve Active-Duty servicemembers who 

may require fixed or removable dental prostheses. The use of these 

innovative technologies, combined with a renewed effort to provide 

research-based specific guidance with respect to less invasive practices, better patient outcomes, notable cost savings, and less 

aftercare, could lead to better, more efficient dental implant care 

practices. 

The Committee is concerned that the current guidelines and 

evaluation criteria used by the military departments may not allow 

for consideration of more advanced dental implant technologies 

that could provide measurable benefit to servicemembers. The committee encourages the military departments to consider the best 

available dental implant and non-metallic restorative options for 

service men and women and to ensure that current guidance and 

requirements allow for the evaluation of the latest dental implant 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
200 

technologies to meet the needs of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. 

Department of Defense tobacco policy 

The Committee recognizes the importance of the Secretary of Defense’s 2016 policy memorandum, ‘‘Department of Defense Tobacco 

Policy,’’ which updated existing tobacco use policy and described efforts to curb tobacco use and reduce its harmful effects in the military. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

the Department of Defense, and the Institute of Medicine, members 

of the military have higher rates of tobacco use than the civilian 

population, particularly among military personnel who have been 

deployed. Further, the Secretary’s memorandum notes that about 

38 percent of current military smokers initiated tobacco use following enlistment. The Department estimates that the impact of 

tobacco use in the military population costs over $1.6 billion per 

year in lost productivity. In an effort to improve the health and fitness of members of the Armed Forces, the Department’s policy restricts tobacco use to designated areas, eliminates discounted prices 

on tobacco products at military exchanges, improves tobacco education, and improves smoke-free housing options. The Committee 

directs the Department of Defense to fully implement this guidance 

across the military Services. 

Expert behavioral science support for courts-martial 

The committee is aware that the successful trial of military 

courts-martial frequently requires expert support from behavioral 

science professionals. An August 17, 2015, information paper from 

the Defense Health Agency revealed that the Center for Forensic 

Behavioral Sciences (CFBS) is the only dedicated capability within 

the Department of Defense (DOD) offering specialized forensic behavioral science evaluations and consultations in support of the 

military justice system. The CFBS also supports military criminal 

investigative organizations, the intelligence community, and military commanders around the world. The CFBS is the only accredited fellowship program within DOD for forensic psychiatry and forensic psychology. The information paper disclosed the CFSB is 

currently understaffed and this staffing level resulted in CFBS’s 

ability to support only about 100 of 366 referrals from across DOD, 

with 69 percent of these referrals involving sexual assault offenses. 

Private civilian forensic experts ultimately met the demand by the 

Services at substantially increased cost to DOD. 

The committee is concerned that the existing organizational and 

budget model for the CFBS is inadequate to address the demand 

for these critical services. The committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to: (1) review the current staffing, budget, and resourcing 

of the CFBS; (2) evaluate the recommendations provided in the 

DHA’s information paper; and (3) report the result of that review 

to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives by September 30, 2016. 

Full spectrum ultraviolet technologies 

The committee notes that both hospital associated infections 

(HAIs) and surgical site infections (SSIs) continue to be a major, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
201 

yet preventable, threat to the safety of patients and health care 

workers in both civilian and military hospitals. Multiple published, 

peer-reviewed studies have shown that full spectrum ultraviolet 

(UV) technologies reduce both HAI and SSI rates in the health care 

environment. In addition to routine environmental disinfection to 

support patient and staff safety, environmentally friendly UV technologies can be deployed as a biodefense mitigation strategy. 

The committee is aware that over 40 federal health care organizations have acquired full spectrum UV technologies for environmental disinfection and for disaster preparedness. The committee 

encourages the Department of Defense to investigate full spectrum 

UV technologies to support patient and staff safety through routine 

disinfection of hospital environmental surfaces and as a mitigation 

strategy in response to an outbreak of biological contamination. 

Hearing restoration research 

The committee commends the Department of Defense for its research to date on auditory and vestibular injuries among 

servicemembers. Hearing and balance are critical elements of military medical readiness. Servicemembers are exposed to hazardous 

noise levels and blast exposure during training and combat that result in auditory and vestibular system injuries leading to symptoms including hearing loss, persistent tinnitus, and balance problems. These symptoms may impede communication, reduce situational awareness, hinder threat detection, and otherwise impair 

personnel safety and mission effectiveness. 

The committee notes that hearing loss and auditory injuries in 

the military continue to rise and are some of the top occupational 

injuries for servicemembers. According to the Veterans Benefits 

Administration, tinnitus and hearing loss were the most prevalent 

service-connected disabilities among new veterans disability compensation beneficiaries in fiscal year 2014, bringing the total number of veterans receiving compensation for auditory disabilities to 

2.4 million according to the most recent data. 

The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) established the Department of 

Defense Hearing Center of Excellence, focused on the prevention, 

diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of hearing loss and auditory system injury. Despite the establishment of the Hearing Center of Excellence, research funding for auditory and vestibular injuries and disorders remains limited. The committee is concerned 

that current research and development funding may be inadequate 

to address the magnitude of this challenge, which to date has resulted in reduced medical readiness among servicemembers, as 

well as high costs to the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Therefore, the committee encourages the 

Department to prioritize funding for hearing restoration research 

and consider establishing a research program dedicated to this 

field, especially regenerative strategies and other options that may 

reduce the burden of this disability on servicemembers. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
202 

Implementation of authority for provisional TRICARE coverage for emerging health care services and supplies 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report, by September 30, 2016, to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives on implementation 

of the Department’s authority for provisional TRICARE coverage 

for emerging health care services and supplies pursuant to section 

1079(c) of title 10, United States Code. The report shall describe 

the following: (1) the actions undertaken to implement the authority to provide provisional TRICARE coverage for emerging health 

care services and supplies; (2) the services and supplies for which 

the Department has granted provisional TRICARE coverage; (3) 

the rationale, if any, for implementation of demonstration projects 

for TRICARE coverage of such services and supplies in lieu of 

granting provisional TRICARE coverage; and (4) the impact that 

implementation of provisional TRICARE coverage authority has 

had on access to and provider reimbursement for services and supplies, such as molecular pathology laboratory developed tests, as 

compared to non-coverage of those services and supplies. 

Improvement of prosthetic care outcomes 

In 2015, the Department of Veterans Affairs deployed advanced, 

proven lower limb prosthetic digital health technology to provide 

real-world data documenting activity in the community for veterans with lower limb prostheses. By documenting how patients 

with limb loss function with their prosthetic devices, this digital 

health technology offers new opportunities to improve prosthetic 

outcomes, increase activity, and improve the quality of life for those 

who have lost limbs. Currently, the Department of Defense (DOD) 

has not provided this technology to servicemembers who have lost 

lower limbs or to veterans who receive prosthetic care from DOD. 

The committee encourages DOD to utilize technology that captures 

real-world activity data for amputees to improve prosthetic outcomes for servicemembers and veterans. 

Maternity care 

The committee recognizes the importance of medical support contracts in providing a network of maternity care providers for 

TRICARE beneficiaries. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review TRICARE reimbursement rates for the provision of 

maternity care in non-contiguous states and territories of the 

United States and to ensure a strong network of maternity care 

providers in those isolated and remote locations. 

Medical operations in austere environments 

The committee recognizes significant efforts the Department of 

Defense (DOD) has undertaken to improve the delivery of medical 

care in austere environments, including emergency and trauma 

care for the warfighter, as well as countering threats posed by bioterrorism and infectious disease outbreaks. In recent years, infectious diseases such as Ebola, Zika, Malaria, Dengue, and 

Chikungunya, have highlighted the potential military role in responding to naturally occurring biological threats. Not only do 

these diseases pose a significant risk to the homeland, but they 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
203 

may also limit the strategic access and operational effectiveness of 

forward deployed forces. Meanwhile, emergency and trauma care 

for warfighters often takes place under less than ideal conditions. 

The committee notes that DOD must continue to maintain and 

modernize its ability to quickly and safely provide medical care in 

austere environments. This includes the ability to maintain sterile 

conditions and to control, inactivate, and dispose of hazardous medical and biological waste. The committee notes that commonly used 

burn pits and incinerators may not effectively neutralize chemical, 

biological, or radioactive agents, risking environmental contamination and further transmission. The committee encourages the Department to assess cost-effective, alternative solutions for mobile 

medical and biological waste disposal. The committee further encourages the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to 

identify cost-effective, mobile options to enhance theatre distribution of medical facilities, including containerized platforms to expand combat surgical and infectious disease treatment capabilities. 

Online patient portal 

In recognizing the importance of greater participation of 

TRICARE beneficiaries in managing their health, the committee 

encourages the Secretary of Defense to create an online patient 

portal to allow beneficiaries to: (1) track scheduled medical and 

dental appointments; (2) obtain laboratory test results; (3) request 

prescription refills; (4) track and manage participation in wellness 

programs; and (5) communicate with their physicians or dentists. 

This patient portal should be fully integrated with the electronic 

health record of the Department of Defense. 

Prescription Drug Abuse 

The committee recognizes that there has been an increase in prescription drug abuse among servicemembers and their family members. In reforming the military health care system, the committee 

recognizes that there is a move to improve health outcomes and enhance healthcare value. The committee expects that the Department will be mindful of the growing prescription drug epidemic in 

making this transformation and will ensure that any new health 

delivery system in the military health system will take into account 

potential abuse of opioid drugs. 

The committee urges the Department to continue research on alternative treatments for chronic pain and ensure that all health 

care providers receive education and training on pain management 

and safe opioid prescribing guidelines. In addition, the committee 

urges the Department to implement evidence-based prevention and 

treatment interventions to address prescription drug abuse and to 

ensure that all health care providers receive education and training 

on pain management and safe opioid prescribing guidelines. 

Psychological Health Risk-Adjusted Model for Staffing 

In 2007, the Department of Defense created the Psychological 

Health Risk-Adjusted Model for Staffing (PHRAMS) to assess the 

military health system’s (MHS) current and future mental health 

provider staffing needs. A 2015 report by the Comptroller General 

of the United States found that the military Services are either not 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
204 

using PHRAMS to assess their mental health provider staffing 

needs or are supplementing PHRAMS with Service-specific methods to accommodate for shortcomings in the model. The same report found that the Navy and the Air Force do not track needs for 

mental health provider staffing but rather ‘‘submit the number of 

authorized mental health provider positions for both the requirements and authorizations sections’’ of their quarterly reports to the 

Defense Health Agency (DHA). 

The committee is concerned that the lack of accurate information 

from the military Services on mental health provider staffing requirements undermines efforts by the DHA to assess the need for 

mental health providers across the MHS and congressional oversight thereof. Therefore, the committee directs the military departments and the National Capital Region (NCR) Medical Directorate 

to include estimated mental health provider staffing needs generated through PHRAMS in their quarterly mental health staffing 

reports to the DHA. The committee further directs the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to make available to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives all past and future quarterly mental health staffing reports from the military Services and the NCR Medical Directorate. 

Given the Department’s ongoing and considerable investment in 

developing and updating PHRAMS, it is important that the model 

provide value to the military Services. As such, the committee directs the service secretaries of each of the military departments as 

well as the director of the NCR Medical Directorate to review and 

report on the following: (1) their current method for assessing mental health provider staffing needs; (2) the utility of the PHRAMS 

model to their Service or organization; and (3) any Service- or organization-specific methods they use or recommend to improve 

PHRAMS’ utility. These reports should be provided to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than November 1, 2016. 

Reduction of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in military hospital and surgical environments 

Infections resulting from antibiotic-resistant bacteria present a 

common risk for patients with chronic non-healing wounds, for 

burn victims, and for those patients undergoing invasive surgery. 

These serious infections lead to higher rates of morbidity and mortality, ultimately leading to higher health care costs. Despite the 

emergence of antibiotic resistance, the serious side effects of systemic antibiotics, and insufficient tissue penetration of systemic 

antibiotics as a result of impaired blood supply to a wound or burn 

site, systemic antibiotic treatment currently remains the therapy of 

choice to prevent infections because of the lack of a suitable topical 

therapeutic alternative. Studies show that silicate-based nanoparticle technology, whether administered topically or intravenously, 

reduces the occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Accordingly, 

the committee urges the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research 

to assess such technology, and in coordination with the Defense 

Health Agency, report such findings to the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs). 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
205 

Report on provision of behavioral health and suicide prevention resources to reserve component members 

The Committee notes that providing effective behavioral health 

and suicide prevention programs is essential to the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the Armed Forces and the stability of military families. The availability of these services varies widely for 

servicemembers, depending on their location and status in either 

the active or reserve component. The committee believes that determining the most efficient and effective model for the delivery of 

these services to these distinct populations is in the best interests 

of the servicemembers and the Department of Defense. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives, not later than October 1, 2016, a report 

detailing the present state of behavioral health services and suicide 

prevention programs provided by the Department to 

servicemembers in the reserve component to include: (1) information regarding which programs have been determined to be the 

most effective based on accepted metrics for performance; (2) an assessment of any disparity of services available between members of 

the active component and reserve component members; and (3) any 

recommendations for improving the delivery of these services in 

order to effectively and efficiently provide for the specific needs of 

servicemembers in the reserve component. 

TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration program 

The committee remains concerned about beneficiaries’ access to 

care for services provided under the TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration program. Beginning not later than July 

1, 2016, and continuing through the duration of the demonstration 

program, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide 

quarterly reports, by letter, to the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives on access to care 

and the effectiveness of care among military dependents participating in the program. The Secretary shall report, at a minimum, 

the following information by state: (1) the number of new referrals 

for services under the program; (2) the number of total beneficiaries enrolled in the program; 3) the average wait-time from 

time of referral to the first appointment for services under the program; (3) the number of providers accepting new patients under 

the program; (4) the number of providers who no longer accept new 

patients for services under the program; (5) the average number of 

treatment sessions required by beneficiaries; and (6) the health-related outcomes for beneficiaries under the program. This provision 

would improve data reporting on the demonstration program and 

ensure that military dependents with autism spectrum disorder 

have timely access to effective care. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(207) 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy And Management 

Rapid acquisition authority amendments (sec. 801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 806 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) to better integrate and conform the provision with the rapid acquisition authorities established in section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). 

Authority for temporary service of Principal Military Deputies to the Assistant Secretaries of the military departments for acquisition as acting Assistant Secretaries 

(sec. 802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 3016(b)(5)(B), 5016(b)(4)(B), and 8016(b)(4)(B) of title 10, 

United States Code, to allow Principal Military Deputies to serve 

in an acting capacity if there is a vacancy in the position of the 

Service Acquisition Executive. 

Conduct of independent cost estimation and cost analysis 

(sec. 803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2334 of title 10, United States Code, and would repeal section 

2434 of title 10, United States Code, in order to remove the ambiguity concerning the roles and responsibilities for the conduct of 

independent cost estimates (ICE’s) by designating the Director of 

Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) to ensure standards are met. Currently there is confusion and ambiguity because 

ICEs are referenced in two different locations of title 10, which this 

provision would rectify. The provision would ensure that the Secretary of Defense is only approving major defense acquisition programs after reviewing a full life-cycle cost estimate conducted by 

an independent entity that may also provide cost-saving and riskreducing alternative courses of action. 

Modernization of services acquisition (sec. 804) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to revise the Department of Defense Instruction 5000.74, dated January 6, 2016. The Secretary would be required to provide more guidance as to how the acquisition community should address the changing nature of technology and services 

markets and also perform a review of the instructions’ current catVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
208 

egories of services acquisition and make changes as necessary. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense would be required to issue new 

guidance to address the training and development of the acquisition workforce, particularly those involved in the acquisition of 

services. 

Modified notification requirement for exercise of waiver authority to acquire vital national security capabilities 

(sec. 805) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subsection (d) of section 806 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) to provide for a notification to Congress not later than ten days after the any use of the 

waiver authority to acquire vital national security capabilities outlined earlier in section 806. 

Repeal of temporary suspension of public-private competitions for conversion of Department of Defense functions 

to performance by contractors (sec. 806) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

325 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84). 

Subtitle B—Amendments to General Contracting 

Authorities, Procedures, and Limitations 

Defense cost accounting standards (sec. 811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 7 of title 10, United States Code, and establish an independent 

board chaired by the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of 

Defense (DOD) to prescribe, amend, and rescind cost accounting 

standards as they affect operations at the Department of Defense. 

The committee is concerned that the current cost accounting standards favor incumbent defense contractors and limit competition by 

serving as a barrier to participation by non-traditional, small business, and commercial contractors. To level the competitive playing 

field to access new sources of innovation it is in the government’s 

interest to adopt more commercial ways of contracting, accounting, 

and oversight. 

The provision requires that cost accounting standards developed 

shall to the maximum extent practicable align with Generally Accepted Cost Accounting Principles, thereby minimizing the requirement for government-unique cost accounting systems. The provision would also ensure that managerial cost accounting and activity based accounting structures derived from cost accounting standards are applied to the financial operations of the Department of 

Defense. The committee is disappointed that the Federal Cost Accounting Standards Board does not currently have a quorum of 

members and has not met in over three years. Due to this situation, it is doubtful that any credible reform will emanate out of this 

board in the future and the committee believes that a DOD board 

will be better suited to meet national security needs. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
209 

Increased micro-purchase 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 establish the micro-purchase threshold for Department of Defense activities at $5,000. 

Enhanced competition requirements (sec. 813) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2306a of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the definition 

of competition and the role of the prime contractor in determining 

whether a subcontract meets the competitive or commercial test 

under the section. 

Elimination of bid and proposal costs and other expenses as 

allowable independent research and development costs 

on certain contracts (sec. 814) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2372 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify in what circumstances that independent research and development costs are 

considered fair, reasonable, and allowable expenses on Department 

of Defense (DOD) contracts. The provision would authorize that up 

to 5 percent of the total amount of the work performed by a contractor on procurement and research, development, test, and evaluation activities during the preceding fiscal year could be spent on 

qualified independent research and development (IR&D) and be determined fair and reasonable by the Department. 

With this provision the committee intends that nontraditional 

contractors and those contractors who only operate on a fixed-price 

contractual basis with commercial accounting systems will be eligible to conduct independent research and development on behalf of 

the Department without triggering the need for government unique 

oversight requirements. There should be limited or no change for 

the process to reimburse traditional contractors for IR&D whose accounting systems conform to the Cost Accounting System standards. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to modify the acquisition process to ensure that any allowable costs for bid and proposal costs are reduced to the maximum extent practicable. The 

committee is concerned that DOD requirements, rules and regulations are driving contractors to increase bid and proposal costs to 

unsustainable levels that ultimately DOD pays for in contractor 

overhead. The committee is also concerned that the ability to be reimbursed for these large costs puts traditional defense contractors 

at a competitive advantage over a non-traditional contractor who 

does not receive reimbursement for these costs. 

Exception to requirement to include cost or price to the 

Government as a factor in the evaluation of proposals 

for certain multiple-award task or delivery order contracts (sec. 815) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2305(a)(3) of title 10, United States Code, to provide an exception to the existing statutory requirement to include cost or price 

to the Federal Government as an evaluation factor that must be 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
210 

considered in the evaluation of proposals for all contracts. The provision would only apply to multiple award task or delivery order 

contracts to buy services and the Department would then appropriately focus on price when individual task orders are issued and 

competed. The committee agrees with the Department’s assessment 

that the evaluation of price as a source selection factor for initial 

contract awards on multiple award task or delivery order contracts 

adds limited value. This provision will allow the Department to be 

able to better focus on non-price factors in source selection that will 

result in more meaningful distinctions between offerors being made 

resulting in better value for the taxpayer. 

Modified restrictions on undefinitized contractual actions 

(sec. 816) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2326 of title 10, United States Code, to revise policies regarding undefinitized contractual actions (UCAs). The committee is concerned that over the past decade the use of UCAs by the services 

and defense agencies has grown significantly while the speed at 

which these UCAs are definitized has lagged. To address this situation, the provision would: (1) require a written determination by 

senior officials to extend a UCA beyond 90 days; (2) require UCAs 

to be awarded on a fixed price level of effort basis; and (3) extend 

the 180 day definitization requirement to contracts in support of 

Foreign Military Sales cases. 

The committee has been made aware of certain practices by the 

services and defense agencies to get around the statutory restrictions on UCAs by ‘‘restarting’’ the 180 day clock whenever a contract modification is made and expects these modifications to be 

kept to a minimum. The committee will continue to review whether 

UCAs serve as barriers to the use of non-traditional contractors 

and further the culture of a reliance on cost contracts and nonvalue added unique government oversight requirements. If this is 

found to be the case, the committee will need to consider further 

restrictions on the use of UCAs by the Department. 

Non-traditional contractor definition (sec. 817) 

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 address the definition of entity 

which was intended to be interpreted as allowing specific business 

units within a corporation to be considered as a non-traditional 

contractor. The Committee would expect that business units shall 

be defined by the Department by unique Data Universal Number 

System (DUNS) number or a comparable identifier that is widely 

accepted as being able to delineate business units within a larger 

corporate or private unit. 

Comprehensive small business contracting plans (sec. 818) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new section that 

would codify the authority to conduct small business subcontracting plans. The Government Accountability (GAO) recently reported to the committee that the Test Program for Negotiation of 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
211 

Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans has resulted 

in the avoidance of millions of dollars in administrative costs and 

recommended that the program be made permanent. This provision 

would implement GAO’s recommendation. 

Limitation on task and delivery order protests (sec. 819) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2304c(e) of title 10, United States Code, that would prohibit 

task and delivery protests if the Secretary of Defense has appointed an ombudsman in accordance with section 2304c(f) of title 

10, United States Code to review complaints related to task order 

and delivery contracts. 

Modified data collection requirements applicable to procurement of services (sec. 820) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2330a of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the applicability of the contractor inventory requirement to staff augmentation 

contracts and to reduce data collection and unnecessary reporting 

requirements. 

The committee notes that the RAND corporation is undergoing a 

review mandated by section 807 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) to examine and 

report to the committee the current approach taken by the Department of Defense to comply with section 2330(a) of title 10, United 

States Code. The committee has been briefed by RAND and the Department of Defense on preliminary findings during this ongoing 

reporting process, the results of which will be released in the summer of 2016. The committee will takes those results into consideration during the conference process of this Act so as to best capture 

recommendations to modify the current contractor inventory requirement. 

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 add a new section to outline the role of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in bid 

protests on certain contracts with the Department of Defense. The 

provision would require a large contractor filing a bid protest on a 

defense contract with GAO to cover the cost of processing the protest if all of the elements in the protest are denied in an opinion 

issued by GAO. The provision would also impose a withhold on 

payments above incurred costs on any bridge or temporary contract 

to an incumbent contractor who submits a protest and that protest 

results in the issuance of a bridge or temporary contract. The distribution of this withhold would be dependent on the outcome of 

the protest. 

Report on bid protests (sec. 822) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to contract with a research entity to carry out 

a comprehensive study on the prevalence and impact of bid protests on Department of Defense acquisitions. The report is due to 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
212 

the congressional defense committees 1 year after the enactment of 

this Act. 

Treatment of side-by-side testing of certain equipment, munitions, and technologies manufactured and developed 

under cooperative research and development agreements as use of competitive procedures (sec. 823) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2350a(g) of title 10, United States Code, to add a new paragraph to clarify that the general solicitation and testing competitive procedures used under the program are competitive procedures 

under chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code. 

Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (sec. 824) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2359b(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, to expand the scope 

of the defense acquisition challenge program to include alternatives 

to existing acquisition programs and to clarify that the general solicitation competitive procedures used under the program are competitive procedures under chapter 137 of title 10, United States 

Code. 

Use of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection 

process (sec. 825) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense to revise the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to limit the use of lowest price 

technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection criteria in circumstances that would potentially deny the Department the benefits of cost and technical tradeoffs in the source selection process. 

The Department would be required to only use LPTA criteria in 

specified circumstances and avoid to the maximum extent practicable for the procurement of knowledge-based professional services such as information technology services. Additionally, this provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 

to the congressional defense committees detailing instances for 

which LPTA source selection criteria was used annually for the 

next 3 years. 

Penalties for the use of cost-type contracts (sec. 826) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

secretary of each military department and the head of each of the 

defense agencies to pay a penalty for the use of cost-type contracts 

in certain cases that are awarded in fiscal year 2018 through fiscal 

year 2021. The penalty would equal 2 percent of obligated funds in 

the case of new contracts using procurement funds or 1 percent in 

the case of new contracts using research, development, test, and 

evaluation funds, with some limited exceptions. 

The committee is frustrated by the continuous dependence of the 

Department of Defense on the use of cost type contracts. While 

there are some circumstances where cost-type contracts may be appropriate, the Department has over the years expanded the use of 

these types of contracts as a forcing mechanism to achieve absolute 

certainty in visibility over contractor costs. While this visibility has 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
213 

enabled the Department the ability to achieve some narrow cost reductions on certain contracts, it has come at the cost of reduced 

competition and innovation. The effect of the overuse of cost-type 

contracts is the narrowing of the industrial base as commercial 

firms make a choice not to invest in the unique accounting and financial systems necessary to compete for a cost contract. This expensive barrier to entry has resulted in a smaller pool of defense 

unique companies that can comply with government unique requirements necessary to execute a cost contract. Commercial companies that choose not to invest in expensive government unique 

accounting systems are effectively precluded from doing business 

with the Department when DOD chooses to use cost contracts. This 

provision, in combination with the preference for fixed-price contracts in a separate section of this Act, is designed to limit the use 

of cost contracts in the future and focus the Department on achieving greater value and innovation through accessing commercial, 

non-traditional, and small business contractors that are nimble 

enough to operate in a fixed-price environment. 

The committee notes that there are some high risk, high reward 

research activities where a cost contract would still represent an 

appropriate allocation of risk between the government and contractor. For example, lead ships in new ship classes have been exempted from the cost penalty and science and technology spending 

will only be subject to the penalty beginning in fiscal year 2019. 

While the committee has not mandated a complete ban on cost contracting this provision is designed to set up incentives that limit its 

use to appropriate exceptional cases. The committee believes that 

through the course of this pilot period, the Department can develop 

and implement training and guidance, based on best commercial 

practice, to establish fixed price contract vehicles with enough options and flexibility that they can serve important high technology 

defense mission needs for research and development purposes. The 

committee looks forward to working with the Department to identify and define the appropriate set of cases for use of cost contracts 

for development, and establish rational policies that will protect 

government interests, while still meeting the concerns of technology companies. 

Preference for fixed-price contracts (sec. 827) 

The committee recommends a provision that would revise the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to establish a 

preference for fixed-price contracts, including fixed-price incentive 

fee contracts, in the determination of contract type and establish 

an approval mechanism for the use of cost type contracts over $5.0 

million in value. While the committee understands the flexibility 

and advantages inherent in a fixed-price incentive contract, it is 

concerned that these contracts could evolve to look more like a costtype contract. The Department needs to be vigilant in the proper 

usage of fixed-price incentive contracts by focusing incentives on 

achievable outcomes and not using these contracts as a gateway to 

trigger government-unique data and accounting system requirements. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
214 

Requirement to use firm fixed-price contracts for foreign 

military sales (sec. 828) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations to require the use of 

firm fixed-price contracts for foreign military sales not later than 

180 days after the enactment of this Act. Additionally, this provision would grant the Secretary waiver authority if the Secretary 

determines that a different type of contract is in the best interest 

of the United States taxpayers. 

Preference for performance-based contractual payments 

(sec. 829) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2307(b) of title 10, United States Code, to establish a preference for performance-based payments to contractors. The committee is disappointed in the movement of the Department to a 

greater reliance on cost-type contracts, progress payments, and the 

need for incurred cost audits performed by the Defense Contract 

Audit Agency that is currently woefully behind in many of its audit 

objectives. It was a desire to focus on achieving better outcomes for 

the taxpayer and reduce the unnecessary bureaucracy and compliance burden that Congress established in the Federal Acquisition 

Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–355) the option of using 

a more commercial payments process known as performance based 

payments. These payments would be targeted against achievable 

goals and metrics rather than merely the expenditure of dollars associated with progress payments. While the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation in FAR 32.1001 establishes performance based payments as the preferred Government financing mechanism, the Department has become even more focused on measuring cost as an 

output rather than focusing on measuring outcomes for the taxpayer and rewarding contractors for meeting those performance objectives. This provision re-establishes the policy objective. 

Share-in-savings contracts (sec. 829A) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2332 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Defense Acquisition University to develop and implement a training program 

for Department of Defense acquisition personnel on share-in-savings contracts not later than 180 days after the enactment of this 

Act. 

Special emergency procurement authority to facilitate the 

defense against or recovery from a cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack (sec. 829B) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 137 of title 10, United State Code, to add a new section that 

would grant the Secretary of Defense special emergency procurement authority for property or services that would facilitate defense against or recovery from cyber, nuclear, biological, chemical, 

or radiological attack against the United States. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
215 

Limitation on the use of reverse auction and lowest price 

technically acceptable contracting methods (sec. 829C) 

The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) prohibit 

the use of reverse auctions and lowest priced technically acceptable 

(LPTA) contracting methods for the procurement of personal protective equipment where the level of quality needed or the failure 

of the item could result in combat casualties; and (2) establish a 

preference for best value contracting methods when procuring such 

equipment. 

The committee is concerned that an overarching bias towards reducing prices paid by the Department of Defense (DOD) to the exclusion of other factors could result in DOD buying low cost products that have the potential to negatively impact the safety of U.S. 

troops. This could be a particular problem with the quality of personal protective equipment such as helmets, body armor, eye protection, and other similar individual equipment issued to U.S. military personnel. While LPTA and reverse auction contracting techniques are appropriate for some type of purchases, the committee 

believes that lowest price is not always the best strategy when 

quality and innovation are needed. In these cases, the committee 

believes a best value acquisition approach is more appropriate. 

Avoidance of use of brand names or brand-name or equivalent descriptions in solicitations (sec. 829D) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to ensure that Department of Defense contract language does not specify a brand name in solicitations unless 

justification for such a specification is provided and approved in accordance with section 2304(f) of title 10, United States Code. 

Sunset and repeal of certain contracting provisions (sec. 

829E) 

The committee recommends a provision that would: (1) amend 

title 10, United States Code, to sunset sections 2212, 2220, 2228, 

2304e, 2421 by September 30, 2018; (2) amend title 10, United 

States Code, to sunset section 1706 by September 30, 2019; and (3) 

repeal sections 2245a, 2225, 2302c, 2378, 2387 of title 10, United 

States Code. 

Flexibility in contracting award program (sec. 829F) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish an 

award to recognize defense acquisition programs and acquisition 

professionals that make the best use of flexibilities and those authorities granted in the Federal Acquisition Regulation and Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02 (Operation of the Defense Acquisition System) meant to increase the efficiency of programs. 

This award would encourage innovation among defense acquisition 

professionals for their work to simplify procedures, use of commercial contracting approaches, developing public private partnership 

agreements, and other inventive program management techniques. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
216 

Products and services purchased through contracting program for firms that hire the severely disabled (sec. 

829G) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of Defense from arranging contracts through AbilityOne, 

or its central non-profit agency, SourceAmerica, and instead require the Secretary to contract directly with qualified nonprofit 

agencies for the severely disabled until the Department of Defense 

Inspector General certifies that: (1) the internal controls and financial management systems of AbilityOne and SourceAmerica are 

sufficient to protect the Department of Defense against fraud, 

waste and abuse; (2) there are fair opportunities for qualified nonprofit agencies for the severely disabled to compete for DOD contracts under the procurement list; and (3) pass-through contracts 

to contractors who are not qualified nonprofit agencies are limited 

to the maximum extent practicable to providing services and supplies necessary for qualified nonprofit agencies to assemble or 

produce a final product for use by the Department of Defense. 

Established by Congress in 1938, the AbilityOne Program is a 

unique public-private structure that connects people who are blind 

or have severe disabilities to jobs that provide products and services to the federal government, and is now the single largest source 

of employment for these individuals. The AbilityOne Program relies 

on nearly 600 independent nonprofit agencies to provide this employment, assisted by one of two Central Nonprofit Agencies 

(CNAs): the National Industries for the Blind and SourceAmerica. 

The U.S. AbilityOne Commission oversees both the CNAs and their 

affiliated nonprofit agencies (NPAs) and is ultimately responsible 

for the performance of the program. Given that federal agencies including the Department of Defense—are directed to order certain 

supplies and services from Procurement List maintained by 

AbilityOne in support of this objective, there is a requirement that 

participating vendors—Non-profit Agencies-certify that 75 percent 

of their total direct labor hours are performed by people who are 

blind or severely disabled. 

The committee fully supports the AbilityOne program’s objective 

to employ people who are blind and severely disabled. Given that 

DOD spent over $2.3 billion through the program in fiscal year 

2015, and that DOD funds comprise the majority of those spent 

through the AbilityOne program, the committee is very concerned 

about the lack of transparency and effectiveness in vetting vendors 

and subvendors. The committee notes that in 2013 GAO recommended enhanced oversight of the AbilityOne Program in several areas to promote accountability for program effectiveness, efficiency, and integrity. Recent media reports have raised allegations 

of corruption, financial fraud, and legal violations with 

SourceAmerica the central nonprofit agency responsible for selecting vendors who employ blind and severely disabled. Several federal agency Inspectors General are investigating these allegations, 

however, because AbilityOne selection of vendors takes place above 

the level of individual departments and agencies who use 

AbilityOne, only the Comptroller General of the United States—the 

Government Accountability Office—has complete authority to audit 

program management and governance. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
217 

Due to the volume of DOD spending through the AbilityOne program, its objectives, its exception to competition, and its unique 

public-private structure, governance, and oversight, and given the 

ongoing investigations, the committee has concerns about ensuring 

the program is managed transparently and with integrity. The 

committee asked the Department of Defense Inspector General (IG) 

to evaluate whether the vendors performing the work were meeting 

requirements for hiring severely disabled, but the IG was prevented by AbilityOne from accessing the documents necessary to 

perform the review. The committee believes that the current inability for the Defense Department IG to verify and validate the proper 

use of DOD expenditures is currently untenable. This provision 

would ensure that DOD contracting officers will contract directly 

with qualified non-profits to select vendors until DOD IG is able to 

certify to Congress that the controls and financial management systems at AbilityOne are sufficient to protect the Department against 

waste, fraud, and abuse. The committee has received no indication 

of any problems with the operations of the National Industries for 

the Blind and expects that DOD operations with NIB will continue 

under current practices. 

Applicability of Executive Order 13673 ‘‘Fair Pay and Safe 

Workplaces’’ to Department of Defense contractors (sec. 

829H) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the application of the acquisition regulations mandated by Executive 

Order 13673 to contractors or subcontractors of the Department of 

Defense that have been suspended or debarred as a result of the 

federal labor law violations referenced in the Executive Order in effect on May 28, 2015. 

Contract closeout authority (sec. 829I) 

The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 

Secretary of Defense the authority to close out contracts entered 

into prior to fiscal year 2000 without completing further reconciliation audits other than those described in this section. 

Closeout of old Navy contracts (sec. 829J) 

The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 

Secretary of the Navy authority to close out contracts entered into 

between fiscal years 1974 and 1998 to design, construct, repair, or 

support the construction or repair of Navy submarines without 

completing further reconciliation audits other than those described 

in this section. 

Subtitle C—Provisions Relating to Major Defense 

Acquisition Programs 

Repeal of major automated information systems provisions 

(sec. 831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal chapter 144A of title 10, United States Code. The committee believes 

that the Department of Defense (DOD) does not need a separate 

acquisition process for large information technology programs and 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
218 

that if these programs (particularly those that are national security 

systems) meet the threshold of a major defense acquisition program 

they should be managed under that acquisition pathway tailored 

where applicable to the specific needs of large software development programs under the DOD 5000 series regulations. For business information technology systems the requirements of section 

2222 of title 10, United State Code, would apply. 

Revisions to definition of major defense acquisition program (sec. 832) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2430 of title 10, United States Code, that would revise the definition of a major defense acquisition program to exclude fixedprice prototypes not planned as part of an existing major defense 

acquisition programs and those programs or projects developed 

under the rapid fielding or rapid prototyping acquisition pathway 

authorized under section 804 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). 

Acquisition strategy (sec. 833) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2431a of title 10, United States Code to require that the acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition program must 

also consider a comprehensive sustainment strategy which includes 

all aspects of the total life cycle management of the weapon system, 

including product support, logistics, product support engineering, 

supply chain integration, maintenance, acquisition logistics, and all 

aspects of software sustainment. 

Improved life cycle cost control (sec. 834) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make several 

amendments to improve life cycle cost controls. First, this provision 

would amend section 804(c)(3) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92), to require rapid 

fielding guidance from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to include direction on a process for 

identifying and exploiting opportunities to use the rapid fielding 

pathway to reduce total ownership costs. Secondly, this provision 

would amend section 805(2) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (NDAA) to include life cycle cost management as a procedure that the Secretary of Defense should establish 

for alternative acquisition pathways to meet national security 

needs. Thirdly, this provision would amend section 833(e) of the 

NDAA for Fiscal Year 2016 to require the Secretary to also issue 

guidance on policies to maximize the use of fixed-price contracts 

and the ability to implement tradeoffs total cost of ownership, 

schedule, and performance. Finally, this provision would add a new 

section to chapter 144 of title 10, United States Code, which would 

require sustainment reviews of acquisition programs 5 years after 

their operational capability—unless the program has failed to 

maintain its availability or reliability threshold or has breached its 

affordability cap before that time. 

Additionally, this provision would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a commercial operational and support saving iniVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00254 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
219 

tiative to insert existing commercial items or technology into military legacy programs through rapid development and fielding of 

prototypes in order to improve readiness and reduce operations and 

support costs. 

Modification of certain Milestone B certification requirements (sec. 835) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2366b(a)(3) of title 10, United States Code to eliminate the 

need for waivers that are regularly submitted to the committee for 

programs that are executed at the beginning of the fiscal year but 

before the future years defense program (FYDP) has been submitted, and should receive Milestone B certification as long as 

there is funding in the current FYDP. This provision should reduce 

the number of required waivers and therefore reduce unnecessary 

staff burden. 

Disclosure of risk in cost estimates (sec. 836) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend subsection (d) of section 2334 of title 10, United States Code, to remove 

the requirement for disclosure of confidence levels for baseline estimates of major defense acquisition programs. This provision would 

require the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation 

and the Secretary of the military department concerned or the 

head of the defense agency concerned, if applicable, to: (1) issue 

guidance requiring a discussion of risk for the acquisition program; 

(2) ensure the required cost estimates are developed based on historical actual cost information and that the estimates provide a 

high degree of confidence that the program can be completed without a drastic adjustment to the program budget; and (3) that the 

information required by the new guidance on risk be included in 

any decision documentation approving a cost estimate. 

Authority to designate increments or blocks of items delivered under major defense acquisition programs as major 

subprograms for purposes of acquisition reporting (sec. 

837) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2430a(1)(B) of title 10, United States Code, to expand the authority to designate increments or blocks of items delivered under 

major defense acquisition programs as major subprograms. 

Counting of major defense acquisition program subcontracts toward small business goals (sec. 838) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to include a new section to 

include first and second tier subcontracts awarded by the Department of Defense (DOD) under major defense acquisition programs 

in the Department’s overall count of small business goals. Major 

defense acquisition programs are developed by large contractors. 

Even at the first and second tier of subcontracts it is difficult to 

obtain small business participation. Counting small business participation at this level toward DOD’s top level goal could provide 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
220 

a greater incentive for small business participation in these programs. 

Use of economy-wide inflation index to calculate percentage 

increase in unit costs (sec. 839) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2433(f) of title 10, United States Code, to require that unit 

costs be calculated in constant dollars a with an economy-wide inflation index, such as the Gross Domestic Product Price Index. 

Waiver of notification when acquiring tactical missiles and 

munitions above the budgeted quantity (sec. 840) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2308(c) of title 10, United States Code, to waive the requirement for the head of an agency to notify congressional defense committees of the decision to acquire a higher quantity of an end item 

for tactical missiles and munitions annual procurements. The committee notes that most of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) tactical missile and munitions program are currently below their approved inventory objectives and are current warfighting priorities. 

The committee also notes that the effects of foreign military sales, 

multi-service procurements, Overseas Contingency Operations additions to the base budget, and improved manufacturing efficiencies, have resulted in DOD being able to procure end items 

above the annual budgeted quantity without required funding 

above the appropriated amount. The committee believes that removing this notification requirement would provide needed streamlining and lower costs by reducing administrative staffing and unnecessary compliance burdens. 

Multiple program multiyear contract pilot demonstration 

program (sec. 841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 

Secretary of Defense the authority to conduct a multiyear contract 

for multiple defense programs that are produced at common facilities at a high rate, and which maximize commonality, efficiencies 

and quality, in order to provide maximum benefit and significant 

savings to the Department of Defense (DOD). The committee notes 

that this pilot has the potential to increase savings as compared to 

the process of having separate annual contracts under individual 

programs to purchase such units separately and at lower rates that 

raise costs. 

Key Performance Parameter reduction pilot program (sec. 

842) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to enact a pilot program aimed at decreasing 

the number of Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) on acquisition 

programs. The Secretary would be required to select one acquisition program from each of the services to determine if limiting the 

number of KPPs to three, at the most, leads to operational or programmatic improvements of outcomes. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
221 

Mission and system of systems of interoperability (sec. 843) 

The committee recommends a provision that would further enhance the Department of Defense’s (DOD) efforts to adopt an open 

systems approach to defense acquisition. The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to implement modular open systems 

architecture in acquisition programs in specified mission areas 

when implementing section 801 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. 

‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2015 (Public Law 113–291). The provision would require each 

multi-service and multi-program mission outlined in the provision 

to have a mission integration manager to act as the principal substantive advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Vice 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for all aspects of capability 

integration for the mission area. 

B–21 bomber development program baseline and cost control (sec. 844) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish specific cost growth thresholds and cost controls for the Air Force’s B– 

21 bomber program. The provision would also direct the Secretary 

of the Air Force to submit quarterly program performance data to 

the Comptroller General of the United States, who will, in turn, assess the data and provide quarterly assessments to the congressional defense committees of cost, schedule, and performance 

trends for the B–21 bomber program. Finally, the provision would 

direct the difference between the Department of Defense’s annual 

program budget funding amount at the service cost position level, 

and the contract award annual funding profile amount, less other 

government costs to manage the B–21 bomber program or otherwise authorized or appropriated, to be transferred to the Defense 

Rapid Prototyping Fund, in conjunction with each subsequent fiscal 

year’s budget submission. 

The committee is very concerned with the B–21 bomber program 

acquisition strategy of awarding the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase contract using a cost plus/incentive fee (CPIF) structure. While the committee applauds the fixedprice and not-to-exceed price constructs for the low rate initial production and full rate production phases of the program, the committee remains concerned that performance shortfalls, schedule 

delays, and resultant cost increases during the EMD phase would 

expose the government and American taxpayers to excessive program risk, and in turn precipitate a situation such as previously 

experienced with the B–2 and F–22 programs. These programs far 

exceeded performance, schedule, and cost estimates in their developmental phases, resulting in affordability issues that ultimately 

delivered far fewer aircraft than the number required to meet combatant commander and defense strategy requirements. 

The committee understands unforeseen problems can arise in 

complex, challenging, and cutting-edge technology weapons systems 

programs. However, Congress needs frequent program performance 

reporting, expert assessments, and cost controls to properly exercise its oversight responsibilities and make critical funding adjustments, or when necessary, off-ramp termination decisions, as the 

steward of precious American taxpayer dollars. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
222 

Subtitle D—Provisions Relating to Acquisition Workforce 

Improvement of program and project management by the 

Department of Defense (sec. 851) 

The committee recommends a provision that would outline the 

responsibilities of the Department of Defense (DOD) under chapter 

87 of title 10, United States Code for improving program and 

project management. This provision would require that not later 

than 1 year after the enactment of this Act that the Secretary of 

Defense develop Department-wide standards, policies and guidelines for program and project management. 

Authority to waive tenure requirement for program managers for program definition and program execution periods (sec. 852) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 826(e) and 827(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) to harmonize the waiver 

authorities granted in these sections to the Service Acquisition Executive or the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 

Enhanced use of data analytics to improve acquisition program outcomes (sec. 853) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Deputy Chief 

Management Officer, and the Chief Information Officer, and in coordination with the military services, 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 (DOD) and enhance organizational learning. 

Purposes for which the Department of Defense Acquisition 

Workforce Development Fund may be used (sec. 854) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1705 of title 10, United States Code, to expand the use of the 

Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund. 

The provision would clarify that the fund could be used for the development of acquisition tools and methodologies and the undertaking of research and development of activities that could lead to 

acquisition policies and practices that will improve the efficiency 

and effectiveness of defense acquisition efforts. 

The committee believes there are several areas where the Department should be using the Fund more effectively to achieve better acquisition outcomes and take advantage of new innovation in 

the commercial and global marketplaces. The committee directs 

that the Secretary of Defense shall review the adequacy of current 

acquisition training in the area of better accessing commercial vendors and the use of tools such as Federal Acquisition Regulation 

Part 12 contracts, Other Transactions Authority, Experimental Authority, Rapid Acquisition Authority, and other flexibilities in law 

and regulation and consider using the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund to improve training of the Department of 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
223 

Defense Acquisition Workforce in the use of these authorities. The 

committee is particularly concerned with a lack of understanding 

of the flexibility of these authorities by contracting officers, the Office of the Inspector General, and the Defense Contract Management Agency. 

Subtitle E—Provisions Related to Commercial Items 

Inapplicability of certain laws and regulations to the acquisition of commercial items and commercially available 

off-the-shelf items (sec. 861) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2375 of title 10, United States Code, to require the establishment of a list in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement of inapplicable defense-unique statutes to contracts for 

commercial items and commercial-available off-the-shelf items. 

These would be in addition to those inapplicable government-wide 

statutes currently listed in the Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) pursuant to section 1906(b) of title 41, United States Code. 

The committee is concerned by the growing number of government-unique contract clauses that are now required for FAR Part 

12 commercial contracts. By industry estimates these clauses have 

grown since the mid-1990s from 13 to 63, and in some cases over 

80, government-unique contract clauses today. With these requirements come additional costs and regulatory burden ultimately paid 

by the taxpayer while each added new clause limits the pool of potential commercial companies willing to act as defense suppliers. 

This limits the potential competition, innovation, and creativity 

that is necessary to reduce costs to the taxpayer and deliver cutting-edge equipment to the men and women of the armed forces. 

The committee intends that this provision be used by the Department of Defense to reduce unnecessary requirements on contractors 

providing commercial items that are identified in the report required by section 854 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163). 

Department of Defense exemptions from certain regulations 

(sec. 862) 

The committee recommends a provision that would exempt purchases of commercial off the shelf items by the Department of Defense from certain Executive Orders and give the Secretary of Defense waiver authority for other purchases. The committee is concerned about the increasing application of government unique mandates on defense contracting that do not apply to commercial vendors when they do business in the private sector. These government unique non-statutory requirements may serve as contractual 

barriers and cost drivers to commercial, small business, and innovative non-traditional contractors. Ultimately, these barriers may 

serve as disincentives for these firms from doing business with the 

Department of Defense (DOD). 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
224 

Use of performance and commercial specifications in lieu of 

military specifications and standards (sec. 863) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Department of Defense 

uses performance and commercial specifications and standards in 

lieu of military specifications and standards, including for procuring new systems, major modifications, upgrades to current systems, non-developmental and commercial items, and programs in 

all acquisition categories, unless no practical alternative exists to 

meet user needs. The committee is concerned that the Department 

over the last decade has moved away from the application of the 

so-called ‘‘Perry Memo’’ dated June 29, 1994 on ‘‘Specifications and 

Standards—A New Way of Doing Business’’ and has returned to 

adopting defense-unique standards and specifications. This provision would codify portions of former Secretary of Defense William 

Perry’s approach to adopting performance and commercial standards and specifications to the maximum extent practicable in defense operations. 

Preference for commercial services (sec. 864) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to issue guidance pursuant to section 855 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). This provision would ensure that no head of an 

agency would enter into a contract in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold for facilities-related services, knowledge-based 

services, equipment-related services, construction services, medical 

services, logistics management services, or transportation services 

that are not commercial services unless the head of the agency determines in writing that no commercial services are suitable to 

meet the agency’s needs as provided in section 2377(c)(2) of title 10, 

United States Code. The committee continues to be concerned by 

the perfunctory market research being performed by Departmental 

officials that oftentimes results in purchasing inappropriate defense unique solutions that are often more expensive for the taxpayer. Guidance issued pursuant to this provision should ensure 

that commercial services are first determined to be unsuitable to 

the government’s needs before purchasing a non-commercial service 

and that conducted market research be used to inform price reasonableness determinations. 

Treatment of items purchased by prospective contractors 

prior to release of prime contract requests for proposals 

as commercial items (sec. 865) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section to chapter 140 of title 10, United States Code, to treat the 

purchase of items valued less than $10,000 prior to the release of 

a government request for proposal (RFP) as a commercial item. 

There are many cases where contractors often place orders with 

subcontractors for material, supplies and parts that may be applicable to several commercial or government programs in advance of 

any government contract or RFP. Placing these ‘‘advance release’’ 

orders is often necessary to align subcontractor lead time (which, 

for some critical parts, can exceed 2 years) with government’s fundVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00260 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
225 

ing and contracting cycles. This practice is in the government’s interest because if prime contractors did not place such orders in advance—particularly in times of urgent need—required items would 

be delayed to the warfighter. Applying government-unique accounting requirements after the fact to what are in essence commercial 

decisions and transactions is of limited value, and any reasonableness of price determinations on these items can be made using 

similar data and processes used to determine price reasonableness 

on a commercial item. The provision would still enable the Department of Defense to obtain information required for responsible program management. 

Treatment of services provided by nontraditional contractors as commercial items (sec. 866) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2380A of title 10, United States Code, to treat business units 

of nontraditional contractors that offer services as a commercial 

item, if the business unit uses the same personnel and similar pricing as offered to commercial customers. The Committee is concerned that Department personnel are not always open to the idea 

that services related to a traditional Federal Acquisition (FAR) 

Part 15 program could be considered commercial. The committee 

notes that increasingly contracting officers take the position that a 

service contract can be commercial only if it relates to a commercial 

item. This will present a serious challenge to obtaining services in 

today’s digital economy. Many technology companies are not prepared to offer their services on a FAR Part 15 basis, but for DOD 

to compete in the information age against its potential adversaries 

it will need access to those services, in the form of digital offerings, 

consulting, and analytics, on its traditional acquisition programs. 

The committee believes this and other provisions proposed in this 

bill will remedy this situation and encourage commercial services 

providers to offer their solutions more readily to the defense market. 

Use of non-cost contracts to acquire commercial items (sec. 

867) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2377 of title 10, United States Code, to require that the Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall include that firm fixed-priced contracts, fixed-price incentive contracts or fixed-price with economic price adjustment contracts be 

used to the maximum extent practicable for the acquisition of commercial items. Additionally, this provision would prohibit the use 

of cost-type contracts for commercial items. The committee is concerned that the regulatory environment for the use of fixed-price 

contracts is more restrictive than the current law outlined in section 8002(d) of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 

(Public Law 103–355). This provision will ensure that the Department of Defense practice will correspond to the flexibility inherent 

in the law and allow contracting officers when acquiring commercial items to use the full range of contracting tools available to the 

Department in Federal Acquisition Regulations Part 16 that are 

not cost contracts to include fixed-price incentive type contracts. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
226 

Pilot program for authority to acquire innovative commercial items, technologies, and services using general solicitation competitive procedures (sec. 868) 

The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 

Secretary of Defense the authority to carry out a pilot program to 

acquire innovative commercial items on a fixed-price basis using 

general solicitation competitive procedures and a peer review of 

such proposals. The committee believes that this authority will 

support the Department of Defense’s (DOD) efforts to access technical innovations from non-traditional contractor sources. 

Subtitle F—Industrial Base Matters 

Greater integration of the national technical industrial base 

(sec. 871) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop a plan to reduce the barriers to the 

seamless integration between the persons and organizations that 

comprise the National Technical Industrial Base and expand the 

definition in section 2500 (1) of title 10, United States Code to include the United Kingdom and Australia. The committee is concerned about the barriers that current technology transfer rules, 

laws, and regulations pose to the incorporation of commercial technology into defense items and to the ability of defense contractors 

in the United States to work with other internal and external corporate entities in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The 

committee is also concerned that universities, non-profit research 

entities, non-traditional and commercial contractors that now conduct the majority of global research and development are increasingly running up against the U.S. technology transfer regime and 

are choosing to conduct more research overseas so as to not trigger 

export control rules. If these trends continue innovation may be increasingly conducted overseas with technology more readily available to potential adversaries than to the U.S. military because of 

the lack of civil-military integration of the national technical industrial base. 

Integration of civil and military roles in attaining national 

technology and industrial base objectives (sec. 872) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2501(b) of title 10, United States Code, to ensure that the Secretary of Defense when meeting the national security strategy for 

the national technology and industrial base shall engage in acquisition reform efforts that: (1) rely, to the maximum extent practicable, upon the commercial national technology and industrial 

base that is required to meet the national security needs of the 

United States; (2) reduce the reliance of the Department of Defense 

on technology and industrial base sectors that are economically dependent on Department of Defense business; and (3) reduce Federal Government barriers to the use of commercial products, processes, and standards. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
227 

Distribution support and services for weapon systems contractors (sec. 873) 

The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 

Secretary of Defense the authority to make available storage and 

distribution services support to weapons system support contractors in support of the performance of a contract related to the production, modification, maintenance, or repair of a Department 

weapons system. The committee believes that this provision would 

decrease Department of Defense costs associated with the logistical 

problems of redundant storage and distribution capabilities by allowing the integration of material used to support weapons systems 

into existing governmental facilities. 

Permanency of Department of Defense SBIR and STTR programs (sec. 874) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 9(m) and 9(n)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638(m)) 

in order to make the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) 

program and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program at the Department of Defense permanent. 

Modified requirements for distribution of assistance under 

procurement technical assistance cooperative agreements (sec. 875) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2413(c) of title 10, United States Code to conform the Procurement Technical Assistance Program with the Defense Logistics 

Agency current practice of using states as the geographic basis for 

cooperative agreement awards. 

Nontraditional and small disruptive innovation prototyping 

program (sec. 876) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

pilot program for nontraditional contractors and small businesses 

to prototype disruptive solutions that demonstrate new capabilities 

that could provide alternatives to existing acquisition program and 

assets. This pilot program would be funded out of the Rapid Prototyping Fund established under section 804(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). 

Subtitle G—International Contracting Matters 

International sales process improvements (sec. 881) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make improvements to the management and use of fees collected on the 

transfer of defense articles under programs in which the Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has administrative responsibilities. The provision would require The Secretary of Defense to 

develop a plan for improvements and to gather contractor input on 

the appropriateness of governmental pricing and availability estimates. Additionally, this provision would require the Comptroller 

General of the United States to submit a review to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after the enactVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00263 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
228 

ment of this Act on the management and use of fees collected by 

DSCA. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to review the management and use of fees collected on 

transfers of defense articles and services via sale, lease, or grant 

to international customers under programs over which the Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency has administration responsibilities 

and submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the 

review, including— 

(1) the dollar value of fees collected over the last 5 years associated with the process of transferring defense articles and 

services via sale, lease, or grant; 

(2) a description of how funds collected as a result of the fees 

in paragraph (1) have been used and how the Department of 

Defense plans to use these funds in the future; 

(3) a determination of whether excess funds are being generated; 

(4) a determination of whether fees are being used to maintain inefficient staffing levels or are being spent for purposes 

other than those associated with improving efficient and effective administration of the process; 

(5) an assessment of the adequacy, both qualitatively and 

quantitatively, of Department of Defense staffing required to 

manage the process; 

(6) a determination of whether the Department’s process to 

administer the transfer of defense articles and services via 

sale, lease, or grant to international customers is adequate to 

meet wartime or contingency needs of United States allies; 

(7) an assessment of the adequacy of information technology 

processes needed to improve process efficiency or effectiveness; 

(8) a determination of whether the fee structure and additional costs associated with utilizing such a process is causing 

United States contractors to lose sales to foreign competitors; 

and 

(9) any other matters the Comptroller General determines to 

be appropriate. 

Working capital fund for precision guided munitions exports in support of contingency operations (sec. 882) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to establish a working capital fund to finance 

inventories of supplies of precision guided munitions in advance of 

partner and allied forces requirements to enhance the effectiveness 

of overseas contingency operations conducted or supported by the 

United States. The inventories of munitions would be managed by 

the Defense Logistics Agency and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to optimize the storage, distribution, and deployment of such precision 

guided munitions to improve the capability of partner and allied 

forces to contribute to overseas contingency operations conducted or 

supported by the United States. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
229 

Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced in countries along major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec. 883) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 801(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) to extend by 2 years the authority 

to acquire products and services produced in countries along the 

major route of supply to Afghanistan. Extending this authority is 

necessary given the ongoing U.S. mission in the region and the importance of maintaining relationships established in the Northern 

Distribution Network. 

Clarification of treatment of contracts performed outside 

the United States (sec. 884) 

The committee recommends a provision that would codify for Department of Defense contracts the longstanding exemption contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation 19.000(b) that small 

business set-asides are not applied to overseas contracts. The committee is concerned about a recent conflicting regulation issued by 

the Small Business Administration that would undermine the Federal Acquisition Regulation. This regulation if implemented could 

potentially jeopardize counterinsurgency goals and undermine 

international agreements that the Department of Defense abides by 

and lead to increases in the level of bid protests and contract 

delays. 

Enhanced authority to acquire products and services produced in Africa in support of covered activities (sec. 

885) 

The committee recommends a provision that would grant the 

Secretary of Defense authority to make a determination to limit 

competition or provide a preference for products and services produced in areas where the United States has long-term agreements 

with host nations in the African region. This provision would enhance necessary long-term agreements and stability in the African 

region by providing economic and employment opportunities for 

host nations and their citizens. 

Maintenance of prohibition on procurement by Department 

of Defense of People’s Republic of China-origin items 

that meet the definition of goods and services controlled 

as munitions items when moved to the ‘‘600 series’’ of 

the Commerce Control List (sec. 886) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law 109–163) to maintain the prohibition on procuring military items from China. Section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2006 prohibits the 

Secretary of Defense from procuring goods or services, through a 

contract or any subcontract (at any tier), from any People’s Republic of China military company if those goods or services are on the 

U.S. munitions list (USML) of the International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations. The executive branch has recently revised the USML 

by reclassifying and moving items that are not critical to maintainVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00265 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
230 

ing a military or intelligence advantage or otherwise warrant such 

controls to the jurisdiction of the ‘‘600 series’’ of the Commerce 

Control List, with the aim of increasing allied access to such items. 

The committee agrees with the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

position that even though the items moved to the ‘‘600 series’’ are 

less-sensitive items, they are still military items and should remain 

prohibited for export to destinations subject to U.S. arms embargoes and, in the case of comparable People’s Republic of China-origin items, should remain prohibited from procurement by the Department of Defense. As such this provision would include under 

the current prohibition military items moved from the USML to the 

‘‘600 series’’ of the Commerce Control List. This would ensure the 

prohibition remains in place for the same universe of items as currently required under section 1211 and can be implemented in a 

change to Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement 

(DFARS) Clause 225.770. This provision would not expand or narrow the scope of items subject to the current prohibition. The committee believes that without an amendment, DOD could not maintain the prohibition. As a result, legislation is necessary to maintain the current prohibition effectively and more efficiently and to 

ensure that Chinese-origin military items are not procured by DOD 

in order to protect the security of the supply chain for U.S. weapons systems and other defense programs. 

Subtitle H—Other Matters 

Contractor business system requirements (sec. 891) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new section that 

would require the Secretary of Defense to develop and initiate a 

program to improve contractor business systems. The provision 

would clarify that this program would only apply to those contractors that do more than 30 percent of their business with the federal 

government and more than 1 percent of their business under cost 

type contracts. This should incentivize contractors that conduct 

more than 70 percent of their sales in the commercial market to 

utilize the same business systems they use in commercial marketplace. 

The committee is concerned that the current Department of Defense (DOD) business systems regulation focuses on ensuring contractors have compliant procedures in contrast to the practice in 

the commercial market where commercial business systems focus 

on achieving optimal outcomes. While prescribed business systems 

may add some value to contractors that perform mostly military 

work, they force predominantly commercial companies to either 

adopt the DOD approach for only a small portion of revenue, or 

split their functional-support operations into separate government 

and commercial groups. In either case, DOD effectively foregoes the 

benefits that accrue when the contractor leverages its commercial 

buying power to offer DOD best value and quality. The committee 

believes the Department should maximize the advantages of commercial business practices wherever it can and not pay for commercial companies to waste unnecessary resources in complying with 

unique defense business systems requirements. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
231 

The committee is also concerned about cost to the Department in 

overseeing contractor earned value management systems (EVMS). 

On September 29, 2015, the Department of Defense released a 

study entitled ‘‘Eliminating Requirements Imposed on Industry 

Where Costs Exceed Benefits’ ’’ that assessed a number of recommendations by industry for reducing the overhead and other 

costs associates with contracting with the Department of Defense. 

Among other areas, the report examined a number of suggestions 

for streamlining the costs associated with administering the earned 

value management systems (EVMS) required on all cost or incentive contracts valued over $20.0 million. Currently, for cost and incentive contracts valued above a certain threshold, the Defense 

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) stipulates 

that the contractor must have an EVMS determined by the cognizant federal agency to be in compliance with ANSI/EIA–748 

guidelines. The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) implements this requirement for DOD by conducting compliance reviews of contractors’ EVMS and annual system surveillance of approved systems. 

At the time the report was prepared, the threshold contract value 

for mandatory EVMS compliance reviews and systems surveillance 

was $50.0 million. At this threshold, DCMA personnel were required at 142 sites to oversee EVM systems associated with 304 

separate contracts with a total value of nearly $260.0 billion. The 

chart on page 59 of the report indicates that leaving the current 

EVMS requirements in place for contracts above $20.0 million, but 

increasing above $50.0 million the contract value threshold for routine EVM systems compliance surveillance could result in significant overhead savings by reducing the number of sites and contracts requiring DCMA personnel and continuing oversight while 

having a relatively small impact on the total contract dollars covered. For example, raising the contract value threshold from $50.0 

million to $200.0 million would reduce the number of sites requiring DCMA personnel for this function from 142 to 85 and the number of contracts from 304 to 163. The total contract dollar coverage 

on the other hand would drop from $260.0 billion to $245.0 billion, 

representing only a 5.7 percent reduction. 

On September 28, 2015, the DOD issued a DFARS deviation 

raising the contract value threshold from $50.0 to $100.0 million 

for routine EVM systems surveillance. The committee believes the 

data show that a further increase of the threshold to $200.0 million 

is warranted and urges the department to take this additional step 

as soon as is practicable. The committee notes in doing so that the 

department would retain its full rights to review contractor EVMS 

whenever it believes that a contractor’s data quality appears suspect. 

Authority to provide reimbursable auditing services to certain non-defense agencies (sec. 892) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 893 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92) to provide an exception for the Defense 

Contract Audit Agency to provide audit support to the Nuclear Security Administration on a reimbursable basis. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
232 

Improved management practices to reduce cost and improve performance of certain Department Of Defense by 

Defense organizations (sec. 893) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require all 

Department of Defense entities, with the exception of the Centers 

of Industrial and Technical Excellence designated pursuant to section 2474 of title 10, United States Code, which conduct commercial 

on non-inherently governmental work to establish cost baselines for 

their operations and begin to adopt best commercial and business 

management practices to reduce costs and improve the performance of such organizations. The committee expects that these organizations will be leading adopters of the cost accounting standards 

mandated in another section of this Act. 

Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation (sec. 894) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 139 of title 10, United States Code, and section 196(g) of title 

10, United States Code, that would refine the role of the Director 

of Operational Test and Evaluation. This provision would amend 

the sections so that the function of the Deputy Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation and the Director 

of Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center 

would be transferred to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. 

This provision would also clarify the role of the Secretary of Defense for Test and evaluation issues with regard to the service 

chiefs and the secretaries of the military departments. 

Exemption from requirement for capital planning and investment control for information technology equipment 

included as integral part of a weapon or weapon system 

(sec. 895) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

the milestone decision authority shall only apply the requirements 

of paragraphs (2) through (5) of section 11312(b) of title 40, United 

States Code, to national security systems upon a written determination that the application of these requirements is appropriate 

and in the best interests of the Department of Defense. 

Modifications to pilot program for streamlining awards for 

innovative technology projects (sec. 896) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 873 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92) to clarify that the use of a technical, 

merit-based selection procedure or the Small Business Innovation 

Research Program or Small Business Technology Transfer Program 

for the pilot program under this section are competitive procedures 

for the purposes of chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code. The 

provision would also direct the Secretary of Defense to establish 

procedures under which a small business or a nontraditional contractor may engage an independent certified public accountant for 

the review and certification of its accounting system for the purposes of any audits required by this section. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
233 

Enhancement of electronic warfare capabilities (sec. 897) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 806(c)(1) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) to add a new subparagraph addressing the rapid acquisition of electronic warfare capabilities. This provision would enhance the abilities of the Secretary 

of Defense to respond to the increasingly urgent threat in the area 

of electromagnetic spectrum warfare and more quickly field critical 

electronic warfare technologies. 

Improved transparency and oversight over Department of 

Defense research, development, test, and evaluation efforts and procurement activities related to medical research (sec. 898) 

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 programs under the congressionally directed medical research program of the Department of Defense unless there is sufficient transparency on cost accounting and other specified requirements. 

Extension of enhanced transfer authority for technology developed at Department of Defense laboratories (sec. 899) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 (Public Law 113–66) to extend the authorization granted to 

the Secretary of Defense and service secretaries in the Act until 

2020. The committee notes the importance of the ability for the Department of Defense (DOD) to license DOD-owned intellectual 

property that may not have been patented yet and to maintain associated royalties for the advancement of DOD laboratories and innovation. 

Rapid prototyping funds for the military services (sec. 899A) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 804(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) to authorize the Secretary of the 

Army, Navy, and Air Force each to establish service-specific funds 

for acquisition programs under the rapid fielding and prototyping 

pathways established in this section. 

Defense Modernization Account (sec. 899B) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2216 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify authorizations 

for the Defense Modernization Account. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has in the past analyzed the limited use of the 

account in several reports and the committee included changes in 

the scope and application of the account to address GAO’s findings. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
234 

Items of Special Interest 

Defense industrial supply chain security 

The industrial base that supports the Department of Defense is 

a vital factor in our national security capability. For decades, the 

Department has partnered with industry to command a decisive 

advantage when it comes to innovation and manufacturing of military systems. Today’s defense industrial base is more commercialized and more globalized than ever before. While these trends 

have yielded valuable advantages in cost and performance of military systems, they also pose new challenges in managing supply 

chain risk and maintaining the technological superiority of the U.S. 

military. The success of efforts to better align national resources 

with current and future needs will depend on a robust, technologically-advanced U.S. industrial base supporting our warfighters. 

The committee notes that the Department is already required to 

assess industrial base risk in making contract award decisions, including factors related to maintaining domestic capabilities. Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to assess as part of the annual report requested by section 2504 of title 10, United States Code, on 

the extent to which manufacturing capabilities of major defense 

contractors that do more than $250 million in business annually 

with the Department has been offshored. The review should identify those contractors that have offshored manufacturing capabilities that specifically support major defense acquisition programs, 

including offshoring by their U.S. based parent and subsidiary companies and U.S. based joint ventures that support the defense industrial base. 

Expansion of eligible small business concerns The committee 

The committee is concerned that there is a disincentive for small 

businesses to grow their non-defense commercial business as they 

receive government contracts. The committee believes that one of 

the objectives of the small business contracting program should be 

to create entities that can eventually move beyond government contracting and compete in the broader commercial market. At the 

present time, a small business is penalized if it grows its commercial business by losing small business contracting benefits, and this 

fact serves as a disincentive to expanding into the commercial market. The committee requests that the Secretary of Defense review 

the advisability of being given the authority to continue to treat 

those small businesses that diversify into the commercial market 

as small business for a limited transition period and propose any 

legislative proposals necessary to encourage small business to be 

successful in both the defense and commercial markets. 

Modification of commercial items definition 

The committee is concerned about the Department of Defense’s 

(DOD) increasingly narrow interpretation of the definition of commercial items. The committee considered several outside proposals 

to expand the underlying statutory commercial item definition with 

regards to commercial products but at this time decided that it was 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
235 

premature to act as the current definition is appropriately broad 

enough to enable commercial companies to modify commercial 

products to meet DOD needs. If, however, the Department continues to inappropriately limit the scope of the commercial items 

definition and the committee continues to hear from non-traditional 

contractors from Silicon Valley and other innovative regions in the 

United States that the application of the commercial item definition continues to serve as a barrier to their participation in the 

DOD market the committee will reconsider whether to expand the 

statutory commercial item definition as it applies to DOD contracting. 

The current ‘‘of a type’’ and ‘‘minor modifications’’ language were 

intended by Congress to be broadly interpreted to expand access to 

items that were beyond commercial off the shelf items. If there is 

a problem with the definition it appears to be the Department’s repeated attempts to narrow the definition to conform to an oversight 

strategy that will inadvertently lead to less competition, increased 

costs and a greater concentration of defense unique contractors. 

The committee believes the Department should focus more on developing the skills and capabilities to price items commercially 

rather than creating a new bureaucracy to adjudicate commercial 

item determinations. Ultimately, to protect the taxpayer the Department will need to focus on value rather than process when it 

determines whether it paid a fair and reasonable price for an item. 

Preserving competition in the defense industry 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

expressed concern over the negative impacts that defense industry 

consolidation may have on the ability to develop, procure, and sustain military capabilities in a cost effective manner. Reduced competition can lead to cost growth, monopolistic behavior, and reduced incentives for efficiency and innovation. The committee further notes that the Department’s authorities to address potential 

industry consolidation are unclear and potentially inadequate because of statutory and regulatory constraints. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to engage an independent entity to analyze the adequacy of existing 

antitrust and foreign investment review authorities and the impact 

of DOD acquisition program strategies on defense industry consolidation. The independent entity should also examine the national 

security implications of mergers among major defense suppliers, as 

well as other mergers or changes in control activity within industry 

that may impact the national defense. The independent entity 

should make recommendations on possible actions by the executive 

branch and Congress to address issues in these areas. 

The committee directs the Secretary to review such recommendations and take appropriate actions to ensure that the national defense interest is not jeopardized through security risks or an alteration of the defense industrial base that would limit competition or 

create prohibitive costs for the Department of Defense. 

Small business contract bundling 

The committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense, where 

appropriate and to the maximum extent practicable, issue solicitaVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00271 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
236 

tions and task and delivery orders as set-asides for exclusive participation by small business concerns evenly across North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. The committee also 

believes that the Secretary should limit excessive concentrations of 

small business within NAICS codes and limit the award of large 

contracts to small businesses that would force them to lose their 

small business status. While the committee is pleased to see the 

Department of Defense (DOD) meet its overall small business 

prime contracting goal, it is concerned about some of the means to 

achieve that goal. Excessive concentration of small business contracting in some business sectors is crowding out the middle tier 

of contractors and leaving very little room for small business to 

contract with the Department after they have graduated from 

being a small business. The committee is also concerned about the 

award of large contracts with small business that allow DOD to 

meet their contracting goals but are leading to a ‘‘one and done’’ 

outcome for small business who are no longer small businesses 

once they receive these large contracts. The committee expects the 

Secretary to establish small business policies that are designed to 

create a more diverse and robust industrial base and create opportunities and a pathway for small businesses to grow and compete 

for future DOD contracts as larger entities. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(237) 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 

Subtitle A—Office of the Secretary of Defense and Related 

Matters 

Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering 

and related acquisition position in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (sec. 901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 133 of title 10, United States Code, to establish the position 

of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. 

The Under Secretary for Research and Engineering would assist 

the Secretary by serving as the chief acquisition officer and the 

chief technology officer of the Department of Defense and the principal adviser on scientific, technological and acquisition matters to 

the Secretary and to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. 

The provision would also amend section 138 of title 10, United 

States Code, to consolidate certain Assistant Secretary of Defense 

positions and to establish a new position of Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition Policy and Oversight. The provision would 

eliminate the statutory requirements that establish the positions of 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, and the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment, but would not disestablish the underlying positions. The 

committee expects the Secretary of Defense to designate the positions and duties of such other Assistant Secretaries of Defense as 

best support the requirements of the Department. The provision 

would also repeal section 139b and 139c, to eliminate the statutory 

requirements that establish the positions of the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation, the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Engineering, 

and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing 

and Industrial Base Policy. 

The provision would also make conforming amendments and 

would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the 

Committees of Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this 

Act, with recommendations for conforming and such other amendments as the Secretary considers appropriate to effect the amendments made by this provision. 

In the 1960s and the 1970s the Director of Defense for Research 

and Engineering which later became the Undersecretary of Defense 

for Research and Engineering in 1977 led technological innovation 

in the Department of Defense. The position was held by leaders 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
238 

such as Harold Brown and William Perry, each of whom later became Secretary of Defense. The USD(R&E) was the catalyst behind 

the Department’s Second Offset program, which led to the development of stealth, precision guided munitions, and other revolutionary capabilities that advanced our nation’s military technological dominance to this day. 

During a series of hearings on defense reform, the committee 

heard from a wide range of experts that the U.S. military was falling behind technologically and that the current acquisition structure and process were significant factors in the inability to access 

new sources of innovation. The committee believes that reestablishing the position of the USD(R&E) is particularly important in 

a time when U.S. technological dominance is eroding and innovation is increasingly being driven by commercial and global companies that are not a part of the traditional U.S. defense industrial 

base. The committee expects that just as previous USD(R&E) incumbents led the so-called ‘‘Second Offset’’ strategy, which successfully enabled the United States to leap ahead of the Soviet Union 

in terms of military technology, the new USD(R&E) would be 

tasked with driving the key technologies that must encompass 

what defense leaders are now calling a ‘‘Third Offset’’ strategy: 

cyber and space capabilities, unmanned systems, directed energy, 

undersea warfare, hypersonics, and robotics, among others. 

The existing Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense would be part of this new USD(R&E) 

because of the centrality of the nuclear modernization mission. In 

addition, the committee expects the USD(R&E) to leverage offices 

such as the Strategic Capabilities Office and the Rapid Capabilities 

Offices in the services, which have been created recently to move 

faster around the current acquisition system and to transition developed technologies more quickly from the laboratory to deployment. In addition, the committee anticipates that the USD(R&E) 

will be a unifying force to focus the efforts of the defense laboratories, as well as agencies with critical innovation missions, such 

as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Defense 

Threat Reduction Agency, and the Missile Defense Agency on 

achieving and maintaining U.S. defense technological dominance. 

To enable the USD(R&E) to primarily focus on the innovation 

mission, this provision creates a new Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Policy and Oversight under the USD(R&E) 

and transfers several agencies focused on the execution of acquisition functions to the Under Secretary for Management and Support. Continuing to maintain these functions under the USD(R&E) 

would likely divert needed senior management attention away from 

the impending threats that the nation faces and the necessity to 

advance innovation throughout the Department and with partners 

in the defense and commercial sector. In addition a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Logistics and Sustainment was created to support 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Policy and Oversight on these matters. 

The changes included in the provision are informed by the committee’s observation that the official serving as the chief acquisition 

and technology officer should be focused on envisioning and developing the advanced technologies that the nation will need over the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
239 

next decade or two to stay far ahead of our strategic adversaries. 

The committee believes that improving defense innovation requires 

a greater willingness to experiment and accept risk. Experimentation and even occasional failure cannot be stigmatized, so long as 

failure occurs quickly, cheaply, and leads to knowledge that can 

drive toward eventual success. That is a different kind of culture 

than the pervasive caution and slowness that currently exists 

across the Department of Defense acquisition and research enterprises. 

One former Deputy Secretary of Defense recently observed that 

the nation lost something important thirty years ago when 

USD(R&E) was folded together with all other acquisition functions 

under USD(AT&L). The numerous acquisition reform authorities 

contained in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act, and 

the many more proposed in this year’s Act, are largely focused on 

empowering the Secretary of Defense to work around DOD’s slow 

and costly acquisition system, to access new centers of innovation 

and disruptive new technologies in our commercial economy, and to 

reclaim our eroding defense technological advantage. This was the 

mission that the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering 

once performed so effectively, and the committee believes should be 

empowered to do again. 

Qualifications for appointment of the Secretaries of the 

military departments (sec. 902) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 3013, 5013, 8013 of title 10, United States Code, to prescribe 

management experience of large and complex organizations as 

qualification required for individuals to serve as the Secretaries of 

the Army, Navy, and Air Force, respectively. 

Establishment of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Information (Chief Information Officer) in Office of Secretary 

of Defense (sec. 903) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend paragraph 8 of section 132(b) of title 10, United States Code, to establish the position of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Information. As the Chief Information Officer of the Department, the Assistant Secretary will report to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary 

of Defense and be responsible for cyber and space policy, information network defense, policies and standards governing information 

technology systems and related information security activities of 

the Department, and oversight of the Defense Information Systems 

Agency. 

Reduction in maximum number of personnel in Office of the 

Secretary of Defense and other Department of Defense 

headquarters offices (sec. 904) 

The committee recommends a provision that would: 

(1) amend section 143 of title 10, United States Code, to 

limit the number of civilian and detailed individuals authorized to be assigned to the Office of the Secretary of Defense to 

3,767; 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
240 

(2) amend section 155 of title 10, to limit the number of personnel on the Joint Staff to 1,930 including not more than 

1,500 Active-Duty servicemembers; 

(3) amend section 3014 of title 10, to limit the total number 

of members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the 

Department of the Army assigned or detailed to permanent 

duty in the Office of the Secretary of the Army and on the 

Army staff to 3,105; and to reduce the total number of general 

officers assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the Office of 

the Secretary of the Army and on the Army staff from 67 to 

50. 

(4) amend section 5014 of title 10, to limit the total number 

of members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the 

Department of the Navy assigned or detailed to permanent 

duty in the Office of the Secretary of the Navy and on the 

Navy staff to 2,866; and to reduce the total number of flag officers assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the Office of the 

Secretary of the Navy and on the Navy staff from 67 to 50. 

(5) amend section 8014 of title 10, to limit the total number 

of members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the 

Department of the Air Force assigned or detailed to permanent 

duty in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force and on the 

Air Force staff to 2,639; and to reduce the total number of general officers assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force and on the Air Force staff 

from 60 to 45. 

The provision would further clarify the exceptions to the personnel limits. It would allow the limits to be increased by 15 percent during a national emergency. 

Limitations on funds used for staff augmentation contracts 

at management headquarters of the Department of Defense and the military departments (sec. 905) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

amount of funds available for staff augmentation contracts at the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense and the headquarters of the military departments for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 to not more than 

the amount expended for those contracts in fiscal year 2016. The 

provision would further require a 25 percent reduction to the fiscal 

year 2016 funding for those contracts after fiscal year 2018. 

Unit within the Office of the Secretary of Defense supporting achievement of results in Department of Defense management reform and business transformation 

efforts (sec. 906) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the 

Secretary of Defense with the authority to establish a delivery unit 

that would report directly to the Secretary to provide expertise and 

support needed to deliver results on key reform and business transformation priorities across the Department for no more than four 

years beginning February 1, 2017. Such delivery unit may utilize 

the public-private talent exchange authorities available to the Secretary and consist of no more than 30 professionals with deep experience in management consulting, organization transformation, and 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
241 

data analytics. The delivery unit’s mission is as follows: (1) help 

line managers develop and implement roadmaps to achieve reform 

targets set by the next Secretary of Defense and (2) enable the Secretary and Deputy to monitor progress and make course corrections 

in near real time for faster, data-driven decision making. Such delivery unit shall leverage on the Department’s current exchange 

programs with the private sector to utilize proven data analytics 

and management consulting practices. An authorization of $30.0 

million will be made available for the delivery unit and will not be 

available for expenditure until February 1, 2017. 

Subtitle B—Combatant Command Matters 

Joint Chiefs of Staff and related combatant command matters (sec. 921) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 151 and 153 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the role 

of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the key duties that 

this officer must perform on behalf of the joint force: providing advice on the military elements of defense strategy and the global integration of military activities, and advocating for the joint 

warfighter of today and tomorrow, especially with respect to developing joint capabilities, ensuring comprehensive joint readiness, 

and fostering joint force development. While the personalities of 

different Chairmen will always have a bearing on how they execute 

the duties of the position, this provision seeks to clarify that role 

and thereby set an expectation that the preponderance of any 

Chairman’s time should be devoted to the key strategic, global, and 

joint duties that are the unique purview of the Chairman. 

The provision would also enhance the role of the other members 

of the Joint Chiefs, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a corporate 

body, to provide military advice to civilian leaders, including on the 

military elements of strategy. Current law leaves it at the Chairman’s discretion how much to consult with the other Joint Chiefs 

and whether to inform civilian leaders of any difference of opinions 

or alternative military advice among them. This provision would 

seek to strike a better balance between enabling the Chairman to 

act energetically and quickly as the principal military adviser to civilian leaders. 

The provision would also strike the requirement that the Joint 

Chief provide advice to civilian leaders ‘‘upon request.’’ A statutory 

requirement that the Chiefs should follow orders strikes the committee as unnecessary. At the same time, the committee is concerned that this section of the law could be interpreted to suggest 

that the Joint Chiefs can only provide advice upon request. For 

that reason, the committee recommends removing the requirement. 

The committee also recommends a provision that would amend 

section 152 of title 10, to modify the term of service of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At present, 

both officers serve two year terms with eligibility for a two year renewal, provided the consent of the Senate in both cases. The committee agrees with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who testified 

to the committee on October 21, 2015, that the existing term of 

service created unintended and unnecessary adverse consequences, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
242 

and that it should be replaced with single four-year terms, with the 

authority for a single two-year extension. 

At the same time, the committee recommends a provision that 

would amend section 154 of title 10, to require the Department of 

Defense to return to the staggered terms of service for the Chairman and Vice Chairman, which would prevent both officers from 

turning over at the same time, which has been the case since 2007 

but was not as the law originally intended. The committee also recommends a provision that prohibit the Vice Chairman from being 

eligible to serve as the Chairman or any other position in the 

armed services. The committee believes that this adjustment to the 

law would ensure a high quality of military advice to civilian leaders, and ultimately strengthen civilian control over the military. 

The committee also recommends a provision that would amend 

section 164 of title 10, to more clearly define the role of the combatant commanders (COCOMs). The law that defines the COCOM’s 

duties simply states that they shall perform the missions assigned 

by the Secretary and the President. It provides no guidance about 

the substance of those duties. This provision would establish that 

the primary duties of the COCOMs are to execute the national defense strategies in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, to prepare and plan for conflict, to take necessary 

actions to deter conflict, and if directed by the Secretary, to command U.S. armed forces in combat. This provision would not prohibit the COCOMs from performing other missions, many of which 

are vitally important, but would rather seek to focus the COCOMs 

more clearly on their core missions of warfighting excellence, which 

is what the commands were established to do. 

Finally, the committee recommends a provision that would 

amend chapter 6 of title 10, United States Code, to establish a new 

section 163a that would create a Combatant Commanders Council, 

consisting of all the COCOMs, the Chairman and Vice Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense, who 

would convene the Council and set the agenda, but could delegate 

that authority to the Chairman. In the event that the Secretary did 

not attend a meeting of the Council, he could send a representative. The purpose of the Council would be to aid in the execution 

of defense strategy and the global integration of military activities 

across the regional and functional divisions of the COCOMs. This 

is increasingly important in light of the fact that the highest priority worldwide threats facing the United States increasingly span 

multiple COCOM areas and domains of responsibility and require 

their seamless integration. 

Delegation to Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff of authority 

to direct transfer of forces (sec. 922) 

The committee recommends a provision, requested by the Department of Defense, that would amend section 113 of title 10, 

United States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to delegate 

some authority to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the 

worldwide reallocation of limited military assets on a short-term 

basis, consistent with the Secretary’s policy guidance and the national defense strategy. The Secretary would retain control over 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
243 

whether to delegate any authority—and if so, how much—and 

would be fully informed of any actions taken by the Chairman. 

At present, the Chairman is solely an advisor. He or she has no 

authority to command any forces or assets, which was one way that 

the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act 

of 1986 guarded against over-centralizing military power in the 

Chairman’s hands and protected civilian control of the military. As 

a result, any transfer from one COCOM area of responsibility to 

another of any military capability, be it an aircraft carrier or a 

military working dog, must be approved by the Secretary. In light 

of present and future transnational challenges, the committee is 

believes the law is overly restrictive, and leads to a less responsive 

and efficient global integration of defense strategy and military operations, which could become more pronounced and problematic 

during a crisis. The purpose of this provision would therefore be to 

strengthen the Chairman’s ability to assist the Secretary with the 

global integration of military operations in order to address 

transregional, cross-functional, and multi-domain threats more effectively. 

Organization of the Department of Defense for management 

of special operations forces and special operations (sec. 

923) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 138 and 167 of title 10, United States Code, to modify the 

roles and responsibilities of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC) and 

the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM). 

The committee notes that since 2001, SOCOM has undergone 

significant growth. During that time, SOCOM personnel numbers 

(civilian and military) have nearly doubled, its budget nearly tripled, and overseas deployments of special operations forces (SOF) 

nearly quadrupled. At the same time, the office of the ASD SOLIC, 

which is responsible for ‘‘the overall supervision (including oversight of policy and resources) of special operations activities,’’ has 

increasingly focused attention on operational issues as well as assuming responsibilities for counter-narcotics programs, building 

partner capacity initiatives, and humanitarian and disaster relief 

efforts of the DOD, which have stretched the resources available to 

the office. 

As a result, ASD SOLIC’s ability to provide appropriate ‘‘service 

secretary-like’’ oversight of and advocacy for the ‘‘man, train, and 

equip’’ aspects of SOCOM have become more difficult. Additionally, 

other civilian offices with greater seniority within the Department 

exercise related and, at times, overlapping responsibilities for aspects of SOF oversight, further complicating the ASD SOLIC’s 

‘‘service secretary-like’’ oversight responsibilities of SOCOM. 

To address these issues, the recommended provision would empower the ASD SOLIC with ‘‘the overall supervision (including 

oversight of policy, program planning and execution, and allocation 

and use of resources) of special operations activities.’’ Further, the 

provision would mirror the relationship between the service secretaries and the military services by defining the administrative 

chain of command for SOCOM as running through the ASD SOLIC 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
244 

to the Secretary of Defense for ‘‘service-like’’ issues impacting the 

readiness and organization of SOF, special operations-peculiar resources and equipment, and civilian personnel management. It 

would not impact the operational chain of command for SOF activities or the ‘‘service-common’’ responsibilities of the military services 

including personnel and other matters that are not special operations-peculiar. Additionally, the provision would establish a team, 

led by the ASD SOLIC, for the purposes of better integrating efforts of the various functional offices with responsibilities for SOF 

issues. 

Lastly, recognizing the growth and maturity of SOCOM and the 

responsibility of its commander for the overall readiness of SOF, 

the recommended provision would enhance the ability of the commander to coordinate with the military services on issues impacting the readiness of SOF, most notably assignments, retention, 

training, professional military education, and special and incentive 

pays. 

Pilot program on organization of subordinate commands of 

a unified combatant command as joint task forces (sec. 

924) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to initiate a pilot program on organizing the 

subordinate commands of a unified combatant command in the 

form of joint task forces. The Secretary would be required to establish the pilot program in at least one unified combatant command. 

The Secretary would be required to develop, for each combatant 

command participating in the pilot program, a plan to disestablish 

subordinate commands, identify major threat-based missions and 

contingencies in the area of responsibility, and establish subordinate commands as joint task forces. The plans will be developed in 

consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the 

commander of the combatant command participating in the pilot 

program. The provision includes specific guidance on the objectives 

of each joint task force created, and how the creation of the joint 

task forces in general are intended to overcome problems in the organization, mission performance, planning and decision-making, 

and prioritization that can be improved through trans-regional, 

cross-functional, and multi-domain threats. 

The plans required to be developed under the provision shall be 

completed by March 1, 2017, and implemented not later than September 1, 2017. The Secretary shall submit the plans to the congressional defense committees. The Secretary shall provide a report 

on each plan so created not later than September 1, 2018. 

Expansion of eligibility for deputy commander of combatant 

command having United States among geographic area 

of responsibility to include officers of the Reserves (sec. 

925) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 164 of title 10, United States Code, to require that at least one 

deputy commander of the combatant command of the geographic 

area of responsibility which includes the United States be a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces, unless a reserve 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
245 

component officer is serving as commander of that combatant command. 

Subtitle C—Organization and Management of Other 

Department of Defense Offices and Elements 

Organizational strategy for the Department of Defense (sec. 

941) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to develop and implement an organizational 

strategy for the Department of Defense (DOD). This strategy would 

enable the Department to focus its attention and resources on its 

most important missions and objectives through the introduction of 

mechanisms to integrate planning and decision-making across its 

functionally aligned organizations, accompanied by cultural 

changes in the Department to emphasize collaboration and teamwork. 

The provision would require the Secretary, in developing the 

strategy, to (1) identify the most important missions and other priority output of the Department; (2) reform the way that the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) operates; (3) improve the management of relationships and processes involving OSD, the Joint 

Staff, the combatant commands, the military departments, and the 

defense agencies; and (4) improve support to the President and the 

National Security Council. 

The objectives of the strategy are to enable DOD to integrate the 

expertise and capacities of its functional components to effective 

and efficient accomplishment of the Department’s most important 

missions, and to enable the Department to operate at higher efficiencies with reduced layers of management and staffing. 

The strategy is required to address, and be designed to overcome, 

a series of existing impediments, including (1) sequential, hierarchical planning and decision-making processes oriented around 

functional bureaucratic structures that are excessively parochial, 

duplicative, and resistant to integrated operations and solutions; 

and (2) layered management structures and processes that today 

serve as the only means of cross-functional integration and decision-making, which results in most decisions being elevated to senior levels, consuming excessive time and leadership attention, diluting the influence of staff expertise, and contributing to outcomes 

based on lowest-common-denominator consensus rather than clear, 

coherent, efficacious courses of action. 

The strategy must address the underlying causes of these problems, including (1) a non-collaborative culture in DOD that lacks 

shared purpose and values; (2) structure, processes and leadership 

behaviors that value consensus more than clarity and reward effort 

rather than effectiveness, which thus empower components to easily block but not advance coherent initiatives and are a powerful 

disincentive to collaboration; (3) risk aversion arising from fear of 

the consequences of real or perceived failure and the lack of incentives and rewards for appropriate risk-taking; (4) lack of viable alternative mechanisms for integrating across the almost exclusively 

functionally aligned components of the Department. Finally, the 

provision would require that the Secretary’s strategy establish, or 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
246 

take specific actions, to achieve (1) effective cross-functional mission teams to manage the major issues and other high-priority outputs of the Department that inherently cross functional boundaries; (2) a collaborative, team-oriented, results-driven and innovative culture within the Department; (3) a simplified organizational 

structure with reduced layers of management and fewer duplicative 

staff elements; and (4) streamlined processes designed to improve 

performance and outcomes in less time. 

In support of the strategy, the provision would require the Secretary to establish cross-functional mission teams to produce comprehensive and fully integrated policies, strategies, plans, 

resourcing, and oversight; and to empower these teams to supervise 

the implementation of mission strategies. 

The Secretary would be required to issue a directive on the role, 

authorities, resourcing, manning, and operations of the mission 

teams, which must specify that the teams are decision-making 

rather than advisory bodies, and provide clear direction that the 

leaders of DOD’s functional components providing personnel to the 

teams (1) not interfere in the activities of the team; (2) shall instruct personnel assigned to the teams to faithfully represent the 

views and expertise of their functional components while contributing to the best of their ability to the success of the mission team 

concerned; and (3) shall be assessed for performance review purposes according to their support to, and cooperation with, the mission teams interacting with their functional components. 

In creating the cross-functional mission teams required by the 

provision, the Secretary would be required to consider all the major 

functions of the Department of Defense; that is, representation 

from OSD, the Joint Staff, the military departments, and the defense agencies in the functional areas of policy, strategy, intelligence, budget, research and engineering, procurement, manpower, 

logistics, cost assessment and program evaluation, test and evaluation, or any other functional area the Secretary deems appropriate 

given the team’s assigned mission. 

The committee stresses that the mission teams must remain 

small and agile, numbering approximately 8–10 people. This is a 

critical point. One way that teams fail in DOD is that every organization that thinks its equities might be affected insists on having 

a representative on the group. This bloats and infiltrates the group 

with people who only care about protecting their parent organizations’ equities. 

The provision would require that team leaders (1) be selected 

from among experienced and highly qualified military personnel in 

the grade of general or flag officer, or civilians from the Senior Executive Service, and report directly to the Secretary and Deputy 

Secretary of Defense; (2) be delegated the authority to select members of their teams from among candidates of any grade or rank 

recommended by all components of the Department; (3) be delegated the authority to require the full-time support from team 

members as the team leader considers appropriate, and to co-locate 

the team physically; (4) ensure that team members are properly 

trained in teamwork, resolving healthy conflicts between competing 

perspectives, collaboration, and that team members understand 

their role in representing the views and expertise of their funcVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00282 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
247 

tional components without inappropriately pursuing the narrow interests of their home organizations; and (5) are made available to 

the congressional defense committees to provide testimony and 

other forms of updates on the progress of the mission teams they 

manage. 

The provision would require the Secretary to approve the charter 

and internal planning strategy of each team, and to specify what, 

if any, decision-making authority the Secretary shall retain regarding the team’s activities. The more authority the Secretary retains 

the more the Secretary will have to be involved in the team’s ongoing activities. Otherwise the Secretary delegates authority to the 

teams to make decisions both with regard to drawing upon the resources and information of functional components, and making substantive decisions regarding the formulation and execution of their 

strategies. In this regard, the committee stresses that the team 

leaders shall have presumptive authority to draw upon the resources and information of the functional components of the Department. Without this presumptive authority the teams will not 

succeed. However, the provision also includes a ‘‘right of appeal’’ for 

the heads of components who believe that a mission team decision 

might have very serious adverse consequences for their components. The committee emphasizes that this right of appeal should 

be limited to principled, substantive concerns, and is not at all a 

license to protect narrow bureaucratic interests. The committee expects the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to have little patience or 

tolerance for unprincipled appeals under this authority. 

The provision would require the Secretary to conduct a review of 

industry and government successes and failures with cross-functional teams, with the assistance of outside experts in organizational science and management to identify lessons learned for application to the Department’s own mission teams. 

Regarding the challenge of changing the prevailing culture in the 

Department, the provision requires the Secretary to issue directives on (1) DOD’s shared purposes, values, and principles that set 

forth the Secretary’s expectations for a team-oriented, results-driven culture that supports DOD’s key missions and cross-boundary 

collaboration; (2) the collaborative behavior the Secretary expects 

from all OSD personnel; (3) policies that establish cross-boundary 

collaboration as half of the performance review criteria for each official in leadership positions, including the mission team leaders 

and the heads of components providing personnel or other resources to the teams; and (4) policies requiring successful service 

as a leader or member of mission teams for promotion in the Senior 

Executive Service above a level to be specified by the Secretary. 

The Secretary would also be required to provide a course of instruction to all OSD officials who are Senate-confirmed in leadership, 

modern organizational practice, collaboration, and the proper functioning of successful cross-functional teams. 

The provision would require the next Secretary of Defense, within a year after Senate confirmation, to take such actions as the 

Secretary deems appropriate considering the progress and performance of mission teams, to streamline the organizational structure 

and processes of the Department, achieve a reduction in management layers, eliminate unnecessary duplication between OSD and 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
248 

the Joint Staff, and reduce the time required to complete standard 

processes and activities. In carrying out this requirement, the provision would require the Secretary to consult with the Defense 

Business Board and with outside individuals and organizations 

with recognized expertise in cross-functional teams, organizational 

science, and private-sector best practices on horizontal integration 

and cross-functional collaboration. 

The provision would require that nominees for Senate-confirmed 

positions in OSD, as a condition of their confirmation, complete a 

course of instruction in leadership, modern organizational practice, 

collaboration, and the operation of mission teams. The President 

may waive this requirement for individuals if the Secretary of Defense determines in writing that the individual possesses through 

training and experience, the skills and knowledge otherwise to be 

provided by the course of instruction. 

Finally, the provision would require the Comptroller General to 

assess and report to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate on a bi-annual basis the 

actions taken by the Department of Defense under this provision 

during the previous six months and cumulatively since the date of 

enactment of this Act. This requirement would end on December 

31, 2019. 

The committee has determined that the Department must transform itself to more effectively and efficiently carry out its missions 

in the complex, rapidly changing security environment of the 21st 

Century. The Department needs a comprehensive roadmap to guide 

this critical transformation—a roadmap that describes the desired 

future state of the Department’s organizational capacities and agility, actions needed to achieve this future state, the priority and sequencing of each action, and the pace at which the Department can 

implement them. The organizational strategy mandated by the 

committee will provide this roadmap. The strategy should address 

the entire defense enterprise and all elements of organizational effectiveness. Foremost among these is shared values which encompasses a vision for the Department, identification of missions, and 

an articulation of the principles by which the department will operate. The strategy should also address processes, structure, core 

competencies, talent management, organizational culture, and leadership behavior. The committee expects each of these elements to 

be addressed in the organizational strategy and in an integrated 

manner, so that there is a good fit among the elements. 

Although the new administration’s Secretary of Defense must 

produce and own this organizational strategy, preparatory work in 

support of this strategy effort should begin immediately. The current Secretary of Defense should initiate research and analyses in 

each element of organizational effectiveness, such as identifying 

the characteristics of the Department’s current culture and subcultures. 

This provision represents the fulfilment of an unfinished goal of 

the original Goldwater-Nichols reform agenda from 30 years ago. 

The 1985 staff report of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Organization: The Need For Change, identified ‘‘mission integration’’ as the most important organizational problem facing the 

Department. The report noted that mission integration is critical at 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
249 

both the operational level, consisting of the combatant commands, 

and at the policy-making level in the Washington headquarters organizations of the Department. Ultimately, the Goldwater-Nichols 

Act was able to address the joint, mission integration challenge 

only at the operational command level; correcting the mission integration problems in the Washington headquarters organizations 

proved to be, in the words of the principal author of the staff study, 

‘‘a bridge too far.’’ 

This critical task went unmet not for lack of analysis and effort. 

The staff study makes clear that the committee thought deeply 

about how to alter the organization and culture in the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense (OSD), and the processes through which OSD 

engaged with the Joint Chiefs, the Joint staff, the military services, 

and the combatant commands. The pursuit of a solution was ultimately deferred because the committee was not satisfied with the 

options available at the time. This conclusion was not surprising, 

because at that time even leading private-sector corporations had 

not determined how to effectively balance mission or ‘‘product’’ 

alignment against functional orientation, as the staff study observed. The committee evaluated mission-oriented organizational 

structures, matrix-management concepts, hybrid arrangements, 

and all manner of combinations thereof. Although the committee 

did not arrive at what it considered an effective solution, there is 

no doubt about the existence of a problem. The lack of mission 

focus and integration in DOD that existed 30 years ago has been 

only more acutely felt in the decades since, as national security 

challenges have become more varied, complex, and cross-cutting. 

The committee’s indictment of DOD’s almost exclusive functional 

organization and orientation in the mid-1980s retains its relevance 

today. The staff study observed that: 

The three principal organizations of the Washington Headquarters of DoD—the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Military Departments—are focused excessively on functional areas, such as manpower, research and development, and installations and logistics. 

This functional structure serves to inhibit integration of Service capabilities along mission lines, and, thereby, hinders achieving 

DoD’s principal organizational goal of mission integration. The 

focus of organizational activity is on functional efficiency (or, in 

other terms, management control of functional activities) and not 

on major missions and their objectives and strategy. Without extensive mission integration efforts, numerous deficiencies occur: 

In colloquial terms, material inputs, not mission outputs, are emphasized. 

A sharp focus on missions, where DoD must compete with potential adversaries, is lost in the functional diffusion. 

Strategic planning is inhibited by the absence of an organizational focus on major missions and strategic goals. 

Service interests rather than strategic needs play the dominant 

role in shaping program decisions. 

Functions (e.g., airlift, sealift, close air support) which are not 

central to a Service’s own definition of its missions tend to be neglected. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
250 

Tradeoffs between programs of different Services that can both 

contribute to a particular mission are seldom made. 

Opportunities for non-traditional contributions to missions (e.g., 

Air Force contributions to sea control) are neither easily identified 

nor pursued. 

Headquarters organizations are not fully attuned to the operational, especially readiness, requirements of the unified commanders. 

Interoperability and coordination requirements of forces from the 

separate Services are not readily identified. 

Ultimately, the committee decided that none of the contemplated 

solutions to these problems was compelling enough to be mandated 

through the Goldwater-Nichols Act. Within a few years, however, 

new approaches to cross-functional integration developed by leading private-sector companies and industries began to sweep across 

the business world. Private-sector innovation with small but empowered ‘‘cross-functional teams’’ demonstrated that products and 

other critical company output could be developed much faster, and 

with significantly better results, than through sequential and 

iterative processes mediated by hierarchically structured functional 

silos. These new practices have also often eclipsed alternative approaches such as product lines that each incorporate functional capabilities, or complex matrixed solutions that combine functional 

and mission management. Industry use of small cross-functional 

teams to enable integrated solutions does not supersede functional 

organization but rather builds on and complements the centers of 

functional expertise. The functional components grow and provide 

the experts and expertise that are the building blocks of integrated 

solutions. 

Industry success with this innovation in horizontal integration 

was neither easy nor guaranteed. Thorough cultural change was 

necessary to ensure a harmonious balance between functional and 

cross-cutting mission loyalties. Teams had to be given real authority to develop and implement strategies using the resources of the 

functional organizations, and functional leaders had to be convinced that their responsibility for providing functional capabilities 

remained critically important. Rewards and incentives had to be realigned to support teamwork among representatives of diverse 

functional components without diluting the career tracks that ensure functional excellence. Training in teamwork that allowed 

teams to resolve conflict productively proved to be a critical ingredient for success. Top management had to be fully committed to 

the work of the cross-functional teams, ensuring that they were not 

undermined by the managers of functional components, and making it clear that the integrated teams were decision-making bodies 

and not advisory ‘‘committees.’’ 

Corporations learned that empowered cross-functional teams required complementary changes in organizational processes and culture, but also that once successful cross-cutting mechanisms were 

in place, they could manage large enterprises and complex processes with fewer management layers, less staff redundancy, and increased spans of control that permit end-to-end management of desired output (or outcomes) while increasing productivity and quality. Empowering integrated teams of experts with effective leaderVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00286 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
251 

ship eliminated the need for some management layers that previously served to progressively bridge functional silos to resolve disputes and make decisions. Instilling collaborative cultures improved information flow among organizational components so that 

there was less perceived need for functional redundancy (liaisons, 

various cross-cutting information sharing but powerless groups of 

one sort or another, or duplicative staff elements such as regional 

experts in each functional element, etc.). Initially adding crossfunctional teams to existing functional structure seems more complicated, but over time it eliminates numerous ineffective organizational elements and thus reduces wasted staff time and simplifies 

the overall organizational construct. 

By the mid-1990s, Secretary of Defense Perry was aware of private-sector success with these horizontal integration mechanisms, 

and attempted to impose them in the Department of Defense. In 

1995, he announced he was instituting a ‘‘fundamental change’’ in 

DOD organization and culture by mandating the use of cross-functional/cross-organizational ‘‘Integrated Product Teams’’ (IPTs). The 

ensuing directives establishing and defining these IPTs appear to 

be sound representations of industry practices. However, Secretary 

Perry’s directives applied IPTs mainly to acquisition programs, and 

not to the missions—the core output—of DOD. In addition, and especially over time, the prerequisites for successful teams were not 

observed, so that they usually take the form of committees of individuals representing and defending the interests of their functional 

components. 

More broadly, the National Performance Review (NPR) that 

spanned both terms of President Clinton also took note of the global revolution in horizontal integration in the private sector. NPR 

reports decried the ‘‘stovepiped’’ functional structure and processes 

within individual departments and agencies, and noted that each 

department and agency of the government was in turn a functional 

stovepipe that inhibited effective interagency collaboration to 

achieve policy objectives. The NPR noted that the President was illserved by this poor intra- and inter-agency collaboration, especially 

given that complex modern challenges inherently cut across organizational boundaries. The NPR called for empowered interagency 

teams and, within departments and agencies, cross-functional 

teams to meet the need for integrated plans and actions. 

During the Bush Administration, General Pace, Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, initiated a study effort that eventually became the congressionally funded Project on National Security Reform (PNSR), led by the former committee staff lead for the Goldwater-Nichols Act. A fundamental conclusion of PNSR’s comprehensive analysis of the national security system is that effective 

strategy formulation and policy implementation are stymied by the 

lack of mechanisms to integrate across functionally aligned departments, components and interests. A core element of the PNSR reform agenda is empowered cross-functional teams in the interagency space. Other government-sponsored reviews have echoed 

these findings, including the 2006 interagency ‘‘Project Horizon’’ 

study, which recommended interagency ‘‘fusion cells,’’ and the 2010 

congressionally-mandated independent panel critique of the DeVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00287 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
252 

partment of Defense’s Quadrennial Defense Review, which recommended standing interagency teams. 

In addition, the committee notes that the Central Intelligence 

Agency is currently in the implementation phase of a major organizational reform initiative, which is based on the creation of small, 

empowered cross-functional teams from the Agency’s functional directorates to support and manage the Agency’s most important 

missions and mission centers. The Agency is undertaking this 

large-scale organizational reform to remedy precisely the same organizational limitations detailed in this report. 

The committee determined that OSD’s culture is misaligned with 

what is required for effective organizational performance in today’s 

security environment. The culture is too rule-oriented, bureaucratic, risk averse in decision-making, and competitive among components. OSD’s culture is typical of most public-sector institutions. 

In this regard, OSD’s culture must be reshaped to one that is collaborative, team-oriented, results-oriented, and innovative. Reshaping a culture will require numerous efforts to establish new norms 

and behaviors and eliminate counterproductive norms and behaviors. These efforts include well-articulated shared values, management actions and behavior, organizational and individual incentives, and education and training. To begin these actions, the provision mandates the issuance of a directive on purposes, values, and 

principles; a directive on collaborative behavior; and a directive on 

OSD and Joint Staff collaboration. The provision includes two incentives for individuals. It would specify that cross-boundary collaboration would constitute 50 percent of the performance review 

criteria for individuals in leadership positions specified by the Secretary of Defense. The provision would also require successful service as a leader or member of a mission team as a condition for promotion in the Senior Executive Service as specified by the Secretary. Lastly, the provision would require a course of instruction 

in leadership, modern organizational practice, collaboration, and 

functioning of mission teams by Senate-confirmed officials in OSD. 

The committee found numerous problems in OSD’s structure and 

processes. Most notably, Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries of Defense feel poorly supported by the OSD staff. The numbers of management layers and senior personnel have continued to increase 

and until recently there was steady growth in the number of OSD 

personnel. Processes are sequential, stove-piped, and Industrial 

Age, resulting in slow, cumbersome, and frequently overly centralized decision-making. As a result of these problems, OSD is increasingly hard to manage, unwieldy, and underachieving. To correct this unacceptable situation, the committee’s provision would 

direct the Secretary of Defense to take appropriate action to 

streamline OSD’s structure and processes within one year of the 

Secretary’s appointment. The Secretary would also be required to 

report his or her proposed actions to the two Armed Services Committees. 

The committee’s proposed provision for fundamentally reforming 

the culture and processes in the Department of Defense is informed 

by decades of consistent analyses of serious management problems, 

and common recommendations for corrective actions. In turn, these 

analyses are informed by the consistent, long-term, and widespread 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
253 

private-sector success with mission-oriented horizontal integration 

mechanisms coupled with cultural change. The committee’s proposal rests on extensive real-world experience that is reflected in 

modern organizational sciences and practices. 

The proposed provision complements the original GoldwaterNichols reform in several ways. In addition to being rooted in historical experience and organizational analysis, the provision is fundamentally about empowering rather than constraining the Department of Defense. The Goldwater-Nichols Act enabled Combatant 

Commanders to direct mission integration in joint military operations. This complementary provision will enable the Secretary to 

direct functional integration in major Pentagon output, including 

the best possible policy, strategy, planning, and resource allocation 

decision-making. These reforms are certain to be just as controversial as the original legislation, but as proved true for the original 

legislation, less so as their merits are demonstrated in practice. 

The results will be less immediately operational but no less apparent in improved output and outcomes. 

Successful implementation will depend on the commitment of the 

leadership in DOD to faithfully execute the proposed reforms, supported by vigorous and sustained oversight by Congress. The committee faced the same challenge 30 years ago after Congress passed 

the Goldwater-Nichols Act, and to this day the committee ensures 

that every nominee seeking Senate confirmation has a full grasp of 

that historic legislation and his or her responsibilities to enforce 

and abide by the letter and spirit of the law. The committee intends to apply the same tenacious oversight to the current reform 

effort. 

Department of Defense management overview by the Secretary of Defense (sec. 942) 

The Department of Defense and the Congress have directed and 

launched multiple initiatives over the last 15 years to achieve cost 

savings and improve organizational effectiveness by downsizing 

personnel, streamlining bureaucracy, reducing institutional redundancy, and eliminating surplus infrastructure. While these efforts 

have met with some success, many of the results have been shortlived, fallen short of original goals, or failed to achieve their full potential. In an effort to streamline and move forward on reform initiatives, the Department of Defense leadership attempted to establish metrics and targets for downsizing and delayering. However, 

these efforts lacked a fundamental strategy for reform that would 

create an environment for change within the Department. The next 

administration will be challenged to implement key reforms to include headquarters reductions, major acquisition projects reform, 

implementing the new modernized military retirement system, delivering a military healthcare system that improves both access 

and care, and reforming the large, outdated structure designed 

with too many precautions and layers of bureaucracy. Major efforts 

must be undertaken to effectively manage the Department’s large 

workforce. Business must be done differently as the Department of 

Defense and the Congress move forward with reforms. 

The committee recommends a provision that would require a series of management directives for the next Secretary of Defense. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
254 

The next Secretary of Defense is directed to report back to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives by December 1, 2017 with updates no later than 

December 1st of the next five years through 2022 on the following 

items: 

(1) Human Capital Strategy Plan. The Secretary of Defense 

must develop a human capital strategy plan to address how 

the Department of Defense civilian workforce is to be managed 

over a period of five years from the date of submission. Such 

plan shall include an assessment of the mix of military, civilian, and contractor personnel across the department by function. 

(2) Savings Targets. The Secretary of Defense shall establish 

savings targets in coordination with the military departments 

for personnel cost reduction across the Future Years Defense 

Programs. Such savings targets shall encompass and possibly 

exceed those established in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 and be applied across the full organization based on individual mission requirements and not percentage targets by each organization within the Department. 

The Secretary is directed to use cost and function and shall not 

impose cost savings by billets or raw number of personnel in 

an attempt to manage and optimize a functional mix of senior, 

mid-career, and entry-level personnel rather than preserving 

simply an imbalanced and top-heavy upper-echelon staff based 

upon tenure alone. 

(3) Elimination of Functions. The Secretary of Defense shall 

submit a report of the elimination of functions within each Department of Defense component. The Secretary shall work with 

the Congress to launch component reviews on mission priorities in tandem with the Comprehensive Review of Headquarters and Administrative and Support Activities mandated 

by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016. 

(4) Force Management Tools. The Secretary of Defense shall 

submit legislative requests for additional force management 

and shaping tools that necessitate legislation and cannot be accomplished by policy. Such management tools should be directed to accomplish the savings targets and elimination of 

functions required herein and should focus on rewarding talent, managing hiring and divestiture of employees, and professional development of employees. 

(5) Delayering and Organizations. The Secretary of Defense 

shall develop a delayering process for headquarters organizations across the Department of Defense, to include the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the defense agencies, the combatant commands, and the Services. Such efforts 

shall emphasize the use of cross-functional teams. The Secretary shall submit plans for this delayering process to include 

reorganizational plans and charts that reflect the new structure and an assessment of low-priority or redundant functions 

to be eliminated and any organizations to be consolidated. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
255 

Modification of composition and mission of Joint Requirements Oversight Council (sec. 943) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 181 to clarify and modify the joint and service specific requirements setting process. This provision would also ensure that the 

service chief of the relevant military service is responsible for all 

service-specific requirements, and Joint Requirements Oversight 

Council’s validation is not required before commencing a service 

specific acquisition program, except in those cases that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff decided that service-specific requirement should be a joint requirement and still subject to the 

oversight of the Oversight Council, or in the case the program for 

meeting the requirement would be a major defense acquisition program. 

Additionally, this provision would require that the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff determine whether a major defense acquisition program may meet joint requirements before that program 

or subprogram may receive Milestone A approval or otherwise be 

initiated prior to Milestone B. 

The committee recognizes that the current organic capability of 

the Joint Staff to perform operations research analysis needed to 

inform making trade-offs among life-cycle cost, schedule, and performance objectives is not sufficient to the task. The Vice Chairman 

should rely upon the analytical support provided by the Director of 

Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation in the Director’s role as 

an advisor to the JROC. In the longer term, the Vice Chairman 

should also ensure that the Joint Staff selects officers for analytical 

support positions within the Joint Staff who are academically and 

professionally qualified to fill those positions. 

The committee heard testimony from numerous sources who indicated that the JROC process was broken. These assessments were 

frequently based on the fact that definitions and approvals of requirements have taken too long. There have also been charges that 

difficulties in coordinating principals’ schedules have been a significant factor in forestalling timely JROC consideration and approval 

of requirements. This provision would shift the responsibility for 

making recommendations about military capabilities to meet applicable requirements from the JROC as a whole to the Vice Chairman alone. However, the Vice Chairman would have to inform the 

Chairman of dissenting opinions among the members of the JROC. 

This change in responsibility would allow the Vice Chairman to 

make a recommendation to the Chairman in a timely manner as 

well as when there is no consensus among the other members of 

the Council. This change would also be consistent with the principles of the Goldwater-Nichols Act—the Vice Chairman would be 

the principal advisor to the Chairman on military requirements, 

just as Goldwater-Nichols made the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff the principal military advisor to the President and the Secretary of Defense. 

Enhanced personnel management authorities for the Chief 

of the National Guard Bureau (sec. 944) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1058 of title 10, United States Code, to enhance the personnel 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
256 

management authority of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau 

by authorizing the Chief to program for, appoint, employ, administer, detail, and assign federal civilian employees to provide fulltime support to the non-federalized National Guard. This provision 

clarifies that state adjutants general will continue the exercise 

their authority to hire, employ, and supervise the federal civilian 

employees providing full-time support to their state. 

The Chief of the National Guard Bureau would also have the authority to delegate to the adjutants general the authority to appoint, employ, and administer federal civilian employees within the 

54 states and territories with authority to conduct all personnel actions for employees except in the case of any appeal right or complaint filed by an employee appointed under this section. If such an 

appeal or complaint arises, the adjutant general shall be considered 

the head of the agency for the purposes of any appeal rights or 

complaint filed and the National Guard of the jurisdiction concerned shall defend such an appeal or complaint and promptly implement all aspects of any final administrative or judicial order, 

judgement or decision. The payment of any costs associated with 

such decisions would be paid out of federal funds appropriated to 

the jurisdiction concerned. Further, in the case of a civil action or 

proceeding brought in any court arising from an action under this 

provision, the United States shall be the sole defendant or respondent. 

Management of Defense clandestine human intelligence collection (sec. 945) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of National 

Intelligence, to carry out a pilot program to assess the feasibility 

and advisability of establishing a military division within the Directorate of Operations of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence would 

be required to assess whether it is more effective and efficient to 

contain the defense human intelligence capability within the Department of Defense or within the Central Intelligence Agency as 

a consolidated clandestine human intelligence collection organization. 

Repeal of Financial Management Modernization Executive 

Committee (sec. 946) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

185 of title 10, United States Code, regarding the Department of 

Defense Financial Management Modernization Executive Committee. 

The committee notes that the Financial Management Modernization Executive Committee’s original purpose has been functionally 

replaced by the Defense Business Systems Management Committee. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
257 

Reorganization and redesignation of Office of Family Policy 

and Office of Community Support for Military Families 

with Special Needs (sec. 947) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1781(a) and 1781(c) of title 10, United States Code, to reorganize and redesignate the Office of Family Policy into the Office of 

Military Family Readiness Policy and the Office of Community 

Support for Military Families with Special Needs into the Office of 

Special Needs. The provision would reorganize the Office of Special 

Needs under the Office of Military Family Readiness Policy. The 

provision would also require the director of the Office of Military 

Family Readiness Policy to be a member of the Senior Executive 

Service or a general or flag officer. 

Pilot programs on waiver of applicability of rules and regulations to Department of Defense science and technology reinvention laboratories and DARPA to improve 

operations and personnel management (sec. 948) 

The committee has long recognized the unique contribution made 

by the defense laboratories to ensuring technological battlefield superiority for our fighters. While the committee has provided increased authorities and flexibilities for the laboratories to help 

them maintain their scientific pre-eminence, these authorities must 

be implemented by the services in a manner that makes them useful. Equally significant, enhancing laboratory effectiveness also depends on the common sense removal of roadblocks such as inappropriate or counterproductive regulations, policies, and practices. 

With this in mind, the committee recommends a provision that 

would allow laboratory directors, as well as the director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, with the approval of appropriate management officials, to waive on a temporary basis regulations, instructions, publications, policies, and procedures of the 

Department of Defense that the director believes appropriate. 

In recommending this waiver authority through this management demonstration pilot program, the committee emphasizes that 

lab management is not a centralized management function. Rather, 

the committee believes that in almost all cases, a laboratory director is best suited to determine which regulations and policies will 

make their organization most efficient and which will hamper its 

ability to function. The management demo recommended in this 

provision would identify and remove obstacles and fix improper implementation of legislative authorities so as to improve laboratory 

operations. Furthermore, the provisions would accomplish all of 

this within each service, thereby precluding direct involvement of 

the broader Department of Defense. 

Subtitle D—Whistleblower Protections for Members of the 

Armed Forces 

Improvements to whistleblower protection procedures (sec. 

961) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make numerous amendments to section 1034 of title 10, United States Code, to 

clarify and expand the types of adverse personnel actions prohibVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00293 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
258 

ited under the military whistleblower protection program, to include retaliatory investigations and failures of superiors to respond 

to retaliatory actions in certain circumstances, as prohibited personnel actions reviewable under that statute. The provision would 

also require inspectors general (IG) to notify the secretary concerned if, during the IG’s preliminary investigation, the IG determined there were reasonable grounds to believe that a prohibited 

personnel action occurred, and that the action would result in an 

immediate hardship to the service member, and would authorize 

the secretary concerned to take action, as appropriate, in such 

cases. The provision would require an IG to provide periodic updates to whistleblowers on the progress of investigations, to include 

an estimate of the time remaining until an investigation was complete. Finally, the provision would require the Department of Defense Inspector General, within 1 year of enactment of this Act, to 

prescribe uniform standards for the conduct of military whistleblower investigations and for the training of staffs conducting such 

investigations. 

Modification of whistleblower protection authorities to restrict contrary findings of prohibited personnel action 

by the Secretary concerned (sec. 962) 

The committee recommends a provision that amends section 

1034 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that when the secretary of the military department concerned receives a report from 

an inspector general that substantiates that a prohibited personnel 

action occurred, the secretary may consider whether to take corrective action but may not make a determination in such cases that 

a prohibited personnel action did not occur. 

Improvements to authorities and procedures for the correction of military records (sec. 963) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1552(a) of title 10, United States Code, to require that boards 

for correction of military records (BCMRs) notify claimants of what 

specific information or documents are needed to make their claim 

reviewable by the board, if such information or documents are 

missing, and would require the BCMR to make reasonable efforts 

to obtain missing records when they cannot be obtained by a claimant. The provision would require the BCMR to consider any request for reconsideration of a determination of a BCMR when new 

information is provided by a claimant, not previously considered. 

The provision would reaffirm that claimants may seek judicial review of BCMR decisions, and would require BCMRs to publish final 

decisions with personally identifiable information redacted. The 

provision would require each secretary concerned to develop, within 

1 year of enactment of this Act, a comprehensive training curriculum for members of BCMRs, and would require the Secretary 

of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure such curricula are uniform. Finally, the provision would require each secretary concerned to submit to Congress within 18 months of enactment a report setting forth the training curriculum established 

under this section. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
259 

Comptroller General of the United States review of integrity 

of Department of Defense whistleblower program (sec. 

964) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to conduct an assessment 

of the integrity of the Department of Defense (DOD) whistleblower 

program, to include an assessment of the extent to which the DOD 

whistleblower program meets executive branch policies and goals 

for whistleblower protections, the adequacy of procedures to address whistleblower complaints submitted by employees of the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (OIG), 

the extent to which there have been violations of confidentiality 

standards, the extent to which there have been retaliatory investigations within OIG, the extent to which whistleblower complaints 

against Senate-confirmed civilian officials of DOD have been substantiated and reported to Congress in the past 10 years, and the 

ability of the inspectors general of DOD and the military services 

to access agency information necessary to the execution of their duties, including classified and other sensitive information, and of the 

adequacy of security procedures to safeguard such information. The 

provision would require the Comptroller General to report to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives within 1 year of enactment of this Act on the results 

of this review. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Modification of requirements for accounting for members of 

the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian 

employees listed as missing (sec. 971) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sections 1501, 1505, and 1513 of title 10, United States Code, to elevate oversight of recovery policy and operations for current conflicts 

from the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) to the Secretary of Defense, and to clarify that the DPAA director retains authority to establish policy and execute recovery operations for missing persons from past conflicts. In addition, this provision would 

clarify that the Department is required to account for missing persons only to the extent practicable upon discovery of remains of 

missing personnel. 

Modification of authority of the Secretary of Defense relating to protection of the Pentagon Reservation and other 

Department of Defense facilities in the National Capitol 

Region (sec. 972) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2674 of title 10, United States Code, to update the authority 

of the Secretary of Defense to appoint law enforcement personnel 

to protect the Pentagon reservation and Department of Defense activities in the National Capital Region, and to set the rates of basic 

pay for law enforcement and security personnel whose permanent 

duty station is the Pentagon reservation. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
260 

Enhanced security programs for Department of Defense personnel and innovation initiatives (sec. 973) 

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, 2017, all personnel background 

and security investigations adjudicated by the Consolidated Adjudication Facility of the Department of Defense (DOD). This provision would also strengthen inside threat detection programs by 

streamlining requirements for the collection, storage, and retention 

of information and would allow the Department to seek solutions 

from commercial companies and improve the process for the reciprocity of security clearances. The committee is encouraged by this 

reciprocity effort and expects that a path forward will be established for recently retired service members with security clearances 

to transfer their security clearances to their new positions rather 

than undergo duplicative background investigations. 

Items of Special Interest 

4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division 

Since 2012, the Army has been on 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 Army has continued to reassess its force structure requirements in light of the dynamic security environment and the evolving threats around the world. On March 21, 2016, the Army announced that it would postpone the conversion of the 4–25 IBCT 

(ABN) citing the unit’s readiness, capability, and strategic location 

to rapidly deploy to deter aggression from Russia, North Korea, 

and ISIL. 

The committee is aware that the senior leadership of the Army, 

and the current commanders of U.S. Northern Command, U.S. European Command, and U.S. Pacific Command, in testimony before 

the committee, have publicly supported delaying the unit’s conversion. 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. The 

committee encourages the Army to continue to reassess its force 

structure based on available resources and the changing global security environment. 

Amendment on National Guard Apache recommendations 

The committee recognizes the efforts of the commissioners and 

staff for their completion of the National Commission on the Future of the Army (NCFA) report and recommendations. Among 

other recommendations, the committee supports the recommendation of the NCFA to retain four Attack Reconnaissance Battalions 

(ARBs) in the National Guard as part of the Aviation Restructuring 

Initiative. The committee believes that this approach achieves the 

right balance in addressing the Army’s current needs and providing 

the strategic depth of Army Aviation in the Army National Guard. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
261 

The committee expects the Army to plan and program accordingly 

based on available resources across the Future Years Defense Program. 

Enhancing Army Military Intelligence Support to the 

Warfighter 

The Army provides a Military Intelligence Brigade-Theater 

(MIB–T) to each geographic combatant command. Operational Control (OPCON) of the MIB–Ts is delegated to the Army Service 

Component Commands, with administrative control (ADCON) assigned to the Army’s Intelligence and Security Command 

(INSCOM). INSCOM’s ADCON role for assigned MIB–Ts is to provide authorities, policy compliance, and reach-back support. The 

committee is concerned that the ADCON relationship is not as efficient as it needs to be, and notes that INSCOM headquarters has 

been growing as personnel are being reduced in the MIB–Ts. 

INSCOM’s other roles and missions within the Army are no doubt 

important and demanding, but support to the combatant commands through assigned MIB–Ts is critical, especially in light of 

increasing threats to combatant command missions and personnel. 

Consistent with the committee’s mandate to reduce management 

headquarters across the Department of Defense, the committee 

strongly urges the Army to streamline INSCOM’s command and 

support relationship with the MIB–Ts and the commands they directly support to reduce administrative overhead, and to better 

align its military intelligence brigades with the warfighters they directly support and are often collocated with at the same installation. 

The committee strongly urges the Army to take actions to enhance military intelligence support across the spectrum in the U.S. 

European Command area of operations to more effectively provide 

military support to force protection, defeat transnational terrorism, 

enhance relationships with our NATO and non-NATO partners, 

and deter and defeat Russian aggression. 

Unjustified expansion of the Army Reserve Military Intelligence Readiness Command 

The committee has directed the Department of Defense to take 

steps to eliminate overlapping and duplicative functions to better 

support the warfighter. The committee is concerned that there may 

be unnecessary overlap and duplication in the roles and responsibilities of the Army Reserve Component Military Intelligence 

Readiness Command (MIRC) and the Army’s Intelligence and Security Command. In addition, the committee is concerned about the 

justification for planned growth in the MIRC headquarters and 

subordinate headquarters. 

The committee is informed that the Army plans to increase the 

size of MIRC headquarters from a one-star to a two-star headquarters and create two new brigade headquarters elements subordinate to the MIRC. The committee questions the need for such an 

expansion and for the creation of new brigade headquarters elements when the size of the reserve component continues to shrink, 

and when the committee has directed the Department to reduce 

the size wherever possible of headquarters organizations. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
262 

The committee directs the Army to review the MIRC as a part 

of its headquarters reduction plan. 

Furthermore, the committee recommends the Army include its 

ongoing efforts to enhance active and reserve integration as a consideration of the MIRC within its headquarters reduction plan. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(263) 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters 

General transfer authority (sec. 1001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $4.0 billion of fiscal year 2017 

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. 

Increased use of commercial data integration and analysis 

products for the purpose of preparing financial statement audits (sec. 1002) 

The committee is concerned that over the last two decades, the 

Department has spent billions of dollars attempting to configure 

commercial-off-the-shelf information technology systems and build 

interfaces to hundreds of legacy information systems in order to 

prepare auditable financial statements. One of the many reasons 

for the Department’s long-standing failure to pass an audit is its 

inability to produce transaction-level information for auditors. 

This provision would require the Department to competitively 

and rapidly procure information technology services, including nonrelational database, data analysis, and data integration platforms 

to address the problems identified by auditors of Department of Defense financial statements. 

The committee notes that non-relational databases are database 

systems designed to process unstructured data and do not adhere 

to the traditional relational database management system structures, and may represent a useful approach to addressing these 

issues. 

The committee directs the Chief Financial Officer and Chief 

Management Officer to prepare a report to the defense committees 

on the status of this program. This report shall be delivered not 

later than 180 days after enactment of this Act. 

Sense of the Senate on sequestration (sec. 1003) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the statutory budget caps imposed by the 

Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) remain an unreasonable and inadequate budgeting tool to address the Nation’s fiscal challenges. 

The committee remains concerned about the harmful impacts of sequestration on our national defense, to include non-defense agencies that contribute to our national security. This provision acknowledges that relief from the BCA should include both defense 

and non-defense spending. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
264 

Subtitle B—Counter-Drug Activities 

Codification and modification of authority to provide support for counter-drug activities and activities to counter 

transnational organized crime of civilian law enforcement agencies (sec. 1006) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

new section in title 10, United States Code, to codify section 1004 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 

(Public Law 101–510), as most recently amended by section 1012 

of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291). The 

provision would also make modifications to the types of support 

that may be provided with respect to foreign law enforcement. 

Extension of authority to support unified counterdrug and 

counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1007) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 4 

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 1011 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). 

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. The committee believes that an enduring security relationship between the U.S. and Colombia is essential to sustaining and 

building upon these gains and urges the Department of Defense, in 

coordination with the interagency, to ensure its security cooperation programs and authorities reflect the evolving security environment in Colombia and the region. 

Subtitle C—Naval Vessels and Shipyards 

Availability of funds for retirement or inactivation of cruisers or dock landing ships (sec. 1011) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit fiscal 

year 2017 funds from being used to retire, prepare to retire, or inactivate a Ticonderoga-class cruiser, Whidbey Island-class dock 

landing ship, or Harpers Ferry-class dock landing ship, unless prescribed criteria are met. 

First, the Chief of Naval Operations would be required to certify 

to the congressional defense committees the requirement for operational cruisers, dock landing ships, and ballistic missile defensecapable cruisers from fiscal year 2017 through 2030. 

Second, funds within the Ship Modernization, Operations, and 

Sustainment Fund (SMOSF) could only be used for 11 Ticonderogaclass cruisers (CG–63 through CG–73) and 3 Whidbey Island-class 

dock landing ships (LSD–41, LSD–42, and LSD–46). 

Third, the Secretary of the Navy would be required to retain the 

current inventory of 22 cruisers and 12 dock landing ships until the 

end of their service lives with the following restrictions. Through 

fiscal year 2030, the Navy would be required to maintain not less 

than the Chief of Naval Operations’ requirement for operational 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
265 

cruisers or 11 operational cruisers, whichever is greater. The Navy 

would be required to maintain no less than the Chief of Naval Operations’ requirement for dock landing ships or 9 operational dock 

landing ships, whichever is greater. The Navy would be authorized 

to conduct phased modernization of not more than 11 cruisers and 

3 dock landing ships. 

Fourth, the Secretary of the Navy would be required to adhere 

to five requirements and five restrictions during the phased modernization period. 

Fifth, the Secretary of the Navy would be required to submit an 

annual report with the President’s budget on the status of the 

phased modernization program. 

Sixth, the Secretary of the Navy would be required to notify the 

congressional defense committees in writing 30 days prior to executing any deviations to the plans provided in the most recent annual report. 

The committee does not support a smaller fleet and notes the 

Navy stands at 272 ships this year, far below the 308 ship requirement. However, the committee does recognize the fiscal pressure 

the Navy is under to maintain the readiness of the current force 

while continuing to modernize for future threats, including the requirement to procure the Ohio-class replacement submarine program. The committee also notes the Navy has fully funded this 

budget request’s phased modernization plan, unlike past budget 

submissions. The committee would not be supportive of any effort 

to decommission any cruiser or dock landing ship earlier than provided for in this provision and views this provision as necessary to 

ensure the ships that enter phased modernization are returned to 

service. 

Prohibition on use of funds for retirement of legacy maritime mine countermeasures platforms (sec. 1012) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit 

funds from being used to retire, prepare to retire, transfer, or place 

in storage any Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship, MH–53 

Sea Dragon helicopter, or associated equipment, as well as make 

any reductions to the manning levels of any Avenger-class mine 

countermeasures ship or Sea Dragon squadron or detachment. 

The Secretary of the Navy may waive this prohibition by certifying to the congressional defense committees that: (1) a replacement capability and the necessary quantity of such systems to meet 

all combatant commander mine countermeasures operational requirements that are currently being met has been identified, (2) all 

replacement systems have achieved initial operational capability 

(IOC), and (3) the Navy has deployed a sufficient quantity of replacement systems that have reached IOC to continue to meet or 

exceed all combatant commander mine countermeasures operational requirements currently being met. 

The committee is concerned that the Navy’s current plan to reach 

IOC of replacement mine countermeasures systems is not scheduled to occur until the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020. However, 

the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan calls for the current Avengerclass mine countermeasures ships to begin retiring in fiscal year 

2019. The committee is concerned a capability gap in a critical 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
266 

warfighting mission area may result if current mine countermeasures systems are not maintained until operationally effective 

and suitable replacements are fielded. 

The committee looks forward to reviewing the Navy’s plan to 

transition from legacy mine countermeasures systems, which is included in the mine countermeasures master plan required by section 1090 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92). This plan is required to be submitted 

annually beginning with the President’s budget request for fiscal 

year 2018. 

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. 

1021) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until 

December 31, 2017, 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. The provision would expire on December 31, 

2017. 

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. 1022) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until 

December 31, 2017, the prohibition on the use of funds provided to 

the Department of Defense to construct or modify facilities in the 

United States to house detainees transferred from United States 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The provision would expire 

on December 31, 2017. 

Designing and planning related to construction of certain 

facilities in the United States (sec. 1023) 

The committee recommends a provision to authorize the Secretary of Defense to use amounts authorized to be appropriated for 

the Department of Defense for designing and planning related to 

the construction or modification of facilities in the United States to 

house individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

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. 1024) 

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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
267 

Authority for article III judges to take certain actions relating to individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1025) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

judge of the United States District Court to have jurisdiction to use 

video teleconferencing to arraign, accept a plea to a charge from, 

and enter a judgment of conviction and sentencing against individuals held at Guantanamo. The provision would also authorize the 

Attorney General to transfer detainees to third countries to serve 

their sentences. 

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. 1026) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until 

December 31, 2017, 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, or Yemen. 

Matters on memorandum of understanding between the 

United States and governments of receiving foreign 

countries and entities in certifications on transfer of detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba (sec. 1027) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require any 

certification by the Secretary of Defense provided pursuant to Section 1034(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 

Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92; 10 U.S.C. 801 note) to include a requirement that the United States and the government of the foreign government of transfer have entered into a written memorandum of understanding regarding the transfer of the individual 

and the memorandum of understanding has been provided to the 

appropriate congressional committees. 

Limitation on transfer of detainees at United States Naval 

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pending a report on 

their terrorist actions and affiliations (sec. 1028) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require, prior 

to transferring any individual detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to any foreign government or entity, 

that the Secretary of Defense submit to appropriate committees of 

Congress a report on the individuals’ previous terrorist activities, 

memberships in, affiliations, or associations with terrorist organizations, and a description of the individuals’ support or participation in attacks against the United States or U.S. allies. 

Prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to countries covered by Department of 

State travel warnings (sec. 1029) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

use of funds to transfer any individual held at Guantanamo to a 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
268 

foreign country that is the subject of a State Department travel 

warning with certain exceptions. 

Extension of prohibition on use of funds for realignment of 

forces at or closure of United States Naval Station, 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1030) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend until 

December 31, 2017, 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. 

Subtitle E—Assured Access to Space Matters 

Restrictions on use of rocket engines from the Russian Federation for space launch of national security satellites 

(sec. 1036) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of Defense from launching any national security satellite 

with a launch vehicle requiring a rocket engine designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation. 

The provision would also prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 

certifying any entity to bid for the award or renewal of a contract 

for the procurement of property or services for space launch activities for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program if that entity would use a rocket engine designed or manufactured in the 

Russian Federation. 

The committee believes that the continued use of Russian rocket 

engines is detrimental to national security and directs the Department of Defense to meet its space launch requirements by utilizing 

launch vehicles that do not require Russian rocket engines. 

The committee notes that the provision would explicitly exempt 

the nine Russian rocket engines allowed by section 1608(c) of the 

Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291; 10 

U.S.C. 2271 note) from the prohibition that would be established 

by this provision. 

Limitations on use of rocket engines from the Russian Federation to achieve assured access to space (sec. 1037) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2273(b) of title 10, United States Code, to require that assured 

access to space be achieved without the use of rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation. 

In testimony before the committee, the Secretary of Defense, the 

Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of the Air Force 

each confirmed to the committee that the United States can meet 

its assured access to space requirements without the use of Russian rocket engines. According to the Department of Defense Office 

of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the steady-state cost 

of meeting assured access to space requirements without the use 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
269 

of Russian rocket engines should be similar to what we pay today. 

The committee believes that once the nine Russian rocket engines 

allowed by section 1608(c) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ 

McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 

(Public Law 113–291; 10 U.S.C. 2271 note) are expended, the Defense Department is capable of meeting its assured access to space 

requirements by utilizing launch vehicles that do not require rocket 

engines designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a provision 

that would allow for up to half of the funds made available for the 

development of a replacement launch vehicle or launch propulsion 

system to be made available for offsetting any increase in launch 

costs as a result of prohibitions on Russian rocket engines. With 

$1.2 billion budgeted from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2021 for 

the launch replacement effort and $453.4 million already appropriated in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016, the committee believes there is more than sufficient funding available and budgeted 

for either a replacement propulsion system or launch vehicle and 

also to offset any additional costs required in meeting our assured 

access to space requirements without the use of Russian rocket engines. 

Repeal of provision permitting the use of rocket engines 

from the Russian Federation for the evolved expendable 

launch vehicle program (sec. 1038) 

The Committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 8048 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, Fiscal 

Year 2016 (division C, Public Law 114–113; 129 Stat. 2363). 

Subtitle F—Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations 

Assigned forces of the combatant commands (sec. 1041) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 162 of title 10, United States Code, to require the secretaries 

of the military departments, at the direction of the Secretary of Defense, to assign forces under the jurisdiction of the secretaries concerned to the combatant commands to perform missions assigned 

to the combatant commands. Forces that are not so assigned shall 

remain under the direction and control of the respective military 

department secretaries for purposes of carrying out the secretaries’ 

responsibilities under sections 3013, 5013, and 8013 including organizing, training, and mobilizing of all United States military forces. 

Quadrennial independent review of United Sates military 

strategy and force posture in the United States Pacific 

Command area of responsibility (sec. 1042) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish an 

independent review of United States policy in the Indo-Asia-Pacific 

region, beginning in 2018 and occurring every four years thereafter. The report will be conducted by an independent organization 

with credentials and expertise in national security and military affairs. 

The independent review will include an assessment of the risks 

to United States national security interests in the United States 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
270 

Pacific Command area of responsibility, an assessment of the current and planned United States force posture adjustments in the 

region, an evaluation of any key capability gaps and shortfalls of 

the United States in the region, an analysis of the willingness and 

capacity of allies, partners, and regional organizations to contribute 

to the security and stability of the region, an appraisal of the Arctic 

ambitions of regional actors, an evaluation of theater security cooperation efforts, an evaluation of the seams between the United 

States Pacific Command and adjacent geographic combatant commands, and the views of noted policy leaders and regional experts. 

The committee recommends that the report be submitted to the 

Secretary of Defense no later than 180 days after the commencement of the review. The report should be submitted in unclassified 

form but may include a classified annex. No more than 90 days 

after the report is submitted to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary will submit it to the congressional defense committees with 

any comments the Secretary considers appropriate. 

Designation of a Department of Defense Strategic Arctic 

Port (sec. 1043) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require not 

later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, the Commanding General of the United States Army Corps 

of Engineers, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Administrator of the Maritime Administration, to submit a report to the 

congressional defense committees assessing the future security requirements for one or more strategic ports in the Arctic. The provision would further require the Secretary to establish designation 

criteria for a Department of Defense ‘‘Strategic Arctic Port’’ and 

submit recommendations for the designation of one or more such 

ports, including estimated costs for sufficient construction to initiate and sustain expected operations. 

Modification of requirements regarding notifications to 

Congress on sensitive military operations (sec. 1044) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 130f in title 10, United States Code. 

Reconnaissance Strike Group matters (sec. 1045) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 

oversee the modeling of an alternative Army design and operational concept for the Reconnaissance Strike Group (RSG). The 

committee also would require a report no later than one year after 

the enactment of this bill that explicitly addresses the value of a 

follow-on pilot program to test further any promising alternative 

force designs and concept of operation. 

Emerging trends in technology and changes in the international 

security situation suggest that the Department of Defense should 

question the strategic assumptions that have underpinned its 

ground force structure and warfighting concepts for at least 25 

years. Testing requires innovation. Innovation employs mature, offthe-shelf technology in creative, new and effective ways. The comVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00306 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
271 

mittee assesses the RSG has the potential, as designed, to be a 

testbed for full spectrum rapid prototyping—organizing construct, 

human capital strategy and equipment. As a prototype formation 

the RSG testbed is designed to explore new capabilities with smaller inventories of new systems before larger, Army-wide, investments are made. 

The provision requires, not later than 60 days after the date of 

the enactment of this Act, that the Secretary of Defense shall direct 

an appropriate combatant commander to establish an office for the 

testing, evaluation, development and validation of the RSG’s joint 

warfighting concepts, required platforms and structure. The selected combatant commander will submit a report describing the office structure, as well as, its programmatic goals and funding needs 

to the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and of the House 

of Representatives not later than 90 days after the establishment 

of the office and on a periodic basis to be determined at that time. 

The committee’s recommendation is informed by the findings of 

the National Commission on the Future of the United States Army. 

Like the commission, the committee believes the Army should innovate and modernize. The Reconnaissance Strike Group is a concept 

that is fundamentally designed to be fully integrated in an expeditionary joint task force. It is organized and equipped for rapid deployment, reconnaissance, agile maneuver in dispersed formation, 

massed joint fires, sustainment, and survivability. 

Transition of Air Force to operation of remotely piloted aircraft by enlisted personnel (sec. 1046) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Air Force, by September 30, 2019, to transition all remotely piloted 

aircraft (RPA) operations to an organizational model that uses enlisted personnel for the preponderance of RPA operators. 

The committee is concerned that the Air Force has struggled for 

nearly a decade to integrate the medium-altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) mission into its training infrastructure and organizational culture, and has taken the approach 

of organizing for the RPA mission and career field similarly to its 

manned combat aircraft squadrons. While divestments of combat 

aircraft over the past several years provided a temporary increase 

in available rated officers to operate RPAs, overall rated pilot 

shortages, especially for fighter aircraft, continue to plague the Air 

Force, and pilot shortages are anticipated to increase significantly 

as the commercial airline industry increases its pilot hiring. 

An April 2014 Government Accountability Office recommended 

the Air Force consider the use of enlisted personnel to operate its 

fleet of MQ–1 and MQ–9 aircraft, but the Air Force rejected that 

recommendation because, ‘‘it decided that the responsibilities of piloting an RPA were commensurate with the rank of officers instead.’’ Since that time, the Air Force still has not alleviated the 

manning shortfall for RPA pilots, causing its RPA pilot community 

to be overworked, feel underappreciated, and negatively impacting 

their morale. By the Air Force’s own admission, these problems are 

creating a situation where reduced retention of its RPA pilot force 

is anticipated as RPA pilots reach the end of their service commitments in the coming years. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
272 

Additionally, the committee believes the Air Force’s rationale for 

rejecting enlisted RPA operators does not comport with the organizational construct used by the Army in their unmanned aircraft 

system operations, where enlisted personnel operate RPAs during 

both ISR and live-fire strike missions under the supervision of warrant officers and commissioned officers. The use of enlisted RPA 

operators opens a larger pool of potential applicants, reduces overall personnel costs as compared to using commissioned officers, and 

with the use of appropriate RPA control technologies, reduces the 

length of the training pipeline. 

Finally, the committee expects the Air Force to allow officers currently serving as RPA operators to continue to serve in those roles, 

if necessary, while transitioning to enlisted operators over time as 

new operators are accessed and trained, and to ensure that such 

officers continue to have opportunities for career progression and 

service. 

Prohibition on divestment of Marine Corps Search and Rescue Units (sec. 1047) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation of appropriated funds to retire, prepare to retire, transfer or place in stowage any aircraft in Marine Corps Search and 

Rescue Units (SRU). The provision would also prohibit the reduction in manning levels with respect to any Marine Corps Search 

and Rescue unit. 

Modification of requirements relating to management of 

military technicians (sec. 1048) 

The committee recommends a provision that would delay the implementation date of section 1053 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) until October 

1, 2017 and align the date of conversion for military technicians 

(non-dual status) with military technicians (dual status). This provision would also clarify that the positions to be converted are to 

be reviewed and determined by leadership from the Army Reserve, 

the Air Force Reserve, the National Guard Bureau, and the state 

adjutants general for purposes of implementation. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, to submit to the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives by March 1, 2017, a report on the feasibility and 

advisability of converting any remaining military technicians (dual 

status) to personnel performing active Guard and Reserve duty 

under section 328 of title 32, United States Code, or other applicable provision of law. The report shall include the following: (a) An 

analysis of the fully-burdened costs of the conversion taking into 

account the new modernized military retirement system; and (b) 

An assessment of the ratio of members of the Armed Forces performing active Guard and Reserve duty and civilian employees of 

the Department of Defense under title 5, United States Code, required to best contribute to the readiness of the National Guard 

and the Reserves. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
273 

Support for the Associate Director of the Central Intelligence Agency for Military Affairs (sec. 1049) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to ensure that the Associate Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (ADMA) has access to, and support from, offices, 

agencies, and programs of the Department necessary for the ADMA 

to achieve its intended function. In the wake of the first Gulf War, 

the predecessor to the office of the ADMA was created to better integrate the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence 

Agency (CIA). Since that time, the office, which is typically led by 

a general or admiral chosen by the Secretary of Defense, has 

played a key role in coordinating and communicating support between the two organizations. A strong and cooperative relationship 

is vital to the national security interests of the United States. This 

provision would enhance the Department’s support to the position 

and confirm the importance of the enduring relationship between 

the CIA and the Department. 

Enhancement of interagency support during contingency 

operations and transition periods (sec. 1050) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to enter into an 

agreement allowing each Secretary to provide support, supplies, 

and services on a reimbursement basis, or by exchange of support, 

supplies, and services, to the other Secretary during a contingency 

operation and related transition period. The purpose of the provision would be to ease bureaucratic hurdles to interagency support 

and therefore increase both effectiveness and efficiencies in the provision of such support. 

Enhancement of information sharing and coordination of 

military training between Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense (sec. 1051) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that the information 

needs of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) relating to 

civilian law enforcement activities in proximity to the borders of 

the United States are identified and communicated to the Secretary of Defense for the purposes of planning and executing military training. The provision would require the Secretary of Defense 

to ensure that such military training conducted in proximity to the 

borders of the U.S. is coordinated with DHS. Further, the provision 

would require the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense to create joint guidance to ensure information relevant to drug interdiction or other civilian law enforcement matters that is collected by the U.S. military during the normal course 

of military training or operations is provided promptly to civilian 

law enforcement officials in accordance with section 371 of title 10, 

United States Code. 

The committee notes that the U.S. military engages in realistic 

military training activities around the U.S. to simulate real world 

operational environments. The committee believes that in addition 

to supporting the readiness of U.S. military forces, such training 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
274 

can provide a secondary benefit to civilian authorities, particularly 

as it relates to increased situational awareness that would increase 

the effectiveness of drug interdiction and border security operations 

conducted by civilian law enforcement. 

The committee notes that section 371 of title 10, United States 

Code authorizes the Secretary of Defense, in accordance with other 

applicable law, to ‘‘provide to Federal, State, or local civilian law 

enforcement any information collected during the normal course of 

military training or operations that may be relevant’’ and further 

states that ‘‘the needs of civilian law enforcement officials for information shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be taken into account in the planning and execution of military training or operations.’’ 

The committee is concerned that the mechanisms through which 

the Department of Defense (DOD) is made aware of the information needs of DHS and civilian law enforcement agencies as well 

as DOD’s ability to coordinate its training operations is informal 

and ad hoc in nature. Accordingly, the committee believes that establishing a formal mechanism for the sharing of information and 

increasing coordination of military training operations along the 

borders with DHS is warranted. 

Notification on the provision of defense sensitive support 

(sec. 1052) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the provision of defense sensitive support to non-Department of Defense 

departments and agencies until the Secretary of Defense determines and notifies the congressional defense committees that the 

support does not interfere with the mission and functions of the 

Department, or if it does so interfere, that it is in the national security interest of the United States. Additional guidance is provided in the classified annex that accompanies this bill and report. 

Modification of authority to transfer Department of Defense 

property for law enforcement activities (sec. 1053) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2576a of title 10, United States Code to modify the availability 

of defense items eligible for transfer and notification requirements. 

Exemption of information on military tactics, techniques, 

and procedures from release under Freedom of Information Act (sec. 1054) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 130e of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to exempt information related to military tactics, techniques, and procedures from public disclosure if the information 

could reasonably be expected to risk impairment of the effective operation of the Department of Defense by providing an advantage to 

an adversary or potential adversary, and the public interest consideration in the disclosure of such information does not outweigh preventing the disclosure of such information. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
275 

Treatment of certain sensitive information by State and 

local governments (sec. 1055) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 128 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

of Defense to designate information as being Department of Defense critical infrastructure security information to ensure that 

such information is not disseminated without authorization. Certain Department of Defense critical infrastructure security information that is provided to a state or local government would remain 

under the control of the Department of Defense, and a state or 

local law authorizing or requiring a state or local government to 

disclose such information would not apply to such information, and 

any request for disclosure of such information must be provided to 

the Secretary to determine whether to exempt the information from 

disclosure. 

Certain sensitive but unclassified information, designated as critical infrastructure security information (CISI), is related to Department of Defense critical infrastructure. If CISI is disclosed and exploited, it would likely result in significant disruption, destruction, 

or damage of or to Department operations, property, or facilities. 

CISI can be shared with state and local governments to facilitate 

coordination during incidents, normal operations, or emergency response. 

Recovery of excess firearms, ammunition, and parts granted 

to foreign countries and transfer to certain persons (sec. 

1056) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of the Army to acquire from any person any firearm, ammunition repair parts, or other supplies which were provided to any 

country on a grant basis. 

Sense of the Senate on development and fielding of fifth 

generation airborne systems (sec. 1057) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate on the definition of and need for continued 

prioritization, development, and fielding of fifth-generation airborne capabilities. 

Technical and conforming amendments (sec. 1058) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make technical and clerical corrections to the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 11492) and section 2431b of 

title 10, United States Code. 

Subtitle G—National Commission on Military, National, and 

Public Service 

Purpose and scope (sec. 1066) 

The committee recommends a series of provisions that would create an independent National Commission on Military, National, 

and Public Service, including a provision to establish the purpose 

and scope of this Commission to consider: (1) the need for a military selective service process, including a continuing need for a 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
276 

mechanism to draft large numbers of replacement combat troops; 

(2) the means by which to foster a greater attitude and ethos of 

service among United States youth, including an increased propensity for military service; (3) the feasibility of modifying the military 

selective service process to obtain for military, national, and public 

service individuals with skills for which the Nation has a critical 

need, without regard to age or gender; and (4) the feasibility of including in the military selective service process, as so modified, an 

eligibility for one or more Federal benefits to incentivize the necessary education, training, and service to fulfill such critical needs. 

National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service (sec. 1067) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the 

National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service as 

an independent commission. The provision would prescribe the 

manner and timing in which the Commission would be appointed, 

its composition, pay rates for members and staff, and would provide sundry other authorities attending to the operation of the 

Commission as an independent entity. 

Commission hearings and meetings (sec. 1068) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service to 

conduct public hearings (except classified hearings) on recommendations under consideration, and that such hearings be noticed on a public website at least 14 days in advance. The provision 

would require the Commission to hold its first meeting withing 30 

days after all members have been appointment. 

Principles and procedure for Commission recommendations 

(sec. 1069) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

President, within 3 months after the establishment date of the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service, to establish and transmit to the Commission and Congress principles 

for reform of the military selective service process, including the 

means by which to best acquire skills to meet the military, national, and public service requirements of the country. The provision would require these Presidential principles to address: (1) 

whether, in light of the current global security environment, there 

continues to be a need for a selective service process designed to 

produce large quantities of combat troops, and if so, whether that 

system should include mandatory registration by citizens and residents regardless of gender; (2) the need, and how best to meet the 

need, of the Nation, the military, the Federal civilian sector, and 

the private sector (including the non-profit sector) for individuals 

possessing certain critical skills and abilities, and how to best employ individuals with those skills and abilities; (3) how to foster 

within the nation, particularly among the nation’s youth, an increased sense of service and civic responsibility to enhance the acquisition of critically needed skills through education and training, 

and how best to acquire those skills for military, national, and public service; (4) how to increase propensity among the nation’s youth 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
277 

for service in the military, or alternatively in national or public 

service, including how to increase the pool of qualified applicants 

for military service; (5) the need in government to increase interest, 

education, and employment in certain critical fields, including particularly science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, national security, cyber, linguistics and foreign language, education, 

health care, and the medical professions; and (6) how military national, and public service may be incentivized, including through 

educational benefits, grants, Federally-insured loans, Federal or 

State hiring preferences, or other mechanisms the President considers appropriate. The provision would require certain cabinet officials and other officials or experts to transmit to the Commission 

and Congress recommendations for the reform of the military selective service process, and military, national, and public service in 

connection with that process. 

Executive Director and staff (sec. 1070) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service to 

appoint, and fix the rate of pay of, an Executive Director and staff. 

The provision would limit detailees from Executive Branch agencies to no more than one-third of the personnel employed by the 

Commission, and would prohibit the detail of executive branch employees to the Commission who in the year prior to the detail were 

substantially involved with the development of recommendations 

provided to the Commission. 

Judicial review precluded (sec. 1071) 

The committee recommends a provision that would preclude the 

actions of the President, cabinet officials and other individuals required to provide recommendations under this subtitle, and the 

Commission on Military, National, and Public Service from judicial 

review of their actions taken under this subtitle. 

Termination (sec. 1072) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 

the termination of the National Commission on Military, National, 

and Public Service no later than 36 months after the Commission 

establishment date. 

Funding (sec. 1073) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for the Department 

of Defense for fiscal year 2017, $15.0 million be available to the 

National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service 

until expended to carry out its duties under this subtitle. 

Subtitle H—Studies and Reports 

Annual reports on unfunded priorities of the Armed Forces 

and the combatant commands (sec. 1076) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

military service chiefs and the commanders of the individual functional and geographic combatant commands to submit to the ComVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00313 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
278 

mittees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a list, in priority order, of the unfunded requirements 

for each individual service branch or combatant command no later 

than 25 days after the date on which the budget for a fiscal year 

is submitted to Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, 

United States Code. This provision would repeal section 1003 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public 

Law 112–239). 

Assessment of the joint ground forces of the Armed Forces 

(sec. 1077) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 

oversee a comprehensive assessment of the joint ground forces. The 

committee would require this report no later than one year after 

the enactment of this act. The report should explicitly address capability and capacity gaps that threaten the successful execution of 

decisive, operational-maneuver in a joint context. 

The committee’s recommendation is informed by the findings of 

the National Commission on the Future of the United States Army 

(NCFA) and the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) report 

of April, 2016. The committee notes that both the commission and 

GAO identified critical capability gaps needed for operational theaters. 

The committee is concerned our ground forces are not properly 

balanced and are incurring unacceptable risks to mission and 

forces. The committee is also concerned the drawdown in Army end 

strength is fomenting much of this loss of capability and capacity. 

Further, the committee is concerned that reported readiness levels 

of both the Army and Marine Corps make this potential situation 

more complicated. It may impact the United States’ ability to rapidly deploy a campaign quality force with available forces. 

This assessment and report must identify gaps in critical combat 

capabilities. The committee is concerned about potential gaps in 

armed reconnaissance, armor, combat engineers, cluster munitions, 

and long range field artillery capable of standoff attack and counter 

fires. Of particular concern is comprehensive air defense. The committee would like to know if our forces have the capability to protect themselves from all aerial threats from enemy aircraft and 

theater ballistic missiles to remotely piloted vehicles. 

The committee also requires the assessment to address gaps in 

essential combat support and service support capabilities, including 

electronic warfare, chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear reconnaissance, detection and decontamination, water and fuel distribution, military police, and transportation. The committee shares 

the NCFA’s concern about the lack of transportation assets to move 

the equipment of combat and construction engineer battalions. 

Also, given the amount of infantry units across the Army and Marine Corps, the committee is concerned about the adequacy of available ground transportation to move and sustain these light forces. 

Given the comprehensive nature of the report the committee 

would also like to be made aware of any redundancies and obsolete 

capabilities. In the end, the committee would be interested in recommendations to rebalance the joint force to maximize total availVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00314 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
279 

able end strength, force structure and technology. This assessment 

should be made within the context of current force demands, current and emerging threats, forces available, and readiness. The 

committee intent is to ensure our ground forces have the needed 

capabilities and capacities to execute successful operational, all 

arms maneuver with all needed theater-level sustainment and support. 

Report on independent assessment of the force structure of 

the Armed Forces to meet the national defense strategy 

(sec. 1078) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to obtain and submit to Congress a report by 

an independent organization that assesses the threats to the 

United States, potential conflicts arising from those threats, likely 

Department of Defense responses to those threats, and the Department of Defense force posture, systems, and programs required to 

execute such responses. The report would also require an assessment of the ability of the forces to meet the day-to-day requirements of the commanders of the combatant commands. 

Annual report on observation flights over the United States 

under the Open Skies Treaty (sec. 1079) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the previous year’s observation flights over the United States under the Open Skies 

Treaty. The report should include (a) a description of the flight 

path of the observation flight; (b) an analysis of whether any critical infrastructure of the United States was subject of image capture activities of the observation flight; and (c) a description of the 

costs imposed on the Department of Defense and other relevant 

agencies by the observation flight. 

Reports on programs managed under alternative compensatory control measures in the Department of Defense 

(sec. 1080) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to provide certain reports and notifications regarding programs that DOD manages under alternative 

compensatory control measures (ACCM). 

The Department of Defense typically uses the ACCM system to 

manage program of lesser sensitivity or programs with a less enduring life than the programs that it manages under special access 

(SAP) program channels. 

The committee believes that DOD needs to provide more rigorous 

oversight of and reporting on ACCM programs. Despite several directions from Congress to the DOD to produce better information 

and inventories of these programs, DOD has failed to do so. 

Therefore, the committee sees no alternative but to include legislation on the matter. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
280 

Requirement for notice and reporting to Committees on 

Armed Services of certain expenditures of funds by Defense Intelligence Agency (sec. 1081) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add the 

Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives to a reporting requirement under 50 U.S.C. 3038(c) 

that allows the Defense Intelligence Agency to use limited funds 

without regard to the provisions of law or regulation relating to the 

expenditure of U.S. Government funds. 

Repeal of Department of Defense reporting requirements 

for which statutory requirement is from an amendment 

made by an annual national defense authorization Act 

(sec. 1082) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the requirements for several reports that are mandated by an annual National Defense Authorization Act and by other public laws. 

Repeal of Department of Defense reporting requirements 

for which statutory requirement is specified in an annual national defense authorization Act (sec. 1083) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal several 

requirements for the Department of Defense to provide reports that 

have been added by an annual National Defense Authorization Act. 

Repeal of requirements relating to efficiencies plan for the 

civilian personnel workforce and service contractor 

workforce of the Department of Defense (sec. 1084) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

955 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(Public Law 112–239). 

Subtitle I—Other Matters 

Military service management of F–35 Joint Strike Fighter 

program (sec. 1086) 

The committee recommends a provision that would disestablish 

the F–35 Joint Program Office and devolve relevant responsibilities 

to the Air Force and the Navy. The committee believes the current 

management structure of the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter program is 

in need of change. The F–35 program’s original operational requirements called for 70–90 percent commonality between the three 

variants. In reality, even the Program Executive Officer of the F– 

35 Joint Program Office, General Christopher Bogdan, recently admitted the variants are only 20–25 percent common, primarily in 

their cockpits. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps each fly primarily a single variant and have different roles and missions, concepts of operations, and deployment requirements, all leading to 

highly different priorities for F–35 capabilities, capacity, maintainability, and follow-on modernization. International partners have 

needs and priorities that differ even further from the U.S. military 

services. These forces, coupled with the lack of commonality, have 

led to a situation in which, as General Bogdan stated in 2013, ‘‘We 

have three airplane programs running in parallel.’’ Indeed, as reVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00316 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
281 

cently as April 2016, in reference to the 2,590 Joint Program Office 

and Integrated Test Force personnel, General Bogdan stated ‘‘I 

don’t know if that’s enough or not, or if it’s too much. It’s what we 

have. You ought to look at the F–35 numbers and remember that 

we’re building three variants for 14 customers, so maybe it’s not a 

bad size for three programme offices.’’ 

The committee is concerned the program management structure 

currently in place was established for a commonality in variants 

that never materialized, is ill-suited to meet the current and future 

requirements and priorities of the services and international partners, and prevents the true alignment of responsibility and accountability within the services and the Department of Defense as 

a whole. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, not 

later than 6 months after the F–35 Milestone C decision (currently 

scheduled for April 2019) to disestablish the Joint Program Office 

and devolve relevant responsibilities to the Department of the Air 

Force and the Department of the Navy. The Department of the Air 

Force and the Department of the Navy shall establish separate program offices to manage the production, sustainment, and modernization of their respective aircraft. The Air Force shall manage 

all aspects related to the F–35A variant and the Navy will manage 

all aspects related to the F–35B and F–35C variants. The Air Force 

and Navy will establish processes to coordinate on issues where 

commonality exists. The committee further directs the Secretary of 

Defense, not later than February 1, 2017, to submit to the congressional defense committees a report outlining the Department’s implementation plan. Additionally, the committee directs the Governmental Accountability Office to review the Department’s plan and 

to brief the congressional defense committees on their findings 

within 90 days of the report’s submission. 

The committee believes that the current consensus-driven management structure of the Joint Strike Fighter program is ill-suited 

to what are in essence three separate aircraft programs, has led to 

aircraft that do not fully meet its customers’ needs, and stifles the 

proper alignment of responsibility and accountability. The committee believes the Department must act now to begin implementing necessary changes. 

Treatment of follow-on modernization for the F–35 joint 

strike fighter as a major defense acquisition program 

(sec. 1087) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Department of Defense to treat the F–35 Follow-on Modernization 

program as a separate Major Defense Acquisition Program 

(MDAP). The committee strongly supports the F–35 Joint Strike 

Fighter program and efforts to ensure F–35 capabilities outmatch 

any potential adversary for the decades the F–35 will be in our tactical aviation force. However, the committee is concerned that the 

decision by the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to manage F–35 Block 4 development under 

the existing F–35 acquisition program will limit the transparency, 

accountability, and oversight required for a program as large and 

as important to our future combat capability as the F–35. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
282 

The first increment of modernization, Block 4.1, is scheduled to 

enter the fleet in fiscal year 2020, with subsequent increments following every 2 years through delivery of increment 4.4 in fiscal 

year 2026. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates 

the Department will spend nearly $3.0 billion on F–35 follow-on development efforts over the next 6 years alone, easily exceeding the 

statutory and regulatory thresholds for a MDAP. The committee 

believes the reporting and oversight mechanisms required of a 

MDAP, such as a business case analysis and cost, schedule, and 

performance reporting, are necessary for Congress and our international partners in the Joint Strike Fighter program to provide 

quality oversight for a long-term, multi-billion dollar program. 

The committee believes the F–22 Raptor program offers an instructive lesson in the dangers of managing an expensive and complicated modernization program under an existing program baseline. The committee believes the Department should heed that lesson and avoid repeating mistakes of the past. 

Reduction in minimum number of Navy carrier air wings 

and carrier air wing headquarters required to be maintained (sec. 1088) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 5062 of title 10, United States Code, to reduce the number of 

air wings required to be maintained and fully staffed from 10 to 

9. 

While the committee does not believe cutting naval aviation infrastructure is advisable in the current security environment, inadequate funding for defense prevents the Department of the Navy 

from funding all necessary requirements. Should adequate funding 

become available, the committee intends to repeal this provision. 

Streamlining of the National Security Council (sec. 1089) 

The committee recommends a provision that would streamline 

the statutory requirements of the National Security Council (NSC) 

and limit the size of the NSC professional staff to no more than 

150 individuals, which includes detailees and assignees from other 

agencies and contractors. The purpose of this provision is to return 

to the intended statutory purpose of the NSC and to correct constitutional separation of powers concerns when the NSC staff, 

which is presently shielded from congressional oversight, conduct 

operations or activities that are appropriate for departments led by 

individuals holding Senate-confirmed positions. 

The National Security Council was established by the National 

Security Act of 1947 (P.L. 235–61 Stat. 496; U.S.C. 402) and 

amended by the National Security Act Amendments of 1949 (63 

Stat. 579; 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) By establishing the NSC in statute, Congress sought to create an enduring institutional structure 

to assist the president in setting strategic guidance, coordinating 

U.S. foreign and defense policy, and facilitating interagency cooperation and integration on national security matters. The statute 

also specifically authorized a NSC staff to be headed by a civilian 

executive secretary appointed by the President. 

Since its establishment, NSC internal meeting structures and 

processes of the NSC have varied, reflecting the decision-making 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
283 

style and leadership of the president. Yet, over the last couple decades, one attribute has remained true under administrations of 

both parties: the size of the NSC staff has consistently grown. 

That growth has been influenced by additional committees and 

participation requirements created in statute for the NSC. These 

congressional additions have only added to the growth of the NSC 

staff. The growth in staff and statutory requirements has not, however, resulted in a more effective decision-making process. In fact, 

the enlarged staff and burdensome statutory requirements have 

undermined the original congressional intent of the statute, which 

was to provide a mechanism for strategic and coherent national security policy making. Indeed, a larger NSC staff has created bureaucratic inefficiencies, incentivized staff involvement in operational and tactical national security decisions, weakened national 

security prioritization, and undermined the strategic guidance that 

the country’s national security apparatus requires to integrate and 

implement policy successfully. 

The personnel limitations in this provision would not apply to 

staff that are designated as wholly administrative or technical support staff. 

Form of annual national security strategy report (sec. 1090) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require each 

national security strategy report as required by section 108 of the 

National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3043) to be transmitted 

in classified form. Such report may contain an unclassified summary. 

Border security metrics (sec. 1091) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Homeland Security to develop metrics to measure the 

effectiveness of security at ports of entry, between ports of entry, 

and in the maritime environment not later than 120 days after the 

enactment of this Act. 

The committee believes that the establishment of such metrics 

will enhance the ability of the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) to assess its progress in securing the borders of the United 

States by using consistent, regular and robust border security performance measures. Additionally, the committee believes that the 

creation of such metrics will not only enhance the ability of DHS 

to more accurately measure the effectiveness of its operations along 

the borders, but also will better inform its coordination with, and 

requests for support from the interagency, including the Department of Defense. 

Consolidation of marketing of the Army within the Army 

Marketing Research Group (sec. 1092) 

The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate 

all marketing functions of the Regular Army, Army Reserve, and 

Army National Guard within the Army Marketing Research Group 

no later than October 1, 2017. 

The committee notes that the National Commission on the Future of the Army recommended consolidation of marketing funcVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00319 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
284 

tions under the authority of the Army Marketing Research Group 

to ensure unity of effort across all three Army components. 

The committee strongly supports the Commission’s recommendation. The committee believes that marketing of the United States 

Army should be a Secretariat responsibility as the authority, direction, and control for all three Army components rests with the Secretary of the Army. Additionally, consolidation of marketing functions will allow for unity of effort, as identified by the Commission, 

and also ensures a strategic approach to marketing to maximize efficiencies, eliminate duplication and cross-messaging, provide appropriate oversight of advertising initiatives, and continue to build 

upon one Army message to the American public. 

The committee understands that marketing is an important component of the Army’s ability to increase and sustain public understanding of military service and to articulate the value of service 

in the Army in defense of our nation. The committee notes that 

marketing plays an important role in the recruitment of soldiers, 

particularly during the last 14 years of conflict. 

Protection against misuse of Naval Special Warfare Command insignia (sec. 1093) 

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, 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, 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. 

Program to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the 

Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (sec. 1094) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct a program to commemorate the 

100th anniversary of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. 

Sense of Congress regarding the OCONUS basing of the KC– 

46A aircraft (sec. 1095) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Congress regarding the basing of KC–46A tanker aircraft outside of the continental United States. 

Replacement of quadrennial defense review with national 

defense strategy (sec. 1096) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 118 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary 

of Defense to provide the congressional defense committees, in January of each year, a national defense strategy. The new national 

defense strategy would replace the report known as the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The committee concluded that the 

length of time needed to develop the QDR made the report irrelevant to actual national security decision-making because the naVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00320 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
285 

tional security environment evolved more quickly than the review 

process. 

The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to provide 

the congressional defense committees a defense strategy, in classified form, that addresses the highest priority missions for the Department of Defense, the most critical and enduring threats to the 

national security of the United States and its allies posed by states 

or non-state actors, and the strategies that the Department will 

use to counter those threats. The report would also have to discuss 

a strategic framework to prioritize these missions and threats as 

well as discuss the major investments that the Department will 

make over the following five-year period to match that strategic 

framework. The Secretary would be required to seek the advice of 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in preparing each defense 

strategy. An unclassified summary would accompany the strategy. 

The more frequent review and development of a classified guiding strategy document would more rapidly develop the necessary 

level of detail on threat actors and corresponding strategies, resource requirements, and programmatic, readiness, and posture 

needs, and would therefore provide Department officials greater 

and more timely guidance in the execution of the strategies laid out 

in the report and the broader furtherance of their duties. The requirements in statute for the National Defense Panel would remain, but be required every four years rather than every two years 

to provide an independent assessment of the Department’s threat 

assessments, strategies, and frameworks linking ends, ways, and 

means. 

Items of Special Interest 

Air Force training with partner nations 

The committee is aware that the German Air Force recently decided to terminate its contract with the U.S. Air Force that has allowed the German Air Force to operate a tactical training center 

at Holloman Air Force Base (AFB) . The current contract will end 

in 2019. The German Air Force presence peaked in 2005 with 850 

personnel and 38 Tornado aircraft. 

The German Air Force presence in the United States supported 

the strategic alliance between our two nations and created unique 

and valuable training opportunities between our two militaries. 

Given that the current arrangement is ending, the committee encourages the Department of Defense to explore other ways in which 

the German Air Force might continue its presence at Holloman 

AFB. 

If the Department and the German Air Force are unable to 

achieve an understanding about a long-term presence by the German Air Force in the United States, the committee encourages the 

Department to examine training opportunities with other partner 

nations that would utilize the weather, terrain, airspace, and infrastructure available at Holloman AFB. 

Arctic Search and Rescue 

The committee is aware of the expanding access to the Arctic region due to diminishing sea ice, including an increase in shipping 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
286 

traffic along the Northern Sea Route, the Northwest Passage, and 

potentially, a transpolar route. The committee is concerned with 

the limited capabilities of the United States to conduct search and 

rescue operations throughout the Arctic region. The committee understands the Alaska National Guard has developed an airdropped, palletized, Arctic Sustainment Package (ASP) to enable 

the survival of twenty-five individuals for three days in harsh Arctic conditions. This package is deployable over vast distances—both 

over water and over land—and is suitable to sustain life in the 

High Arctic environment. The Alaska National Guard currently 

possesses two ASPs, but additional units could be beneficial. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for identifying Arctic search and rescue requirements, 

resourcing such capabilities, including those like the ASP, and developing the tactics, techniques, and procedures required to employ 

these capabilities. The committee directs the Secretary to provide 

both a written plan and briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days following the enactment of this Act. 

Army Modernization Strategy 

The committee directs the Chief of Staff of the United States 

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 time lines. The 

committee assesses that a comprehensive strategy would give strategic purpose to existing acquisition programs and branch specific 

strategies. It could also provide the Army an understanding of potential long term costs beyond the future year defense program and 

aid in the decision-making process to terminate unneeded or underperforming programs. The committee directs this strategy to be 

submitted with the Presidential Budget for the National Defense 

Authorization act for Fiscal Year 2018. 

The committee is concerned the Army is woefully behind on modernization. The committee believes the Army must modernize for 

the harsh realities of 21st century warfare. Our soldiers must be 

trained, organized and equipped for an increasingly diverse and 

complex range of threats. They must be able to win against peers 

in highly lethal, combined arms maneuver; against near peers in 

hybrid warfare conditions; and against determined, unconventional 

insurgents. The committee notes other armies, including potential 

adversaries, are modernizing at a rapid pace. 

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 that the Army expends tens 

of billions of dollars on procurement, research, development, testing 

and evaluation each year, 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 modernizaVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00322 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
287 

tion as a critical requirement for readiness in the very near future. 

Modernizing while supporting operational demands is not easy, but 

it has been done before. Army leaders like General Abrams transformed the Army before. They restored the discipline and morale 

of the force in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. They 

transitioned the Army to an All-Volunteer Force while revolutionizing training doctrine. And they built an Army that won the Cold 

War and removed Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. 

Army Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) 

The committee notes the Department of Defense’s plans to meet 

the needs of the combatant commanders by increasing the number 

of Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Combat Air Patrols (CAPs) in 

part through an increase of Army UAS units to accommodate as 

many as 16 Army UAS CAPs. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army submit to the congressional defense committees not later than 120 

days after the enactment of this Act a report on how the Army 

plans to increase its training resources for its Shadow and Gray 

Eagle platforms, improve facilities, and protect its training ranges 

to support the growth of Army UAS CAPs. This report shall also 

include an analysis on the need for the Army to re-establish an 

Army UAS Center of Excellence given the increased role for Army 

UAS training and operations. 

Comptroller General assessment of national defense implications of the next generation air traffic management 

system 

The committee is concerned with the potential national defense 

implications of the next generation air traffic management system, 

specifically with the main component of the system known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B). 

The committee recognizes the significant safety, cost, and efficiency advantages of ADS–B operations over the legacy system of 

air traffic control radar surveillance of air traffic. ADS–B enhances 

system situational awareness, collision avoidance, runway and airport airspace incursion avoidance, and the ability to implement air 

traffic control in non-radar environments, such as sparsely populated areas and oceanic surveillance. ADS–B also contributes to 

more direct aircraft routing and optimized departures and approaches, which increase capacity and save time and fuel. Finally, 

ADS–B infrastructure relies on simple ground and airborne radio 

equipment that is significantly cheaper to install and maintain 

than the mechanical infrastructure associated with traditional 

radar ground stations. 

The committee is concerned that many of the characteristics that 

give ADS–B operations its significant advantages also expose potential vulnerabilities for exploitation by entities or individuals 

with nefarious intent. An inexpensive software-defined radio, a 

laptop computer, and a small nondescript antenna are all that are 

needed to monitor and potentially exploit extremely accurate, realtime aircraft position and operations details that are continuously 

broadcast using unencrypted digital encoding. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
288 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to conduct a study, with preliminary observations 

due no later than March 3, 2017 and a final report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives to follow. The assessment by the Comptroller General should 

include: 

(1) Implications for ADS–B operations on detection, identification, cueing, and targeting for air sovereignty and air defense operations against airborne threats; 

(2) Effect of ADS–B operations on integrated tactical warning and attack assessment decision-making processes and authorities; 

(3) Vulnerabilities from cyber attack against ADS–B related 

network operations and potential impacts to military operations; 

(4) Susceptibility of ADS–B to meaconing, intrusion, jamming, and interference and potential impacts to military operations; 

(5) Implications for ADS–B operations on force protection 

and operational security for military airborne assets operating 

en route between and on military installations; 

(6) Options for mitigating potential vulnerabilities; and 

(7) Other information such that the Comptroller General 

considers appropriate to include in the report. 

Comptroller General assessment of priorities and processes 

for operational support airlift and executive airlift by 

Department of Defense aircraft 

The committee is aware senior federal government officials, including the President, Vice President, cabinet members, other highranking executive branch officials, general and flag officers, and 

members of Congress are authorized to fly on military aircraft. 

Moreover, certain officials are required to use military aircraft 

under circumstances where they require security, continuous access 

to secure communications, or have exceptional scheduling demands. 

This high priority movement of senior government officials, known 

as operational support airlift and executive airlift (OSA/EA), is accomplished with a fleet of aircraft assigned to the Air Force’s 89th 

Airlift Wing, located at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Additionally, certain other high ranking government officials assigned 

throughout the United States and around the world also rely on 

military airlift using aircraft based in many locations and operated 

by other services and agencies of the Department of Defense. 

The committee recognizes the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) has previously reported the number of OSA/EA missions increased steadily from fiscal years 2008 through 2012, with a concomitant increase in costs. The authorization to use government 

aircraft on OSA/EA missions is governed by guidance that includes 

a priority order based on civilian seniority and military rank. The 

committee desires to ensure the guidance and priority order are implemented effectively and fairly. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the 

United States to review the implementation of relevant government 

guidance specifying the prioritization, scheduling, and execution of 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
289 

OSA/EA missions, or other uses of military aircraft for passenger 

travel. Preliminary observations will be provided no later than 

March 3, 2017 to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and of the House of Representatives, with a final report to follow. 

The assessment by the Comptroller General should include: 

(1) The guidance governing the use of military aircraft for 

OSA/EA missions or other uses of military aircraft for passenger travel; 

(2) How the priority order for use of military aircraft for passenger travel is developed and distributed; 

(3) The number of requests, fulfillments, and denials for use 

of military aircraft for OSA/EA support occurred from fiscal 

years 2014 through 2016, and the reasons for any denials or 

nonfulfillments; 

(4) How effectively the Department of Defense (DoD) implemented the relevant guidance and used management controls 

to ensure OSA/EA missions are properly approved, scheduled, 

and executed, including the basis for any waivers or deviations 

from the guidance; and 

(5) Other information such that the Comptroller General 

considers appropriate to include in the report. 

Domain awareness in the Arctic 

The committee notes that on May 15, 2015, the Secretary of Defense stated that ‘‘the Arctic is going to be a major area of importance to the United States, both strategically and economically in 

the future.’’ The committee further notes that there has been an increase in commercial and military activity in the Arctic region by 

other nations, including China and Russia. As activity in the Arctic 

has increased, the committee is concerned that Department of Defense capabilities that support communications and domain awareness in the region, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets, remain limited. The committee encourages 

the Department, in coordination with the U.S. interagency and foreign partners, to explore multi-domain, multi-service, cost effective 

ISR capabilities and interoperability in order to respond effectively 

to future contingencies and to fulfill the Department’s strategic objectives in this important region. 

Night vision technology for the southern border 

The Committee notes that, while authorities currently exist to 

allow the transfer of certain excess equipment, such as night vision 

technology, from the Department of Defense to other federal agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection continues to lack critical 

night vision technology on the southern border. Therefore, the 

Committee urges the Secretary of Defense to accelerate the transfer of any excess inventory of modernized and serviceable night optical devices and thermal viewers, to the extent practicable, to U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection for the purposes of enhancing border security. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
290 

Predictable Funding for the 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 battle 

the supply and demand for illicit drugs. Reductions in funding and 

the timing of funding continues to be a limiting factor for the 

NGCP. Such factors impede the effective sustainment of relationships with supported agencies and impacts the retention of highlytrained individuals. 

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to work with the National Guard to develop a process to ensure more consistent and predictable funding to mitigate gaps or 

delays. The committee expects that this effort should result in increased predictability of funding, improve long-term planning, stabilize analytic support to law enforcement agencies, increase flexibility to respond to emerging drug-related threats, reduce repetitive 

initial training and ramp up of personnel, and the ability to continue mission support without interruption. 

Study on Article III trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees 

The committee notes that certain charges, including conspiracy 

and material support to terrorism, may not be available as charges 

before Military Commissions. The committee is interested in understanding the range of options available for individuals held at 

Guantanamo that the United States believes are guilty of such offenses. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 

in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General of the United States, to study options for bringing such 

charges against individuals held at Guantanamo in Article III 

courts. The study shall review the feasibility of trying such individuals remotely via teleconference and locating an Article III court 

near the detention facility on Guantanamo Naval Base, Cuba. The 

feasibility study should detail the practical, security, and constitutional limitations of such options. 

Total Army end strength 

The Committee remains concerned about the appropriate size of 

the Army, to include both the Active and Reserve Component, and 

its readiness posture. As a result of the Budget Control Act, the 

Army has drawn down its end strength with a goal of 450,000 soldiers by the end of Fiscal Year 2018. 

General Mark Milley, the Chief of Staff of the Army, stated at 

the Army Posture hearing that the budget caps have resulted in a 

significant reduction in funding for modernization and research 

and development. He also emphasized that readiness is the top priority for the Army. In light of the threats confronting our nation, 

to include Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and ISIS, the Army 

has accepted high military risk to meet the requirements of the 

National Security Strategy and the Defense Planning Guidance. 

But as General Milley also stated before this committee, we will 

‘‘make the most efficient and effective use of the Army that we 

have.’’ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
291 

The Committee supports the Army’s efforts to increase readiness 

levels throughout the force, and recognizes the need to reassess the 

Army ’s size in conjunction with available funding sources and the 

threats facing our country. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(293) 

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Matters Generally 

Civilian personnel management (sec. 1101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify Section 129 of title 10, United States Code to remove restrictions on 

managing civilian personnel within the Department of Defense on 

the basis of man years, end strength, full-time equivalent positions, 

or maximum number of employees. The provision would add a new 

section requiring a report no later than February 1 of each year 

from the Secretary of Defense to the congressional defense committees on the management of the civilian workforce of the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense and the Defense Agencies and Field Activities. The Secretary of each military department would also be 

required to submit a report on the management of the civilian 

workforce under the jurisdiction of each Secretary which provides 

for the projected size of the civilian workforce in the current year 

and for each year in the future-years defense program to include 

a justification of any projected increases. 

Repeal of requirement for annual strategic workforce plan 

for the Department of Defense (sec. 1102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the reporting requirement for the Department of Defense to submit a biennial strategic workforce plan, as contained in section 115b of title 

10, United States Code. 

Temporary and term appointments in the competitive service in the Department of Defense (sec. 1103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify statutory provisions to allow the Department of Defense to develop more 

strategic outreach efforts to recruit the talent needed to address a 

critical hiring need. The Department of Defense would determine 

recruitment sources, including processes for the solicitation of applications, and agencies would continue to be held responsible for 

merit-based hiring decisions, consistent with other employment requirements. 

Personnel authorities related to the defense acquisition 

workforce (sec. 1104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section 

1762 of title 10, United States Code, and create a new section 1763 

of title 10, United States Code to provide a permanent authority 

that would allow the Secretary of Defense to establish and adjust 

a special system of personnel programs for employees in the Department of Defense civilian acquisition workforce and supporting 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
294 

personnel assigned to work directly with that workforce. Specifically, this provision would change the Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project (AcqDemo) from an indefinite project to a permanent system under the sole authority of the 

Secretary. This provision would retain for the new system the current authorities applicable to the demonstration project and provide the ability to expand coverage of acquisition organizations and 

personnel so that all of the acquisition workforce and the supporting personnel assigned to work directly with that workforce 

may participate. 

The AcqDemo was designed to experiment with the necessary 

personnel flexibilities and tools that can function in a dynamic acquisition environment to improve Department of Defense managers’ ability to manage the acquisition workforce and its productivity effectively. Since the AcqDemo implementation in fiscal year 

1999, the classification, contribution assessment, and compensation 

flexibilities have become essential within the acquisition cadre of 

workforce management tools. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would make permanent the system of acquisition personnel programs containing tested and accepted flexibilities needed by the acquisition workforce to better support the 

warfighters under a single organization within the Department of 

Defense. 

Direct hire authority for financial management experts into 

the Department of Defense workforce (sec. 1105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide each 

secretary of a military department with the authority to appoint 

qualified candidates possessing a finance, accounting, management, 

or actuarial science degree to financial management, accounting, 

auditing, and actuarial positions within the Department of Defense 

workforce. This authority is limited to 10 percent of the total number of finance, accounting, management, or actuarial science degree 

to financial management positions within each military department 

that are filled as of the close of the fiscal year last ending before 

the start of such calendar year. This authority expires on January 

1, 2023. 

Direct hire authority for the Department of Defense for 

post-secondary students and recent graduates (sec. 1106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would would establish a Department of Defense (DoD) civilian on-campus recruiting 

authority under title 10 as an alternative to the federal government-wide Pathways program (established by Executive Order 

13562) and other Title 5 hiring authorities. This proposal would facilitate DoD recruiters’ efforts to recruit students directly to civilian positions using a new hiring authority expressly designed for 

this purpose. Hiring managers and recruiters, who already travel 

to specific schools with programs they want to target, would be 

able to involve candidates in a rigorous interview process, and 

make conditional offers on the spot. This would allow DoD to compete for highly qualified students and recent graduates. This authority would be limited to no more than 15 percent of the total 

number of hires made into professional and administrative occupaVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00330 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
295 

tions of the Department at the GS–11 level and below annually and 

would sunset four years after the date on which the Secretary first 

appoints a recent graduate or current post-secondary student to a 

position under this section. 

Public-private talent exchange (sec. 1107) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow Department of Defense employees to work in the private sector and for 

private industry employees to work within the Department of Defense. Exchanges would encourage Department of Defense employees to gain skills that align with functional communities or occupational specialties. As this authority would build on programs like 

the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA), the committee understands that the Department of Defense has established procedures 

for monitoring and controlling salaries and expenses for the IPA 

program, including a limitation on salaries that may be paid or reimbursed for IPAs, and expects that such constraints will be applied to the pilot authorized by this provision. 

Training for employment personnel of Department of Defense on matters relating to authorities for recruitment 

and retention at United States Cyber Command (sec. 

1108) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require training for employment and human resources personnel at the Department of Defense on special recruitment, hiring, special pays, and 

retention authorities for positions at United States Cyber Command. In addition to training, written guidance would also be required to inform such employees of the Department of Defense on 

which authorities are available and how to use those authorities. 

The committee recommends a report to be completed by the Secretary of Defense no later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. The report shall include a description of the 

training that the Secretary intends to provide to each of the employees described and the frequency with which the Secretary intends to provide such training. 

Increase in maximum amount of voluntary separation incentive pay authorized for civilian employees of the Department of Defense (sec. 1109) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

maximum amount of separation pay authorized for Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay (VSIP) from the current ceiling of $25,000 to 

$40,000 for civilian employees of the Department of Defense. This 

increased maximum amount would adjust for inflation from when 

VSIP was first authorized for the Department of Defense in 1993. 

The Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002 (Public Law 107– 

296) provided government-wide authority to provide VSIP. The 

maximum payable amount has not been adjusted since VSIP was 

first authorized. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
296 

Repeal of certain basis for appointment of a retired member 

of the Armed Forces to Department of Defense position 

within 180 days of retirement (sec. 1110) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3326 of title 5, United States Code, to repeal subsection (b)(3) 

which allows the Secretary concerned to waive the restriction on 

the appointment of retired members of the armed forces to positions in the civil service in the Department of Defense within 180 

days of their retirement based on a state of national emergency. 

The committee notes with concern the conclusions of the United 

States Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in its report ‘‘Veteran Hiring in the Civil Service: Practices and Perceptions,’’ concerning the effect of the national emergency waiver since 2001 on 

the application of this so-called ‘‘180-day rule.’’ The purpose of the 

law, enacted over 50 years ago, was to ensure that retired military 

members were not given civil service positions for reasons other 

than merit, a practice that can, over time, lead to unhealthy results 

for the civil service, and more immediately undermine long-standing merit principles that seek to ensure the most-qualified individuals are considered for federal employment. 

The committee appreciates the unique and broad experience military retirees bring to the civil service, but the committee also recognizes the virtues afforded by career civil servants. Most military 

retirees and other veterans already receive hiring preferences in 

recognition of their service. Beyond that, the committee believes 

veterans and retirees should compete on equal footing with other 

qualified applicants. As the report noted, between September 14, 

2001, and the report’s publication in August 2014, 41,630 military 

retirees were hired by the Department within the 180-day window. 

More than one-third of those appointments were made prior to the 

member’s effective retirement date, and more than half occurred 

within a single pay period after retirement. These figures strongly 

imply a significant number of these members were hired directly 

into the offices which they supported while in the military. While 

not improper, per se, it does, as the MSPB report noted, create suspicions. 

Finally, the committee is concerned about the affect this practice 

has on diversity within the Department, not just in terms of diversity as it is traditionally defined, but also on diversity of thought, 

experience, and background within the Department that is desirable in any organization. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives no later than February 1, 2017 

with data concerning the extent military retirees are hired by the 

Department. Such report shall include the following elements: (1) 

the number of military retirees hired by the Department in fiscal 

years 2014 and 2015 prior to or within 180 days of their retirement; (2) the total number of military retirees hired by the Department during fiscal years 2014 and 2015 broken down by whether 

those individuals served as officers or enlisted personnel; (3) the 

number of non-military retiree veterans hired by the Department 

during fiscal years 2014 and 2015 who were beneficiaries of the 

veteran preference; (4) the number and categories of non-veteran 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
297 

preference, preference eligible candidates hired by the Department 

during fiscal years 2014 and 2015; (5) the number of female applicants who did not qualify for preference eligible points hired by the 

Department during fiscal years 2014 and 2015; and (6) the number 

of male applicants who did not qualify for preference eligible points 

hired by the Department during fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Finally, the Secretary shall provide an assessment of how application 

of the veteran’s preference since 2001 in the case of military retirees has impacted diversity within the Department, and the ability 

of the Department and the military services to consistently hire 

best-qualified individuals for federal service. 

Pilot programs on career sabbaticals for Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 1111) 

The committee recommends a provision that would create a pilot 

program on career sabbaticals for Department of Defense civilian 

employees. The pilot program would be limited to 300 full-time civilian employees of each military department who may be selected 

during each of calendar years 2017 through 2022 to participate. 

Sabbaticals would be for 1 year and are intended to provide the Department of Defense an opportunity to respond to the personal, familial, and professional needs of individual members of its civilian 

workforce. 

Limitation on number of SES employees (sec. 1112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the 

number of employees at the Department of Defense who are in the 

Senior Executive Service (SES). The limitation in this provision 

would reduce by 25 percent the number of covered SES employees 

of the Department, which were employed on December 31, 2015. 

The reduction required by this provision would be effective on January 1, 2019. Covered SES employees would not include ‘‘Highly 

Qualified Experts,’’ which the provision limits to 200. The limitation would not apply to those employees of the Department who are 

appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. 

No time limitation for appointment of relocating military 

spouses (sec. 1113) 

The committee recommends a provision that would clearly articulate that there is no time limitation on a relocating spouse’s eligibility for noncompetitive appointment from the date of the service 

member’s permanent change of station orders to the spouses’ permanent appointment per duty station. 

Subtitle B—Department of Defense Science and Technology 

Laboratories and Related Matters 

Permanent personnel management authority for the Department of Defense for experts in science and engineering 

(sec. 1121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Chapter 81 of Title 10, United States Code, to support efforts by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to attract, recruit, and employ world class scientific, technical, and engineering 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
298 

talent to manage and oversee the innovative research and technology development programs of the Agency. The recommended 

provision would make permanent the current experimental personnel authority that the agency has quite successfully employed, 

as well as preserve the Agency’s ability to compete with the private 

sector for technical talent through flexibility in setting compensation levels. The provision would also make permanent similar authority to the Department of Defense research labs, as well as the 

office of Operational Test and Evaluation. 

The committee notes that the agency’s experimental personnel 

authority was originally authorized by Congress in section 1101 of 

the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1999 (PL 105–261). Since then, the Agency has used this authority effectively to bring innovative and talented program managers into public service. This authority has allowed the Agency to 

use more rapid and flexible personnel practices to hire talented individuals into term positions in support of broader national security efforts. 

The committee notes that these ‘‘1101’’ employees and their programs have made breakthrough contributions in areas as wideranging as robotics, unmanned systems, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and the development of advanced prosthetics currently 

being used by military veterans. These managers have overseen 

ground-breaking technological advances and investments in cutting-edge research, technologies, and prototypes that support current and future military capabilities. As an example, the committee 

highlights that technological advances made by the Agency have 

been fielded in operational systems used extensively over the last 

decade in successful operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In total, 

the Agency is now leading efforts to develop critical military capabilities for the future. 

The committee notes that on April 12, 2016, the subcommittee on 

Emerging Threats and Capabilities received testimony on the 

Agency’s current efforts to support the Secretary’s Third Offset 

Strategy, which is designed to maintain the military’s technological 

superiority over peer adversaries through work in areas such as 

hypersonics, space systems, and robotics. During that testimony, 

the Agency’s director highlighted the value of the Agency’s personnel system, stating ‘‘Of course, at the center of DARPA’s success 

is an abiding commitment to identify, recruit and support excellent 

program managers who are extraordinary individuals who are at 

the top of their fields and who are hungry for the opportunity to 

push the limits of their disciplines during their limited terms at 

DARPA. The 1101 experiment has now been running since 1999 

and has clearly proven its benefits to DARPA and the nation. After 

16 years of annual uncertainty about its ongoing availability, we 

would appreciate your support to make this authority permanent.’’ 

Permanent extension and modification of temporary authorities for certain positions at Department of Defense 

research and engineering laboratories (sec. 1122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Section 1107 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2014 (Public Law 113–66). 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
299 

The committee notes that each year the science and technology 

reinvention laboratories of the Department of Defense hire hundreds of students with the expectation and hope that the laboratories can then successfully recruit the next generation of the best 

and brightest scientists and engineers. To expedite this critical 

process, the Congress has provided in previous years a direct hire 

authority for a limited number of students each year. The committee understands, however, that even this limited authority has 

not been sufficient to meet the needs of the laboratories over the 

past several years. Consequently, the committee recommends a 

provision that would increase the limit on the total number of students eligible for direct hire by the laboratories. 

The committee notes with dismay that students that are brought 

onto the federal workforce on a temporary basis are considered laboratory employees only for the time that they are still enrolled in 

school, plus 120 days, at which point, they are effectively let go 

from their positions. The committee understands that oftentimes 

this separation occurs against the wishes of the student and of the 

laboratory director, who has no specific authority to retain that employee. In previous years, Congress has provided the authority for 

the labs to permanently hire some of these students upon graduation by converting them non-competitively to full-time status. The 

committee believes that expanding this direct hire authority to hire 

a greater number of students, and making the authority permanent, would allow directors to more effectively recruit the most talented students. 

Direct hire authority for scientific and engineering positions for test and evaluation facilities of the Major 

Range and Test Facility Base (sec. 1123) 

The committee recommends a provision that would give certain 

hiring authorities to test and evaluation centers. 

In previous years, the committee has given the directors of the 

science and technology laboratories of the Department of Defense 

broad authority to shape their own workforce, including the ability 

to make direct hires. The committee is pleased to learn that, because of these authorities, lab directors report that they are now 

able to recruit and retain a workforce that is of a significantly 

higher quality. Directors are now able to compete more effectively 

with the private sector for top scientific and engineering talent. 

Recognizing that a talented, high-quality workforce is also vital to 

the mission of the test and evaluation facilities of the Department, 

the committee recommends a provision that would give the directors of these facilities the same direct hire authorities. 

Just as it has done for laboratory scientists and engineers in previous years, the committee recognizes that scientists and engineers 

employed by the Defense test and evaluation facilities are a valuable national resource that ensure that cutting-edge technologies 

meet the needs of and are adequately tested for those that engage 

in our nation’s frontline conflicts. These needs are continually 

evolving and as a result, the test and evaluation facilities across 

the enterprise are constantly called upon to prepare technologies 

and systems for deployment. In this regard, giving the directors for 

these facilities the authority to more freely shape their own 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
300 

workforces is in direct support of the national security needs of the 

nation. 

Permanent authority for the temporary exchange of information technology personnel (sec. 1124) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Section 1110 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 (Public Law 111–84). 

The committee notes that since it was established by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 

111–84), the Information Technology Exchange Program has been 

used by the Defense Department to temporarily bring on board private-sector experts in information technology and its management. 

The committee believes that this program has been helpful in modernizing the Defense Department’s information technology capabilities and also in providing the Department with access to best practices and technologies. The committee also notes that this exchange 

program is still considered a pilot program, but that Congress has 

extended the authorization each time it has been required. Consequently, the committee recommends a provision that would make 

the Information Technology Exchange Program permanent. 

Pilot program on enhanced pay authority for certain research and technology positions in the science and technology reinvention laboratories of the Department of 

Defense (sec. 1125) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish an 

enhanced compensation pilot program. 

The committee notes that the workforce authorities Congress has 

provided to the Department of Defense science and technology laboratories in previous years have already proven to be quite beneficial in terms of recruiting and retaining a strong and talented 

science and engineering workforce that is ready to tackle the challenges of modern warfare. However, the committee is also aware 

that the laboratories continue to have difficult recruiting scientists 

at the very top of their fields, those that are bona fide global experts in their professions who command top salaries from their employers. The committee notes that thus far, laboratories have been 

powerless to compete for these individuals against the private sector. To help address this issue, the committee recommends a provision that would give service laboratories the authority to offer compensation above the maximum amount normally allowed by the executive schedule. 

This provision would set strict limits on the types of positions 

that are eligible for enhanced pay authority, restricting them to positions that require expertise of an extremely high level and that 

are critical to the successful completion of an important laboratory 

mission. In addition, the authority could only be exercised with the 

approval of the relevant service acquisition executive, or higher depending on the level of authority exercised. As the provision would 

establish a pilot program for enhanced compensation, the authority 

would be limited to five positions in each service and only for term 

positions of less than 5 years. The committee believes that these 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
301 

limitations will allow for an assessment on the effectiveness of this 

authority over the first several years. 

The committee notes that highly-skilled subject matter experts 

are often in high demand in their fields, not only in the private sector but in non-profit research organizations and private labs, as 

well as in the government. The committee believes that allowing 

the defense laboratories to compete on a more level playing field 

will help to enhance the quality of the technical workforce in the 

defense research enterprise and ultimately be of benefit for our national security interests. 

Discharge of certain authorities to conduct personnel demonstration projects (sec. 1126) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Section 342(b)(3) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1995 (Public Law 103–37). 

The Department of Defense laboratory demonstration program 

was established by section 342 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103–337), and all decision-making authority regarding this program was granted to the 

Secretary of Defense by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398). These 

provisions granted the Secretary the ability to make waivers for 

the demonstration program based on enhanced laboratory performance. Since then, despite numerous recommendations and internal 

disagreement, the Secretary opted to give exclusive jurisdiction 

over the program’s waiver authorities to the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness. To remedy this situation, the 

committee recommends a provision that would ensure that the authorities granted to the Secretary to conduct laboratory demonstration programs are discharged through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The provision also 

indicates that in the exercise of such authorities, an emphasis shall 

be placed on enhancing efficient operations of the laboratory. 

The committee notes with dismay that over the past several 

years, the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness has often declined proposals from the laboratories 

for demonstration programs. The committee believes that these denials have occurred because the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness lacks the technical expertise 

that would be necessary to fairly evaluate demonstration program 

proposals. In response to this situation, the Congress has continued 

to pass statutes broadening these authorities, including statutes requiring the Secretary to fully implement laboratory authorities and 

granting laboratories broad authorities to shape their own 

workforces. 

The committee believes that transferring the decision-making authority to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics would re-focus the implementation of the 

demonstration program statutes on initiatives designed to enhance 

laboratory performance. The committee also believes that the Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics organization is most suited to 

provide legal interpretation on demonstration program proposals. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
302 

Subtitle C—Government-Wide Matters 

Expansion of personnel flexibilities relating to land management agencies to include all agencies (sec. 1131) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 96 of title 5, United States Code, to expand the personnel flexibilities available to land management agencies to include all agencies government-wide, to include the Department of Defense. 

Direct hiring for Federal wage schedule employees (sec. 

1132) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to permit certain 

agencies to use the direct-hire authority of permanent and non-permanent positions in the competitive service for prevailing rate employees when there is a severe shortage of candidates or a critical 

hiring need for such positions. 

Appointment authority for uniquely qualified prevailing 

rate employees (sec. 1133) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the 

head of an agency to appoint an individual to a prevailing rate position at such a rate of basic pay above the minimum rate of the 

appropriate grade in cases where there is an unusually large shortage of qualified candidates for employment, unique qualifications of 

a candidate of employment, or a special need of the Government for 

the services of a candidate for employment. 

Limitation on preference eligible hiring preferences for permanent employees in the competitive service (sec. 1134) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the application of points for preference eligible hiring to the first appointment of a preference eligible candidate in a permanent position in 

the competitive service. 

Authority for advancement of pay for certain employees relocating within the United States and its territories (sec. 

1135) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

use of advance payment of basic pay for current employees who relocate within the United States and its territories to a location outside the employee’s current commuting area. Advance payment of 

basic pay under this provision would be limited in amount to not 

more than two pay periods. 

Elimination of the foreign exemption provision in regard to 

overtime for federal civilian employees temporarily assigned to a foreign area (sec. 1136) 

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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
303 

One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation 

on premium pay and aggregate limitation on pay for 

federal civilian employees working overseas (sec. 1137) 

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 as amended by section 1108 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114– 

92), to extend through 2017 the authority of heads of executive 

agencies to waive limitation on the aggregate of basic and premium 

pay of employees who perform work in an overseas location that is 

in the area of responsibility of the commander, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), or a location that was formerly in CENTCOM 

but has been moved to an area of responsibility for the Commander, U.S. Africa Command, in support of a military operation 

or an operation in response to a declared emergency. 

Subtitle D—Other Matters 

Modification of flat rate per diem requirement for personnel 

on long-term temporary duty assignments (sec. 1151) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to take such action as may be necessary to 

provide that, to the extent that regulations implementing travel 

and transportation authorities for military and civilian personnel of 

the Department of Defense impose a flat rate per diem for meals 

and incidental expenses for authorized travelers on long term temporary duty (TDY) assignments that is at a reduced rate compared 

to the per diem rate otherwise applicable, the Service Secretary 

concerned may waive the applicability of such reduced rate and pay 

such travelers actual expenses up to the full per diem rate for such 

travel in any case when the Secretary concerned determines that 

the reduced flat rate per diem for meals and incidental expenses 

is not sufficient under the circumstances of the TDY assignment. 

The provision would allow a Service Secretary to delegate this authority to any commander or head of an agency, component, or systems command of the Department of Defense at the level of lieutenant general or vice admiral, or above, or civilian equivalent 

thereof and would permit an agency, component, or systems command to which the authority has been delegated to waive any requirement for the submittal of receipts to receive the full per diem 

rate in instances in which such commander, or head of an agency, 

component, or systems command personally certifies that such requirement will negatively affect mission performance, create an 

undue administrative burden, or result in significant additional administrative processing costs. 

In the report accompanying the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–49), the committee stated 

that it wanted to ensure that the TDY ‘‘policy does not discourage 

some DOD personnel—including civilian workers at shipyards and 

depots—from volunteering for important TDY assignments’’ and directed the department to ‘‘monitor closely the effect of this new policy to avoid unintended disincentives and ensure that those who 

volunteer for mission essential travel are fully supported and enVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00339 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
304 

couraged.’’ Congress, in section 623 of that Act, directed a review 

of the impact this policy has on affected employees, particularly 

those at public shipyards. 

The committee notes that civilian public shipyard workers play 

a critical role in maintaining naval ships and submarines, ensuring 

combatant commanders have the safe and combat ready naval vessels they require. The committee also notes that the Naval Sea 

Systems Command (NAVSEA) has expressed concerns that the 

long-term temporary duty (TDY) per diem policy of the Department 

is having a negative impact on ship and submarine maintenance 

and the civilian employees of naval shipyards traveling for direct 

labor in support of off-yard work. 

In a January 19, 2016 letter, the Commander of NAVSEA wrote 

that the new policy ‘‘has already had a negative impact on the 

Naval Shipyards’ ability to effectively and efficiently conduct Navy 

ship maintenance.’’ The commander also wrote that the policy ‘‘is 

jeopardizing the successful execution of off station availabilities 

and costing the Navy more than the intended savings’’, and that 

‘‘civilian employee desire to voluntarily travel has significantly declined.’’ The commander requested that these shipyard workers be 

‘‘exempt from Long Term Flat Rate Per Diem.’’ On April 5, 2016, 

the Commander, NAVSEA reiterated his concerns in his testimony 

before the Senate Armed Services Readiness and Management 

Support Subcommittee. On March 15, 2016, the Vice Chief of Naval 

Operations also expressed concern in her testimony before the committee about the long-term TDY policy and its impact on public 

shipyard workers. 

It is the committee’s understanding and expectation that the 

Navy would delegate the authority to NAVSEA to waive the reduced TDY rate and waive any requirement for the submittal of receipts at a minimum for cases related to naval shipyard civilian 

employees traveling on TDY in support of off-yard work. The committee also understands and expects that, consistent with Commander, NAVSEA’s letter and Navy testimony, NAVSEA would 

utilize this authority to ensure that naval shipyard employees traveling on long term TDY in support of off-yard work would not be 

subject to the reduced TDY rate and would not be required to submit receipts in order to receive the full per diem rate if so certified 

by such commander in accordance with the provision. 

One-year extension of temporary authority to grant allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel on 

official duty in a combat zone (sec. 1152) 

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 

Furlough of Department of Defense civilian employees 

The committee notes that in the rare case of an administrative 

furlough, the Department of Defense should consider mission first 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
305 

in making furlough decisions, with great consideration given to 

unit readiness. 

Performance metrics relative to procedures for reduction in 

force of Department of Defense civilian personnel 

Section 1101 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) requires the Secretary of Defense 

to establish procedures to provide that performance be the primary 

factor in determining which employees be separated under a reduction in force of civilian positions of the Department of Defense. 

Subsequent to the enactment of this requirement, the Department 

implemented the New Beginnings performance management system, which includes two performance metrics, a summary rating 

and the rating of record. The Committee believes that the Department, in implementing the requirements of section 1101, should 

use the performance metric that best differentiates the performance of civilian employees for these purposes. The Committee directs the Secretary to provide the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and the House of Representatives a report detailing 

its implementation plan for section 1101 by no later than September 1, 2016. 

Report on automatic step increases for Department of Defense civilians 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, to submit 

a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and 

the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 2017, on the 

feasibility of using a minimum of satisfactory performance as the 

metric required for step increases for Department of Defense civilians rather than the current time-in-grade system. The report 

should include an analysis of how such a change could enhance the 

ability of civilian personnel managers to manage those employees 

whose performance is below satisfactory and improve their performance. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(307) 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN 

NATIONS 

Subtitle A—Assistance and Training 

Three-Year Extension of Commanders’ Emergency Response 

Program (sec. 1201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through fiscal year 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. The provision would also expand the authorization 

to make certain payments to redress injury and loss in Iraq in accordance with section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) to Afghanistan and 

Syria. 

Increase in size of the Special Defense Acquisition Fund 

(sec. 1202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

amounts available for the Special Defense Acquisition Fund. The 

provision would also require the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to submit a plan for the use of 

such increased amounts as well as an annual spending plan and 

quarterly updates on certain transactions associated with the fund. 

Codification of authority for support of special operations 

to combat terrorism (sec. 1203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a 

new section 127e in title 10, United States Code, to codify section 

1208 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), as most recently 

amended by section 1274 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). The provision would increase the annual cap on the authority from $85.0 million to $100.0 

million and would limit the amount available to support any particular military operation under the authority to $10.0 million in 

a fiscal year as well as modify notification requirements. 

Prohibition on use of funds to invite, assist, or otherwise assure the participation of Cuba in certain joint or multilateral exercises (sec. 1204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

Secretary of Defense from using any funds to invite, assist, or otherwise assure the participation of the Government of Cuba in any 

joint or multilateral exercise or related security conference between 

the United States and Cuba until the Secretary, in coordination 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
308 

with the Director of National Intelligence, submits to Congress certain assurances. The provision would provide an exception to the 

prohibition for any joint or multilateral exercise or operation related to humanitarian assistance or disaster response. 

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan 

Extension and modification of authority to transfer defense 

articles and provide defense services to the military and 

security forces of Afghanistan (sec. 1211) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through December 31, 2017, the authority under section 1222 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239) to transfer defense articles being drawn down in 

Afghanistan, and to provide defense services in connection with 

such transfers, to the military and security forces of Afghanistan. 

The provision would also extend through fiscal year 2017 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). The provision would also convert certain quarterly reports 

into an annual report. 

Modification of authority for reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support (sec. 1212) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify and 

extend for 1 year section 1233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as most recently amended by section 1212 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). 

Prohibition on use of funds for certain programs and 

projects of the Department of Defense in Afghanistan 

that cannot be safely accessed by United States Government Personnel (sec. 1213) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

obligation or expenditure of amounts available to the Department 

of Defense for a construction or other infrastructure project in Afghanistan that is initiated on or after the date of the enactment of 

this Act if military or civilian personnel of the United States Government or their representatives with authority to conduct oversight cannot safely access it. The provision also provides for certain 

waivers. 

Reimbursement of Pakistan for security enhancement activities (sec. 1214) 

The committee notes that Pakistan has been a long-standing 

strategic partner of the United States and believes that the bilateral relationship between the United States and Pakistan will continue to be strong and enduring. The committee also recognizes 

that since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Pakistan 

has been a vital partner in U.S. efforts to combat terrorism in 

South Asia. The committee believes that stability in the region canVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00344 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
309 

not 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 recognizes that some have criticized security assistance for Pakistan in recent years. However, the committee believes that security and stability within the borders of Pakistan is 

vital to the stability of the region and to transregional efforts to 

combat terrorism more broadly. In this context, the committee 

notes with concern that terrorist attacks continue to plague Pakistan and strongly supports efforts by the Government of Pakistan 

to take steps to degrade and defeat terrorist networks and activities within its own borders. For these reasons, the committee believes that security assistance for Pakistan should continue. 

To ensure sustainability and viability over the long-term, the 

committee also believes that security assistance for Pakistan 

should transition to a bilateral program focused on the stability 

and security of Pakistan, rather than the more narrow previous 

focus of Coalition Support Funds, which were based on the country’s support for coalition operations in Afghanistan. The committee notes that the coalition presence and mission in Afghanistan 

continue to evolve, leading to the criticism referenced above. The 

committee is concerned that, if left unchanged, continued reliance 

on Coalition Support Funds for the provision of security assistance 

to Pakistan could negatively impact U.S. support of Pakistani operations to combat terrorism. 

In recognition of the critical importance of the bilateral U.S.- 

Pakistan relationship and the need for enhanced security and stability in Pakistan, the committee recommends a provision that 

would provide the Secretary of Defense the authority to reimburse 

Pakistan up to $800.0 million in fiscal year 2017 for certain activities that enhance the security situation in the northwest regions of 

Pakistan and along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The provision 

would also make $300.0 million of this amount contingent upon a 

certification from the Secretary of Defense that Pakistan is taking 

demonstrable steps against the Haqqani Network in Pakistan. 

Improvement of oversight of United States Government efforts in Afghanistan. (sec. 1215) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Lead Inspector General for Operation Freedom’s Sentinel, in coordination with certain other inspectors general, to submit a report 

on oversight activities in Afghanistan to optimize the utilization of 

oversight resources through planning, coordination, and reduction 

of redundancies in oversight activities. 

Inspectors general play a crucial role in helping to ensure appropriate oversight and enhancing the efficiency of federal programs. 

Oversight is especially critical to help ensure appropriate use of 

federal resources in challenging environments, including Afghanistan. At the same time, the inspectors general operating in Afghanistan need to work together to ensure oversight occurs, but at minimal burden to U.S. force operations there. The committee is concerned that such coordination may not be occurring as effectively 

as possible. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
310 

In addition to the provision above, the committee directs the 

Comptroller General of the United States to review the authorities 

and activities of the statutory offices of inspectors general at the 

Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Agency for 

International Development, and the Special Inspector General for 

Afghanistan Reconstruction regarding their oversight of the expenditure of U.S. funds in Afghanistan since January 1, 2015. This 

review shall include, at a minimum, the following: 

(1) A general description of the oversight activities and primary areas of focus of each inspector general; 

(2) An analysis of the enabling legislation and directive guidance that outlines the oversight mandate of each inspector general; 

(3) An identification of any overlap or gaps in oversight 

among the mandates of each inspector general, as prescribed 

by their enabling legislation or other directive guidance; and 

(4) Any other matters deemed relevant by the Comptroller 

General. 

Subtitle C—Matters Relating to Iraq and Syria 

Extension and modification of authority to provide assistance to the vetted Syrian Opposition (sec. 1221) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend and 

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) to assist the 

vetted elements of the Syrian opposition for certain purposes to December 31, 2019, as well as strike the prior approval reprogramming requirement and replace it with a notification requirement 

before carrying out new initiatives. 

Extension of authority to provide assistance to counter the 

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (sec. 1222) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 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 military and other 

security forces of or associated with the Government of Iraq, including Kurdish and tribal security forces, with a national mission, 

to counter the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)to December 31, 2019. The provision would also extend the requirement 

for an assessment and authority to assist directly certain covered 

groups as authorized under section 1223 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). 

Extension of authority to support operations and activities 

of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1223) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through fiscal year 2017 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 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
311 

$60.0 million in fiscal year 2017 to support OSC–I operations and 

activities. 

Subtitle D—Matters Relating to Iran 

Additional elements in the annual report on the military 

power of Iran (sec. 1226) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add certain 

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). 

Subtitle E—Matters Relating to the Russian Federation 

Extension and enhancement of Ukraine Security Assistance 

Initiative (sec. 1231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through fiscal year 2019 the authority under section 1250 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 

Law 114–92) for the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the 

Secretary of State, to provide security assistance and intelligence 

support to military and other security forces of the Government of 

Ukraine. The provision would authorize the use of up to $500.0 

million in fiscal year 2017 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 2017 

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 and outlines 

areas where further work may remain. The committee is concerned 

that progress in the area of defense institutional reform has been 

slow and uneven and notes that such reforms are critical to sustaining capabilities developed using security assistance provided 

under this and other authorities. 

The committee notes that the authority granted in this provision 

would not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on 

the ground in Ukraine for the purpose of conducting combat operations. 

The committee 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 lethal military assistance, to the Government of 

Ukraine to build its capacity to defend its territory and sovereignty 

and to support the integrity of the ceasefire agreement. 

The committee notes the successful completion of training for the 

initial tranches of Ukrainian security forces using the authority 

under section 1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81), as amended, for the Global 

Security Contingency Fund and supports the expansion of this program to additional units of the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior and 

Ministry of Defense. The provision would also add certain addiVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00347 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
312 

tional activities to the list of appropriate security assistance and intelligence support. 

As the Department of Defense continues the provision of support 

to the Ukrainian people under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, the committee notes the importance of a comprehensive approach, including consideration by the Secretary of Defense of the 

feasibility and advisability of utilizing U.S. private sector entities 

to augment government efforts to develop the capability and capacity of the Government of Ukraine and its security forces. 

Extension and modification of authority on training for 

Eastern European national military forces in the course 

of multilateral exercises (sec. 1232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through fiscal year 2018 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 add the 

authority to utilize under this section amounts authorized to be appropriated for certain purposes under the European Reassurance 

Initiative. 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. 

Additional matters in annual report on military and security developments involving the Russian Federation 

(sec. 1233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add additional elements 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). The additional elements include an assessment of Russian operations in Ukraine and 

an analysis of the nuclear strategy and associated doctrine of Russia. 

European investment in security and stability (sec. 1234) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 

allies and European partners are indispensable to addressing global security challenges and that their investment in developing and 

employing robust security capabilities in Europe should meet or exceed U.S. efforts in this regard. The provision also requires an accounting of current and planned security investments by NATO allies and European partners. 

The committee recognizes the 2016 NATO Summit being held in 

Warsaw, Poland as a meeting of important consequence and an inVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00348 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
313 

flection point for the future of the NATO Alliance. The committee 

notes the recent NATO proposal of four battalions, totaling 4000 

troops, to be deployed in Eastern Europe, as well as the subsequent 

announcement by the Russian government that it will deploy three 

divisions of troops along its western border. 

In light of this continued military buildup in Eastern Europe and 

Western Russia, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary 

of Defense to prioritize the enhancement of NATO forward presence capabilities among NATO allies and European partners both 

at the Warsaw Summit and in any future interactions with NATO 

allies and partners. This should include the identification of specific areas of defense investment and modernization that will assist 

NATO allies to rapidly develop the forward presence capabilities to 

deter threats to Eastern Europe and enhance long-term stability in 

that region. 

The committee expects that progress on enhancing the forward 

presence capabilities of NATO allies be included in subsequent reports, testimonies, and briefings from the Department of Defense 

to the committee on the European Deterrence Initiative and any 

other programs or policies pertaining to European security. 

Sense of Senate on the European Deterrence Initiative (sec. 

1235) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that the European Deterrence Initiative will 

bolster efforts to deter further Russian aggression by providing resources to train and equip military forces of North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO) and non-NATO partners, enhance the capability to defend territorial integrity and preserve regional stability, 

and improve the agility and flexibility of military forces to address 

threats across the full spectrum of warfighting requirements and 

diverse geographic locations. The provision would also express the 

sense of the Senate that such efforts as the European Deterrence 

Initiative should be in the base budget of the Department of Defense to address long-term stability on the European continent, reassure our European allies and partners, and deter further Russian 

aggression. 

Subtitle F—Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region 

Annual update on Department of Defense Freedom of Navigation Report (sec. 1241) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit an annual report to the Committees 

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 

setting forth an update on the most current Freedom of Navigation 

Report. The report will document the types and locations of excessive claims that the United States armed forces have challenged in 

the previous calendar year, the geographic location of the claim, 

and the specific legal challenge asserted under the Freedom of 

Navigation program. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
314 

Inclusion of the Philippines among allied countries with 

whom United States may enter into cooperative military 

airlift agreements (sec. 1242) 

The committee recommends a provision that would include the 

Republic of the Philippines in the term ‘‘allied country’’ in section 

2350(c) of title 10, United States Code, which authorizes the Department of Defense to enter into cooperative military airlift agreements. 

Military exchanges between the United States and Taiwan 

(sec. 1243) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out a program of exchanges of senior 

military officers and senior officials between the United States and 

the Government of Taiwan designed to improve military-to-military 

relations. These exchanges will be conducted in both the United 

States and Taiwan and will focus on threat analysis, military doctrine, force-planning, logistical support, intelligence collection and 

analysis, operational tactics, techniques, and procedures, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. 

The provision also recommended a sense of the Senate that the 

Department of Defense should extend an invitation to Taiwan to 

participate in advanced aerial combat training exercises. The committee believes that the military forces of Taiwan, in accordance 

with the Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96–8), should be permitted to participate in bilateral training activities hosted by the 

United States that increase the credible deterrent capabilities of 

Taiwan. Specifically, the committee believes the Government of 

Taiwan would benefit if the Taiwan military were invited to attend 

advanced aerial combat training exercises alongside the United 

States Air Force upon the completion of the upgrades to their 45 

F–16A/B fighter aircraft. 

The committee believes that Taiwan must strive to invest at 

least 3 percent of its annual gross domestic product on defense. The 

committee is concerned that, absent a change in defense spending, 

Taiwan’s military will continue to be under-resourced and unable 

to make the investments necessary to maintain a credible deterrent 

across the Taiwan Strait. 

Sense of Senate on Taiwan (sec. 1244) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express a 

sense of the Senate that the United States should strengthen and 

enhance its long-standing partnership and strategic cooperation 

with Taiwan, with the objective of reinforcing its commitment to 

the Taiwan Relations Act and the ‘‘Six Assurances.’’ To do this, the 

United States should conduct regular transfers of defense articles 

and defense services, support the efforts of Taiwan to integrate innovative and asymmetric capabilities, including undersea warfare 

capabilities optimized for the defense of the Taiwan Strait, assist 

Taiwan in building an effective air defense capability consisting of 

a balance of fighters and mobile air defense systems, and permit 

Taiwan to participate in bilateral training activities hosted by the 

United States that increase the credible deterrent capabilities of 

Taiwan. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
315 

Sense of Senate on enhancement of the military relationship 

between the United States and Vietnam (sec. 1245) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of the Senate that it would further the United States’ national security interests if the prohibition on lethal military equipment to Vietnam were removed. The sales should be monitored to 

ensure that the Government of Vietnam is continuing to make 

progress on human rights and the arms sold are not being used in 

ways that violate the rights and freedoms of civilians in Vietnam. 

The provision also encourages the United States to expand military-to-military relations with Vietnam, including increased participation in bilateral and multilateral naval exercises, more frequent 

naval port visits by the United States to Vietnam, increased International Military Education and Training (IMET) and Expanded– 

IMET (E–IMET) for military officers in Vietnam, the establishment 

of bilateral arrangements to support increased cooperation on humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and joint personnel accounting cooperative activities, and seeking opportunities to promote 

military observation and participation by Vietnam in regional exercises such as the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise, the COBRA 

GOLD multinational exercises in Thailand, and the BALIKATAN 

exercise of the United States and the Philippines. 

Redesignation of South China Sea Initiative (sec. 1246) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1261 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92) to redesignate the South China Sea Initiative as the Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative. 

The committee strongly supports the Southeast Asia Maritime 

Security Initiative. The committee encourages the Department to 

continue a robust effort to build the maritime capabilities of Southeast Asian countries that are committed to an inclusive maritime 

order where all states have access to the open seas. 

Subtitle G—Reform of Department of Defense Security 

Cooperation 

Sense of Congress on security sector assistance (sec. 1251) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

Sense of the Congress on the security cooperation programs and activities of the Department of Defense, as well as the broader security sector assistance activities of the U.S. government. 

The committee believes the United States’ security sector assistance (SSA) programs and activities must be executed as a shared 

responsibility across all of the United States Government departments and agencies operating with a shared commitment to agility 

and effectiveness. The committee recognizes that the Department 

of State is the lead agency responsible for the policy, supervision, 

and general management of the United States’ SSA programs and 

activities. The committee also believes that the Department of Defense (DOD) plays a critical role in SSA, particularly as it relates 

to its responsibility to ensure United States’ SSA programs and activities are synchronized with the nation’s defense strategy and policy, and in the areas of strategic planning, assessment, program deVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00351 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
316 

sign, implementation, and support to the interagency by providing 

critical enabling capabilities. The committee also believes it is critical that DOD utilize its SSA programs and activities to address 

gaps in contingency plans. 

Enactment of new chapter for defense security cooperation 

(sec. 1252) 

The committee recommends a provision that would create a new 

chapter in title 10, United States Code on security cooperation, and 

would transfer, modify, and codify security cooperation related provisions from elsewhere in title 10 and public law to this new chapter. Of note, the committee recommends a provision that would repeal numerous existing so-called ‘‘train and equip’’ authorities and 

would replace the repealed authorities with one provision that incorporates all of the Department’s existing ‘‘train and equip’’ authorized activities, including those relating to: (1) counterterrorism; 

(2) counter-weapons of mass destruction; (3) counter-illicit drug 

trafficking; (4) counter-transnational organized crime (5) maritime 

and border security; (6) military intelligence operations in support 

of lawful military operations; (7) humanitarian and disaster assistance; (8) support to stability operations; and (9) national territorial 

defense. All of the activities under the committee’s recommended 

proposal would continue to require: (1) the concurrence of the Secretary of State; (2) observance of and respect for the law of armed 

conflict; and (3) respect for civilian control of the military. 

The committee notes that over the last 15 years, the Department’s engagement with national security forces of friendly foreign 

countries has expanded substantially in response to changing strategic requirements. Correspondingly, the number and complexity of 

authorities and associated funding provided to the Department to 

conduct security cooperation programs has expanded significantly. 

A recent report by the RAND Corporation entitled ‘‘From Patchwork to Framework,’’ stated: ‘‘The large set of authorities for security cooperation has become known as a ‘‘patchwork’’ because of the 

need to patch together multiple authorities and associated yet 

unsynchronized processes, resources, programs, and organizations 

to execute individual initiatives with partner nations.’’ This is the 

result of security cooperation authorities being dispersed widely 

throughout title 10 and public law. This architecture has led to a 

confusing and unwieldy security cooperation enterprise that undermines the ability of the Department—particularly its senior civilian 

and military leaders—to effectively prioritize, plan, execute, allocate, and oversee these activities. Critically, it has also resulted in 

near constant change for the security cooperation professionals attempting to implement these security cooperation programs and activities. This undoubtedly has resulted in suboptimal outcomes and 

missed opportunities. 

Further, the committee believes the complex patchwork of authorities and sources of funding hinders appropriate public transparency and complicates robust congressional oversight of a key 

mission for the Department. 

As such, the committee believes that consolidating the various 

security cooperation authorities under a single security cooperation 

chapter will provide greater clarity about the nature of scope of the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
317 

Department’s security cooperation programs and activities to those 

who plan, manage, implement, and conduct oversight of these programs. 

Moreover, consolidation of a single ‘‘train and equip’’ authority 

will ensure that the Department has adequate flexibility to meet 

its evolving strategic objectives, without being forced to bend its 

strategy to meet the contours of available narrowly tailored authorities. Nevertheless, this consolidation is not intended to create 

a Department of Defense mission that competes with security assistance overseen by the State Department. Rather, a consolidated 

‘‘train and equip’’ authority should enable the Department to meet 

its own defense-specific objectives in support of broader defense 

strategy and plans, as well as to better integrate title 10 security 

cooperation activities into the broader United States Government 

approach to security sector assistance. 

The committee recommends a provision that would transfer to 

the new chapter 16 on security cooperation in title 10, United 

States Code, the authority for the Secretary of Defense to administer the Regional Centers for Security Studies. The provision 

would reduce the number of regional centers to 3, and would modify the authority to provide the Secretary with increased flexibility 

in assigning the areas of focus for the centers. 

Military-to-military exchanges (sec. 1253) 

The committee recommends a provision that would combine existing security cooperation authorities permitting the exchange of 

military and defense personnel with allies of the United States and 

other friendly foreign countries. 

Consolidation and revision of authorities for payment of 

personnel expenses necessary for theater security cooperation (sec. 1254) 

The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate 

and modify similar authorities permitting the payment of personnel 

expenses of allied or partner countries during theater security cooperation activities. 

Transfer and revision of authority on payment of expenses 

in connection with training and exercises with friendly 

foreign forces (sec. 1255) 

The committee recommends a provision that would combine and 

modify similar authorities for paying for the expenses of partner 

nations when conducting training for U.S. Armed Forces and for 

the expenses of developing countries when participating in exercises. 

Transfer and revision of authority to provide operational 

support to forces of friendly foreign countries (sec. 1256) 

The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate 

and modify section 127d of title 10, United States Code, and section 

1234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181), as amended, relating to the provision 

of operational support to partners and allies in combined operVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00353 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
318 

ations with U.S. Armed Forces or in military operations that support U.S. national security interests. 

Department of Defense State Partnership Program (sec. 

1257) 

The committee recommends a provision that would codify and 

make permanent the Department of Defense State Partnership 

Program (section 1205 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66), as amended by section 

1203 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92)). 

Modification of regional defense combating terrorism fellowship program (sec. 1258) 

The committee recommends a provision that would transfer to 

the new chapter 16 on security cooperation in title 10, United 

States Code, the regional combating terrorism fellowship program 

(section 2249c of title 10, United States Code) and modify the program to authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry out a program 

under which the Secretary may pay costs associated with the education and training of national-level security officials of friendly 

foreign nations. Such a modification would enable the Department 

to address diverse security challenges beyond the narrow mission 

of counterterrorism. 

Consolidation of authorities for service academy international engagement (sec. 1259) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Chapter 16 of title 10, United States Code, to consolidate international 

engagement authorities for the service academies of the Army, 

Navy, and Air Force. 

The committee notes that under current law, there are nine separate authorities that determine the selection of, funding for, and 

conditions for international students attending the service academies of the Army, Navy, or Air Force. The committee believes consolidating these authorities would provide consistency by creating 

a single, common authority for use by the service academies to select international students and conduct exchange programs with 

foreign military academies. 

Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (sec. 1260) 

The committee recommends a provision that would create a central fund for the security cooperation programs and activities of the 

Department of Defense, known as the Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (SCEF). 

Like many observers, the committee has found it increasing difficult to oversee, monitor, and evaluate the array of military service 

and defense-wide funding sources for the Department’s security cooperation programs and activities. The committee believes that, 

without any changes to this arrangement, the long-term prospects 

of the Department’s security cooperation programs and activities, 

particularly its ‘‘train and equip’’ activities, are not sustainable. 

The committee believes that consolidating funding for the DepartVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00354 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
319 

ment’s security cooperation programs and activities will increase 

public transparency, flexibility, and congressional oversight. 

Further, and of particular importance, the committee also believes that a central fund will allow the Department’s senior civilian and military leaders to make strategic choices with respect to 

the allocation of security cooperation resources against strategic 

priorities. For too long, the Department’s activities in this area 

have been too diffuse and have lacked strategic coordination—both 

regionally and functionally. The committee notes that there are 

currently few nations in which the Department does not actively 

conduct security cooperation; some estimates have suggested that 

the Department is engaged in over 180 countries globally. The committee expects the Department to leverage a newly established central fund to prioritize engagements according to strategic imperatives and clearly identified objectives. 

Further, beginning in fiscal year 2018, the provision would require the Secretary to transfer all unobligated balances from the 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, the Iraq Train and Equip Fund, 

the Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative, and any account 

or fund of the Department of Defense for security cooperation programs and activities into the SCEF. In addition, beginning in fiscal 

year 2019, the provision would require the Secretary to transition 

the execution of all security programs and activities to the authorities contained in chapter 16 of title 10, United States Code. 

Consolidation and standardization of reporting requirements relating to security cooperation authorities (sec. 

1261) 

The committee recommends a provision that would consolidate 

and standardize the Department’s reporting on security cooperation 

authorities and programs in an annual report. 

Critically, the committee notes that it has retained nearly all of 

the notification requirements with respect to the Department’s security cooperation activities. Coupled with the requirement for an 

annual budget submission that appears elsewhere in this Act, this 

approach relieves the Department of an overly burdensome reporting regime while maintaining the transparency and accountability 

required for appropriate oversight and real-time monitoring of the 

Department’s most significant new programs. 

Requirement for submittal of consolidated annual budget 

for security cooperation programs and activities of the 

Department of Defense (sec. 1262) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

budget of the President for each fiscal year after fiscal year 2018, 

as submitted to Congress by the President pursuant to section 1105 

of title 31, United States Code, to include as a separate item the 

amounts requested for the Department of Defense (including those 

funds in the budgets of the military departments) for such fiscal 

year for all security cooperation programs and activities of the Department, including the specific amounts, if any, and the specific 

country or region, to the maximum extent practicable, for such programs and activities for the Security Cooperation Enhancement 

Fund, which is authorized elsewhere in this Act. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
320 

Similar to the committee’s recommended provisions with respect 

to a consolidated ‘‘train and equip’’ authority and transfer fund, the 

committee’s recommended action is intended to enhance the ability 

of the congressional defense committees to conduct rigorous oversight of the Department’s security cooperation programs and activities, as well as better understand how the Department is utilizing 

security cooperation programs and activities to fill gaps in its contingency plans; enable foreign partners against a common threat or 

enemy; and align funding with the department’s strategic objectives. This approach in intended to better enable public transparency. 

Department of Defense security cooperation workforce development (sec. 1263) 

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the 

Secretary of Defense to create a Department of Defense security cooperation workforce program (‘‘Program’’) to oversee the development and management of a professional workforce supporting security cooperation programs of the Department of Defense as well as 

the execution of security assistance programs and activities under 

the Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Control Act by the Department of Defense. 

The committee is concerned that, as the Department has increased its emphasis on security cooperation programs and activities in furtherance of its strategic objectives, the Department has 

not devoted sufficient attention and resources to the development, 

management, and sustainment of the Department’s security cooperation workforce. Building security capabilities of a partner nation through security cooperation requires a specialized set of skills 

and the current system neither develops those skills among its 

workforce nor rationally assigns its workforce to match appropriate 

skills with requirements. The committee believes increased attention and resourcing must be focused on the recruitment, training, 

certification, assignment, and career development of the security 

cooperation workforce in order to ensure the effective planning, 

monitoring, execution, and evaluation of security cooperation programs and activities. 

Coordination between the Department of Defense and Department of State on certain security cooperation and 

security assistance programs and activities (sec. 1264) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State not later than 90 

days after enactment of this Act to establish interim regulations 

and, not later than 270 days after enactment of this Act, final regulations to establish a formal process for the two Departments on all 

matters relating to the policy, planning, and implementation of security cooperation programs and activities as specified in the Act. 

The committee believes it is critical to ensure unity of effort 

across the security sector assistance enterprise with U.S. national 

security and foreign policy objectives. Further, the committee believes joint planning early in the process will ensure efficiency and 

effective balance with regard to our broader interests. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
321 

Repeal of superseded, obsolete, or duplicative statutes relating to security cooperation authorities (sec. 1265) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal superseded, obsolete, or duplicate statutes relating to security cooperation as part of its efforts to streamline and rationalize the authorities of the Department to conduct security cooperation. 

Subtitle H—Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters 

Free trade agreements with Sub-Saharan African countries 

(sec. 1271) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 116 of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 

3723). 

Extension and expansion of authority to support border security operations of certain foreign countries (sec. 1272) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend 

through 2019 and expand the authority under section 1226 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 

Law 114–92; 129 Stat. 1056; 22 U.S.C. 2551 note) to provide assistance to the Governments of Tunisia and Egypt to support efforts 

to enhance security along borders with Libya. 

Modification and clarification of United States-Israel antitunnel cooperation authority (sec. 1273) 

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the 

annual limitation of the authority under section 1279 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (P.L. 114–92) 

for the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 

State, to carry out research, development, test, and evaluation, on 

a joint basis with Israel to establish anti-tunnel defense capabilities to detect, map, and neutralize underground tunnels. The provision would clarify certain requirements associated with the authority. 

The committee continues to support the anti-tunnel cooperation 

program with Israel and notes the potential benefits to support efforts to: restrict the flow of drugs including heroin and fentanyl, 

under our southern border; protect forward deployed troops; and 

secure Israel’s borders. The committee notes that in testimony to 

the committee on March 10, 2016, Admiral Gortney, the Commander of United States Northern Command, highlighted and endorsed the benefits of anti-tunnel cooperation with Israel to the 

United States. 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. 

The committee expects the department to include in the semiannual report required under subsection (d) a list of the technologies being supported and to keep the committee informed regarding the potential and actual applications of such technologies. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
322 

Modification and extension of authorization for non-conventional assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1274) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authority of the Department of Defense to establish, develop, and 

maintain non-conventional assisted recovery (NAR) capabilities for 

three additional years and modify the eligibility of personnel for 

whom such support may be provided. 

The committee directs the Department to ensure that the planning, initiation, sustainment, and utilization of NAR capabilities 

are fully coordinated and de-conflicted with other U.S. departments 

and agencies who may also play a role in the recovery of designated individuals overseas. The committee also notes that nonconventional assisted recovery is a traditional military activity and 

the authority modified and extended by this provision should not 

be construed as an authorization to conduct intelligence activities. 

Assessment of proliferation of certain remotely piloted aircraft systems (sec. 1275) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require an 

independent assessment directed by the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff to report on the impact to United States national 

security interests of the proliferation of remotely piloted aircraft. 

The assessment would include an analysis of the threat posed to 

the United States as a result of the proliferation of such aircraft 

to adversaries as well as the impact of such proliferation on the 

combat capabilities of and interoperability with partners and allies 

of the United States as well as the potential benefits and risks of 

continuing to limit exports of such aircraft. 

The committee notes that the proliferation of remotely piloted 

aircraft has significantly changed the context of the international 

security environment since the origination of the Missile Technology Control Regime that proscribes a ‘‘strong presumption of denial’’ for the export of such aircraft. 

Efforts to end modern slavery (sec. 1276) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to implement policies and procedures to ensure Armed Forces personnel engaged in partnership activities 

with foreign nations receive education and training on human slavery, and to ensure the United States Armed Forces maximize efforts to appropriately assist in combatting trafficking in persons. 

The provision also authorizes grants to support transformational 

programs and projects that seek to achieve a measurable and substantial reduction of the prevalence of modern slavery in target 

populations within partner countries. 

Items of Special Interest 

Asia-Pacific force posture resiliency 

The committee is supportive of the Department of Defense’s effort to realize a U.S. force posture in the Asia-Pacific region that 

is more geographically distributed, operationally resilient, and politically sustainable. The committee believes this sustained effort is 

a necessary response to adjust the legacy posture of U.S. forces in 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
323 

the region to meet the demands of a shifting political and security 

environment. 

The committee also values the strong alliances and partnerships 

the United States maintains in the region that enable and support 

a sustained U.S. forward-presence. The committee acknowledges 

the immense benefits that a forward-deployed military has provided the United States since the end of the Second World War, including the direct contribution to a more stable global economic 

and security environment, the ability to respond quickly to threats 

in different regions, and the ability to respond to humanitarian disasters. 

In particular, the committee supports the U.S.-Australia Force 

Posture Agreement that is establishing a rotational presence of 

United States Marines and Air Force assets in Northern Australia. 

The committee is hopeful the United States and Australia will 

promptly conclude ongoing cost-sharing agreements related to 

these initiatives and move to develop new opportunities for future 

access, including the potential rotation of U.S. Navy vessels. 

The committee was also encouraged by the recent Republic of the 

Philippines Supreme Court decision to approve the 2014 Enhanced 

Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). This agreement will deepen the U.S.-Philippines alliance, expand engagement with the 

Armed Forces of the Philippines, and further enhance our presence 

in Southeast Asia. Further, the committee welcomes the annex of 

five agreed locations in the Philippines where United States forces 

can conduct a variety of activities. 

In Japan and the Republic of Korea, the committee continues to 

support the realignment of U.S. forces, including construction at 

Camp Humphreys, the Futenma Replacement Facility at Camp 

Schwab, and Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni. The committee 

also appreciated the significant financial contributions the Government of Japan and the Republic of Korea are making for the construction of these facilities. 

The committee recognizes the importance of other presence and 

force posture initiatives being implemented or developed with 

Singapore, Malaysia, and Vietnam. 

Finally, the committee finds merit in many of the posture recommendations made in the Center for Strategic and International 

Studies’ (CSIS) report, ‘‘Asia-Pacific Rebalance 2025,’’ that was 

completed as a response to section 1059 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291). In 

particular, the committees believes it is appropriate to further consider the recommendations of deploying additional surface combatants to the theater, moving additional attack submarines to Guam, 

further diversifying operating locations, enhancing theater missile 

defenses to protect critical assets, stockpiling critical munitions and 

investing in munitions-related infrastructure, enhancing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities and cooperation with allies and partners in the region, and addressing the 

challenges associated with conducting logistics operations in a denied environment. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
324 

People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) participation in Rim 

of the Pacific exercise 

The committee is concerned by China’s ongoing reclamation and 

militarization of the South China Sea. Despite President Xi 

Jinping’s assurances in September 2015 that ‘‘China does not intend to pursue militarization’’ of the South China Sea, the committee is aware that China is now constructing runways, radar facilities, hangars, and other infrastructure that will enable the 

sustainment of military capabilities in the Spratly Islands. The 

committee notes the assessment of Director of National Intelligence 

James Clapper that ‘‘China will continue to pursue construction 

and infrastructure development at its expanded outposts in the 

South China Sea. Based on the pace and scope of construction at 

these outposts, China will be able to deploy a range of offensive 

and defensive military capabilities and support increased People’s 

Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) 

presence beginning in 2016.’’ 

The committee notes that the United States invited China to participate in the 2014 Rim of the Pacific exercise (RIMPAC). The 

committee is aware that China sent four surface vessels to join the 

official exercise, in addition to a Dongdiao-class Auxiliary General 

Intelligence (AGI) surveillance ship. The committee recognizes that 

the inclusion of this vessel at an exercise designed to build trust 

and cooperation between global navies undermined the spirit of the 

exercise. The committee acknowledges the Department of Defense’s 

desire to build cooperative relationships through participation in 

bilateral and multilateral maritime exercises and the potential benefits to regional security gained through military engagements. 

However, the committee believes that military engagements such 

as RIMPAC should be routinely evaluated to identify the value of 

each individual exercise to U.S. national interests. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, which 

may include a classified portion, not later than July 1, 2016, regarding the merits of continued Chinese participation in RIMPAC 

2016, the intended scope of PLA participation in RIMPAC 2016, 

and the compliance of PLAN participation in RIMPAC 2016 with 

the 12 operational areas that were prohibited for military-to-military contact between the Department of Defense and PLA consistent with Section 1201(a) of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65). 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(325) 

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 $325.6 million, the amount of the budget request, for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. 

Items of Special Interest 

Long term threat outlook for the Cooperative Threat Reduction program 

The Cooperative Threat Reduction program’s mission is to reduce 

the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) well before it has 

reached a weaponization stage or in certain urgent cases where existing stockpile must be destroyed. Within the last 5 years, the program has been credited with destroying large quantities of mustard 

agent in Libya, the Syrian stockpile of nerve and mustard agent 

and recently placing rapid diagnostic laboratories in Liberia during 

the Ebola outbreak. Key to the program’s success is identifying future threats of emergent areas where weapons of mass destruction 

might be developed or used. Given the rapidly evolving nature of 

WMD threat, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in 

consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to produce 

not later than March 31 2017, a 5-year, 10-year, and long term 

(15–20 years) threat projection for WMD use. While the out years 

of such a projection will have large variables, it typically serves to 

guide the near term of the first 5–10 years which are the planning 

years for this program. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(327) 

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, 

Defense, at 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. 

Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (sec. 1406) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund activities at the levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this 

Act. 

Subtitle B—National Defense Stockpile 

National Defense Stockpile matters (sec. 1411) 

The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the Department of Defense (DOD), that would amend the Strategic and 

Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98c) to provide greater flexibility in the management of the National Defense Stockpile 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
328 

(NDS). Specifically, the provision would provide NDS the authority 

to recover, acquire, recycle, and manage the disposal of excess and 

recyclable strategic and critical materials containing rare earth elements (REE) from other federal agencies, including DOD. For example, NDS has identified germanium on its list of materials shortfalls since 2011. The Army typically generates at least 500 kilograms of excess germanium a year in components such as windshields. This provision would enable the NDS to collaborate on a 

REE recycle program with the Army to recover and transfer this 

germanium to the NDS. 

The provision would also amend the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98c) to enable the NDS Manager 

to fund the qualification of domestically-produced strategic materials and REE, which would provide significant cost savings to 

DOD compared to traditional and overseas stockpiling of REE, 

along with an enhanced domestic strategic stockpiling capability 

for REE. For example, aerospace grade rayon is a synthetic fiber 

used in applications such as solid rocket motor nozzles and heat 

shields, and currently the U.S. relies solely upon foreign sources for 

such rayon. However, a domestically-produced alternative to rayon 

fiber exists and under this provision could be used in place of aerospace grade rayon to meet DOD specifications and requirements, 

saving $7.2 million in just one year. The committee strongly believes that enabling the NDS to qualify domestic materials and create substitutions could provide a significant risk mitigation for 

DOD’s supply chain and reduce the reliance upon foreign-sourced 

REE, along with cost-effective domestic and strategic alternatives. 

The committee strongly encourages DOD to use its authority to 

recycle their unclassified electronic waste, fluorescent lamps, batteries, magnets, and thermal barrier coatings in order to extract, 

reclaim, and reuse critical materials and REE to address DOD requirements. Lastly, the committee strongly encourages DOD to determine and appropriately invest in optimal methods and emerging 

products for destroying electronic media in a manner that minimizes risk of exposure, leaks, or improper use of information residing within the electronic media, and exposes data. 

Authority to dispose of certain materials from and to acquire additional materials for the National Defense 

Stockpile (sec. 1412) 

The committee recommends a provision, as requested by the Department of Defense (DOD), that would require the National Defense Stockpile (NDS) Manager to dispose of excess materials in 

order to acquire seven new materials and rare earth elements 

(REE) that have been identified by 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 seven materials and REE are: high modulus and high strength 

carbon fibers, tantalum, germanium, tungsten rhenium metal, 

boron carbide powder, europium, and silicon carbide fiber. Additionally, the committee recognizes the strategic value of the NDS 

and its critical material locations across the United States: Arizona, Oklahoma, Alabama, Virginia, West Virginia, New York, InVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00364 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
329 

diana, Ohio, Utah, Nevada, California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. 

Lastly, the committee remains very concerned that despite DOD 

identifying dysprosium metal as an REE shortfall and in a category 

at a higher risk for a supply disruption since at least 2011—and 

despite the NDS having the authority to acquire dysprosium metal 

since the FY14 NDAA—the NDS has failed to acquire any dysprosium metal and has no planned acquisitions for fiscal year 2017 

and 2018. Similarly, the committee remains very concerned that 

the NDS has no planned acquisitions for yttrium oxide in fiscal 

years 2017 and 2018. 

Accordingly, the committee strongly urges the NDS to acquire 

the appropriate amount of dysprosium metal in fiscal year 2017 

and beyond that is necessary to address critical and strategic requirements. 

Subtitle C—Chemical Demilitarization Matters 

Authority to destroy certain specified World War II-era 

United States-origin chemical munitions located on San 

Jose Island, Republic of Panama (sec. 1421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to destroy eight chemical munitions on San 

Jose Island, Panama. The use of these funds shall not take effect 

until there is an agreement between the United States and Panama that such munitions are termed ‘‘old chemical weapons’’ and 

not ‘‘abandoned chemical weapons’’ and that the United States is 

under no legal obligation to destroy any additional chemical munitions, munitions constituents, and associated debris that may be located on San Jose Island as a result of research, development, and 

testing activities conducted on San Jose Island during the period 

of 1943 through 1947. 

Subtitle D—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. 1431) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to transfer $122.4 million from the Defense 

Health Program to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of 

Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund created by 

section 1704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) for the operations of the Captain 

James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center. 

Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1432) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an 

appropriation of $64.3 million for fiscal year 2017 for the operation 

of the Armed Forces Retirement Home. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
330 

Budget Items 

Defense Health Program 

The budget request included $33.5 billion for Defense Health 

Program. The amount authorized to be funded for the Defense 

Health Program includes the following changes from the budget request. 

[Changes in millions of dollars] 

Reduction for unauthorized fertility treatment benefits ................. ¥38.0 

Pilot program on health insurance for reserve component members ................................................................................................... +20.0 

Incorporation of value-based health care into TRICARE program +24.5 

Reduction for unjustified travel expenses ........................................ ¥6.5 

Reimbursement rate for Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration ................................................................................................... +40.0 

Military health system reform .......................................................... +400.0 

Total ............................................................................................. +440.0 

The committee recommends a total increase in the Defense 

Health Program of $440.0 million. This amount includes reductions 

of $38.0 million to reflect costs avoided by the Department of Defense relative to its plan to conduct a pilot program to cryopreserve 

oocytes and sperm and $6.5 million for unjustified travel expenses 

for the Defense Health Agency. The committee recommends an increase of $44.5 million to conduct a pilot program on health insurance for reserve component members and to incorporate valuebased health care into the TRICARE program. The committee also 

recommends an increase of $40.0 million to maintain reimbursement rates under the Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration 

program at those rates established prior to April 1, 2016. Finally, 

the committee recommends an increase of $400.0 million for overall 

military health system reform. 

Foreign currency fluctuation 

The budget request included $33.5 billion for Defense Health 

Program. 

The committee believes that when foreign currency fluctuation 

(FCF) rates are determined by the Department of Defense, the balance of the FCF funds should be considered, particularly if the balance is close to the cap of $970.0 million. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has informed the committee that as of March 

2016, the Department does not plan to transfer in any prior year 

unobligated balances to replenish the account for fiscal year 2016. 

GAO analysis projects that the Department will experience a net 

gain in fiscal year 2017 due to favorable foreign exchange rates. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $6.5 million from Defense Health Program for FCF. 

Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund 

The budget request included $496.8 million in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, of which $270.2 million is for the Global Train 

and Equip Program, $58.6 million for the Regional Centers, $21.8 

million is for the Wales Initiative Fund/Partnership for Peace, 

$26.8 million for the Combatting Terrorism Fellowship Program, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
331 

$25.6 million for the Defense Institution Reform Initiative, $9.2 

million for the Ministry of Defense Advisors program, $2.6 million 

for the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies, and $730.1 

million in Title XIV for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Line 010. The committee notes that elsewhere in this Act, the 

committee recommends a provision that would create a new budget 

line entitled the Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (SCEF). 

Commensurate with that provision, the committee recommends a 

transfer of $414.8 million from the Defense Security Cooperation 

Agency, and a transfer of $258.3 million from Drug Interdiction 

and Counter-drug Activities to the SCEF. 

Department of Defense Inspector General Financial Statement Audit Support 

The budget request included $32.5 billion in Operation and 

Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), of which $322.0 million was 

for SAG 4GTV Office of Inspector General. 

The committee notes that within this request was $7.3 million to 

hire an additional 50 civilian personnel to conduct financial statement audits. The committee further notes the clear requirement in 

section 1005 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) for the Department of Defense to 

utilize independent external auditors, not additional Department of 

Defense Inspector General auditors, for financial statement audits 

of defense agencies. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $7.3 million for SAG 4GTV Office of Inspector General in OMDW. 

Items of Special Interest 

Rare earth elements critical to national security 

The committee notes that the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) found that the Department of Defense (DOD) has identified 

certain materials and rare earth elements (REE) as critical, but 

that DOD’s approach was not comprehensive. Specifically, the GAO 

found that three DOD organizations separately identified five different lists of REE during 2011 to 2015 using their own definitions. 

The committee notes that weapon system officials at the military 

departments told GAO that they had identified what they considered as critical REE in their systems, but that this information is 

not reported consistently or DOD-wide. GAO found that these officials did not have a definition for critical materials nor do they 

have an agreed upon DOD-wide list of critical REE. Additionally, 

GAO found that Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy (MIBP) 

within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics identified heavy REE as at risk for a supply disruption, but has a strategy that is reactive, waiting for a 

supply disruption to occur and relying on the market to respond. 

GAO also found that MIBP has not defined the metrics for evaluating the extent of risk and the effectiveness of its strategy, making it difficult to monitor and adjust its mitigating actions. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2017 with a comprehensive assessment that: (1) desVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00367 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
332 

ignates which, if any, REE are critical to national security in order 

to provide a common DOD-wide understanding of those materials 

and focus resources; (2) analyzes the effect of unavailability of REE 

designated as critical to national security and develop a strategy to 

help ensure a secure supply for those designated critical; and (3) 

defines reliable and secure sources of supply for REE in measurable terms and provide metrics to determine the effectiveness of its 

actions to better ensure continued availability. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(333) 

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. 

Procurement (sec. 1503) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriation for procurement activities at the levels 

identified in section 4102 of division D of this Act. 

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

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriation for research, development, test, and evaluation activities at the levels identified in section 4202 of division 

D of this Act. 

Operation and maintenance (sec. 1505) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for operation and maintenance activities 

at the levels identified in section 4302 of division D of this Act. 

Military personnel (sec. 1506) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for military personnel activities at the 

levels identified in section 4402 of division D of this Act. 

Working capital funds (sec. 1507) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the Defense Working Capital Funds 

at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, DefenseWide (sec. 1508) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the Drug Interdiction and CounterVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00369 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
334 

Drug Activities, Defense-Wide at the levels identified in section 

4502 of division D of this Act. 

Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of 

the Department of Defense identified in section 4502 of division D 

of this Act. 

Defense Health Program (sec. 1510) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the Defense Health Program activities 

identified in section 4502 of division D of this Act. 

Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (sec. 1511) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

additional appropriations for the Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund at the levels 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 allow the Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $3.5 billion of overseas contingency operation funding authorized for fiscal year 2017 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—Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1531) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund and would thereby 

provide the Secretary of Defense with the authority to investigate, 

develop and provide equipment, supplies, services, training, facilities, personnel, and funds to assist in the defeat of improvised explosive devices for operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other 

operations or military missions designated by the Secretary. 

Extension and modification of authorities on Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (sec. 1532) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify and 

extend for 1 fiscal year section 1534 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291). 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
335 

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1533) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require that 

amounts authorized for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund 

(ASFF) for fiscal year 2017 continue to be subject to the conditions 

specified in subsections (b) through (g) of section 1513 of the Carl 

Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), as amended. 

Furthermore, the provision would extend the authority under 

subsection 1532(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) to accept certain equipment 

procured using ASFF funds and to treat such equipment as Department of Defense stocks. Lastly, the provision would continue the 

goal of using $25.0 million to support, to the extent practicable, the 

efforts of the Government of Afghanistan to recruit, train and integrate women into the Afghan National Security Forces and the requirement for a report on the plan to promote the security of Afghan women as required by section 1531 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act of 2016 (Public Law 114–92) as well as adding 

the requirement for a plan to address the development of accountability mechanisms for Afghan National Security Forces who violate codes of conduct relating to protecting children from sexual 

abuse. 

Budget Items 

Spider network munitions reduction 

The Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) budget request included $301.5 million for Procurement of Ammunition, Army (PAA) 

of which $10.4 million was for LIN 9680E95900 Spider Network 

Munitions. 

The committee understands that the entirety of the OCO Spider 

Network Munitions request is ahead of need. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease to PAA OCO of $10.4 million for LIN 9680E95900 Spider Network Munitions. 

Coalition Support Funds 

The budget request included $1.4 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, SAG 4GTD, of which $1.1 billion is for Coalition Support Funds (CSF). The committee recommends a reduction of 

$100.0 million from CSF for reimbursements to Pakistan for support of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan in recognition of the 

evolving nature of the mission there. The committee notes that a 

separate authority for reimbursements to Pakistan for security activities is created elsewhere in this Act to more directly address the 

importance of Pakistan to U.S. and regional security interests. Additionally the committee recommends a transfer of $820.0 million 

from CSF to the Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund in Title 

15 of this Act and $180.0 million to the Counter Islamic State in 

Iraq and the Levant Fund in Title 15 of this Act. 

Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund 

The budget request included $1.0 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funding for the Counterterrorism Partnerships 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
336 

Fund (CTPF), Line 090. The committee recommends a reduction of 

$150.0 million to the CTPF due to insufficient justification. The 

committee recommends a transfer of $200.0 million from the CTPF 

to the Counter Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Fund in title 

15 of this Act and recommends a transfer of $650.0 million from 

the CTPF to the Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund in title 

15 of this Act. 

Counter Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Fund 

The budget request included $630.0 million in the Iraq Train and Equip Fund. The committee recommends a transfer of $630.0 million to the Iraq Train and Equip Fund commensurate with a decrease of $250.0 million to the Syria Train and Equip Fund, a decrease of $200.0 million to the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund 

(SAG 090), and a decrease of $180 million to coalition support 

(SAG 4GTD). 

The Iraq Train and Equip Fund account may be used for activities authorized under section 1209 of the Carl Levin and Howard 

P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291), section 1236 of the Carl Levin 

and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291), and section 1226 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 

Law 114–92). 

The committee recommends the name of the ‘‘Iraq Train and 

Equip Fund’’ be changed to the ‘‘Counter Islamic State in Iraq and 

the Levant Fund’’ to reflect the associated authorized activities and 

the consolidation of funds. 

Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq 

The overseas contingency operations (OCO) budget request in- cluded $9.5 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force 

(OMAF), of which $141.9 million was for SAG 042G Other 

Servicewide Activities. 

The committee understands that this request included $85.1 million to support operations and activities of the Office of Security 

Cooperation in Iraq. The committee believes this request is unjustified. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in OCO 

OMAF of $25.1 million for SAG 042G Other Servicewide Activities. 

Syria Train and Equip Fund 

The budget request included $250.0 million in the Syria Train 

and Equip Fund. The committee recommends a decrease of $250.0 

million in the Syria Train and Equip Fund and a commensurate increase of $250.0 million to the Iraq Train and Equip Fund which 

the committee recommends renaming the ‘‘Counter Islamic State in 

Iraq and the Levant Fund’’ to reflect the associated authorized activities and the consolidation of funds. 

Nuclear force readiness in Europe 

The budget request included $9.5 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for Overseas Contingency Operation, of 

which $1.3 billion was for SAG 011A Primary Combat Forces. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
337 

According to the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), ‘‘U.S. 

nuclear forces contribute to deterring aggression against U.S. and 

allied interests in multiple regions, assuring U.S. allies that our extended deterrence guarantees are credible, and demonstrating that 

we can defeat or counter aggression if deterrence fails.’’ Alluding to 

Russia’s ‘‘escalate to de-escalate’’ nuclear doctrine, the QDR states 

that ‘‘U.S. nuclear forces help convince potential adversaries that 

they cannot successfully escalate their way out of failed conventional aggression against the United States or our allies and partners.’’ ‘‘Effective deterrence,’’ according to Admiral Haney, the commander of United States Strategic Command, ‘‘requires planning, 

exercises, coordination with the regional commands, and a force 

posture capable of carrying out strikes.’’ Referring to NATO’s nuclear deterrent, the commander of U.S. European Command, General Breedlove, has said ‘‘it is important that we make sure it is 

ready, capable, and credible.’’ 

The committee notes that while the European Reassurance Initiative is aimed at assuring allies and reinforcing conventional deterrence and defense, deterring Russian aggression in Europe includes an important nuclear component. To increase the credibility 

of NATO’s nuclear deterrent, the United States must continue the 

ongoing modernization of U.S. nuclear forces and ensure that nuclear forces assigned to the NATO mission are survivable, well-exercised, and increasingly ready to counter Russian nuclear doctrine, which calls for the first use of nuclear weapons. Such measures are consistent with the administration’s emphasis on ‘‘the introduction of deterrence measures to better set European posture 

in the wake of Russian aggression.’’ Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $28.0 million for SAG 011A Primary Combat Forces to enhance the readiness and capability of U.S. nuclear forces assigned to support the 

NATO nuclear deterrence mission. These funds may be used for the 

following purposes and any other activities deemed necessary by 

the Department of Defense to support the nuclear mission in Europe: enhancing the readiness, training, and exercising of dual-capable aircraft (DCA); in support of and to promote additional allied 

nuclear burden-sharing activities; in support of regional nuclear 

command and control capabilities; and for the development and exercising of a concept of operations to improve DCA alert status and 

readiness through dispersal. The Secretary of Defense shall provide 

a report to the Defense Committees within 90 days of the enactment of this Act detailing how the additional funding will be allocated. 

Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund 

The budget request included in Overseas Contingency Operations 

funding $1.1 billion for Coalition Support Funds (CSF),and $1.0 billion for the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF). 

The committee notes that elsewhere in this Act, the committee 

recommends a provision that would create the Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund (SCEF). Commensurate with that provision, the committee recommends a transfer of $820.0 million from 

CSF, and $650.0 million from the CTPF to the SCEF. The committee notes that the transfer from CSF includes a reduction of 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
338 

$100.0 million and the transfer from CTPF includes a reduction of 

$150.0. 

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities 

The budget request included $215.3 million for Drug Interdiction 

and Counter-drug Activities. 

The committee is increasingly concerned about the production 

and trafficking of heroin, fentanyl, and other illicit drugs. Accordingly, of the amounts available for Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, not less than $191.5 million shall be available to 

enable operations to counter the production and trafficking of illicit 

drugs including but not limited to heroin and fentanyl (and precursor chemicals). 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(339) 

TITLE XVI—STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, 

AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS 

Subtitle A—Space Activities 

Requirement that pilot program for acquisition of commercial satellite communications services demonstrate 

order-of-magnitude improvements in satellite communication capabilities (sec. 1601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1605 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 

113–291) to prohibit the obligation or expenditure of any funding 

made available until the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees a plan to demonstrate that the pilot 

program will achieve order-of-magnitude improvements in satellite 

communications capability. 

The committee is disappointed that, despite numerous requests 

to the Air Force for its plan to meet the requirement for section 

1605 in carrying out the pilot program, the Air Force has not only 

failed to meet the statutorily imposed requirement to provide a 

briefing on that pilot program at the same time as the President 

submitted to Congress the budget request for fiscal year 2017, but 

has also been nonresponsive to requests for information relating to 

that requirement. 

Plan for use of allied launch vehicles (sec. 1602) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Commander of the Air Force Space Command to develop a contingency plan for using allied space launch vehicles to meet assured 

access to space requirements should the Department of Defense not 

be able to meet those requirements without the use of rocket engines designed or manufactured within the Russian Federation. 

The committee is concerned by the volatility associated with the 

use of Russian rocket engines. To hedge against that risk, the committee believes it prudent for the Commander of Air Force Space 

Command to assess what national security satellites, if any, the 

Commander believes could be launched on an allied launch vehicle 

in the event assured access to space cannot be met, for a limited 

period of time, without the use of space launch vehicles requiring 

rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation. 

The provision would explicitly prohibit the consideration of space 

launch vehicles from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a provision requiring that assured access to space be achieved without the use 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
340 

of rocket engines designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation. 

Long-term strategy on electromagnetic spectrum for warfare (sec. 1603) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Commander of United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to 

develop a unified strategy for availability, use, and protection of 

electromagnetic spectrum in wartime. 

Five-year plan for Joint Interagency Combined Space Operations Center (sec. 1604) 

The committee recommends a provision that requires no later 

than 180 days after the date of enactment the Secretary of Defense 

submit a 5-year plan for the Joint Interagency Combined Space Operations Center. 

Independent assessment of global positioning system next 

generation operational control system (sec. 1605) 

The committee recommends a provision that requires the Secretary of Defense to enter into an agreement with a federally funded research and development center to review the acquisition strategy for the Next Generation Operational Control System for the 

Global Positioning System. 

Government Accountability Office assessment of satellite acquisition by National Reconnaissance Office (sec. 1606) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to conduct an assessment, for calendar year 2017 and each calendar year thereafter, of 

the cost, schedule, and performance of each program of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) for developing, acquiring, 

launching, and deploying satellites or overhead reconnaissance systems that receive funding from the Military Intelligence Program 

or is supported by personnel of the Department of Defense. The 

provision would also direct the director of the NRO to provide the 

Comptroller General access, in a timely manner, to the information 

the Comptroller General requires to conduct the assessment. 

The committee is concerned that limitations on the Government 

Accountability Office’s (GAO) access to NRO space acquisition programs have impeded oversight of some of the most costly items the 

federal government procures. The committee is concerned that because of the lack of GAO access, NRO programs may be at greater 

risk of program mismanagement, cost overruns, schedule delays, 

and avoidable acquisition challenges. 

Cost-benefit analysis of commercial use of excess ballistic 

missile solid rocket motors (sec. 1607) 

The committee is aware that the Air Force spends approximately 

$17 million each year to store and maintain approximately 800 decommissioned Minuteman and Peacekeeper Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) motors and associated equipment at Camp 

Navajo, Arizona and Hill Air Force Base, Utah. The committee is 

also aware that the Department of Defense is able to provide exVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00376 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
341 

cess motors to United States launch providers in support of national security launch missions; however, current law and policy 

prohibit these motors from being used in commercial launch missions. In response to inquiries by committee members, the Air 

Force asserted that they have minimal readiness concerns regarding a change in statute that would allow them to competitively sell 

excess motors to commercial launch providers. The committee believes commercial use of decommissioned motors could increase the 

proficiency of the government infrastructure base, making crews 

better able to execute government launches, and improve knowledge on rocket motor performance, while reducing the need for the 

Air Force to store and eventually destroy these motors. 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General of the United States to conduct an analysis of 

the cost and benefits of allowing the use of excess ballistic missile 

solid rocket motors for commercial space launch purposes. This 

analysis would include an evaluation of the effect of allowing such 

use on national security, the Department of Defense, the solid rocket motor industrial base, the commercial space launch market, and 

any other areas the Comptroller General considers appropriate. 

Assessment of cost-benefit analysis by Department of Defense of use of KA-band commercial satellite communications (sec. 1608) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General to assess the types of analyses the Department of Defense has conducted to understand the costs and benefits of the use of KA-band commercial satellite communications by 

the department. The assessment would require the Comptroller 

General of the United States to determine whether the department 

has evaluated how KA-band satellite communications technologies 

compare to other commercially available communication satellite 

waveforms. The assessment would also evaluate the Defense Department’s review of these technologies based on total cost, capabilities, and interoperability with existing or planned military terminals, as well as any other matter the Comptroller General considers appropriate. 

Limitation on use of funds for Joint Space Operations Center Mission System (sec. 1609) 

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the use 

of funds for increment 3 of the Joint Space Operations Center Mission System until the Secretary of the Air Force submits to the congressional defense committees a report setting forth a strategy for 

acquiring a common software and hardware framework for battle 

management, communication, and control. 

Limitation on availability of fiscal year 2017 funds for the 

global positioning system next generation operational 

control system (sec. 1610) 

The committee recommends a provision that would restrict the 

obligation or expenditure of amounts authorized to be appropriated 

for fiscal year 2017 and available for the current product development contract for the Global Positioning System Next Generation 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
342 

Operational Control System (GPS–OCX) until the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress the certification required under section 

2433a(c)(2), title 10, United States Code, commonly referred to as 

a Nunn-McCurdy certification. 

The committee is strongly concerned with the current state of the 

GPS–OCX program. This program, which was recently referred to 

by a senior Air Force leader as the Air Force’s ‘‘number one troubled program’’ was expected to deliver initial capability by the end 

of 2016, but is currently not expected to do so for another 5 to 7 

years. The program has also experienced cost growth in excess of 

250 percent with continuing cost growth expected. The committee 

is concerned that the Air Force and the office of the Undersecretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L) have 

artificially restricted the identification of that future cost growth by 

delaying the re-baselining of the GPS–OCX program and, therefore, 

artificially postponed the reviews required with a Nunn-McCurdy 

certification. 

While the committee believes the Defense Department would not 

take actions to impede transparency and oversight, the committee 

does not support efforts to artificially prevent Nunn-McCurdy reviews, which, in this case, the Department appears to have done 

by delaying the release of the Air Force’s cost position. With contract cost growth of more than 250 percent of the program’s original business case, persistent unresolved technical issues, and a 

schedule that appears unachievable, the committee believes that 

the Department and the Air Force need to conduct the reviews necessary to determine the best path forward and provide Congress 

with the assurances necessary to warrant program continuation. 

The committee feels strongly that the Air Force must replace the 

existing GPS ground segment to improve on the capability and 

robustness of the GPS architecture. However, continuation of the 

existing program at any cost is unacceptable. 

The committee is also concerned that despite a willingness by the 

contractor to convert the GPS–OCX program to a fixed price contract vehicle, the Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics opted not to limit risk to the taxpayer by converting the 

contract to fixed cost, opting instead to proceed under the existing 

cost-plus contracting arrangement without reasonable justification. 

The committee is also concerned that the Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics chose to ignore the recommendation of the Air Force to add 4 additional years to the program opting instead to extend the program by only 2 years and assume significantly higher program risk. 

The GPS–OCX program should serve as a lesson in developing 

complicated ground systems decoupled in acquisition from the actual satellite program they are to support, especially with respect 

to evolving issues such as information assurance and integration of 

this system with both the current GPS II and future GPS III constellation. The committee expects that the Department should have 

developed as part of this ongoing program review a series of off 

ramps should the ongoing effort prove that it cannot stabilize the 

agreed upon milestones between the Department and the contractor. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
343 

Availability of certain amounts to meet requirements in connection with United States policy on assured access to 

space (sec. 1611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow for up 

to half of the funds made available for a replacement space launch 

propulsion system or new launch vehicle in fiscal years 2016, 2017, 

or any future fiscal year, be made available for meeting the requirements in connection with United States policy on assured access to space (section 2273(b), title 10, United States Code) as 

amended by this Act. 

Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a provision 

that would amend section 2273(b) of title 10, United States Code, 

by prohibiting launch vehicles requiring rocket engines designed or 

manufactured in the Russian Federation from satisfying assured 

access to space requirements. 

The committee believes that up to half of the funds made available for the development of a replacement launch vehicle or launch 

propulsion system can be made available for offsetting any increase 

in launch costs as a result of prohibitions on Russian rocket engines. With $1.2 billion budgeted from fiscal year 2017 to 2021 for 

the launch replacement effort and $453.4 million already appropriated in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016, the committee believes there is more than sufficient funding available and budgeted 

for either a replacement propulsion system or launch vehicle and 

also to offset any additional costs required in meeting our assured 

access to space requirements without the use of Russian rocket engines. 

Availability of funds for certain secure voice conferencing 

capabilities (sec. 1612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize up to $10.2 million in Air Force research, development, test, and evaluation funds from fiscal year 2015 or 2016 for the Presidential and 

National Voice Conferencing Program and the Advanced Extremely 

High Frequency Extended Data Rate, worldwide, secure, survivable 

voice conferencing capability for the President and national leaders. 

The Department of Defense requested $10.2 million, on behalf of 

the Air Force, for a new start authorization for the Presidential 

and National Voice Conferencing Program on March 3, 2016. According to the reprogramming documentation (DOD Serial Number 

FY 16–08PA) provided to the committee, without this funding, the 

‘‘Air Force will be unable to fulfill its enduring mission to provide 

command and control of nuclear forces by the President and national senior leaders.’’ 

The committee supports the modernization of the Nuclear Command and Control (NC2) architecture and the integration of enhanced voice conferencing on the fleet of presidential aircraft. The 

committee also notes that while these upgrades are necessary, legacy presidential communications capabilities are effective and ensure the president’s access to secure and survivable communications. The committee believes requests for new start authorizations 

through the reprogramming process should be limited only to the 

most urgent circumstances and should be directly linked to an urVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00379 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
344 

gent war fighting need as identified by a combatant commander or 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff through an urgent operational needs or 

similar request. While the reprogramming request did not reach 

that threshold, the committee does believe the request has merit 

and meets validated requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends it be authorized in this bill. 

Subtitle B—Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related 

Activities 

Department of Defense-wide requirements for security 

clearances for military intelligence officers (sec. 1621) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to ensure that each military intelligence officer serving in military intelligence leadership positions has an active security clearance. 

The services’ senior military intelligence officers are responsible 

for advising service secretaries on intelligence matters, leading 

their service intelligence professionals, as well as formulating policy, planning, programming, budgeting, managing and overseeing 

the intelligence activities of their respective services. 

The committee urges the services to enhance their military intelligence capabilities and oversight through the positioning of officers 

with extensive and long-term military intelligence experience as 

the service senior adviser for intelligence. 

Subtitle C—Cyber Warfare, Cybersecurity, and Related 

Matters 

Cyber Protection Support for Department of Defense Personnel in Positions Highly Vulnerable to Cyber Attack 

(sec. 1631) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to provide cyber protection support to personnel who are determined by the Secretary to be of highest risk 

of vulnerability to cyber attacks on their personal devices, networks, and persons. 

The committee is concerned that the employees to be protected 

under the authority in this provision, have an important obligation 

to refrain from any use of a personal data communication, networks, or storage devices in the performance of official duties. The 

committee also expects the Department to also provide reasonable 

and appropriate access to communication devices for official purposes directly related to a nominee’s participation in activities of 

the Department to prepare the individual for Senate confirmation. 

Cyber mission forces matters (sec. 1632 ) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide interim authorities to the Secretary of Defense to enhance the Department’s ability to hire and retain civilian personnel with the 

high-level of skill and aptitude necessary to provide critical technical support to the Cyber Mission Teams that are now nearing full 

operational capability. The provision also would direct the Principal 

Cyber Advisor to (1) supervise the development of training standVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00380 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
345 

ards and capacity to train civilian cyber personnel to develop tools 

and weapons for the Cyber Mission Forces (CMF), and (2) ensure 

that sufficient priority exists for the timely completion of security 

clearance investigations and adjudications for such personnel. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 

(Public Law 114–92) provided authority to the Secretary of Defense 

to establish an excepted service personnel system for civilians supporting the Department’s cyber mission. This authority was directly modeled on the existing excepted service personnel system 

for Defense intelligence civilian personnel. The committee has 

learned that it will take the Department 4 years to convert most 

of the CMF positions covered by legislation. The Commander of 

United States Cyber Command emphasized to the committee that 

near-term action is necessary to address skill shortfalls in the civilian workforce until the new system is fully implemented. 

The CMF includes 1,260 civilian positions that are spread across 

the military services’ individual DCIPS excepted service programs, 

but many positions reside in the competitive service system, particularly in the Cyber Protection Teams. The interim authorities 

proposed in this provision will enable the Department to manage 

the personnel recruited for these positions more effectively to enhance the readiness and capabilities of the CMF. 

Limitation on ending of arrangement in which the commander of the United States Cyber Command is also Director of the National Security Agency (sec. 1633) 

The committee recommends a provision that would express the 

sense of Congress that the arrangement (commonly referred to as 

a ‘‘dual-hat arrangement’’) under which the Commander of the 

United States Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) also serves as the 

Director of the National Security Agency is in the national security 

interests of the United States. The provision would also prohibit 

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 will not pose unacceptable risks to the military effectiveness of CYBERCOM. The 

provision would also require the establishment of conditions-based 

criteria for assessing the need to sustain the ‘‘dual-hat arrangement.’’ 

Pilot program on application of consequence-driven, cyberinformed engineering to mitigate against cyber-security 

threats (sec. 1634) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the secretaries of the 

military departments, to carry out a pilot program to assess the 

feasibility and advisability of applying consequence-driven, cyberinformed engineering methodologies to military installation operating technologies, including industrial control systems, to increase 

resilience against cybersecurity threats. The committee notes that 

protecting all systems to the same degree to preserve the integrity 

of every mission at a given military installation is impractical, and 

that traditional mission assurance planning augmented by a realVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00381 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
346 

istic assessment of existing and emerging cyber threats targeting 

vulnerable operating technologies will assist in prioritizing limited 

resources to protect the most critical assets. A consequence-driven, 

cyber-informed engineering approach is based on an evaluation of 

the operating environment that discriminates between targeted 

and indiscriminate attacks, analyzes vulnerabilities beyond traditional Information Technology security, and addresses systems created to control critical infrastructure that were designed primarily 

to meet engineering requirements with little or sometimes no consideration of security requirements. 

Evaluation of cyber vulnerabilities of F–35 aircraft and support systems (sec. 1635) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify a provision from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92), requiring the Secretary of Defense to 

evaluate the cyber vulnerabilities of every major Department of Defense weapons system by not later than December 31, 2019. The 

provision would do so by requiring that a complete evaluation of 

the F–35 aircraft and its support systems, such as the Autonomic 

Logistics Information System, be completed before February 1, 

2017. The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the F–35 cyber vulnerability evaluation to the congressional defense committees no later than February 28, 2017. 

The provision would also allow for funding to be used for the development of tools that improve cyber vulnerability assessments, nonrecurring engineering for the design of mitigation solutions, and 

Department-wide information repositories to share assessment 

findings and mitigation solutions. 

The committee remains concerned by the overall lack of awareness of cyber vulnerabilities in Department of Defense weapons 

systems and is concerned in particular that the fielding of the F– 

35 may not be fully informed by the potential threats posed by malicious cyber activity or the mitigation options available to limit 

those threats. The committee notes that the F–35 has more than 

8 million lines of code, more than any jet in history. Given the complexity of its software, unless appropriate steps are taken to identify and fully understand these cyber vulnerabilities, the F–35 

could present our adversaries with potential cyber exploitation opportunities. The F–35 also relies on an Autonomic Logistics Information System which will modernize aircraft maintenance. However, unless protected properly, it too may present potential cyber 

exploitation opportunities given its dependence on less secure networks. 

Review and assessment of technology strategy and development at Defense Information Systems Agency (sec. 1636) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to develop a technology strategy. Further, it would require that this 

strategy be developed in coordination with the Undersecretary for 

Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, and the Chief Information 

Officer. The committee notes with concern that DISA has reduced 

its emphasis on research and technology innovation. The committee 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
347 

further notes that DISA does not coordinate its activities with the 

rest of the DOD science and technology community, especially 

given its unique information technology mission. Finally, the committee notes that DISA does not make use of the Department’s successful Small Business Innovation Research program, laboratory 

expertise, or university research programs, in order to gain better 

access to leading edge technologies and top technical talent. 

Evaluation of cyber vulnerabilities of Department of Defense critical infrastructure (sec. 1637) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to evaluate the cyber vulnerabilities of Department of Defense critical infrastructure by not later than December 31, 2020. 

The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to develop 

a plan, within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, identifying 

the Department of Defense critical infrastructure that will be evaluated and an estimate of the funding required for conducting the 

assessments. The provision would require the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff to prioritize the order of evaluations based on 

the criticality of supporting infrastructure to the employment of 

forces and threats. 

The provision would require that the assessments build upon and 

not duplicate existing efforts regarding the identification and mitigation of cyber vulnerabilities of major weapon systems and Department of Defense critical infrastructure. The provision would require the Secretary to keep the congressional defense committees 

regularly apprised of the activities underway, to include the number of completed evaluations and the number of evaluations remaining. For the purpose of conducting the required assessments, 

the provision would authorize the Secretary to develop tools, conduct non-recurring engineering for the design of mitigation solutions, and establish department-wide information repositories for 

sharing the findings of assessments and mitigation solutions. 

The provision would also define Department of Defense critical 

infrastructure as any asset of the Department of Defense of such 

extraordinary importance to the functioning of the Department and 

the operation of the military that its incapacitation or destruction 

from a cyber attack would have a debilitating effect on the ability 

of the department to fulfill its missions. 

The committee notes that this provision would complement the 

requirement from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) that the Secretary of Defense 

evaluate the cyber vulnerabilities of every major Department of Defense weapons system by not later than December 31, 2019. 

Plan for information security continuous monitoring capability and comply-to-connect policy (sec. 1638) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense and the 

Commander of United States Cyber Command, in coordination 

with the Principal Cyber Adviser, to jointly develop a plan for a 

modernized, enterprise-wide information security continuous monitoring capability and a comply-to-connect policy. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
348 

The provision would require the Chief Information Officer and 

the Commander of United States Cyber Command to issue directives for implementation of the plan in time for Department of Defense components to request the necessary resources for implementing those plans in the fiscal year 2019 budget request. 

The provision would also require for the plan and policy required 

by this provision to enable compliance with the software license inventory requirements of the plan issued pursuant to section 937 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239; 10 U.S.C. 2223 note) and updated pursuant to 

section 935 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66; 10 U.S.C. 2223 note). 

The provision would limit the obligation or expenditure of any 

funds for a software license for which the Department would spend 

more than $5.0 million annually unless the Department is able 

through automated means to both count the number of licenses in 

use and determine the security status of each instance of use of the 

software licensed. 

Report on authority Delegated to Secretary of Defense to 

conduct cyber operations (sec. 1639) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees specifying in detail the authorities that have been 

delegated by the President to the Secretary for conducting cyber 

operations. The report would require the Secretary to detail the 

standing authorities and limitations that authorize or limit the 

Secretary in conducting cyber operations and how those authorities 

compare to the authorities delegated to the Secretary for activities 

in non-cyber domains. 

The committee is concerned that the President has withheld delegating critical authorities for cyber operations that in other 

warfighting domains would be delegated to the Secretary of Defense. As a result, the committee is concerned that the Defense Department may not be appropriately postured to defend and respond 

to malicious cyber behavior. As the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command testified to the committee on April 5, 2016, to date cyber policy decisions have been made on a ‘‘case-by-case basis.’’ The committee believes that more must be done in advance of a major cyber 

attack, on the homeland or U.S. interests abroad, to ensure that 

the Defense Department is best postured to defend and respond to 

such attack in a cyber-relevant timeframe. 

Deterrence of adversaries in cyberspace (sec. 1640) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to submit to the President 

and the congressional defense committees a report on the military 

and nonmilitary options available to the United States to deter 

Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and terrorist organizations in 

cyberspace. The provision requires the report to include an assessment of the effectiveness of the deterrence options available. It also 

requires that the Chairman provide an integrated priorities list of 

cyber deterrence capabilities of the Department of Defense that 

identify, at a minimum, high priority capability needs prioritized 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
349 

across armed forces and functional lines, risk areas, and long-term 

strategic planning issues. 

The provision would also require within 60 days of receiving the 

report from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that the 

President submit to the congressional defense committees a separate report identifying when an action carried out in cyberspace 

constitutes an act of war against the United States. The report 

should include (1) identification of what actions carried out in 

cyberspace constitute an act of war against the United States; (2) 

identification of how the law of war applies to the cyber operations 

of the Department of Defense; (3) identification of the circumstances required for responding to a cyber attack against the 

United States; and (4) a declaratory policy on the use of cyber 

weapons by the United States. In preparing this report, the President must also consider (1) whether a cyber attack must demonstrate a use of force to be considered an act of war; (2) the ways 

in which the effects of a cyber attack may be equivalent to the effects of an attack using conventional weapons, including with respect to physical destruction or casualties; (3) intangible effects of 

significant scope, intensity, or duration; and (4) how the law of neutrality applies, how the utilization or exploitation of communications infrastructure in neutral States applies, and what limitations, 

if any, apply in exercising the right of the United States to act in 

self-defense though a cyber-operation. 

Section 941 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2014 (Public Law 113–66) required the President to develop 

a deterrence policy for reducing cyber risks to the United States 

and our allies. The report was provided to the committee more 

than a year-and-a-half past the required submittal date. The committee is concerned by the delayed report’s lack of seriousness and 

focus and its failure to define fundamental deterrence policy questions or present effective options for imposing costs on our cyber 

adversaries. The report disappointingly repackaged the same rhetoric and recycled the same pronouncements that have failed to impose any consequences on those seeking to undermine the national 

security of the United States in cyberspace. The committee hopes 

the President will approach this new cyber deterrence requirement 

with a heightened level of seriousness and urgency. 

Subtitle D—Nuclear Forces 

Procurement authority for certain parts of intercontinental 

ballistic missile fuzes (sec. 1651) 

The committee recommends a provision that gives the Department of Defense the authority to buy intercontinental ballistic missile fuze 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). 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
350 

Modification of report on activities of the council on oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control and 

Communications System (sec. 1652) 

The committee recommends a provision that adds a reporting requirement to the annual report of the Council on Oversight of the 

National Leadership Command, Control, and Communications System for readiness. 

Review by the Comptroller General of the United States of 

recommendations relating to nuclear enterprise of Department of Defense (sec. 1653) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Comptroller General to review the Department of Defense’s nuclear 

enterprise review process to ascertain whether recommendations 

are adequately being implemented. 

Sense of Congress on nuclear deterrence (sec. 1654) 

The committee recommends a provision which states the sense of 

Congress that the nuclear forces of the United States continue to 

play a fundamental role in deterring aggression against the interests of the United States and its allies. It also states that the prevention of war through effective deterrence requires survivable and 

flexible nuclear forces that are well exercised and ready to respond 

to nuclear escalation if necessary. In support of a strong and credible nuclear deterrent, the United States must: maintain a nuclear 

force with a diverse range of nuclear yields and delivery modes; afford the highest priority to the modernization of the nuclear triad; 

and ensure the broadest participation of United States allies in nuclear defense planning and training. Finally, it states that the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) must make it clear at 

the NATO summit in Warsaw, Poland in July 2016 that NATO has 

taken steps to address the nuclear provocations of the Russian Federation. 

Subtitle E—Missile Defense Programs 

Required testing by Missile Defense Agency of ground-based 

mid-course defense element of ballistic missile defense 

system (sec. 1661) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Director of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to administer a 

flight test of the ground-based mid-course defense element of the 

ballistic missile defense system not less frequently than once each 

fiscal year. The Director should ensure that each test provides, 

when possible, one or more of the following: (1) validation of technical improvements made to increase system performance and reliability; (2) evaluation of the operational effectiveness of the groundbased mid-course defense element of the ballistic missile defense 

system; (3) use of threat-representative targets and critical engagements conditions; (4) evaluation of new configurations of interceptors before they are fielded; (5) satisfaction of the ‘‘fly before buy’’ 

acquisition approach for new interceptor components or software; 

and (6) evaluation of the interoperability of the ground-based midVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00386 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
351 

course defense element with other elements of the ballistic missile 

defense system. 

Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system codevelopment and coproduction (sec. 1662) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize not more than $42.0 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 to 

the Government of Israel the funding for Iron Dome, the Director 

of the Missile Defense Agency and the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics must certify that the 

March 5, 2014 bilateral international agreement concerning Iron 

Dome, as amended, is being implemented. The provision would also 

limit the funding available to the Government of Israel for the David’s Sling Weapon System until the appropriate congressional 

committees receive the plan required by subsection (d) of section 

1679 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (129 Stat.1135; Public Law 114–92). 

Non-terrestrial missile defense intercept and defeat capability for the ballistic missile defense system (sec. 1663) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Section 1685 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92; 129 Stat.1142) by adding at the end a 

new subsection stating that not later than 60 days after the submittal of the report required by subsection (c), the Director may 

commence coordination and activities associated with research, development, test, and evaluation on the programs described in subsection (c)(2). The provision would also update the annual budget 

information required in subsection (c)(2). 

Review of pre-launch missile defense strategy (sec. 1664) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

to jointly conduct a review of the Department of Defense strategy 

and capabilities for countering missiles before they are launched, 

including for both regional and homeland defense, to defeat both 

cruise and ballistic missiles, and considering the range of capabilities including active, passive, kinetic, and non-kinetic measures. 

The results of this review shall be submitted to the congressional 

defense committees in the form of a report not later than 180 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Modification of National Missile Defense policy (sec. 1665) 

The committee recommends a provision that would remove the 

word ‘‘limited’’ from Section 2 of the National Missile Defense Act 

of 1999 (Public Law 106–38; 10 U.S.C. 2431 note). The Act would 

read as follows: It is the policy of the United States to deploy as 

soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States 

against ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, 

or deliberate) with funding subject to the annual authorization of 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
352 

appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for National 

Missile Defense. 

Extension of prohibitions on providing certain missile defense information to the Russian Federation (sec. 1666) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 130h(d) of title 10, United States Code, by striking ‘‘2017’’ and 

inserting ‘‘2018’’. 

Subtitle F—Other Matters 

Survey and review of Defense Intelligence Enterprise (sec. 

1671) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to conduct a review of the Defense 

Intelligence Enterprise, including the defense intelligence agencies 

and intelligence elements of the combatant commands and military 

departments, to assess the capabilities and capacity of such Enterprise to meet present and future defense intelligence requirements. 

The provision would also require the Chairman to conduct a survey 

of each geographic combatant command to determine how each 

prioritizes and allocates its intelligence resources. The provision 

would also require the chairman to report the findings of the review and survey to the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence 

and to the congressional defense committees. The report should include a detailed analysis of how each combatant command uses the 

intelligence resources available to each command and provide recommendations for improving the Defense Intelligence Enterprise to 

fulfill operational military requirements. 

Milestone A decision for Conventional Prompt Global Strike 

(sec. 1672) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Defense to make a Milestone A decision for Conventional Prompt Global Strike no later than September 30, 2020, or 

8 months after the successful completion of the Intermediate Range 

Flight 2 test. 

Cyber Center for Education and Innovation and National 

Cryptologic Museum (sec. 1673) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to establish at Fort George G. Meade the 

‘‘Cyber Center for Education and Innovation and the National 

Cryptologic Museum’’ and to enter into an agreement to build and 

accept the Center with the National Cryptologic Museum Foundation. 

Items of Special Interest 

Additional Atlantic radar capability 

The committee supports the administration’s plans to expand 

and modernize the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, which defends the homeland against limited long range ballistic missile attacks from countries such as North Korea and Iran. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
353 

The committee agrees with Missile Defense Agency (MDA) analysis 

that ‘‘additional missile defense sensor discrimination capabilities 

are needed to enhance the protection of the United States homeland against potential long-range ballistic missiles from Iran,’’ 

which is why the Congress included a provision (section 1684) in 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) that directed deployment, by December 31, 2020, 

of a long-range discrimination radar or other appropriate sensor capability to support the defense of the homeland against Iran. 

U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) Commander, Admiral 

William Gortney, has stated in written testimony that ‘‘Iran may 

be able to deploy an operational ICBM by 2020 if the regime chooses to do so.’’ Furthermore, Iran has launched multi-stage space 

launch vehicles and continues to test ballistic missiles in violation 

of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929. 

The committee understands that the MDA, NORTHCOM, and 

U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) have prioritized the defense of 

Hawaii from the existing North Korean threat. However, the committee has concerns with the Department of Defense’s implementation of section 1684. According to the MDA, the Department of Defense has begun a siting study to determine the feasibility of certain East Coast locations for home-porting the Sea-Based X-Band 

Radar (SBX) platform. However, a March 11, 2016 response from 

the Missile Defense Agency to a congressional request for information concludes: ‘‘no decision has been made to deploy SBX to the 

Atlantic or to develop and construct an additional missile defense 

discrimination sensor, and no funds are budgeted for these purposes.’’ 

The committee believes that if the administration intends to continue to rely on the current ground-based interceptors deployed in 

Alaska to defend the U.S. against a potential Iranian ICBM, then 

it is important that there is an additional discrimination sensor directed against Iran in the near-term. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense and the Director of MDA to continue their efforts 

to determine the best sensor capability for coverage of the Atlantic 

and to continue to update the committee on steps taken to implement section 1684 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2016. 

Air Force Global Strike Command’s management of the National Airborne Operations Center 

The National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) consists of 

four specially modified E–4B Boeing 747–200 aircraft, which perform a number of national security missions for U.S. senior leadership. Given the expanded role of the Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) as part of the Force Improvement Program and Nuclear Enterprise Review, it has come to the attention of the committee that the AFGSC will manage certain operations of the four 

aircraft, which so far have been managed by the Air Combat Command. No later than February 28, 2017, the Secretary of the Air 

Force shall describe the management roles of the Air Force Global 

Strike Command as well as the Air Combat Command with respect 

to the NAOC so that the committee understands what each major 

command is responsible for and to ensure there are no gaps or 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
354 

seams in this new management construct. This shall include staffing, advocating for resources, maintenance, relationship with the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Air Combat Command, as well as the 

role of the AFGSC with the Mission Area Analysis that is being 

conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and in particular the Commander of the AFGSC designated role as advocating in the Air 

Force for all nuclear command and control. 

Air Force Seismic Technologies Program 

The committee notes with concern the continuing threat of nuclear proliferation as evidenced by North Korea’s recent fourth nuclear weapons test. 

The committee feels the Air Force Research Laboratory’s seismic 

technologies program is a key component in efforts to identify and 

monitor nuclear activity. The committee strongly supports the laboratory’s efforts to continue to develop seismic technology needed to 

sustain and improve the capability of the United States to monitor 

nuclear tests. The Committee requests that the Air Force keep it 

appraised of this important research program. 

The committee also recommends the Air Force ensure the Air 

Force Research Laboratory’s seismic technologies program participates fully in the Air Force’s Small Business Innovative Research 

Program. The U.S.’s monitoring capability will benefit greatly from 

the innovative ideas and research that small businesses can bring 

to bear to advance the U.S.’s capability to detect and characterize 

small nuclear tests in rogue countries to help ensure the Air Force 

continues to meet its operational monitoring requirements. 

Ballistic Missile Defense System 

The committee recognizes that the current Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) protects the entire United States homeland, 

including Hawaii, against the threat of limited ballistic missile attack from North Korea. However, the committee acknowledges that 

North Korea is developing advanced missile technologies and 

claims to have tested several of them. By expanding persistent sensor discrimination capabilities, the BMDS would be better enabled 

to respond to emerging ballistic missile threats, including those 

with countermeasures and decoys. The committee is aware that, in 

response to a provision in the committee’s report that accompanied 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the 

Missile Defense Agency has assessed several options for improving 

the BMDS sensor architecture for the defense of Hawaii. 

The committee also notes that the Department of Defense is conducting a Global BMDS Sensors Analysis of Alternatives. Within 

the context of that analysis, the committee urges the Department 

to consider the most effective sensor capabilities for the defense of 

Hawaii, including those that maximize improved performance of 

the Ground-based Midcourse Defense element. 

Commercial cloud implementation in the Department of Defense 

The committee continues to urge the adoption of commercial 

cloud computing capabilities throughout the Department of Defense 

(DOD) to achieve cost savings, increased efficiency, and improved 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
355 

security. To reach this objective, the DOD must develop appropriate security requirements to ensure that sensitive missions, 

data, and the DoD Information Network (DODIN) itself are protected from evolving cyber threats. The committee appreciates the 

Chief Information Officer’s (CIO) continuing efforts to examine how 

barriers to the adoption of commercial cloud services can be removed. However, the committee highlights the following specific 

issues that the Department must address to better enable commercial cloud adoption: • Updating physical and logical security requirements for 

off-premise commercial cloud offerings; • Determining the computer network defenses necessary to 

protect the DODIN from potential intrusions inside commercial 

cloud offerings; • Updating the security screening process required to address risks at DODIN access points; • Addressing the latency and network throughput issues experienced with current Cloud Access Point (CAP) approaches; 

and • Acquiring the next-generation perimeter and endpoint security tools that align with commercial cloud providers’ environments to enable apples-to-apples cost comparisons and ease 

transitions to cloud services. 

Commercial off the shelf procurement for ICBM launch control centers 

It has come to the attention of the committee that given the special electronic protections needed within the launch control centers, 

commercial off the shelf (COTS) procurement of simple items such 

as video screens can take a year or more to certify, by which time 

the COTS item has been discontinued, or worse, there are so few 

that the demand signal by the Air Force increases its price several 

fold. The result is that items for daily use in the launch control 

center break or simply become worn down, which then becomes a 

quality of life issue. Given the irritating nature of this COTS issue 

with the combat crews, which spend 24 hours in the capsules, the 

committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to examine how 

to procure rapidly, COTS items for use in the launch control centers and report to the congressional defense committees no later 

than March 31, 2017 on how such a remedy will be implemented. 

Comptroller General Review of the ground based strategic 

deterrent system 

The Air Force plans to design, develop, and field the ground 

based strategic deterrent (GBSD) over the next decade to replace 

the current intercontinental ballistic missile Minuteman III weapon system beginning in the fiscal year 2028 time frame. The Air 

Force plans to request approval to begin technology maturation and 

risk reduction activities at a milestone A review before the end of 

fiscal year 2016, and expects to spend more than $3.0 billion on 

early development activities between fiscal year 2017 and fiscal 

year 2021. As a result, the committee requests that the Comptroller General of the United States review the Air Force’s GBSD 

technology development, acquisition approach, and investment 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
356 

plan, and brief the congressional defense committees on the results 

of that review on an annual basis from fiscal year 2017 to 2021 

with periodic updates as agreed to with the Government Accountability Office. 

Conventional prompt global strike 

The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense’s 

commitment to the conventional prompt global strike activity 

shown in the fiscal year 2017 budget submission. The committee 

notes that the request seeks to substantially increase the Department’s investment in prompt global strike technology development 

activities. The committee looks forward to the successful execution 

of the upcoming Navy Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt 

Strike (IRCPS) flight experiment, and to working closely with the 

Department to prioritize continued development of the materials 

and technologies required to support near term operational system 

development efforts. 

As the CPGS activity continues working toward a milestone development decision, the committee would like to understand factors 

that may delay the Initial Operational Capability of a future program of record, as well as considerations regarding a Limited Operational Capability across the military services. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a CPGS integrated master plan describing CPGS research and development activities including the Army, Navy and Air Force, as the Secretary 

determines appropriate, which enable an operational CPGS capability. 

The Secretary must provide a report on this plan to the congressional defense committees no later than January 1, 2017. The report should include a description of the coordination and collaboration among the various agencies working hypersonic activities in 

support of the CPGS capability and must identify high risk areas 

associated with long lead items or technologies that could be mitigated prior to a major milestone development decision, including 

the need for adequate test facility infrastructure. The report shall 

also address whether there are warfighter requirements or integrated priorities lists-submitted needs for a limited conventional 

prompt global strike capability and options across the military 

services for supporting such requirements or integrated priorities 

lists submissions. 

Cyber protection for the ballistic missile defense system 

The committee is encouraged by the efforts of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to ensure that the Ballistic Missile Defense 

System (BMDS) is protected against cyber threats, in compliance 

with the Department of Defense’s regulation DFARS 252.204–7012, 

Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting. However, in testimony to Congress, the Director of MDA, 

Vice Admiral James Syring, expressed concern over the 

vulnerabilities of cleared defense contractors who are under contract to work with MDA. The committee is concerned that future 

years funding may be inadequate to address the full range of credible cyber risks to the BMDS and its supply chain. Accordingly, the 

committee urges the Department to provide proper priority towards 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
357 

assessing the BMDS, including its supply chain, in the context of 

the cyber vulnerability evaluations required by section 1647 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public 

Law 114–92) and directs the Principal Cyber Advisor to the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the committee on the plan 

for conducting a cyber vulnerability evaluation of the BMDS no 

later than October 1, 2016. 

Cyber security on military installations 

The committee is concerned that, despite some promising activity, the level of effort and funding necessary to ensure that industrial control systems needed to protect military installations and facilities from cyber-attack is insufficient to meet the growing threat. 

To assist the Department’s efforts to address this issue as a matter 

of priority, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to collate 

and analyze, within 180 days, the actions that have already been 

taken by the Department to increase the security of its industrial 

control systems and command and control systems, including the 

installations and systems already secured; the systems remaining 

to be secured; the plan by which the remaining systems will be secured and the expected time it will take to make them secure; the 

organizational and financial resources estimated to be required to 

implement the plan; and the manner in which the success of the 

plan is to be assessed. 

Department of Defense report on nuclear enterprise funding and management 

The committee notes that the Congress has stressed the vital importance that the triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems plays 

in ensuring the national security of the United States. The committee has consistently supported and emphasized to the Department of Defense (DOD) the importance of effective and efficient 

planning and management of the programs critical to the nuclear 

deterrent of the United States and the personnel, systems, and infrastructure that comprise such deterrent. The committee notes 

that re-capitalizing the aging legs of the strategic triad has a significant fiscal impact. For example, the Navy’s Ohio-class strategic 

ballistic missile submarine replacement program is intended to 

carry 70 percent of our nation’s strategic weapons, and the fiscal 

investments in this program will make it one of the largest acquisition efforts in the Department of Defense. Similarly, Air Force programs to support the land-based and air-based legs of the strategic 

triad involve several major programs, including, among others, 

modernization of the intercontinental ballistic missile force and development of the long-range strategic bomber. 

The committee appreciates the Department’s consideration of 

ideas to help manage these major programs. The Congress has continued to support these efforts by providing planning and budget 

flexibility wherever possible. The committee is aware that the Navy 

intends to use these and other authorities to improve fiscal stability and program management of the Ohio replacement program. 

The committee believes the Secretary of Defense should consider 

the value and impact of such flexibility throughout the nuclear enterprise. In addition, the committee notes that effective planning 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
358 

and program management for such critical support structures as 

nuclear command, control, and communications networks is equally 

as important as the delivery systems for maintaining the viability 

of strategic deterrence. 

The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the viability of options for improving the program management and fiscal stability of the key modernization programs for the 

nuclear enterprise, to include delivery systems and the nuclear 

command, control, and communications systems. The Department 

submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the House of Representatives on the results of the assessment 

no later than March 1, 2017. The assessment should include: 

(1) options and potential authorities to improve funding stability and reduce cost; 

(2) options and actions to improve program and financial 

management planning for nuclear delivery and nuclear command, control, and communications systems; 

(3) options for combining fund transfer flexibility at the Secretary of Defense level (e.g., joint or cross-service funds) for the 

entire nuclear enterprise, including an explanation of how financial management accountability and transparency would be 

maintained related to funds moving in to and out of any such 

mechanisms; and 

(4) other funding and program management considerations 

the Secretary of Defense deems appropriate. 

E–4B Recapitalization Plan 

The Air Force’s fleet of four E–4B aircraft, based on the Boeing 

747–200 airframe, provides the National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) for the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior leaders. It is a 

critical component of airborne layer of the National Military Command System (NMCS). 

The E–4 first entered service in 1974 and will approach the end 

of its service life in the 2020s. With the likely closing of the Boeing 

747 production line (the only domestic line still producing large 

four engine jet aircraft) in the early 2020s it is important for the 

committee to understand the range of options under consideration 

for recapitalizing the critical E–4B capabilities, and whether sustaining those capabilities will require another large four engine jet 

or can be accomplished on a smaller twin-engine platform. In November 2015, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff provided 

the congressional defense committees with an interim report on the 

status of a nuclear command and control (NC2) capabilities-based 

assessment (CBA) and a NMCS airborne fleet mission area analysis (MAA). The committee directs the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff to submit the final CBA and MAA reports to the 

congressional defense committees no later than September 30, 

2016. 

Ground Based Strategic Deterrent 

The committee is concerned regarding progress towards a Milestone A certification for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent 

(GBSD). However, the committee understands work in fiscal year 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
359 

2017, specifically the request for proposal (RFP) for technology 

maturation and risk reduction activities (TMRR) and the associated 

contract award, scheduled for the third quarter of FY 2017, is in 

support of achieving program goals and objectives in reducing and 

retiring technological risk. Accordingly, the committee recommends 

full funding for the program. 

Additionally, the committee appreciates and supports the expressed intention of the Air Force and the Department to obtain 

Milestone A certification in FY 2016. The committee believes it is 

important to achieve this goal and, therefore, directs the Secretary 

of Defense to provide a report to the Congressional Defense Committees no later than August 1, 2016, on progress in achieving 

Milestone A certification before the end of fiscal year 2016. The report should also include an assessment of the adequacy of the current staff levels at the relevant System Program Office (SPG). 

Inclusion of the Army National Guard Cyber Protection 

Teams in the Department of Defense Cyber Mission 

Force 

In 2016, the National Guard Bureau announced the establishment of ten Army National Guard Cyber Protection Teams (CPTs). 

The Army did not include these teams in the forces that the Army 

would provide for the Department of Defense Cyber Mission Force 

(CMF), while the Air Force did include its National Guard CPTs 

in its force presentation plans. However, the committee understands that the Army is quite close to a decision that these CPTs 

will become part of the overall Army CMF. The committee requests 

that the Commander of Army Cyber Command and the Chief of the 

National Guard Bureau determine, prior to conference on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, how the 

Army National Guard CPTs will be incorporated into the CMF. 

This determination should include a timeline for integration, a description of the teams’ mission sets, how they will be funded, when 

they will be trained and what additional authorities might be necessary to allow them to carry out Title 32 missions in support of 

state and civil operations. The committee was disappointed to see 

that training for these CPTs was not funded in the budget request 

for fiscal year 2017 and requests that appropriate steps be taken 

to fund the teams in fiscal year 2017 prior to conference. 

Space situational awareness technologies 

As space becomes more contested, there is a need for enhancing 

space situational awareness. It is critical that appropriate groundbased infrastructure is in place to monitor the condition, survivability, and actions of assets in space. The committee believes that 

having ground-based capability may also provide a credible layer of 

accountability for behavior in space. 

However, most ground-based techniques require active illumination of assets in space and that doing so requires government-togovernment agreement. The committee notes that an alternative in 

development, intensity interferometry, provides a passive technique 

that can be used to interrogate any geosynchronous object without 

illumination. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
360 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has al- ready invested $66.1 million in developing a passive, ten-element 

intensity interferometer that will demonstrate significant image 

resolution in geosynchronous orbit. The committee believe a 

ground-based capability may be a cost-effective means to conduct 

mission surveillance of space assets, and that a proof-of-concept capability of intensity interferometer is necessary to demonstrate viability of the investment already incurred. 

The committee therefore directs the department to provide a 

briefing to the defense committees by December 31, 2016 that explains the utility of passive techniques for space situational awareness such as intensity interferometry versus active illumination. 

The committee also directs the Department to provide in the briefing a plan on how it intends to establish a proof-of-concept capability for intensity interferometry. 

Space system software review 

Department of Defense (DOD) space systems are highly dependent on software to conduct or enable a wide range of functions, 

such as satellite command and control, mission management, data 

processing, and protecting communications from cyber attacks, 

among others. Unfortunately, DOD does not have a good track 

record in its efforts to acquire software-intensive space systems and 

information assurance and other cyber hardening requirements will 

continue to exacerbate the complexity and challenges going forward. Current examples include the Global Positioning System 

Next Generation Operational Control System (OCX) and the Joint 

Space Operations Center Mission System, both of which are spacerelated ground systems that have experienced significant development challenges leading to, in the case of OCX, cost increases of 

hundreds of millions of dollars and years of schedule delays. Prior 

examples include challenges with fixing the flight software for 

Space Based Infrared System satellites, also leading to poor cost 

and schedule results. Additionally, not having interdependent 

space-related segments in place at the right time—whether they 

are the satellites, ground systems, or user terminals—delays delivery of needed capabilities to the warfighter and wastes millions of 

dollars of investment in the form of opportunity costs for the segments that are fielded, but underutilized. 

Therefore, the committee directs the U.S. Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of DOD software-intensive space 

system acquisition efforts to determine (1) the primary causes of 

software development challenges and the extent to which DOD has 

or is addressing them, and (2) how DOD’s acquisition practices for 

software-intensive systems compare with industry best practices. 

The review should be provided in the form of a briefing to the congressional defense committees no later than March 31, 2017. 

Strategic missile commonality 

The committee notes that both ballistic missile legs of the nuclear Triad will require recapitalization in the coming decades to 

ensure their continued viability. The Air Force has recently started 

the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program to replace 

the Minuteman III and the Navy will need to recapitalize the TriVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00396 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
361 

dent II (D5) strategic weapon system in the longer-term. The committee supports the Department’s efforts to incorporate common 

components and technologies to enhance affordability and risk reduction across both intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine launched ballistic missiles. 

The committee would like to understand how the Department is 

incorporating commonality into the acquisition strategy for GBSD. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to brief the committee no 

later than August 1, 2016, on how options for GBSD components 

and sub-systems are being evaluated with the overall affordability 

of the Triad in mind. Specifically, the briefing should address how 

the Department is prioritizing development efforts that will jointly 

benefit the Air Force’s GBSD program in the near-term and the 

Navy’s recapitalization in the longer-term. 

The importance and use of U.S. FAA licensed spaceports 

The committee continues to recognize the unique importance of 

U.S. 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 PCSA 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, 

PCSA provides access to space for vital government and commercial interests. The Mid Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) at Wallops Island, Virginia provides medium-class and small-class launch 

capabilities for the Department. It has launched numerous missions for DOD with is agency partners, Air Force Space Command, 

ORS, and MDA. MARS provides assured/responsive access to midto-low inclination orbits for payloads up to 14,000 lbs. The Oklahoma Air & Space Port, near Bums Flat, Oklahoma, is the only 

space port in the United States to have a civilian FAA approved 

Space Flight Corridor in the National Airspace System. This Space 

Flight corridor is unique because it is not within Military Operating Areas or within restricted airspace, which provides an operational capability for space launch operations and associated industries specialized in space-related activities. 

The committee believes that these three facilities can be used, 

when appropriate, to support the national security space program. 

Training for cyber mission forces 

The Secretary of Defense in fiscal year 2013 directed the standup 

of the Cyber Mission Forces (CMF) and provided funds for U.S. 

Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) and the service cyber components 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
362 

to establish the teams and fund the training of personnel and 

units. The funding provided by the Secretary for training covered 

fiscal year 2013 to fiscal year 2016. During this period of central 

funding, the services, under the supervision of CYBERCOM, the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Staff, were supposed to come to an agreement on a joint, federated training program funded by the services for training of the CMF. This federated training program was to be an equitable division of labor 

that avoided duplication and built on the expertise of each service. 

The committee is concerned that the services were not able to come 

to an agreement on a joint training program for the CMF for the 

budget submission for fiscal year 2017. The committee expects this 

issue to be resolved in the current budget planning cycle for fiscal 

year 2018, and expects to be kept informed of progress towards this 

goal in the coming months. 

Weather imagery for U.S. Central Command 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is facing 

a significant gap in weather information over the U.S. Central 

Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR). The committee commends the Department for its coordination with European partners and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to ensure continuity of coverage for cloud characterization and theater weather imagery over the Indian Ocean. 

However, the committee is concerned that these are short-term solutions that will provide an estimated two to five years of weather 

imagery. Unless the Department takes near-term action to address 

impending gaps, the military may be left without critical information for strategic and tactical missions. 

The committee understands the Department is considering multiple options to provide long-term coverage over the CENTCOM 

AOR, including both material and non-material solutions. In assessing non-material solutions, the committee urges the Department to prioritize operational support to combatant commanders, 

including maintaining the geographic area coverage, as well as the 

reliability and refresh rate of weather imagery. The committee 

notes there are multiple material solutions available, including 

purchasing an electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) imager either directly under a firm, fixed price contract or from NOAA, and launching this sensor as a hosted payload on a communications satellite 

or on a Department of Defense infrared satellite system. The Department may also consider an alternative, commercial acquisition 

model where the Department does not bear the costs of ownership 

but instead purchases the required data. 

The committee encourages the Department to fully consider all 

available options and directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to 

the congressional defense committees a strategy (material and nonmaterial acquisition) for a persistent theater weather imagery capability to meet CENTCOM AOR weather data requirements. This 

strategy shall be submitted concurrent with the Fiscal Year 2018 

budget request. Should the Department require Fiscal Year 2017 

funds for the procurement of long lead items to support this strategy, the committee expects the Department to submit a reprogramming request. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(363) 

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 2017 budget requested $7.4 billion for military 

construction and housing programs. Of this amount, $6.1 billion 

was requested for military construction, $1.3 billion for the construction and operation of family housing, and $205.2 million for 

base closure activities. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations for 

military construction, housing programs, and base closure activities 

totaling $7.4 billion. The total amount authorized for appropriations reflects the committee’s continuing commitment to invest in 

the recapitalization of DOD facilities and infrastructure. 

Short title (sec. 2001) 

The committee recommends a provision that would designate division B of this Act as the ‘‘Military Construction Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2017.’’ 

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, 2019, or the date of enactment 

of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2020, whichever is later. 

Effective date (sec. 2003) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide an effective date for titles XXI through XXVII of October 1, 2016 or the 

date of enactment of this Act. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(365) 

TITLE XXI—ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$522.4 million for military construction and $526.6 million for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2017. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$526.6 million for military construction and $460 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2016. 

The budget request included $33.0 million for a mass migration 

facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The committee recommends no 

funding for this project and applies the savings to higher priority 

unfunded military construction projects in fiscal year 2017. 

Additionally, the committee recommends a reduction of $40.0 

million from prior-year authorization of appropriations to reflect 

project cancellations and bid savings and applies such savings to 

high priority unfunded military construction projects in fiscal year 

2017. 

The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times military 

construction funding is often deferred in favor of other priorities 

and notes the Army has identified significant unfunded military 

construction priorities, including a company operations facility at 

Fort Gordon, Georgia. The committee notes that this project was 

identified as the top priority of the Chief of Staff of the Army. 

Funding for this project has been added as outlined in the tables 

in sections 2101 and 4601. 

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the active component of the Army 

for fiscal year 2017. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 

Family housing (sec. 2102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

new construction, planning, and design of family housing units for 

the Army for fiscal year 2017. 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 2017. This provision would also provide an overall limit 

on the amount authorized for military construction and family 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
366 

housing projects for the active component of the Army. The state 

list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2014 project (sec. 2104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public 

Law 113–66) for construction of an aircraft maintenance hangar at 

Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington to include an aircraft 

washing apron. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 

projects (sec. 2105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public 

Law 112–239) for two projects until October 1, 2017, or the date 

of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2014 

projects (sec. 2106) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public 

Law 113–66) for three projects until October 1, 2017, or the date 

of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(367) 

TITLE XXII—NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$1.1 billion for military construction and $394.9 million for family 

housing for the Department of the Navy for fiscal year 2017. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$1.2 billion for military construction and $394.9 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2017. 

The budget request included $6.1 million for a microgrid in Balboa that would support non-essential functions. The committee 

does not recommend funding for this project. 

The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times military 

construction funding is often deferred in favor of other priorities 

and notes the Navy has identified significant unfunded priorities 

for military construction including a parking apron to support the 

stationing of the F–35 at Miramar, California; a communications 

complex at Miramar, California; and the recapitalization of weapons magazines at Norfolk, Virginia. The committee notes that these 

projects were identified as top priorities of the Commandant of the 

Marine Corps and the Chief of Naval Operations. Funding for these 

projects has been authorized as outlined in the tables in sections 

2201 and 4601. 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 

year 2017. 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 2017. This provision would also authorize 

funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing 

management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Navy to improve existing family housing units of 

the Department of the Navy in an amount not to exceed $11.1 million. 

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the active component military construction and 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
368 

family housing projects of the Department of the Navy authorized 

for construction for fiscal year 2017. 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. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2014 project (sec. 2205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public 

Law 113–66) for construction of a water transmission line at Pearl 

City, Hawaii to include a 591-meter long, 16-inch diameter water 

transmission line as part of the network required to provide the 

main water supply to Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 

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 2013 (division B of Public 

Law 112–239), for various projects until October 1, 2017, or the 

date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 

projects (sec. 2207) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2201 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public 

Law 113–66), for seven projects until October 1, 2017, or the date 

of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(369) 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of 

$1.6 billion for military construction and $335.1 million for family 

housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2017. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$1.6 billion for military construction and $335.1 million for family 

housing for fiscal year 2017. 

Additionally, the committee recommends a decrease of $22.3 million from prior-year authorization of appropriations to reflect 

project cancellations and bid savings and applies such savings to 

high priority unfunded military construction projects in fiscal year 

2017. 

The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times military 

construction funding is often deferred in favor of other priorities 

and notes the Air Force has identified significant unfunded military construction priorities including an E3 mission and flight simulator at Tinker Air Force Base, and a consolidated communications center at Joint Base Andrews. The committee notes that 

these projects were identified as the top priorities of the Chief of 

Staff of the Air Force. Funding for these projects has been added 

as outlined in the tables in sections 2301 and 4601. 

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition 

projects (sec. 2301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Air 

Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2017. 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 2017. This provision would also authorize funds for facilities that support family housing, including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and storage facilities. 

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Air Force to improve existing family housing units 

of the Department of the Air Force in an amount not to exceed 

$150.7 million. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
370 

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 2017. This provision would also provide an overall 

limit on the amount authorized for military construction and family 

housing projects for the active component of the Air Force. The 

state list contained in this report is the binding list of the specific 

projects authorized at each location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2016 project (sec. 2305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2301 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) for a 

tactical response force alert facility at Malstrom Air Force Base, 

Montana to include the construction of an emergency power generator system. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 

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 2014 (division B of Public Law 113–66) for 

various projects until October 1, 2017, or the date of the enactment 

of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2018, whichever is later. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(371) 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY 

CONSTRUCTION 

Summary 

The budget request included authorization of appropriations of $2.1 billion for military construction for the defense agencies and 

$59.2 million for family housing for the defense agencies for fiscal 

year 2017. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $2.0 billion for military construction and 59.2 million for family 

housing for the defense agencies for fiscal year 2017. The budget request included $12.1 million for upgrades to the 

Pentagon Metro Entrance. The committee does not recommend 

funding for this project. 

The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times military 

construction funding is often deferred in favor of other priorities 

and notes the Department of Defense has identified significant unfunded military construction priorities including a battalion complex for the Special Operations Command. The committee notes 

that this project was identified as the top priority of the Commander of the Special Operations Command. Funding for this 

project has been added as outlined in the tables in sections 2401 

and 4601. 

Additionally, the committee recommends a decrease of $132.2 

million from prior-year authorization of appropriations to reflect 

project cancellations and bid savings and applies such savings to 

high priority unfunded military construction projects in fiscal year 

2017. 

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 2017. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-byinstallation basis. 

Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation projects. The 

authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation 

basis. 

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 

2403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for the military construction and family housing 

projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction for fisVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00407 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
372 

cal year 2017. 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 

2014 project (sec. 2404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authority contained in section 2401 of the Military Construction 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public Law 

113–66) for the construction of a high school at Royal Air Force 

Base Lakenheath, United Kingdom to allow the construction of a 

combined middle/high school. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 

projects (sec. 2405) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public 

Law 112–239) for two projects until October 1, 2017, or the date 

of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2014 

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 2014 (division B of Public 

Law 113–66) for ten projects until October 1, 2017, or the date of 

enactment of an act authorizing funds for the military construction 

for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(373) 

TITLE XXV—INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $177.9 million for military construction in fiscal year 2017 

for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program. The committee recommends the requested 

amount. 

Additionally, the committee recommends a decrease of $30.0 million from prior-year authorization of appropriations to reflect 

project cancellations and bid savings and applies such savings to 

high priority unfunded military construction projects in fiscal year 

2017. 

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 $177.9 million for the U.S. contribution to the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2017. 

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 19 military construction projects totaling $684.1 million from the Republic of Korea as in-kind contributions. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(375) 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES 

FACILITIES 

Summary 

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $672.6 million for military construction in fiscal year 2017 

for facilities for the National Guard and reserve components. 

The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of 

$719.1 million for military construction in fiscal year 2017 for facilities for the National Guard and reserve components. The detailed funding recommendations are contained in the state list 

table included in this report. 

The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times military 

construction funding is often deferred in favor of other priorities 

and notes the National Guard and Reserve forces have identified 

significant unfunded military construction priorities, including an 

Army Reserve Center in Phoenix, Arizona and a Guard Readiness 

Center at Fort Carson, Colorado. The committee notes that these 

projects were identified as the top unfunded priorities for the reserve forces by the Chief of Staff of the Army. Funding for these 

projects has been added as outlined in the tables in this title and 

section 4601. 

Subtitle A—Project Authorizations and Authorizations of 

Appropriations 

Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2601) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

military construction projects for the Army National Guard for fiscal year 2017. 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 

2017. 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 2017. The authorized amounts are 

listed on an installation-by-installation basis. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
376 

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 2017. 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 2017. 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 2017 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 

2014 project (sec. 2611) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorization contained in section 2602 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B of Public 

Law 113–66) for construction of a new Army Reserve Center at 

Bullville, New York to allow the Secretary of the Army to add to 

or alter the existing Army Reserve Center at that location. 

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 

2015 project (sec. 2612) 

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the 

authorizations contained in section 2603 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B of Public 

Law 113–291), for construction of a Reserve Training Center in 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to allow the acquisition of approximately 

8.5 acres of adjacent land necessary to construct road improvements and associated supporting facilities to provide required access to that site. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 

project (sec. 2613) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in section 2603 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public 

Law 112–239) for one project until October 1, 2017, or the date of 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
377 

the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction 

for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later. 

Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2014 

projects (sec. 2614) 

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the 

authorization contained in sections 2602, 2603, 2604, and 2605 of 

the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 

(division B of Public Law 113–66) for six projects until October 1, 

2017, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for 

military construction for fiscal year 2018, whichever is later. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(379) 

TITLE XXVII—BASE REALIGNMENT AND 

CLOSURE ACTIVITIES 

Summary and explanation of tables 

The budget request included $205.2 million for the ongoing cost 

of environmental remediation and other activities necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005 Base 

Realignment and Closure rounds. The committee recommends this 

amount. The detailed funding recommendations are contained in 

the state list table included in this report. 

Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and 

closure activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure Account (sec. 2701) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 for ongoing activities that are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, 

and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. 

Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and 

closure (BRAC) round (sec. 2702) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make clear 

that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize a future 

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. Elsewhere in the 

Act, the committee recommends a reduction of $4.0 million for 

BRAC planning activities. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(381) 

TITLE XXVIII—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military 

Family Housing Changes 

Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation 

and maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas outside the United States (sec. 2801) 

The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize 

contingency construction authority in certain areas outside the 

United States for an additional year. 

Limited authority for scope of work increase (sec. 2802) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Department of Defense to increase the scope of military construction 

projects by up to 10 percent above the amount authorized by Congress after notifying the appropriate congressional committees. 

The committee notes the emerging requirements for power redundancy and other security requirements that have led to scope 

increases in recent years and believes that the additional flexibility 

will allow the Department to proceed with similar projects without 

requiring legislative changes. 

Permanent authority for acceptance and use of contributions for certain construction, maintenance, and repair 

projects mutually beneficial to the Department of Defense and Kuwait Military Forces (sec. 2803) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make permanent the authority to accept contributions from the Government of 

Kuwait for certain infrastructure projects that are mutually beneficial to the Department of Defense and Kuwait Military Forces. 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration 

Authority to carry out military construction projects for energy resiliency and security projects not previously authorized (sec. 2811) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2914 of title 10, United States Code, by placing a higher funding priority on energy resiliency and security, in addition to conservation, within the energy conservation investment program. 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) is not adequately addressing national security threats and 

costs of electricity grid outages and failures as part of the electricity procurement process. The result is a DOD electricity procurement policy which favors the lowest-cost form of energy, but 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
382 

does not include costs associated with energy resiliency capabilities, or the value of electricity to achieve mission assurance in the 

calculation for purchasing energy. 

The committee recognizes the value of energy conservation and 

payback periods. However, the committee believes that DOD and 

the military services’ ability to accomplish their missions through 

enhanced energy resiliency and security, ultimately should have a 

higher priority above conservation. 

The committee believes the Department should place greater emphasis on energy resiliency projects to critical mission operations 

that can withstand threats from cyber, climate, and physical attacks through improved systems in energy generation, transmission, and distribution. 

Additionally, the committee believes the Department should pursue life-cycle cost-effective energy resiliency solutions that provide 

mission assurance and prioritize critical energy loads of the installation beyond standby generators with potential solutions, including but not limited to cyber security, redundancy, micro-grids, distributed energy resources, islanded power plants, site security, demand response, renewable energy, diversified fuel sources, advanced metering, event detection, sensors, predictive analytics, 

automatic transfer switching, black-start capabilities, and electromagnetic pulse protection. 

Authority of the Secretary concerned to accept lessee improvements at government-owned/contractor-operated 

industrial plants or facilities (sec. 2812) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2535 of title 10, United States Code, to allow a service secretary to accept facility improvements of the leased plant or facility 

if necessary for the development or production of military weapon 

systems, munitions, components, or supplies. Upon completion of 

the improvement the Department of Defense would assume ownership. 

Treatment of insured depository institutions operating on 

land leased from military installations (sec. 2813) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary 

concerned to treat all Federal or State chartered insured depository 

institutions to be treated equally with regard to certain financial 

arrangements. 

The committee recognizes that certain Federal or State chartered 

insured depository institutions in good standing that have been selected to operate on military installations are able to do so with 

highly favorable lease terms given the value these institutions provide to service members. The committee agrees that these institutions should provide important benefits to service members, and 

this provision is intended to ensure that no Federal or State chartered insured depository institution is treated differently than another as a consequence of its organization type. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
383 

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances 

Land acquisitions, Arlington County, Virginia (sec. 2821) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Army to acquire by whatever means the Secretary 

determines is sufficient for the expansion of Arlington National 

Cemetery in order to maximize the number of interment sites and 

the compatible use of adjacent properties. 

Land conveyance, Campion Air Force Radar Station, Galena, Alaska (sec. 2822) 

The committee includes a provision that would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to convey the former Campion Air Force station to the town of Galena, Alaska. 

Land conveyances, High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program facility and adjacent property, Gakona, 

Alaska (sec. 2823) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the 

Secretary of the Air Force to convey a portion of the property that 

was used for the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program 

near the Gulkana Village to the University of Alaska for consideration that the Secretary determines is appropriate. The provision 

would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to convey another 

portion of the property, for consideration, the Ahtna Alaska Native 

Corporation from which the property was purchased by the Secretary. 

Transfer of Fort Belvoir Mark Center Campus from the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of Defense and applicability of certain provisions of law relating to the 

Pentagon Reservation (sec. 2824) 

The committee recommends a provision that would transfer the 

administrative jurisdiction of the Fort Belvoir Mark Center, where 

the Washington Headquarters Service is located, from the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of Defense. 

Transfer of Administrative Jurisdictions, Navajo Army 

Depot, Arizona (sec. 2825) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 

the transfer of administrative jurisdiction of property at Navajo 

Army Depot, Arizona, to the Department of the Army for the purposes of continued military operations. 

Subtitle D—Utah Land Withdrawals and Exchanges 

Part I—Authorization for Temporary Closure of Certain 

Public Land Adjacent to the Utah Test and Training Range 

Short title (sec. 2831) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow for the 

section to be cited as the ‘‘Utah Test and Training Range Encroachment Prevention and Temporary Closure Act’’. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
384 

Definitions (sec. 2832) 

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for 

definitions for BLM Land, Secretary of the Interior, the State of 

Utah, and the Utah Test and Training Range. 

Memorandum of agreement (sec. 2833) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Interior to enter 

into a memorandum of agreement that authorizes the Secretary of 

the Air Force, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to 

impose limited closures of specific Bureau of Land Management 

land for military operations and national security and public safety 

purposes at the Utah Test and Training Range. 

Temporary closures (sec. 2834) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the Secretary of the 

Interior, to determine necessary temporary closures related to the 

military operations, public safety, or national security. 

Liability (sec. 2835) 

The committee recommends a provision that would hold harmless the United States, including all departments, agencies, officers, 

and employees and not be liable for any injury or damage to any 

individual or property suffered in the course of any mining, mineral, or geothermal activity, or any other authorized non defenserelated activity conduction on BLM Land. 

Community resource advisory group (sec. 2836) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

establishment of the Utah Test and Training Range Community 

Relations Advisory Group not later than 90 days after enactment 

of this Act. 

Savings clauses (sec. 2837) 

The committee recommends a provision that would outline the 

limitations of this act on current agreements. 

Part II—Bureau of Land Management Land Exchange With 

State of Utah 

Definitions (sec. 2841) 

The committee recommends a provision that would define the 

terms Exchange Map, Federal Land, Non-Federal Land, Secretary, 

and State. 

Exchange of federal land and non-federal land (sec. 2842) 

The committee recommends a provision that would outline the 

manner in which the exchange of federal land and non-federal land 

would take place. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
385 

Status and management of non-federal land acquired by the 

United States (sec. 2843) 

The committee recommends a provision that would stipulate the 

management of non-federal land acquired by the United States. 

Hazardous materials (sec. 2844) 

The committee recommends a provision that would stipulate the 

responsible party for any costs related to the cleanup of hazardous 

materials. 

Subtitle E—Other Matters 

Certification of optimal location for 4th and 5th generation 

combat aircraft basing and for rotation of forces at 

Naval Air Station El Centro or Marine Corps Air Station 

Kaneohe Bay (sec. 2851) 

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the 

expenditure of any funds for the construction of hangars, housing, 

maintenance or related facilities to support any current or future 

F/A–18 or F–35 squadrons at Naval Air Station Lemoore until an 

analysis of operational requirements confirms that Naval Air Station Lemoore is the optimal location for those squadrons. 

Replenishment of Sierra Vista Subwatershed regional aquifer, Arizona (sec. 2852) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a 

cooperative agreement with the Cochise Conservation Recharge 

Network, Arizona, in support of efforts to replenish the regional aquifer identified under Section 321(g) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136). 

Items of Special Interest 

Concurrent use of repair and new construction 

The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense laboratories represent a unique national security capability and believes that these laboratories should have maximum flexibility to 

use resources available to them to discharge their mission. In previous years, the Congress has permitted laboratories access to increased levels of minor military construction from funds available 

for operation and maintenance or from funds authorized to be 

made available under section 219(a) of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 

110–417). 

The committee notes with concern that the infrastructure at 

many of these laboratories is prohibitively old and in need of serious repair and refurbishment. While the use of repair funds for 

new construction is not permitted, per section 2811(c) of title 10 

United States Code, the committee understands that there is no 

legislative barrier to using military construction funds or funds 

available for minor military construction conjunctively or concurrently with repair funds for facility repair and refurbishment initiatives. Concurrent use of funds in this manner would ensure that 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
386 

that the utilization of an existing facility can be cost effectively 

maintained, improved, and/or expanded by the partial addition of 

new construction. 

The committee believes that this could significantly enhance the 

capability of repair and refurbishment efforts and provide a cost effective utilization of funds to improve existing older facilities for 

necessary state-of-the-art research work. In this regard, the committee directs the Department of Defense to maximize the use of 

these conjunctively-funded projects. In addition, the committee expects that the Department will keep the committee updated appropriately on its usage in improving the laboratories’ infrastructure. 

The committee also recognizes that while there are no legislative 

barriers to the use of funds conjunctively or concurrently in this 

manner, there may still exist policies or regulations that restrict 

such action. Consequently, the committee directs the Department 

to identify, with a view toward eliminating, any service or local 

policies, regulations, or restrictions that discourage or inhibit such 

conjunctive use of funds. The committee directs that this identification and elimination of policies, regulations, and restrictions be 

completed no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act. 

Cybersecurity risk to Department of Defense facilities 

The committee finds that Department of Defense facilities are 

transitioning to smart buildings increasingly utilizing wireless controls for heating, ventilation and air conditioning, security systems, 

lighting, electrical power, fire alarms, elevators, visitor controls, 

cellular communications, Wi-Fi networks, first responder communications and other systems are increasing interconnected and online. This higher connectivity has increased the threat and vulnerability to cyber-attacks, particularly in ways existing DOD regulations were not designed to consider. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to deliver to the congressional defense committees a report 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, Departmentwide implementation plan to upgrade and improve the security of 

control systems and networks to mitigate identified risks; (4) Assesses the extent to which existing Department of Defense military 

construction directives, regulations, and instructions require the 

consideration of cybersecurity vulnerabilities and cyber risk in preconstruction design processes and requirements development processes for military construction projects; and (5) the capabilities of 

the Army Corps of Engineers, the Naval Facilities Engineering 

Command, the Air Force Civil Engineer Center, and other construction agents, as well as participating stakeholders, to identify 

and mitigate full-spectrum cyber-enabled risk to new facilities and 

major renovations. 

For the purposes of this legislation, ICS include, but are not limited to, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition Systems, BuildVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00422 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
387 

ing Automation Systems Utility Monitoring and Energy Management and Control Systems. 

Such report shall include an estimated budget for the implementation plan, and shall be delivered no later than 180 days after the 

date of the enactment of this Act. 

Extension of the runway at Pope Army Airfield 

The committee recognizes that Pope Army Airfield is a frequently-used airfield, including for the purposes of the Global Response Force (GRF). The mission of the GRF is to have units of the 

Army 18th Airborne Corps anywhere in the world within 48 hours’ 

notice. The committee understands that the current length of Pope 

Army Airfield is 7,500 feet with 1,000 feet of hardened overruns, 

providing 8,500 feet for the take-off of aircraft. The committee 

notes that a C–17 aircraft at its maximum gross take-off weight requires 10,500 feet for take-off, while a C–5 aircraft requires 11,500 

feet for take-off when loaded to its maximum gross take-off weight 

of 769,000 pounds. The committee understands that C–17 and C– 

5 aircraft cannot currently depart Pope Army Airfield fully fueled 

and with a full load of troops and require air refueling. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to 

submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later 

than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. The report should include an analysis of the necessity of extending the 

runway at Pope Army Airfield, any operational impacts to not extending the runway, and a timeline for any plans to extend the 

runway. 

Military Ocean Terminal, Concord infrastructure impacts 

on readiness 

The committee recognizes the strategic importance of the Military Ocean Terminal, Concord (MOTCO) for the delivery of ammunition to the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility. The committee understands that no other facility on the west coast of the 

United States can meet the ammunition throughput capacity or net 

explosive weight limits of MOTCO. Although MOTCO can meet 

current mission requirements, significant infrastructure improvements are required to support operations, including a rebuild of 

Pier 2 in order to maintain operational readiness. 

Due to the poor condition of critical, mission-related infrastructure, the committee commends the approximately $205.0 million in 

military construction and Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization funding that has been programmed by the Department. 

The committee understands that in addition to the $205.0 million, 

infrastructure projects will be required between fiscal year 2017 

and fiscal year 2024 at an estimated cost of $122.0 million. The 

committee understands that these projects would directly support 

the operations (roads, bridges and dredging) in addition to a variety of safety, security, force protection, and utility projects which 

allow MOTCO to safely and securely conduct its mission. The committee also recognizes that MOTCO Pier 3 must be repaired and 

sustained to eliminate the potential for a capability gap, along with 

the timely rebuild of Pier 2 that is essential to preserve required 

ammunition resupply capability to the Pacific. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
388 

The committee strongly encourages the Department to continue 

to request the appropriate funding necessary to make infrastructure improvements to address years of deferred maintenance and 

repair at MOTCO. 

Ordnance Plant recapitalization 

The Committee notes the Department of Defense does not have 

a long-term strategic capital improvement plan in place to support 

its aging Ordnance Plants. These facilities are supporting a multitude of DoD urgent requirements, yet these activities will come 

to an abrupt halt if basic infrastructure needs, such as heating and 

cooling, safety, and environmental hazards, are not addressed in 

the near future. The Committee strongly encourages the Secretary 

of the Defense to develop a multi-year recapitalization plan for the 

Ordnance Plants, including the Industrial Reserve, that can be 

shared with the Committees of jurisdiction in advance of the next 

budget cycle, and include the required funds in future budget requests based on the most urgent needs identified. 

Treatment of stormwater as wastewater 

The committee notes that there has been some continued confusion about whether the definition of a utility system for the treatment of wastewater includes the treatment of stormwater. 

The committee believes that section 2813 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92) addresses this issue and that the treatment of wastewater includes 

the treatment of stormwater. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(389) 

TITLE XXIX—OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 

OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects 

(sec. 2901) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal 

year 2017 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 2017 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 2017. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(391) 

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 2017, 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 recent actions taken at the Waste Isolation Plant 

(WIPP) and its projected initial operating date of December 2016, 

instead of the original March 2016 date, necessitate quarterly reporting to the congressional defense committees on actions taken 

towards bringing WIPP towards full operational status, including 

key milestones, status of any capital projects under Department of 

Energy (DOE) Order 413.1 as well as obligations and expenditures 

of fiscal year 2016 funding. Such reporting shall be due within 30 

days of the quarter it is reporting for. The committee further requests the Government Accountability Office (GAO) review these 

quarterly updates and report to the congressional defense committees on significant findings and trends in the above tasks. 

The committee further directs the GAO 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, 

with a briefing to the committee due no later than February 28, 

2017. 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations 

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a 

total of $12.9 billion for the Department of Energy for fiscal year 

2017 for the National Nuclear Security Administration to carry out 

programs necessary for national security. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
392 

Defense environmental clean-up (sec. 3102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$5.3 billion for fiscal year 2017 defense environmental cleanup of 

contaminated facilities, soil, ground, and surface water and the 

treatment and disposal of radioactive and other waste generated 

through the production of nuclear weapons and weapons materials. 

Other defense activities (sec. 3103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

$791.6 million for other defense activities for fiscal year 2017, including funds for health, safety, and security and the Office of Legacy Management and Nuclear Energy. 

Nuclear energy (sec. 3104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize 

funds for the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2017 as specified in the funding table in section 4701. 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and 

Limitations 

Common financial systems for the nuclear security enterprise (sec. 3111) 

The committee is encouraged by recent steps the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has taken to implement 

common financial systems for the nuclear security enterprise, including establishing a program director for financial integration, 

but the committee remains concerned about the potential obstacles 

such improvement and integration of the financial systems may 

face, including the availability of resources, implementation of an 

effective information technology solution, and the development of a 

standardized reporting framework. 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Administrator of NNSA to complete implementation of a common 

financial system for the nuclear security enterprise no later than 

3 years after the date of enactment of this Act. This common financial system should include, among other things, common data reporting requirements for work performed with NNSA funding; a 

common NNSA work breakdown structure that aligns to the NNSA 

budget structure; NNSA definitions and methodologies for identifying costs for programs of record and base capabilities; and a capability to use historical costing data with the Department of Defense’s Defense Cost Analysis Resource Center. 

The Administrator shall also submit to the congressional defense 

committees an annual report on progress towards implementing 

this common financial system. These reports shall be due by March 

1 of each year, beginning March 1, 2017, and shall end after submission of the report in which the Administrator concludes that the 

common financial system has been fully implemented. These reports should include a summary of activities, accomplishments, and 

challenges associated with implementation of the common financial 

system in the prior year; a summary of planned activities for the 

upcoming year; and any expected modifications to the schedule for 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
393 

implementing the common financial system, including an update 

on possible risks or challenges. 

Industry best practices in operations at National Nuclear 

Security Administration facilities and sites (sec. 3112) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

National Nuclear Security Administration to review how to implement industry best practices at its sites consistent with maintaining or reducing risks and preserving and protecting health, safety, 

and security. 

Limitation on acceleration of dismantlement of retired nuclear weapons (sec. 3113) 

The committee notes that the fiscal year 2016 stockpile stewardship and management plan (SSMP) outlines a schedule and funding profile that will allow the elimination of nuclear weapons retired prior to fiscal year 2009 to be completed by fiscal year 2022, 

and the committee believes that this schedule establishes an appropriate rate for weapon dismantlement and disposition. The committee therefore recommends a provision that would limit the rate 

at which the National Nuclear Security Agency is authorized to dismantle weapons to the schedule and funding profile put forth in 

the fiscal year 2016 SSMP. This limit may be relaxed if the President certifies an exception exists based on (a) a need to meet certain treaty obligations or (b) a need to obtain critical components 

from retired weapons that cannot be reasonably acquired through 

other means for use in support of life extension, weapon alteration, 

or weapon modification programs as described in the fiscal year 

2016 SSMP. 

Contract for Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility construction project (sec. 3114) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Energy (Secretary) to enter into an arrangement with 

the Chief of Engineers (Chief) to act as an owner’s agent for the 

Department of Energy (Department) with respect to its MixedOxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) construction project. Due 

to ongoing management problems with the MFFF project, increasing cost and schedule estimates, and increasingly heated disagreements between the Department and its MFFF contractor over the 

status of construction and the expected final costs, the committee 

lacks confidence that the current management and contractual 

structure of the project provides reasonable assurance that the Department and the MFFF contractor will be able to complete the 

project at a cost, or in a timeframe, acceptable to the committee. 

Therefore, no later than 30 days after the enactment of this act, 

the Secretary shall enter into an arrangement with the Chief to obtain owner’s agent support. Under this arrangement, the Chief 

shall assess the contractual, technical, and managerial risks associated with the MFFF. The Chief shall furthermore assess the existing MFFF contract and determine what elements of that contract 

may reasonably be changed to a fixed price provision, a fixed price 

incentive fee provision, or a similar contractual provision that 

would minimize risk and cost associated with the MFFF. As part 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
394 

of the MFFF contract assessment, for each contract element that 

may reasonably be changed, the Chief shall assess any damage fees 

that may be incurred by such a change as well as the milestone, 

cost, and schedule changes that would occur. 

The Chief shall furthermore use these assessment to make recommendations to the Secretary on a set of changes to the MFFF 

contract that would reduce risk and cost to the Department while 

preserving an overall contract with terms that are fair and reasonable. For elements of the contract that the Chief does not recommend changing to a fixed price, fixed price incentive fee, or similar, provision, the Chief shall assess the risks and costs associated 

with that element along with a description of why that contract element should not be changed to another provision type. 

In carrying out work as the owner’s agent under this arrangement, the Chief should, as appropriate, consult with the Secretary, 

the contractor, and other knowledgeable parties. No later than 30 

days after entering into this arrangement, the Chief shall submit 

a report to the Secretary describing the assessments performed and 

the recommendations on changes to the MFFF contract. 

The Secretary shall review the report provided by the Chief and 

shall work with the contractor on determining the feasibility of enacting the recommended changes to the contract. No later than 60 

days after receiving the Chief’s report, the Secretary shall provide 

to the congressional defense committees and the Comptroller General of the United State a copy of the report along with any comments the Secretary wishes to provide, a summary of correspondence with the contractor related to enacting the recommended 

changes, a determination of whether the contractor will agree to 

the recommended changes to the contract, and, if the contractor 

will not agree to such changes, a description of the reasons given 

for the contractor’s decision. 

The Comptroller General shall assess the actions taken by the 

Secretary in response to the Chief’s report. The Comptroller General’s assessment shall be submitted to the congressional defense 

committees no later than 30 days after receiving the items from the 

Secretary described in the previous paragraph. 

The committee hopes that the work directed by this provision 

will repair the working relationship between the Department and 

the MFFF contractor while providing better cost and schedule control by converting as much of the contract as possible to a fixed 

price (or similar) structure. However, we acknowledge that this effort may not succeed for a variety of reasons. The committee therefore expects the Department to also continue its analysis of alternative options for carrying out the plutonium disposition program, 

including the downblending or dilute and dispose option and other 

options as appropriate. Despite direction in the report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act 

(Public Law 114–92), we note several questions related to alternative options remain unresolved. We therefore expect to receive 

more detailed information on these options. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
395 

Unavailability for general and administrative overhead 

costs of amounts specified for certain laboratories for 

laboratory-directed research and development (sec. 

3115) 

The committee recommends a provision that would remove the 

overhead burden on National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) laboratories for Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD). These funds, which come from amounts set aside 

of up to 7 percent of all laboratory research, are highly sought after 

in internal laboratory competitions each year. The ideas that are 

funded become the seed corn for further innovation throughout the 

weapons cycle, including new computer codes to model the weapons, new component designs, and experimental apparatus. The 

funds are used to attract the best and brightest post-doctoral students to the laboratories who later move on to senior positions as 

weapons designers. Numerous scientific awards are generated each 

year from the research on these programs. Prestigious studies advocate for the importance of retaining the LDRD program. The 

Commission on the Review of the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories noted that since the funds come from amounts 

set aside on existing research programs, administering the overhead burden on the LDRD program lessens the buying power of 

these highly sought after funds and, in effect, is a double tax. This 

provision would limit the overhead burden on the LDRD program. 

Increase in certain limitations applicable to funds for conceptual and construction design of the Department of 

Energy (sec. 3116) 

The committee recommends a provision that would update older 

statutory ceilings for construction design that require authorization. 

Subtitle C—Plans and Reports 

Estimate of total life cycle cost of tank waste cleanup at 

Hanford Reservation (sec. 3121) 

Uncertainty surrounding the Department of Energy’s (DOE) 

overall tank waste cleanup schedule adds doubt to the reliability 

of its life-cycle cost estimates. Cleanup costs stem directly from 

cleanup duration, and lengthening of the cleanup duration can lead 

to significant cost increases. According to present Tri-Party Agreement milestones, DOE is required to complete cleanup by 2047. In 

recent years, however, DOE’s estimate of when it expects to complete tank waste cleanup and treatment has shifted repeatedly, 

and the completion date is at risk of sliding 5 to 10 years or more 

into the future. 

The committee requires DOE’s Office of Environmental Management to provide a rough order-of-magnitude estimate of the total 

lifecycle cost of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant 

(WTP) project and tank waste management and treatment operations within one year of enactment of this Act. This lifecycle cost 

estimate shall include estimates for the following: 

(A) The Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, assuming full startup and commissioning in 2036; 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
396 

(B) Operations of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization 

Plant for two scenarios, assuming operations continue to 2047 

and assuming operations continue to 2057; and 

(C) Tank waste management and treatment operations for 

two scenarios, assuming operations continue through 2047 and 

assuming operations continue through 2057. 

The lifecycle cost estimate shall also consider the following possibilities and their effects on the cost estimates described above: 

(A) Anticipated increases in the volume of tank waste; 

(B) Construction of a second, supplemental low-activity 

waste treatment facility; 

(C) The effects of extending the schedule for cleanup of tank 

waste at Hanford Reservation from 2047 to 2057; 

(D) High-level waste canister temporary storage, transportation, and permanent disposal; and 

(E) Construction of any additional facilities that may be 

needed to treat tank waste at Hanford Reservation. 

This lifecycle cost estimate shall be developed in accordance with 

the cost estimating best practices of the Government Accountability 

Office. 

Analysis of approaches for supplemental treatment of lowactivity waste at Hanford Nuclear Reservation (sec. 

3122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Secretary of Energy to enter into an agreement with a federally 

funded research and development center (FFRDC) to conduct an 

analysis of supplemental waste treatment options at the Hanford 

site. The Secretary would also enter into an agreement with the 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a peer review of the FFRDC analysis. This peer review should 

review key methodology approaches selected by the analysis team 

and any key findings (1) early in the analysis, (2) periodically during the analysis as appropriate, and (3) upon completion of the 

analysis, such that findings by the Academies’ peer review may inform and improve the analysis. This analysis shall assess options 

for supplemental treatment of low-activity waste. At a minimum, 

the options shall include vitrification, grouting, and steam reforming, and the further processing to remove long-lived waste constituents such as technetium-99. The analysis shall use risk assessment 

practices such as probabilistic risk assessment, per section 3161 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239), and shall identify risks, benefits, life-cycle costs, 

schedules, regulatory compliance, and other factors that may inhibit the ability of the Department to pursue each option. This 

analysis, the peer review results, and any comments from the Department of Energy shall be due to the congressional defense committees no later than 2 years after the enactment of this Act, and 

a briefing on the progress of this analysis should be provided to the 

committees every 6 months after the date of enactment. 

The Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), itself a 

complex construction project that continues to face technical and 

management challenges, is only currently intended to immobilize, 

by vitrification, approximately a third of the low-activity waste 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
397 

(LAW) in the Hanford tank farms. The remaining two-thirds of the 

LAW would need to be treated with a supplemental treatment approach, and the Department of Energy (DOE) has not yet finalized 

its preferred supplemental treatment approach for this waste. In a 

2013 Record of Decision, the Department stated that it believed it 

is beneficial to study further the potential cost, safety, and environmental performance of supplemental treatment technologies. 

The committee is concerned that the Department may not use an 

adequately risk-informed process to select a preferred supplemental 

treatment approach, as suggested by findings by the National 

Academy of Science and by a DOE-commissioned committee. These 

groups reported that the Department does not utilize a sufficiently 

risk-informed approach for supporting decisions about waste disposal. Similarly, for decades the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) has found that DOE has not set cleanup priorities based on 

systematic evaluation of risks and, in some cases, lacks comprehensive risk information. These reports generally noted that, by not 

using risk-informed approaches, the Department’s cleanup efforts 

may not be executed efficiently and may prioritize lower-risk activities over higher-risk activities. However, the committee is encouraged that one example of a risk-informed cleanup approach shows 

that there is the potential for cost savings. At the Savannah River 

Site, the Department used a risk-based approach to identify LAW 

that could be treated using grout, rather than vitrification. The Department estimated that this approach avoided a cost increase of 

several tens of billions of dollars while still meeting clean-up obligations. 

To provide further study of supplemental treatment technologies, 

and to support and to provide the basis for a risk-informed decision 

on the supplemental treatment approach at Hanford, the Department’s analysis shall consider, in addition to other approaches the 

Department may decide to include, four waste treatment approaches, including vitrification using an expanded WTP and three 

approaches with supplemental facilities using bulk vitrification, 

grouting, and steam reforming, and the analysis should incorporate 

knowledge gained through waste treatment activities across the 

Department’s sites and internationally over the last several decades. In addition to considering these waste treatment approaches, 

the analysis should consider the processing of the supplemental 

LAW to remove long-lived radioactive constituents such as technetium-99 and iodine-129. Because some waste forms have been 

found to be relatively poor for retaining these isotopes, it is important to consider the potential benefit of removing them prior to 

LAW treatment. The committee expects the analysis to include 

these approaches independent of current regulatory or legal restrictions or authorizations. 

For each approach the analysis shall use state-of-the-art probabilistic risk assessment techniques to estimate risks to the environment and to human health, during processing and during disposal, to on-site workers, and to off-site populations. It should also 

consider major programmatic risks each approach may face. The 

analysis should develop cost and schedule ranges using best practices when possible, and should clearly establish and identify estimates and uncertainties when needed. The potential relative beneVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00433 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
398 

fits of each approach should be considered, both with respect to efficiency and with respect to disposition approaches. The compliance 

of each approach with applicable standards and regulations should 

be considered, and the analysis should include potential means by 

which an approach can be modified and brought into full compliance if needed. Finally, the analysis shall consider what factors 

might inhibit the Department in pursuing each approach and, 

where possible, identify and assess potential means to address 

these factors. 

Analyses of options for disposal of high-level radioactive 

waste (sec. 3123) 

The committee is concerned about the Department of Energy’s 

(DOE) announcement in March 2015 that the Department will pursue development of a separate defense high-level waste repository 

without conducting a total life-cycle cost estimate or assessing and 

quantifying the benefits and risks of the Department’s plan. 

In a common repository commercial radioactive waste, in the 

form of spent nuclear fuel, is stored together with defense highlevel radioactive waste. The Department’s separate defense waste 

repository approach, however, would require construction of two repositories—one to store defense high-level radioactive waste and 

another to store commercial spent nuclear fuel. At this time, the 

Department has only produced cost estimates for this separate defense waste repository approach that are highly uncertain and do 

not include full life cycle costs. Even with these uncertain and incomplete cost estimates, DOE’s analysis indicates that the defense 

waste repository plan would potentially have higher total costs 

than a single common repository, in large part because of the need 

to construct two repositories, as well as higher costs to be funded 

by discretionary defense funds. These estimates were provided in 

the Department’s October 2014 report, Assessment of Disposal Options for DOE-Managed High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent 

Nuclear Fuel. 

In addition, in this report, DOE makes certain assumptions 

about the likelihood that its separate defense waste repository approach would succeed, but it does not provide evidence for these assumptions. For example, DOE assumes that it could more easily 

find a community to host a defense waste repository than a common repository because of the lower radiation and heat levels of 

the defense waste, but it provides no evidence that this would be 

the case. Moreover, DOE has not assessed what the risks might be 

in trying to develop two repositories concurrently, such as resource 

constraints or the effect of adverse public reaction of one repository 

effort on the other repository. 

In this budget constrained environment, the committee expects 

the Department to (1) develop and provide to the committee more 

definitive cost and schedule estimates for the options it considered 

in the Department’s October 2014 report, and (2) assess the benefits and risks of these options before it further pursues a separate 

defense waste repository. Therefore, the committee recommends a 

provision that would require the Secretary of Energy to enter into 

an arrangement with a federally funded research and development 

center to conduct analyses of options referenced in the DepartVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00434 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
399 

ment’s October 2014 report. These analyses shall include comprehensive system life cycle cost and schedule estimates conducted 

using Government Accountability Office (GAO) best practices and 

covering all phases of work, from site selection and characterization 

to site closure and monitoring. These analyses should also include 

benefit and risk assessments. In addition to comparing the costs 

and schedules for the options referenced in the Department’s October 2014 report, the committee suggests that a comparison to 

Yucca Mountain cost and schedule estimates be included, as a license application is still pending review by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission for that common repository. 

The benefit and risk assessments for each option should use sensitivity analysis and other techniques, as appropriate, to determine 

potential effects on the cost and schedule estimates for each option. 

These assessments should, among other things, consider technical 

benefits and risks, the effects one repository’s development may 

have on a second repository’s development, and the social/political 

factors inherent in selecting the site of a repository, particularly because social/political opposition has consistently been the most significant challenge to siting a permanent disposal facility, as the 

Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future and the 

GAO, among others, have reported. The assessments should also 

take into account potential adverse effects on temporary and permanent disposition efforts related to non-DOE-managed high-level 

radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. 

The federally funded research and development center’s analyses 

and any Department comments on the analyses shall be provided 

to the congressional defense committees and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States no later than a year after enactment 

of this Act. Within 60 days of receipt of the analyses, the Government Accountability Office shall provide a review of the design, 

methodology, and conclusions of the analyses to the defense committees. 

The Department shall not obligate or expend any discretionary 

defense funds on the development of a separate defense waste repository, except as needed to execute this arrangement, until the 

GAO review has been provided to the committees. 

GAO shall also periodically review the Department’s activities related to spent fuel management, repository siting, and development 

of a consent-based siting program. GAO shall provide annual reports to the congressional defense committees on the Department’s 

expenditures and grants related to these activities, in particular for 

those activities that could be interpreted as lobbying by grantees 

under applicable statutes. These annual reports shall be due to the 

committees no later than February 1 of each year, beginning February 1, 2017, and ending February 1, 2021. 

Elimination of duplication in reviews by the Comptroller 

General of the United States (sec. 3124) 

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate duplicate reviews of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s 

budget. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
400 

Repeal of requirement for Comptroller General of the 

United States report on the program on scientific engagement for nonproliferation (sec. 3125) 

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal a reporting requirement by the Comptroller General as the underlying 

program has been terminated. 

Budget Items 

Environmental management at Los Alamos National Laboratory 

The fiscal year 2017 budget request included $185.6 million for 

environmental management at Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

The committee proposes an increase of $10.0 million to accelerate 

cleanup activities. 

Stockpile Responsiveness Program 

The fiscal year 2017 budget request contained no funding for section 3112 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2016 (Public Law 114–92) ‘‘Stockpile Responsiveness Program.’’ 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for this effort. The committee notes that the scientific personnel and expertise in weapons design at the laboratories is an equally important 

element of deterrence as the platforms that carry the weapon. This 

program is designed to exercise that expertise. 

Defense uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning 

The committee notes that a legislative assumption accompanies 

the budget request of $155.0 million for the uranium enrichment 

decontamination and decommissioning fund, to reauthorize section 

1101 of the Energy Policy Act of 2002 (P.L. 102–48) for industry 

contributions. As in fiscal year 2016, this legislation was not reauthorized, and the committee assumes it will not be reauthorized 

again this year. Accordingly, the committee recommends redistributing the $155.0 million associated with this assumption to other 

higher priority needs in the Department. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

The fiscal year 2017 budget request included $257.2 million for 

the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to operations in order to accelerate reconstitution activities from the fire and drum explosion in order to 

meet an initial operating date of December 31, 2016. 

Weapons dismantlement and disposition 

The committee notes the provision limiting the acceleration of 

the dismantlement of retired nuclear weapons in title 31, subtitle 

b of this Act. The committee, therefore, recommends a decrease of 

$12.7 million for the weapons dismantlement and disposition effort. 

Based on the fiscal year 2016 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan, adjusted for 1 year of inflation and with the addition 

of $7.0 million to support the lithium strategy, the resulting authorized level of $56.2 million for fiscal year 2017 will provide the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
401 

necessary support to allow the elimination of weapons retired prior 

to fiscal year 2009 to be completed by fiscal year 2022. 

MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility 

The budget request for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) contained $270.0 million in Nonproliferation Construction for the MOX 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 2017. Outyear funding for the Nonproliferation Construction program will 

total $884.0 million for fiscal year 2018 through fiscal year 2021. 

The committee is disappointed in the progress made on MFFF, 

despite repeated concerns regarding its cost and management by 

Congress, the Government Accountability Office, and other independent groups. The Department’s failure to provide an updated 

performance baseline for MFFF as directed in the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2016 is particularly troubling. Meanwhile, the committee is concerned about the lack of 

specificity in the proposed dilute and disposal alternative despite 

direction to address several aspects of this approach in report language accompanying the Senate passed version of the Fiscal Year 

2016 NDAA. 

In light of the failure of the Department of Energy to substantiate the viability of its alternative to MFFF, the committee recommends an additional $70.0 million in Nonproliferation Construction for the MFFF and directs the Department of Energy to continue construction. Additional measures pertaining to MFFF are 

contained in Title 31 of this Act. 

Items of Special Interest 

Comptroller General review of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s depleted uranium management 

program 

Depleted uranium is used in component manufacturing operations in the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). 

Until recently the existing life extension programs did not have a 

need to use depleted uranium. Recent life extension programs now 

are requiring a re-start of this manufacturing operation. Many of 

the skills associated with depleted uranium science, engineering, 

and manufacturing were lost with personnel attrition in the 1990s. 

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United 

States to assess the ability of the NNSA to plan, procure, and 

stockpile the material, as well as perform engineering and manufacturing operations with it in support of upcoming life extension 

programs, in compliance with applicable program management orders (including Department of Energy order 413) and cost estimation practices, and whether such a re-start will be properly 

timed to support these life extension program need dates. The GAO 

will brief its findings on this re-start effort with periodic updates 

upon a mutually agreed upon schedule with the committee. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
402 

Long term planning for H-Canyon 

The H-Canyon facility at the Savannah River Site, while providing a unique capability for the United States and the Department of Energy (DOE), is aging. H-Canyon began operations in 

1955, when it provided chemical separations capabilities for nuclear materials in support of defense programs. Since then it has 

been an asset for other DOE activities, including the safe disposition of nuclear materials by down blending enriched uranium and 

supporting plutonium disposition. More recently H-Canyon is expected to provide feed material for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF), currently under construction at the Savannah 

River Site. Because of the unique nature of H-Canyon, it may also 

be used to test new technologies for monitoring fuel cycle activities 

or for other research and development projects. While modifications 

and repairs allow H-Canyon to continue operations and provide 

flexibility in the facility’s missions, the committee is concerned that 

the Department may not be fully utilizing this facility or may not 

have a comprehensive, integrated plan for managing the aging facility’s maintenance, modification, and mission planning. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Energy to report to the congressional defense committees no later than February 24, 2017, on the Department’s plans for the use of H-Canyon 

through fiscal year 2027. This report should reflect the relative 

needs and priorities between the DOE components that may use 

the H-Canyon capabilities, including, for example, the National Nuclear Security Administration’s plutonium disposition or nonproliferation programs; Office of Environmental Management’s 

cleanup of legacy materials; Office of Nuclear Energy’s fuel cycle 

work; or potential lab-directed research activities. The report 

should also consider the maintenance needs of H-Canyon over this 

time frame as well as potential modifications or upgrades that may 

be needed to support Department missions, including for infrastructure supporting H-Canyon operations, such as evaporators or 

other tank farm facilities. 

Management of the project design phase at the National Nuclear Security Administration 

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) has struggled to manage most of its complex major capital asset construction projects. Among other challenges, NNSA has not had success in moving some of these projects 

out of the design phase and into construction. 

In particular, since 2012, NNSA has cancelled the design of three 

major nuclear facilities in favor of new alternatives after spending 

more than a decade and hundreds of millions of dollars on the design of each of these facilities. In 2012, NNSA announced its decision to cancel the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF) 

at its Savannah River Site after having spent 12 years and more 

than $730.0 million on the facility design. This facility was to operate in tandem with another planned major nuclear facility, the 

Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, as part of NNSA’s Plutonium Disposition Program. In cancelling PDCF, NNSA explained 

that other alternatives had been identified that would better meet 

mission needs. Also in 2012, after spending 8 years and approxiVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00438 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
403 

mately $400.0 million in the design phase, NNSA announced that 

it was cancelling the design of its Uranium Processing Facility at 

its Y–12 complex in Oak Ridge in favor of a new facility design. 

Since 2012, NNSA has continued to work on the new design and 

estimates that it may spend more than $1.8 billion on designing 

this facility. Further, in 2014, after spending more than 10 years 

and $500.0 million on facility design, NNSA announced that it was 

cancelling another proposed major nuclear facility, the Chemistry 

and Metallurgy Research Replacement Facility at its Los Alamos 

laboratory, in favor of a revised approach. 

In light of the amount of time and money spent on designing 

these facilities before cancelling them in favor of other options, 

these decisions raise significant questions regarding the process 

NNSA relies on to manage and oversee the design phase of these 

projects. The committee is concerned about a lack of proper oversight to ensure that projects do not languish in the design phase 

and to ensure that the need for these projects remains viable. To 

better understand the management approach used by NNSA during the project design phase, the committee directs the Government 

Accountability Office to investigate the following issues and provide 

a report to the committee by a mutually agreed upon date: 

(1) How does NNSA plan and execute the project design 

phase for its capital asset projects prior to the start of the construction phase? 

(2) What policies, guidance, and requirements, including 

those specified in DOE’s project management order and associated guidance, does NNSA rely on for its contractors to efficiently manage the capital asset design phase, and what degree of oversight do NNSA officials conduct during this phase? 

(3) What are the roles and responsibilities of NNSA staff, including the Federal Project Directors, during the design phase? 

(4) What have been the results of any recent peer reviews 

that have been conducted on NNSA projects currently in the 

design phase? 

Microlab implementation 

The committee supports the continuing efforts at NNSA’s laboratories to promote technology transfer and commercialization as a 

mission activity. The NNSA enterprise is responsible for over 50% 

of DOE’s technology transfer activities. NNSA’s facilities have special security requirements related to access and clearances that create unique challenges to the labs’ collaboration with industry and 

academia. 

As authorized in sec. 3120 of the NDAA for FY16, the committee 

is aware NNSA is currently developing ‘‘microlabs,’’ including the 

Center for Collaboration and Commercialization (C3) and the 

Livermore Valley Open Campus (LVOC), to help create an environment that nurtures collaboration and entrepreneurship at the labs. 

These collaboration and commercialization campuses enhance mission delivery, cooperation with regional research groups, accelerate 

technology transfer to the marketplace and promote regional economic and workforce development. Additional benefits to NNSA include leveraging knowledge and resources to enhance mission capabilities while also promoting recruitment and retention of lab staff. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
404 

The committee urges NNSA to continue to support efforts to establish microlabs such as C3 and LVOC. 

Plutonium strategy 

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) is pursuing a revised strategy for its 

Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) project 

after spending $500.0 million on the design of the original project 

and cancelling it in 2014. The revised project includes renovating 

two existing facilities at NNSA’s Los Alamos site and installing 

plutonium research equipment to support the plutonium work conducted by NNSA and other DOE offices. NNSA is also pursuing the 

Proposed Modular Approach project to provide additional space for 

plutonium work at Los Alamos. 

The committee is pleased that NNSA has adopted a strategy that 

maximizes the space within existing facilities and that it has 

adopted a modular approach to adding new lab space rather than 

the previous strategy that relied on a ‘‘big box’’ solution by trying 

to fit everything into one large monolithic structure. At the same 

time, the Committee is concerned that NNSA may still have not 

properly specified project requirements for both the CMRR and the 

Plutonium Modular Approach projects. In particular, NNSA has 

not specified in project documentation for either project the need to 

ramp up its nuclear warhead pit production capacity to achieve a 

production rate of 30 pits per year starting in 2026, and the need 

to increase that number to 50 to 80 pits by 2030. Without specifying this rate of production, the committee is concerned that 

NNSA cannot adequately identify the necessary amount of research 

equipment it needs to support pit production, where all this equipment will be located, and whether this equipment will be available 

when needed. 

NNSA’s current schedule for its revised CMRR project is not reliable because the schedule does not include most of the relevant 

work activities to complete the project and NNSA did not complete 

actions to determine whether the estimated completion dates are 

reasonable to achieve. As a result, NNSA cannot have confidence 

that it can meet its schedule estimates, including its commitment 

to move plutonium operations out of the aging Chemistry and Metallurgy Research building at Los Alamos by the end of 2019. More 

specifically, GAO reviewed the project schedule and found that the 

activities included in the schedule comprise just 10 percent of the 

total cost of the project. According to best practices, an agency 

should maintain a schedule that includes the entire scope of work 

required for a project’s successful execution because, among other 

things, it provides a way to measure progress and identify potential 

problems in meeting milestones. NNSA officials said they limited 

the activities in the schedule to those already under contract because it allows them to focus attention on managing near-term performance, among other things. By creating and managing a limited 

schedule that includes contracted work through 2017, NNSA has 

little insight into how current performance affects future goals, including estimated completion dates. 

To prevent further cost increases and schedule delays with these 

projects, the Committee directs NNSA to take the following actions 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
405 

and report back to the congressional defense committees on the status of such actions no later than December 31, 2016: 

(1) Update the program requirements document for the 

CMRR project to identify all relevant key performance parameters that the project is to meet, including the minimum and 

desired pit production levels that the project should support, 

and to clarify the extent to which the revised CMRR project 

will be able to adequately support pit production requirements 

of 30 pits per year starting in 2026, and 50 to 80 pits by 2030; 

(2) Specify the key performance parameters for the Proposed 

Modular Approach project and clarify the extent to which the 

Proposed Modular Approach will include plutonium research 

equipment to support meeting pit production requirements; 

(3) Objectively consider all alternatives without preference 

for a particular solution as it proceeds with the Proposed Modular Approach analysis of alternatives. Such steps could include clarifying the statement of mission need for the project 

so that it is independent of a particular solution and eliminating the statement that building two modular facilities is a 

specific requirement for the project; and 

(4) Develop and maintain an integrated master schedule that 

includes all project activities under all subprojects prior to approving the first subproject’s schedule baseline and that is consistent with scheduling best practices. 

Report on future-year funding needs 

The committee is concerned that future-year funding needs of the 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) for its weapons 

activities are not fully supported by the Office of Management and 

Budget or may exceed available funds. Specifically, recent reporting 

indicates the Secretary of Energy has voiced concerns about the 

NNSA budget, suggesting that an additional $5.2 billion would be 

needed over the 2018–2021 timeframe beyond what is included in 

future year information in the fiscal year 2017 budget request. 

Likewise, a December 2015 Government Accountability Office report noted that the Department’s fiscal year 2016 weapons activities budget estimates for the fiscal year 2021 through fiscal year 

2025 timeframe totaled $4.2 billion more than budget estimates 

provided by the President’s Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). The differences in future year funding, if not resolved, 

could result in budget instability, cut or deferred programs, costly 

program ‘‘stretchouts,’’ and increased risk to the nation. 

The committee therefore directs the Administrator of NNSA to 

prepare a report identifying and addressing the current and futureyear differences between the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan and the long range budget estimates maintained by 

OMB. The report should provide a prioritized list of the programs 

and projects that will need to be cut or delayed if an additional 

$5.0 billion is not provided during fiscal years 2018 to 2021. The 

report should also provide a risk assessment for each program or 

project if this additional funding is not provided. This report should 

be provided to the congressional defense committees no later than 

February 28, 2017. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
406 

Report on high-level risks to the B61–12 Life extension program 

It is critical that the B61–12 life extension program (LEP) begin 

production in 2020 and finish by 2024 in order to uphold the 

United States’ commitments to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) nuclear deterrent. However, a recent Government 

Accountability Office report noted that the LEP schedule is constrained, which may prove challenging to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and to Air Force risk management 

plans for the B61–12 LEP. In particular, the committee is concerned that high-level joint risks, so-called ‘‘red’’ joint risks, may affect later stages of the B61–12 LEP and adversely affect the United 

States’ commitments to NATO. For example, one such risk is the 

compatibility of the B61–12 with the still-developing F–35 aircraft. 

The committee directs the Administrator of the NNSA to provide 

a report on the status of high-level joint risks to the B61–12 LEP 

and the effect of these risks on the LEP schedule. This report shall 

be due to the congressional defense committees no later than February 24, 2017. 

Report on interoperable warhead-1 

The committee recognizes the critical need to maintain the readiness of scientists, engineers, and production staff during the delay 

of the start of work on Interoperable Warhead-1 (IW–1) until fiscal 

year 2020. One approach for maintaining staff readiness may be to 

challenge them to use the delay to address crucial technical issues 

facing the IW–1, the first interoperable nuclear package for use 

with both Air Force and Navy ballistic missile systems as part of 

the Nuclear Weapon Council’s ‘‘3+2’’ approach. For example, integration of the IW–1 into different Air Force and Navy missiles with 

different space, weight, and operation requirements, while assuring 

accuracy in both systems, could be problematic. This and other concerns may also pertain to other life extension programs. For example, the general goal of enhancing the surety of stockpile systems 

increases technical challenges, as does optimizing system designs 

to best meet space, weight, operation, and accuracy requirements. 

Technical questions also surround pit reuse, which may become a 

key aspect of future life extension programs, as well as pit production capability and capacity issues. 

The committee directs the Administrator of the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA) to report to the congressional defense committees no later than February 24, 2017 on anticipated 

technical challenges facing the IW–1 program, in particular any 

challenges that may arise related to staff readiness as a result of 

delaying the start of the IW–1 until fiscal year 2020 with a first 

production unit scheduled for fiscal year 2030. This report should 

include planned approaches for addressing these challenges and a 

notional schedule for addressing these challenges. In light of the 

recent National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 

report titled ‘‘Peer Review and Design Competition in the NNSA 

National Security Laboratories’’, the Administrator’s report should 

also assess the value of establishing a design competition for the 

IW–1 as a means to help maintain staff readiness. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
407 

Responsive capabilities program 

The committee directs the Administrator of the National Nuclear 

Security Administration (NNSA) to provide a report to the congressional defense committees describing how existing NNSA activities 

meet the requirements of the responsive capabilities program, as 

described in section 3112 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114–92). The committee acknowledges that the requirements for the responsive capabilities program may be met, in part, through existing activities taking place 

within the NNSA. However, to ensure that existing activities are 

fully exercising the technical capabilities of the NNSA for all stages 

of the design, testing, and production of nuclear weapons, the Administrator shall prepare this report to compare existing NNSA activities to the requirements of the program. 

In particular, this report should determine the degree to which 

existing activities meet the required program objectives, including 

(1) exercising all capabilities required to support all phases of the 

joint nuclear weapons life cycle process; (2) transferring knowledge 

and skills to the newer generations of nuclear weapon designers 

and engineers; (3) demonstrating stockpile responsiveness, including production of prototypes, development of flight ready hardware, 

flight testing or the use of appropriate simulated environments or 

concepts similar to those used by joint test demonstrations, and developing certification plans; (4) shortening design, certification, and 

manufacturing cycles; and (5) exercising the integration and coordination of elements and processes of the Administration and Department of Defense. The report should identify any gaps or shortcomings existing activities have in meeting the program goals and 

include a plan for addressing these gaps. The report shall be due 

to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 

2017. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(409) 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

Authorization (sec. 3201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize funding for the Defense Facilities Nuclear Safety Board at $31.0 

million consistent with the budget request. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(411) 

TITLE XXXIII—FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION THIRD CLASS MEDICAL REFORM 

AND GENERAL AVIATION PILOT PROTECTIONS 

Short title (sec. 3301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would allow for this 

section to be cited as the ‘‘Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2’’. 

Medical certification of certain small aircraft pilots (sec. 

3302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would create an exemption, under specified circumstances, to the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (FAA) current third-class airman medical certification requirements for general aviation (GA) pilots. This section 

would direct the FAA to issue or revise regulations to ensure that 

an individual may operate as a pilot of a ‘‘covered aircraft’’, if certain conditions are met, as articulated in the section. 

Expansion of Pilot’s Bill of Rights (sec. 3303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make several 

amendments to the Pilot’s Bill of Rights (Public Law 112–153; 49 

U.S.C. 44703 note), which allows individuals denied an airman certificate to appeal that denial to U.S. District Court after it has been 

upheld under the normal National Transportation Safety Boards 

appeals process. This section would expand the scope of that provision to allow individuals who have had their airman certificates 

suspended or revoked to avail themselves of the same appeals process, and would modify the standard of review for appeals in U.S. 

District Court to ensure a case is reviewed de novo. 

Limitations on reexamination of certificate holders (sec. 

3304) 

The committee recommends a provision that would only apply to 

reexaminations that are ordered due to the fault of the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA). It would prohibit the FAA from reexamining a general aviation (GA) pilot holding a student, sport, 

recreational, or private pilot airman certificate unless the agency 

has reasonable grounds to: (1) establish a lack of qualification on 

the part of the pilot; or (2) demonstrate that the certificate was obtained through fraud or an exam that was inadequate. Before taking action to reexamine a pilot, the FAA would be required to provide a GA pilot the reasonable basis for the reexamination and relevant information that formed that basis. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
412 

Expediting updates to NOTAM program (sec. 3305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would would amend 

the Pilot’s Bill of Rights (Public Law 112–153) to require the 

NOTAM Improvement Program to be maintained in a public repository that is accessible on the Internet, machine readable, and 

searchable. It also would require the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to include temporary flight restrictions within the 

NOTAM Improvement Program. The FAA would be prohibited from 

enforcing NOTAM violations, within 180 days after the date of enactment of this bill, until the FAA certifies to Congress that it has 

implemented the changes to the NOTAM system required by this 

section; however, an exception for national security is provided. 

Accessibility of certain flight data (sec. 3306) 

The committee recommends a provision that would impose requirements on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with regard to certain records related to certificate actions. Specifically, 

when the FAA receives a written request for a flight record (as defined in the Pilot’s Bill of Rights, Public Law 1112–153) from an 

individual who is the subject of an investigation initiated by the 

FAA, and the covered flight record is not in the possession of the 

FAA, the Administrator would be required to request the relevant 

record from the contract tower or other contractor of the FAA that 

possesses such flight record. 

Authority for legal counsel to issue certain notices (sec. 

3307) 

The committee recommends a provision that would require the 

Federal Aviation Administration to revise its regulations to authorize legal counsel to close certain enforcement actions with a warning notice, letter of corrections, or other administrative action. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(413) 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

Maritime Administration (sec. 3501) 

The committee recommends a provision that would re-authorize 

certain aspects of the Maritime Administration. 

National security floating dry docks (sec. 3502) 

The committee recommends a provision that would change the 

date specified in section 55122(a)(1)(C) of title 46, United States 

Code, to December 19, 2017. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(415) 

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. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
416 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2017 

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 ............................................ 3,614,787 26,000 3,640,787 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ............................................... 1,519,966 0 1,519,966 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ........................................... 2,265,177 129,000 2,394,177 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY .................................. 1,513,157 –27,700 1,485,457 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................................. 5,873,949 –311,886 5,562,063 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ............................................. 14,109,148 50,800 14,159,948 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ............................................. 3,209,262 61,170 3,270,432 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC .................................. 664,368 –6,500 657,868 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY ................................. 18,354,874 71,800 18,426,674 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY .................................................. 6,338,861 69,800 6,408,661 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ............................................. 1,362,769 0 1,362,769 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .................................... 13,922,917 390,600 14,313,517 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ....................................... 2,426,621 0 2,426,621 

SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................... 3,055,743 0 3,055,743 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ......................... 1,677,719 0 1,677,719 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................... 17,438,056 0 17,438,056 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .............................................. 4,524,918 10,300 4,535,218 

JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND ............................. 99,300 0 99,300 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE I--PROCUREMENT ....................................... 101,971,592 463,384 102,434,976 

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ................... 7,515,399 –59,463 7,455,936 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY .................... 17,276,301 –71,816 17,204,485 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ........................ 28,112,251 –468,600 27,643,651 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ....................... 18,308,826 431,300 18,740,126 

OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE .................................... 178,994 178,994 

UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................... 0 4,000 4,000 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND 

EVALUATION ........................................................................ 71,391,771 –164,579 71,227,192 

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ....................................... 33,809,040 225,820 34,034,860 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES ............................... 2,712,331 67,800 2,780,131 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ....................................... 6,825,370 163,600 6,988,970 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ........................................ 39,483,581 –84,290 39,399,291 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
417 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2017 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ........................ 5,954,258 136,270 6,090,528 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES ................................ 927,656 5,800 933,456 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ........................... 270,633 5,500 276,133 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ............................... 37,518,056 –86,610 37,431,446 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ............................ 3,067,929 40,700 3,108,629 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .......................................... 6,703,578 57,200 6,760,778 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE .................... 32,571,590 –480,480 32,091,110 

MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS .......................................... 1,474,466 0 1,474,466 

UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................... 0 20,000 20,000 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .......... 171,318,488 71,310 171,389,798 

TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Military Personnel Appropriations ........................................... 128,902,332 –1,250,890 127,651,442 

Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions ............ 6,366,908 6,366,908 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL .......................... 135,269,240 –1,250,890 134,018,350 

TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND ......................................................... 1,371,613 0 1,371,613 

CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION ........................... 551,023 0 551,023 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ............... 844,800 –258,300 586,500 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ..................................... 322,035 –7,300 314,735 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................... 33,467,516 433,530 33,901,046 

SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF) .......... 0 673,100 673,100 

SUBTOTAL, TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS .................... 36,556,987 841,030 37,398,017 

TOTAL, DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS .................................................................................. 516,508,078 –39,745 516,468,333 

DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

ARMY ....................................................................................... 503,459 –35,900 467,559 

NAVY ........................................................................................ 1,027,763 95,517 1,123,280 

AIR FORCE ............................................................................... 1,481,058 53,700 1,534,758 

DEFENSE-WIDE ......................................................................... 2,056,091 –79,911 1,976,180 

ARMY NATIONAL GUARD .......................................................... 232,930 232,930 

AIR NATIONAL GUARD .............................................................. 143,957 143,957 

ARMY RESERVE ....................................................................... 68,230 30,000 98,230 

NAVY RESERVE ........................................................................ 38,597 38,597 

AIR FORCE RESERVE ............................................................... 188,950 188,950 

NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM ................................. 177,932 –30,000 147,932 

SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ..................................... 5,918,967 33,406 5,952,373 

FAMILY HOUSING 

CONSTRUCTION, ARMY ............................................................ 200,735 200,735 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY ................................... 325,995 325,995 

CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS ........................... 94,011 94,011 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS .. 300,915 300,915 

CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE .................................................... 61,352 61,352 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
418 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2017 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ........................... 274,429 274,429 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE .................... 59,157 59,157 

IMPROVEMENT FUND ............................................................... 3,258 3,258 

SUBTOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING .................................................. 1,319,852 0 1,319,852 

BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE 

ARMY ....................................................................................... 14,499 14,499 

NAVY ........................................................................................ 134,373 134,373 

AIR FORCE ............................................................................... 56,365 56,365 

SUBTOTAL, BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ..................... 205,237 0 205,237 

TOTAL, DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS .................................................................................. 7,444,056 33,406 7,477,462 

TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUBFUNCTION 051) ................................................................... 523,952,134 –6,339 523,945,795 

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 ................................................................... 151,876 151,876 

SUBTOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS .............................................. 151,876 0 151,876 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES ............................................................... 9,243,147 –7,750 9,235,397 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION ................................. 1,807,916 70,000 1,877,916 

NAVAL REACTORS .................................................................... 1,420,120 1,420,120 

FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES ........................................ 412,817 412,817 

SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 12,884,000 62,250 12,946,250 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES 

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP ...................................... 5,382,050 –135,100 5,246,950 

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES .................................................... 791,552 791,552 

SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................... 6,173,602 –135,100 6,038,502 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS ....... 19,209,478 –72,850 19,136,628 

INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATION 

DEFENSE FACILITIES NUCLEAR SAFETY BOARD ...................... 31,000 31,000 

SUBTOTAL, INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATION 31,000 0 31,000 

TOTAL, DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS ............................................................................. 19,240,478 –72,850 19,167,628 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
419 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2017 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053) ............................................................................ 19,240,478 –72,850 19,167,628 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNDING, BASE BUDGET REQUEST .................................................................................. 543,192,612 –79,189 543,113,423 

NATIONAL DEFENSE OCO BUDGET REQUEST 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051) 

PROCUREMENT 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY ............................................ 313,171 313,171 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ............................................... 632,817 632,817 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ........................................... 153,544 153,544 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY .................................. 301,523 –10,353 291,170 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ................................................. 1,373,010 1,373,010 

JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND ............................. 408,272 408,272 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ............................................. 393,030 393,030 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ............................................. 8,600 8,600 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC .................................. 66,229 66,229 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY .................................................. 124,206 124,206 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ............................................. 118,939 118,939 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .................................... 859,399 859,399 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ....................................... 339,545 339,545 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ......................... 487,408 487,408 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................... 3,696,281 3,696,281 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .............................................. 238,434 238,434 

SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT ...................................................... 9,514,408 –10,353 9,504,055 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ................... 100,522 100,522 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY .................... 78,323 78,323 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ........................ 32,905 32,905 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ....................... 162,419 162,419 

SUBTOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION .................................................................................... 374,169 0 374,169 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ....................................... 15,310,587 15,310,587 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES ............................... 38,679 38,679 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ....................................... 127,035 127,035 

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND .................................. 3,448,715 3,448,715 

COUNTER ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND THE LEVANT FUND ... 630,000 630,000 1,260,000 

SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND ............................................... 250,000 –250,000 0 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ........................................ 6,827,391 6,827,391 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ........................ 1,244,359 1,244,359 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES ................................ 26,265 26,265 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
420 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2017 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ........................... 3,304 3,304 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ............................... 9,498,830 2,900 9,501,730 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ............................ 57,586 57,586 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .......................................... 20,000 20,000 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE .................... 5,982,173 –1,100,000 4,882,173 

UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE ............................ 0 350,000 350,000 

SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................... 43,464,924 –367,100 43,097,824 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ................................. 3,562,258 3,562,258 

SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL .......................................... 3,562,258 0 3,562,258 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND ......................................................... 140,633 2,500 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ............... 215,333 215,333 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ..................................... 22,062 22,062 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................... 331,764 331,764 

COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND ............................ 1,000,000 –1,000,000 0 

UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE ............................ 0 1,470,000 1,470,000 

SUBTOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ...................................... 1,709,792 470,000 2,179,792 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

ARMY ....................................................................................... 18,900 18,900 

NAVY ........................................................................................ 59,809 59,809 

AIR FORCE ............................................................................... 88,740 88,740 

DEFENSE-WIDE ......................................................................... 5,000 5,000 

SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ..................................... 172,449 0 172,449 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050) OCO 

BUDGET REQUEST ............................................................... 58,798,000 92,547 58,890,547 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050) ........... 601,990,612 13,358 602,003,970 

MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XIV—ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME (FUNCTION 

600) ..................................................................................... 64,300 64,300 

MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS) 

TITLE X—GENERAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY ............................. [5,000,000 ] [4,000,000 ] 

TITLE XV—SPECIAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY ............................ [4,500,000 ] [3,500,000 ] 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
421 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY 

IMPLICATION 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2017 

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) ..... 523,952,134 –6,339 523,945,795 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) ............................ 19,240,478 –72,850 19,167,628 

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS ..................................... 58,798,000 92,547 58,890,547 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050) ............................................. 601,990,612 13,358 602,003,970 

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 .................................. 44,000 44,000 

INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: DISPOSAL OF DOD REAL PROPERTY ...... 8,175 8,175 

INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: LEASE OF DOD REAL PROPERTY ........... 36,587 36,587 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) ........... 88,762 0 88,762 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053) 

FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM ........ 103,000 103,000 

SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) ......... 103,000 0 103,000 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) 

OTHER DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS .......................................... 7,814,000 7,814,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ..................... 7,814,000 0 7,814,000 

TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS 

(050) ...................................................................................... 8,005,762 0 8,005,762 

DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) 

NATIONAL DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS (050) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY (051) ............................. 582,838,896 86,208 582,925,104 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) ............................ 19,343,478 –72,850 19,270,628 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ......................................... 7,814,000 7,814,000 

TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION, 

050 ........................................................................................ 609,996,374 13,358 610,009,732 

NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS, CURRENT LAW (CB0 BASELINE) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) 

CONCURRENT RECEIPT ACCRUAL PAYMENTS TO THE MILITARY 

RETIREMENT FUND ................................................................ 6,886,000 6,886,000 

REVOLVING, TRUST AND OTHER DOD MANDATORY ................... 1,415,000 1,415,000 

OFFSETTING RECEIPTS ............................................................... –1,856,000 –1,856,000 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
422 

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION—Continued 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

FY 2017 

Request 

Senate 

Change 

Senate 

Authorized 

SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051) ........... 6,445,000 0 6,445,000 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053) 

ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION 

PROGRAMS AND OTHER ........................................................ 1,152,000 1,152,000 

SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) ......... 1,152,000 0 1,152,000 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) 

RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION TRUST FUND ................ 62,000 62,000 

PAYMENT TO CIA RETIREMENT FUND AND OTHER .................... 514,000 514,000 

SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ..................... 576,000 0 576,000 

TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS (050) ..... 8,023,000 0 8,023,000 

DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) 

DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY (051) ............................. 589,283,896 86,208 589,370,104 

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053) ............................ 20,495,478 –72,850 20,422,628 

DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054) ......................................... 8,390,000 8,390,000 

TOTAL, BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050) ...................... 618,169,374 13,358 618,182,732 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(423) 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
424 

TITLE XLI—PROCUREMENT 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT. 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY FIXED WING 

1 UTILITY F/W AIRCRAFT .............................................................................................. 3 57,529 3 57,529 

3 MQ–1 UAV ................................................................................................................. 0 55,388 0 55,388 

ROTARY 

6 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN .......................................................................... 48 803,084 48 803,084 7 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN (AP) .................................................................. 0 185,160 0 185,160 8 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) ....................................................................... 36 755,146 36 755,146 9 UH–60 BLACKHAWK M MODEL (MYP) (AP) ............................................................... 0 174,107 0 174,107 

10 UH–60 BLACK HAWK A AND L MODELS .................................................................... 38 46,173 38 46,173 11 CH–47 HELICOPTER .................................................................................................. 22 556,257 22 556,257 

12 CH–47 HELICOPTER (AP) .......................................................................................... 0 8,707 0 8,707 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

13 MQ–1 PAYLOAD (MIP) ............................................................................................... 0 43,735 0 43,735 

15 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP) ............................................................................ 0 94,527 0 94,527 16 AH–64 MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 137,883 0 137,883 17 CH–47 CARGO HELICOPTER MODS (MYP) ................................................................ 0 102,943 0 102,943 18 GRCS SEMA MODS (MIP) .......................................................................................... 0 4,055 0 4,055 19 ARL SEMA MODS (MIP) ............................................................................................. 0 6,793 0 6,793 20 EMARSS SEMA MODS (MIP) ...................................................................................... 0 13,197 0 13,197 21 UTILITY/CARGO AIRPLANE MODS ............................................................................... 0 17,526 0 17,526 22 UTILITY HELICOPTER MODS ....................................................................................... 0 10,807 0 10,807 23 NETWORK AND MISSION PLAN .................................................................................. 0 74,752 0 74,752 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
425 

24 COMMS, NAV SURVEILLANCE .................................................................................... 0 69,960 0 69,96025 GATM ROLLUP ............................................................................................................ 0 45,302 0 45,302 26 RQ–7 UAV MODS ....................................................................................................... 0 71,169 0 71,169 27 UAS MODS ................................................................................................................. 0 21,804 0 21,804 

GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 

28 AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT ...................................................................... 0 67,377 0 67,377 29 SURVIVABILITY CM .................................................................................................... 0 9,565 0 26,000 0 35,565 

ASE PNT unfunded requirement ...................................................................... [0 ] [26,000 ] 

30 CMWS ........................................................................................................................ 0 41,626 0 41,626 

OTHER SUPPORT 

32 AVIONICS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 7,007 0 7,007 33 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 48,234 0 48,234 34 AIRCREW INTEGRATED SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 0 30,297 0 30,297 35 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL .............................................................................................. 0 50,405 0 50,405 

36 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 0 1,217 0 1,217 

37 LAUNCHER, 2.75 ROCKET ......................................................................................... 0 3,055 0 3,055 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY .................................................................. 147 3,614,787 0 26,000 147 3,640,787 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM 

1 LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD) ....................................................... 0 126,470 0 126,470 2 MSE MISSILE ............................................................................................................. 85 423,201 85 423,201 

3 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INC 2–I (AP) ............................................ 0 19,319 0 19,319 

AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 

4 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 155 42,013 155 42,013 5 JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MSLS (JAGM) ........................................................................ 324 64,751 324 64,751 6 JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MSLS (JAGM) (AP) ................................................................ 0 37,100 0 37,100 

ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 

7 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY ..................................................................... 309 73,508 309 73,508 8 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 595 64,922 595 64,922 

9 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY (AP) ................................................................................ 0 19,949 0 19,949 

10 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ............................................................................... 1,068 172,088 1,068 172,088 11 MLRS REDUCED RANGE PRACTICE ROCKETS (RRPR) .............................................. 1,704 18,004 1,704 18,004 

MODIFICATIONS 

13 PATRIOT MODS .......................................................................................................... 0 197,107 0 197,107 14 ATACMS MODS ........................................................................................................... 0 150,043 0 150,043 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
426 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

15 GMLRS MOD .............................................................................................................. 0 395 0 395 17 AVENGER MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 33,606 0 33,606 18 ITAS/TOW MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 383 0 383 19 MLRS MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 34,704 0 34,704 20 HIMARS MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................ 0 1,847 0 1,847 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

21 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 34,487 0 34,487 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

22 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS ............................................................................................. 0 4,915 0 4,915 

24 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT .................................................................................... 0 1,154 0 1,154 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ..................................................................... 4,240 1,519,966 0 0 4,240 1,519,966 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

1 STRYKER VEHICLE ..................................................................................................... 0 71,680 0 71,680 

MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

2 STRYKER (MOD) ........................................................................................................ 0 74,348 0 74,348 

3 STRYKER UPGRADE ................................................................................................... 0 444,561 0 –11,000 0 433,561 

Early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–11,000 ] 

5 BRADLEY PROGRAM (MOD) ....................................................................................... 0 276,433 0 276,433 6 HOWITZER, MED SP FT 155MM M109A6 (MOD) ....................................................... 0 63,138 0 63,138 7 PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) .............................................................. 36 469,305 36 469,305 8 IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88A2 HERCULES) ............................................... 22 91,963 22 91,963 9 ASSAULT BRIDGE (MOD) ........................................................................................... 0 3,465 0 3,465 

10 ASSAULT BREACHER VEHICLE ................................................................................... 0 2,928 0 2,928 11 M88 FOV MODS ......................................................................................................... 0 8,685 0 8,685 12 JOINT ASSAULT BRIDGE ............................................................................................. 9 64,752 9 64,752 13 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) .......................................................................................... 0 480,166 0 140,000 0 620,166 

APS Unfunded requirement .............................................................................. [0 ] [82,000 ] 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
427 

M1 industrial base Unfunded requirement ..................................................... [0 ] [58,000 ] 

WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 

16 INTEGRATED AIR BURST WEAPON SYSTEM FAMILY .................................................. 0 9,764 0 9,764 17 MORTAR SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 0 8,332 0 8,332 

18 XM320 GRENADE LAUNCHER MODULE (GLM) ........................................................... 0 3,062 0 3,062 19 COMPACT SEMI-AUTOMATIC SNIPER SYSTEM ........................................................... 0 992 0 992 20 CARBINE .................................................................................................................... 0 40,493 0 40,493 21 COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION ................................................ 0 25,164 0 25,164 36 HANDGUN ................................................................................................................... 0 0 1,000 0 1,000 

Program increase for Modular Handgun System ............................................ [0 ] [1,000 ] 

MOD OF WEAPONS AND OTHER COMBAT VEH 

22 MK–19 GRENADE MACHINE GUN MODS ................................................................... 0 4,959 0 4,959 23 M777 MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 11,913 0 11,913 

24 M4 CARBINE MODS ................................................................................................... 0 29,752 0 –1,000 0 28,752 

Program decrease ............................................................................................ [0 ] [–1,000 ] 

25 M2 50 CAL MACHINE GUN MODS ............................................................................. 0 48,582 0 48,582 26 M249 SAW MACHINE GUN MODS .............................................................................. 0 1,179 0 1,179 27 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE GUN MODS ........................................................................ 0 1,784 0 1,784 28 SNIPER RIFLES MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................ 0 971 0 971 29 M119 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................... 0 6,045 0 6,045 

30 MORTAR MODIFICATION ............................................................................................. 0 12,118 0 12,118 31 MODIFICATIONS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) .................................................... 0 3,157 0 3,157 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

32 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (WOCV-WTCV) ................................................................... 0 2,331 0 2,331 35 SMALL ARMS EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER ENH PROG) ...................................................... 0 3,155 0 3,155 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ................................................................ 67 2,265,177 0 129,000 67 2,394,177 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

1 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 40,296 0 –2,600 0 37,696 

Early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–2,600 ]

2 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 39,237 0 –300 0 38,937 

Early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–300 ] 

3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 5,193 0 –1,300 0 3,893 

Early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–1,300 ]

4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 46,693 0 –4,700 0 41,993 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
428 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

Early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–4,700 ]

5 CTG, 20MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 7,000 0 7,000 6 CTG, 25MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 7,753 0 –1,300 0 6,453 

Early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–1,300 ]

7 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 47,000 0 47,000 8 CTG, 40MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 118,178 0 –6,300 0 111,878 

Early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–6,300 ]

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

9 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 69,784 0 69,784

10 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 36,125 0 36,125 11 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES .................................................................................... 0 69,133 0 69,133

TANK AMMUNITION 

12 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, ALL TYPES ............................................. 0 120,668 0 –2,800 0 117,868 

Early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–2,800 ]

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

13 ARTILLERY CARTRIDGES, 75MM & 105MM, ALL TYPES ........................................... 0 64,800 0 –4,000 0 60,800 

75mm blanks early to need ............................................................................ [0 ] [–4,000 ] 

14 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................ 0 109,515 0 109,515 15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982 ..................................................................... 0 39,200 0 39,200 16 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL ............................................. 0 70,881 0 70,881 

ROCKETS 

19 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................ 0 38,000 0 38,000 20 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 0 87,213 0 87,213 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

21 CAD/PAD, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................. 0 4,914 0 4,914 

22 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................ 0 6,380 0 6,380 23 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 0 22,760 0 22,760 24 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES .................................................................................................. 0 10,666 0 10,666 25 SIMULATORS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................................... 0 7,412 0 7,412 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
429 

MISCELLANEOUS 

26 AMMO COMPONENTS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 0 12,726 0 12,726 27 NON-LETHAL AMMUNITION, ALL TYPES ..................................................................... 0 6,100 0 –200 0 5,900 

Early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–200 ] 

28 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (AMMO) .................................................................... 0 10,006 0 –500 0 9,506

Early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–500 ] 

29 AMMUNITION PECULIAR EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 17,275 0 –3,700 0 13,575 

Early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–3,700 ]

30 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION (AMMO) ........................................................ 0 14,951 0 14,951 

PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT 

32 INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................................. 0 222,269 0 222,269 33 CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS DEMILITARIZATION ........................................................ 0 157,383 0 157,383 34 ARMS INITIATIVE ........................................................................................................ 0 3,646 0 3,646 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ....................................................... 0 1,513,157 0 –27,700 0 1,485,457 OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 

1 TACTICAL TRAILERS/DOLLY SETS .............................................................................. 0 3,733 0 3,733 2 SEMITRAILERS, FLATBED: .......................................................................................... 0 3,716 0 3,716 

3 HI MOB MULTI-PURP WHLD VEH (HMMWV) .............................................................. 0 0 21,000 0 21,000 

Ambulance recapitalization ............................................................................. [0 ] [21,000 ] 

4 GROUND MOBILITY VEHICLES (GMV) ........................................................................ 0 4,907 0 4,907 6 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ................................................................................ 1,828 587,514 1,828 587,514 7 TRUCK, DUMP, 20T (CCE) ......................................................................................... 0 3,927 0 3,927 8 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) .............................................................. 8 53,293 8 53,293 9 FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIP ................................................... 0 7,460 0 7,460 

10 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ......................................................... 430 39,564 430 39,564 11 PLS ESP ..................................................................................................................... 0 11,856 0 11,856 13 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS ...................................................... 0 49,751 0 49,751 14 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP .............................................................................. 0 64,000 0 –12,000 0 52,000 

Higher priorities ............................................................................................... [0 ] [–12,000 ]

15 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED (MRAP) MODS ............................................. 0 10,611 0 10,611 

NON-TACTICAL VEHICLES 

16 HEAVY ARMORED SEDAN ........................................................................................... 0 394 0 394 18 NONTACTICAL VEHICLES, OTHER ............................................................................... 0 1,755 0 1,755 

COMM—JOINT COMMUNICATIONS 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
430 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

19 WIN-T—GROUND FORCES TACTICAL NETWORK ........................................................ 0 427,598 0 –100,000 0 327,598 

Ahead of need .................................................................................................. [0 ] [–100,000 ]

20 SIGNAL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .......................................................................... 0 58,250 0 58,250 21 JOINT INCIDENT SITE COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY ............................................... 0 5,749 0 5,749 22 JCSE EQUIPMENT (USREDCOM) ................................................................................. 0 5,068 0 5,068 

COMM—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

23 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE WIDEBAND SATCOM SYSTEMS .............................................. 0 143,805 0 143,805 24 TRANSPORTABLE TACTICAL COMMAND COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... 0 36,580 0 36,580 25 SHF TERM .................................................................................................................. 0 1,985 0 1,985 27 SMART-T (SPACE) ...................................................................................................... 0 9,165 0 9,165 

COMM—C3 SYSTEM 

31 ARMY GLOBAL CMD & CONTROL SYS (AGCCS) ........................................................ 0 2,530 0 2,530 

COMM—COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS 

33 HANDHELD MANPACK SMALL FORM FIT (HMS) ......................................................... 5,656 273,645 5,656 273,645 34 MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) ................................................. 0 25,017 0 25,017 35 RADIO TERMINAL SET, MIDS LVT(2) .......................................................................... 0 12,326 0 12,326 37 TRACTOR DESK .......................................................................................................... 0 2,034 0 2,034 

38 TRACTOR RIDE ........................................................................................................... 0 2,334 0 2,334 39 SPIDER APLA REMOTE CONTROL UNIT ...................................................................... 0 1,985 0 1,985 40 SPIDER FAMILY OF NETWORKED MUNITIONS INCR ................................................... 0 10,796 0 10,796 42 TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS AND PROTECTIVE SYSTEM .......................................... 0 3,607 0 3,607 43 UNIFIED COMMAND SUITE ......................................................................................... 0 14,295 0 14,295 45 FAMILY OF MED COMM FOR COMBAT CASUALTY CARE ........................................... 0 19,893 0 19,893 

COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 

47 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................... 0 1,388 0 1,388 48 ARMY CA/MISO GPF EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 5,494 0 5,494 

INFORMATION SECURITY 

49 FAMILY OF BIOMETRICS ............................................................................................ 0 2,978 0 2,978 51 COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (COMSEC) .................................................................. 0 131,356 0 131,356 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
431 

52 DEFENSIVE CYBER OPERATIONS ............................................................................... 0 15,132 0 15,132 

COMM—LONG HAUL COMMUNICATIONS 

53 BASE SUPPORT COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................................... 0 27,452 0 27,452 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 

54 INFORMATION SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 0 122,055 0 122,055 55 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM .......................................... 1 4,286 1 4,286 56 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM ............................................ 0 131,794 0 131,794 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

59 JTT/CIBS-M ................................................................................................................ 0 5,337 0 5,337 62 DCGS-A (MIP) ............................................................................................................ 0 242,514 0 –93,000 0 149,514 

Changing requirement, tactical ....................................................................... [0 ] [–93,000 ] 

63 JOINT TACTICAL GROUND STATION (JTAGS) .............................................................. 0 4,417 0 4,417 64 TROJAN (MIP) ............................................................................................................. 0 17,455 0 17,455 

65 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) (MIP) ................................................................ 0 44,965 0 44,965 66 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING AND COLL(CHARCS) ..................................................... 0 7,658 0 7,658 67 CLOSE ACCESS TARGET RECONNAISSANCE (CATR) .................................................. 0 7,970 0 7,970 68 MACHINE FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRANSLATION SYSTEM-M ......................................... 0 545 0 545 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

70 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR ................................................................. 0 74,038 0 –12,500 0 61,538

Reduce to FY16 level ....................................................................................... [0 ] [–12,500 ] 

71 EW PLANNING & MANAGEMENT TOOLS (EWPMT) ...................................................... 0 3,235 0 3,235 72 AIR VIGILANCE (AV) ................................................................................................... 0 733 0 733 

74 FAMILY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITIE ............................................... 0 1,740 0 1,740 75 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES .......................................... 0 455 0 455 76 CI MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................... 0 176 0 176 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 

77 SENTINEL MODS ........................................................................................................ 0 40,171 0 40,171 

78 NIGHT VISION DEVICES ............................................................................................. 0 163,029 0 163,029 79 SMALL TACTICAL OPTICAL RIFLE MOUNTED MLRF .................................................... 0 15,885 0 15,885 80 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS ................................................... 0 48,427 0 48,427 81 FAMILY OF WEAPON SIGHTS (FWS) ........................................................................... 0 55,536 0 55,536 82 ARTILLERY ACCURACY EQUIP ................................................................................... 0 4,187 0 4,187 85 JOINT BATTLE COMMAND—PLATFORM (JBC-P) ........................................................ 0 137,501 0 137,501 86 JOINT EFFECTS TARGETING SYSTEM (JETS) .............................................................. 0 50,726 0 50,726 87 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR) .................................................................................. 0 28,058 0 –6,500 0 21,558 

Reduce to FY16 levels ..................................................................................... [0 ] [–6,500 ] 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
432 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

88 COMPUTER BALLISTICS: LHMBC XM32 ..................................................................... 0 5,924 0 5,924 89 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM .............................................................................. 0 22,331 0 22,331 90 COUNTERFIRE RADARS .............................................................................................. 0 314,509 0 –36,000 0 278,509 

Smooth production profile ............................................................................... [0 ] [–36,000 ] 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS 

91 FIRE SUPPORT C2 FAMILY ........................................................................................ 0 8,660 0 8,660 

92 AIR & MSL DEFENSE PLANNING & CONTROL SYS .................................................... 0 54,376 0 54,376 93 IAMD BATTLE COMMAND SYSTEM ............................................................................. 0 204,969 0 204,969 94 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE SUPPORT (LCSS) ................................................................. 0 4,718 0 4,718 95 NETWORK MANAGEMENT INITIALIZATION AND SERVICE ............................................ 0 11,063 0 11,063 96 MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) ....................................................................... 0 151,318 0 –27,000 0 124,318 

Reduce to FY16 level ....................................................................................... [0 ] [–27,000 ] 

97 GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM-ARMY (GCSS-A) .............................................. 0 155,660 0 155,660 98 INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPP .......................................... 0 4,214 0 4,214 99 RECONNAISSANCE AND SURVEYING INSTRUMENT SET ............................................. 0 16,185 0 16,185 

100 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (ENFIRE) ...................................................................... 0 1,565 0 1,565 

ELECT EQUIP—AUTOMATION 

101 ARMY TRAINING MODERNIZATION ............................................................................. 0 17,693 0 17,693 102 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP ..................................................................... 0 107,960 0 –9,400 0 98,560 

Program reduction ........................................................................................... [0 ] [–9,400 ] 

103 GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEMS FAM ........................................... 0 6,416 0 6,416 104 HIGH PERF COMPUTING MOD PGM (HPCMP) ............................................................ 0 58,614 0 58,614 105 CONTRACT WRITING SYSTEM .................................................................................... 0 986 0 –986 0 0

Contract writing unjustified requirement ........................................................ [0 ] [–986 ] 

106 RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYS (RCAS) .................................................... 0 23,828 0 23,828 

ELECT EQUIP—AUDIO VISUAL SYS (A/V) 

107 TACTICAL DIGITAL MEDIA .......................................................................................... 0 1,191 0 1,191 

108 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (SURVEYING EQUIPMENT) ................................................... 0 1,995 0 1,995 

ELECT EQUIP—SUPPORT 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
433 

109 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (C-E) .......................................................................... 0 403 0 403 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

110 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 4,436 0 4,436 

CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 

111 PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................... 0 2,966 0 2,966 

112 FAMILY OF NON-LETHAL EQUIPMENT (FNLE) ............................................................ 0 9,795 0 9,795 114 CBRN DEFENSE ......................................................................................................... 0 17,922 0 17,922 

BRIDGING EQUIPMENT 

115 TACTICAL BRIDGING .................................................................................................. 0 13,553 0 13,553 

116 TACTICAL BRIDGE, FLOAT-RIBBON ............................................................................ 0 25,244 0 25,244 117 BRIDGE SUPPLEMENTAL SET ..................................................................................... 0 983 0 983 118 COMMON BRIDGE TRANSPORTER (CBT) RECAP ....................................................... 0 25,176 0 25,176 

ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 

119 GRND STANDOFF MINE DETECTN SYSM (GSTAMIDS) ................................................ 0 39,350 0 39,350 120 AREA MINE DETECTION SYSTEM (AMDS) .................................................................. 0 10,500 0 10,500 121 HUSKY MOUNTED DETECTION SYSTEM (HMDS) ........................................................ 0 274 0 274 122 ROBOTIC COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM (RCSS) ........................................................... 0 2,951 0 2,951 123 EOD ROBOTICS SYSTEMS RECAPITALIZATION ........................................................... 0 1,949 0 1,949 124 ROBOTICS AND APPLIQUE SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 0 5,203 0 5,203 125 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQPMT (EOD EQPMT) .......................................... 0 5,570 0 5,570 126 REMOTE DEMOLITION SYSTEMS ................................................................................ 0 6,238 0 6,238 127 < $5M, COUNTERMINE EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 836 0 836 128 FAMILY OF BOATS AND MOTORS ............................................................................... 0 3,171 0 3,171 

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

129 HEATERS AND ECU’S ................................................................................................. 0 18,707 0 18,707 130 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT ........................................................................................... 0 2,112 0 2,112 

131 PERSONNEL RECOVERY SUPPORT SYSTEM (PRSS) .................................................. 0 10,856 0 10,856 132 GROUND SOLDIER SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 0 32,419 0 32,419 133 MOBILE SOLDIER POWER .......................................................................................... 0 30,014 0 30,014 135 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 0 12,544 0 12,544 136 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM ........................................ 0 18,509 0 18,509 137 FAMILY OF ENGR COMBAT AND CONSTRUCTION SETS ............................................. 0 29,384 0 29,384 

PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT 

139 QUALITY SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 4,487 0 4,487 140 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & WATER ...................................................... 0 42,656 0 –10,000 0 32,656 

Program decrease ............................................................................................ [0 ] [–10,000 ] 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
434 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 

141 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL ..................................................................................... 0 59,761 0 59,761 

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 

142 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS .......................................................... 0 35,694 0 –5,000 0 30,694 

Reduce to FY16 level ....................................................................................... [0 ] [–5,000 ] 

143 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MAINT EQ) ....................................................................... 0 2,716 0 2,716 

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 

144 GRADER, ROAD MTZD, HVY, 6X4 (CCE) .................................................................... 0 1,742 0 1,742 145 SCRAPERS, EARTHMOVING ........................................................................................ 0 26,233 0 26,233 

147 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR ............................................................................................ 0 1,123 0 1,123 149 ALL TERRAIN CRANES ............................................................................................... 0 65,285 0 65,285 151 HIGH MOBILITY ENGINEER EXCAVATOR (HMEE) ....................................................... 0 1,743 0 1,743 152 ENHANCED RAPID AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION CAPAP ................................................ 0 2,779 0 2,779 154 CONST EQUIP ESP ..................................................................................................... 0 26,712 0 –4,500 0 22,212 

Reduce to FY16 level ....................................................................................... [0 ] [–4,500 ] 

155 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (CONST EQUIP) ................................................................. 0 6,649 0 6,649 

RAIL FLOAT CONTAINERIZATION EQUIPMENT 

156 ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP ........................................................................................... 0 21,860 0 –11,000 0 10,860 

Program decrease ............................................................................................ [0 ] [–11,000 ] 

157 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL) .................................................................... 0 1,967 0 1,967 

GENERATORS 

158 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP ..................................................................... 0 113,266 0 113,266 159 TACTICAL ELECTRIC POWER RECAPITALIZATION ....................................................... 0 7,867 0 7,867 

MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

160 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS ............................................................................................... 0 2,307 0 2,307 

TRAINING EQUIPMENT 

161 COMBAT TRAINING CENTERS SUPPORT .................................................................... 0 75,359 0 75,359 162 TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM .............................................................................. 0 253,050 0 253,050 

163 CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINER .......................................................................... 0 48,271 0 48,271 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
435 

164 AVIATION COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER ....................................................... 0 40,000 0 40,000 165 GAMING TECHNOLOGY IN SUPPORT OF ARMY TRAINING .......................................... 0 11,543 0 11,543 

TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT (TMD) 

166 CALIBRATION SETS EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 4,963 0 4,963 167 INTEGRATED FAMILY OF TEST EQUIPMENT (IFTE) ..................................................... 0 29,781 0 29,781 168 TEST EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION (TEMOD) ............................................................ 0 6,342 0 6,342 

OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

169 M25 STABILIZED BINOCULAR .................................................................................... 0 3,149 0 3,149170 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................... 0 18,003 0 18,003 171 PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (OPA3) ..................................................................... 0 44,082 0 44,082 172 BASE LEVEL COMMON EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 0 2,168 0 2,168 173 MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA–3) ....................................................... 0 67,367 0 –5,000 0 62,367 

Reduce to FY16 level ....................................................................................... [0 ] [–5,000 ] 

174 PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (OTH) ......................................................................... 0 1,528 0 1,528 175 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR USER TESTING ................................................................. 0 8,289 0 8,289 177 TRACTOR YARD .......................................................................................................... 0 6,888 0 6,888 

OPA2 

179 INITIAL SPARES—C&E .............................................................................................. 0 27,243 0 27,243 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ....................................................................... 7,923 5,873,949 0 –311,886 7,923 5,562,063 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 

3 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV ........................................................................................ 4 890,650 4 890,650 

4 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER CV (AP) ................................................................................ 0 80,908 0 80,9085 JSF STOVL .................................................................................................................. 16 2,037,768 16 2,037,768 6 JSF STOVL (AP) .......................................................................................................... 0 233,648 0 233,648 7 CH–53K (HEAVY LIFT) ............................................................................................... 2 348,615 2 348,615 8 CH–53K (HEAVY LIFT) (AP) ....................................................................................... 0 88,365 0 88,365 9 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) ................................................................................................. 16 1,264,134 16 1,264,134 

10 V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) (AP) ......................................................................................... 0 19,674 0 19,674 11 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) .............................................................................. 24 759,778 24 759,778 12 H–1 UPGRADES (UH–1Y/AH–1Z) (AP) ...................................................................... 0 57,232 0 57,232 14 MH–60R (MYP) .......................................................................................................... 0 61,177 0 61,177 16 P–8A POSEIDON ........................................................................................................ 11 1,940,238 11 1,940,238 17 P–8A POSEIDON (AP) ................................................................................................ 0 123,140 0 123,140 18 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE ................................................................................................. 6 916,483 6 916,483 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
436 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

19 E–2D ADV HAWKEYE (AP) ......................................................................................... 0 125,042 0 125,042 

TRAINER AIRCRAFT 

20 JPATS ......................................................................................................................... 0 5,849 0 5,849 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

21 KC–130J .................................................................................................................... 2 128,870 2 128,870 22 KC–130J (AP) ............................................................................................................ 0 24,848 0 24,848 23 MQ–4 TRITON ............................................................................................................ 2 409,005 2 409,005 24 MQ–4 TRITON (AP) .................................................................................................... 0 55,652 0 55,652 25 MQ–8 UAV ................................................................................................................. 1 72,435 1 72,435 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

29 AEA SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 0 51,900 0 51,900 

30 AV–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 60,818 0 60,818 31 ADVERSARY ............................................................................................................... 0 5,191 0 5,191 32 F–18 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 1,023,492 0 1,023,492 34 H–53 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 46,095 0 46,095 35 SH–60 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 108,328 0 108,328 36 H–1 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 46,333 0 46,333 37 EP–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 14,681 0 14,681 38 P–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 2,781 0 2,781 39 E–2 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 32,949 0 32,949 40 TRAINER A/C SERIES ................................................................................................. 0 13,199 0 13,199 41 C–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 19,066 0 19,066 42 C–130 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 61,788 0 61,788 43 FEWSG ....................................................................................................................... 0 618 0 618 44 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C SERIES ............................................................................... 0 9,822 0 9,822 45 E–6 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 222,077 0 222,077 46 EXECUTIVE HELICOPTERS SERIES ............................................................................. 0 66,835 0 66,835 47 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ..................................................................................... 0 16,497 0 16,497 48 T–45 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 114,887 0 114,887 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
437 

49 POWER PLANT CHANGES ........................................................................................... 0 16,893 0 16,893 50 JPATS SERIES ............................................................................................................ 0 17,401 0 17,401 51 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 143,773 0 143,773 52 COMMON AVIONICS CHANGES ................................................................................... 0 164,839 0 164,839 53 COMMON DEFENSIVE WEAPON SYSTEM .................................................................... 0 4,403 0 4,403 54 ID SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 0 45,768 0 45,768 55 P–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 18,836 0 18,836 56 MAGTF EW FOR AVIATION .......................................................................................... 0 5,676 0 5,676 57 MQ–8 SERIES ............................................................................................................ 0 19,003 0 19,003 58 RQ–7 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 3,534 0 3,534 59 V–22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY ............................................................................ 0 141,545 0 141,54560 F–35 STOVL SERIES .................................................................................................. 0 34,928 0 34,928 61 F–35 CV SERIES ........................................................................................................ 0 26,004 0 26,004 62 QRC ........................................................................................................................... 0 5,476 0 5,476 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

63 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 1,407,626 0 50,800 0 1,458,426 

F–35B spares unfunded requirement .............................................................. [0 ] [50,800 ] 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP & FACILITIES 

64 COMMON GROUND EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 390,103 0 390,103 65 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................. 0 23,194 0 23,194

66 WAR CONSUMABLES .................................................................................................. 0 40,613 0 40,613 67 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ................................................................................. 0 860 0 860 68 SPECIAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. 0 36,282 0 36,282 69 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 1,523 0 1,523 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 84 14,109,148 0 50,800 84 14,159,948 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

1 TRIDENT II MODS ...................................................................................................... 0 1,103,086 0 1,103,086 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

2 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................... 0 6,776 0 6,776 

STRATEGIC MISSILES 

3 TOMAHAWK ................................................................................................................ 100 186,905 96 84,200 196 271,105 

Program increase ............................................................................................. [96 ] [84,200 ] 

TACTICAL MISSILES 

4 AMRAAM .................................................................................................................... 163 204,697 163 204,697 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
438 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

5 SIDEWINDER .............................................................................................................. 152 70,912 152 70,912 6 JSOW .......................................................................................................................... 0 2,232 0 2,232 7 STANDARD MISSILE ................................................................................................... 125 501,212 125 501,212 8 RAM ........................................................................................................................... 90 71,557 90 71,557 9 JOINT AIR GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) ......................................................................... 96 26,200 96 26,200 

12 STAND OFF PRECISION GUIDED MUNITIONS (SOPGM) .............................................. 24 3,316 24 3,316 13 AERIAL TARGETS ........................................................................................................ 0 137,484 0 137,484 14 OTHER MISSILE SUPPORT ......................................................................................... 0 3,248 0 3,248 15 LRASM ....................................................................................................................... 10 29,643 10 29,643 

MODIFICATION OF MISSILES 

16 ESSM ......................................................................................................................... 75 52,935 75 52,935 18 HARM MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 178,213 0 –30,000 0 148,213 

Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile production issues .......................... [0 ] [–30,000 ] 

19 STANDARD MISSILES MODS ...................................................................................... 0 8,164 0 8,164 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 

20 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................. 0 1,964 0 1,964 21 FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON ........................................................................ 0 36,723 0 36,723 

ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

22 ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 59,096 0 6,970 0 66,066 

Program increase ............................................................................................. [0 ] [6,970 ] 

TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

23 SSTD .......................................................................................................................... 0 5,910 0 5,910 24 MK–48 TORPEDO ....................................................................................................... 11 44,537 11 44,537 

25 ASW TARGETS ............................................................................................................ 0 9,302 0 9,302 

MOD OF TORPEDOES AND RELATED EQUIP 

26 MK–54 TORPEDO MODS ............................................................................................ 0 98,092 0 98,092 

27 MK–48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS ................................................................................ 0 46,139 0 46,139 28 QUICKSTRIKE MINE .................................................................................................... 0 1,236 0 1,236 

SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
439 

29 TORPEDO SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 60,061 0 60,061 30 ASW RANGE SUPPORT ............................................................................................... 0 3,706 0 3,706 

DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION 

31 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 3,804 0 3,804 

GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

32 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS .................................................................................... 0 18,002 0 18,002 

MODIFICATION OF GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS 

33 CIWS MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 50,900 0 50,900 

34 COAST GUARD WEAPONS .......................................................................................... 0 25,295 0 25,295 35 GUN MOUNT MODS .................................................................................................... 0 77,003 0 77,003 36 LCS MODULE WEAPONS ............................................................................................ 24 2,776 24 2,776 38 AIRBORNE MINE NEUTRALIZATION SYSTEMS ............................................................ 0 15,753 0 15,753 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

40 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 62,383 0 62,383 

TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 870 3,209,262 96 61,170 966 3,270,432 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 

1 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 91,659 0 91,659 2 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 0 65,759 0 65,759 3 MACHINE GUN AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 0 8,152 0 8,152 4 PRACTICE BOMBS ...................................................................................................... 0 41,873 0 41,873 

5 CARTRIDGES & CART ACTUATED DEVICES ............................................................... 0 54,002 0 54,002 6 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ..................................................................... 0 57,034 0 57,034 7 JATOS ......................................................................................................................... 0 2,735 0 2,735 9 5 INCH/54 GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................... 0 19,220 0 19,220 

10 INTERMEDIATE CALIBER GUN AMMUNITION .............................................................. 0 30,196 0 30,196 11 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION ................................................................................. 0 39,009 0 39,009 12 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO ................................................................... 0 46,727 0 46,727 13 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ............................................................................... 0 9,806 0 9,806 14 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ....................................................................... 0 2,900 0 2,900 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

15 SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION ....................................................................................... 0 27,958 0 27,958 

17 40 MM, ALL TYPES .................................................................................................... 0 14,758 0 14,758 18 60MM, ALL TYPES ..................................................................................................... 0 992 0 992 20 120MM, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................... 0 16,757 0 –4,000 0 12,757 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
440 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

120mm early to need ...................................................................................... [0 ] [–4,000 ] 

21 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 0 972 0 972

22 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................ 0 14,186 0 14,186 23 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 0 68,656 0 68,656 24 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................ 0 1,700 0 1,700 25 FUZE, ALL TYPES ....................................................................................................... 0 26,088 0 26,088 27 AMMO MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................. 0 14,660 0 14,660 28 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 8,569 0 –2,500 0 6,069 

early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–2,500 ]

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ........................................................ 0 664,368 0 –6,500 0 657,868 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE SHIPS 

1 OHIO REPLACEMENT SUBMARINE (AP) ..................................................................... 0 773,138 0 773,138 

OTHER WARSHIPS 

2 CARRIER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM .......................................................................... 0 1,291,783 0 1,291,783 3 CARRIER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (AP) .................................................................. 0 1,370,784 0 1,370,784 4 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE .................................................................................... 2 3,187,985 2 3,187,985 

5 VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE (AP) ............................................................................ 0 1,767,234 0 1,767,234 6 CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS .................................................................................... 0 1,743,220 0 1,743,220 7 CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS (AP) ............................................................................ 0 248,599 0 248,599 8 DDG 1000 .................................................................................................................. 0 271,756 0 271,756 9 DDG–51 ..................................................................................................................... 2 3,211,292 0 49,800 2 3,261,092 

Fund additional FY16 destroyer ....................................................................... [0 ] [49,800 ] 

11 LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP ............................................................................................ 2 1,125,625 0 –28,000 2 1,097,625 

Unjustified growth ........................................................................................... [0 ] [–28,000 ] 

AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS 

13 AMPHIBIOUS SHIP REPLACEMENT LX(R) (AP) ........................................................... 0 0 50,000 0 50,000 

Advanced procurement for LX (R) ................................................................... [0 ] [50,000 ] 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
441 

16 LHA REPLACEMENT .................................................................................................... 1 1,623,024 1 1,623,024 

AUXILIARIES, CRAFT AND PRIOR YR PROGRAM COST 

20 TAO FLEET OILER (AP) .............................................................................................. 0 73,079 0 73,079 

22 MOORED TRAINING SHIP ........................................................................................... 1 624,527 1 624,527 25 OUTFITTING ................................................................................................................ 0 666,158 0 666,158 26 SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR .................................................................................... 2 128,067 2 128,067 27 SERVICE CRAFT ......................................................................................................... 0 65,192 0 65,192 28 LCAC SLEP ................................................................................................................. 0 1,774 0 1,774 29 YP CRAFT MAINTENANCE/ROH/SLEP ......................................................................... 0 21,363 0 21,363 30 COMPLETION OF PY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS ........................................................ 0 160,274 0 160,274 

TOTAL SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY ....................................................... 10 18,354,874 0 71,800 10 18,426,674 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY SHIP PROPULSION EQUIPMENT 

3 SURFACE POWER EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 0 15,514 0 15,514 4 HYBRID ELECTRIC DRIVE (HED) ................................................................................ 0 40,132 0 40,132 

GENERATORS 

5 SURFACE COMBATANT HM&E .................................................................................... 0 29,974 0 29,974 

NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT 

6 OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 63,942 0 63,942 

OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT 

8 SUB PERISCOPE, IMAGING AND SUPT EQUIP PROG ................................................. 0 136,421 0 136,421 9 DDG MOD ................................................................................................................... 0 367,766 0 65,000 0 432,766 

BMD upgrade unfunded requirement .............................................................. [0 ] [65,000 ] 

10 FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT ......................................................................................... 0 14,743 0 14,743 

11 COMMAND AND CONTROL SWITCHBOARD ................................................................. 0 2,140 0 2,140 12 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE ....................................................................................................... 0 24,939 0 24,939 14 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 20,191 0 20,191 15 SUBMARINE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................... 0 8,995 0 8,995 16 VIRGINIA CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 0 66,838 0 66,838 17 LCS CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 54,823 0 54,823 18 SUBMARINE BATTERIES ............................................................................................. 0 23,359 0 23,359 19 LPD CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 40,321 0 40,321 20 DDG 1000 CLASS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................. 0 33,404 0 33,404 21 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP .................................................................... 0 15,836 0 15,836 22 DSSP EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................................... 0 806 0 806 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
442 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

24 LCAC .......................................................................................................................... 0 3,090 0 3,090 25 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 0 24,350 0 24,350 26 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 88,719 0 88,719 27 CHEMICAL WARFARE DETECTORS ............................................................................. 0 2,873 0 2,873 28 SUBMARINE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM ......................................................................... 0 6,043 0 6,043 

REACTOR PLANT EQUIPMENT 

30 REACTOR COMPONENTS ............................................................................................ 0 342,158 0 342,158 

OCEAN ENGINEERING 

31 DIVING AND SALVAGE EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 8,973 0 8,973 

SMALL BOATS 

32 STANDARD BOATS ...................................................................................................... 0 43,684 0 43,684 

PRODUCTION FACILITIES EQUIPMENT 

34 OPERATING FORCES IPE ............................................................................................ 0 75,421 0 75,421 

OTHER SHIP SUPPORT 

35 NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS ............................................................................................. 0 172,718 0 172,718 

36 LCS COMMON MISSION MODULES EQUIPMENT ......................................................... 0 27,840 0 –3,700 0 24,140 

Cancelled program (RMS) ................................................................................ [0 ] [–3,700 ] 

37 LCS MCM MISSION MODULES ................................................................................... 0 57,146 0 57,146 38 LCS ASW MISSION MODULES .................................................................................... 0 31,952 0 31,952

39 LCS SUW MISSION MODULES .................................................................................... 0 22,466 0 22,466

LOGISTIC SUPPORT 

41 LSD MIDLIFE .............................................................................................................. 0 10,813 0 10,813 

SHIP SONARS 

42 SPQ–9B RADAR ......................................................................................................... 0 14,363 0 14,363 

43 AN/SQQ–89 SURF ASW COMBAT SYSTEM ................................................................. 0 90,029 0 90,029 45 SSN ACOUSTIC EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 248,765 0 248,765 46 UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................. 0 7,163 0 7,163 

ASW ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

48 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE SYSTEM ............................................................... 0 21,291 0 21,291 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
443 

49 SSTD .......................................................................................................................... 0 6,893 0 6,893 50 FIXED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 0 145,701 0 145,701 51 SURTASS .................................................................................................................... 0 36,136 1 10,000 1 46,136 

Additional SURTASS array unfunded requirement ........................................... [1 ] [10,000 ] 

ELECTRONIC WARFARE EQUIPMENT 

53 AN/SLQ–32 ................................................................................................................ 0 274,892 1 23,000 1 297,892 

Additional SEWIP Blk 3 unfunded requirement ............................................... [1 ] [23,000 ] 

RECONNAISSANCE EQUIPMENT 

54 SHIPBOARD IW EXPLOIT ............................................................................................ 0 170,733 0 170,733 

55 AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (AIS) .............................................................. 0 958 0 958 

OTHER SHIP ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

57 COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY .................................................................. 0 22,034 0 22,034 59 NAVAL TACTICAL COMMAND SUPPORT SYSTEM (NTCSS) ......................................... 0 12,336 0 12,336 60 ATDLS ........................................................................................................................ 0 30,105 0 30,105 61 NAVY COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NCCS) ..................................................... 0 4,556 0 4,556 62 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ................................................................... 0 56,675 0 –24,500 0 32,175 

Ahead of need .................................................................................................. [0 ] [–24,500 ] 

63 SHALLOW WATER MCM .............................................................................................. 0 8,875 0 8,875 

64 NAVSTAR GPS RECEIVERS (SPACE) .......................................................................... 0 12,752 0 12,752 65 AMERICAN FORCES RADIO AND TV SERVICE ............................................................ 0 4,577 0 4,577 66 STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP .................................................................... 0 8,972 0 8,972 

AVIATION ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

69 ASHORE ATC EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 0 75,068 0 75,068 70 AFLOAT ATC EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................... 0 33,484 0 33,484 76 ID SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 0 22,177 0 22,177 77 NAVAL MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 0 14,273 0 14,273 

OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

80 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS ............................................................................... 0 27,927 0 27,927 81 DCGS-N ...................................................................................................................... 0 12,676 0 12,676 82 CANES ........................................................................................................................ 0 212,030 0 212,030 83 RADIAC ...................................................................................................................... 0 8,092 0 8,092 84 CANES-INTELL ............................................................................................................ 0 36,013 0 36,013 85 GPETE ........................................................................................................................ 0 6,428 0 6,428 87 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM TEST FACILITY .................................................................... 0 8,376 0 8,376 88 EMI CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION ............................................................................. 0 3,971 0 3,971 89 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 58,721 0 58,721 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
444 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

SHIPBOARD COMMUNICATIONS 

90 SHIPBOARD TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................. 0 17,366 0 17,366 91 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION ...................................................................... 0 102,479 0 102,479 92 COMMUNICATIONS ITEMS UNDER $5M ..................................................................... 0 10,403 0 10,403 

SUBMARINE COMMUNICATIONS 

93 SUBMARINE BROADCAST SUPPORT ........................................................................... 0 34,151 0 34,151 94 SUBMARINE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT ............................................................... 0 64,529 0 64,529 

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

95 SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................... 0 14,414 0 14,414 96 NAVY MULTIBAND TERMINAL (NMT) .......................................................................... 0 38,365 0 38,365 

SHORE COMMUNICATIONS 

97 JCS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 4,156 0 4,156 

CRYPTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT 

99 INFO SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ............................................................. 0 85,694 0 85,694 

100 MIO INTEL EXPLOITATION TEAM ................................................................................ 0 920 0 920 

CRYPTOLOGIC EQUIPMENT 

101 CRYPTOLOGIC COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP .................................................................. 0 21,098 0 21,098 

OTHER ELECTRONIC SUPPORT 

102 COAST GUARD EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 32,291 0 32,291 

SONOBUOYS 

103 SONOBUOYS—ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 162,588 0 162,588 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

104 WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 0 58,116 0 58,116 105 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 120,324 0 120,324 

106 METEOROLOGICAL EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 0 29,253 0 29,253107 DCRS/DPL .................................................................................................................. 0 632 0 632 108 AIRBORNE MINE COUNTERMEASURES ...................................................................... 0 29,097 0 29,097 109 AVIATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 39,099 0 39,099

SHIP GUN SYSTEM EQUIPMENT 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
445 

110 SHIP GUN SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 6,191 0 6,191 

SHIP MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT 

111 SHIP MISSILE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 320,446 0 320,446 112 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 71,046 0 71,046 

FBM SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

113 STRATEGIC MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIP ........................................................................ 0 215,138 0 215,138 

ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

114 SSN COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEMS ............................................................................. 0 130,715 0 130,715 115 ASW SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 26,431 0 26,431 

OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

116 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP .................................................................. 0 11,821 0 11,821 117 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 6,243 0 6,243

OTHER EXPENDABLE ORDNANCE 

118 SUBMARINE TRAINING DEVICE MODS ....................................................................... 0 48,020 0 48,020 120 SURFACE TRAINING EQUIPMENT ............................................................................... 0 97,514 0 97,514 

CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

121 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 8,853 0 8,853 122 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS ..................................................................................... 0 4,928 0 4,928 123 CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE EQUIP .................................................................. 0 18,527 0 18,527 124 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 13,569 0 13,569 

125 TACTICAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................. 0 14,917 0 14,917 126 AMPHIBIOUS EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 0 7,676 0 7,676 127 POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 2,321 0 2,321 128 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION ........................................................................................ 0 12,459 0 12,459 129 PHYSICAL SECURITY VEHICLES ................................................................................. 0 1,095 0 1,095 

SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

131 SUPPLY EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................. 0 16,023 0 16,023 133 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 5,115 0 5,115 134 SPECIAL PURPOSE SUPPLY SYSTEMS ....................................................................... 0 295,471 0 295,471 

TRAINING DEVICES 

136 TRAINING AND EDUCATION EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 0 9,504 0 9,504 

COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

137 COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 37,180 0 37,180 139 MEDICAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 4,128 0 4,128 141 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 0 1,925 0 1,925 142 OPERATING FORCES SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................. 0 4,777 0 4,777 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
446 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

143 C4ISR EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 0 9,073 0 9,073 144 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 0 21,107 0 21,107 145 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 100,906 0 100,906 146 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 0 67,544 0 67,544 

OTHER 

150 NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE SERVICE ................................................................ 0 98,216 0 98,216 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

160 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 9,915 0 9,915 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

151 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 199,660 0 199,660 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ........................................................................ 0 6,338,861 2 69,800 2 6,408,661 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

1 AAV7A1 PIP ................................................................................................................ 0 73,785 0 73,785 

2 LAV PIP ...................................................................................................................... 0 53,423 0 53,423 

ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS 

3 EXPEDITIONARY FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ................................................................... 0 3,360 0 3,360 4 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT TOWED HOWITZER .................................................................. 0 3,318 0 3,318 5 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM ............................................................ 0 33,725 0 33,725 6 WEAPONS AND COMBAT VEHICLES UNDER $5 MILLION ........................................... 0 8,181 0 8,181 

OTHER SUPPORT 

7 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 0 15,250 0 15,250 

GUIDED MISSILES 

9 GROUND BASED AIR DEFENSE .................................................................................. 0 9,170 0 9,170 

10 JAVELIN ...................................................................................................................... 0 1,009 0 1,009 11 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW ............................................................................................... 0 24,666 0 24,666 

12 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-H) ................................................... 0 17,080 0 17,080 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
447 

15 COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (C ...................................... 0 47,312 0 47,312 

REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT 

16 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT .................................................................................. 0 16,469 0 16,469

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 

19 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & ELEC) ............................................................. 0 7,433 0 7,433 20 AIR OPERATIONS C2 SYSTEMS .................................................................................. 0 15,917 0 15,917

RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

21 RADAR SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 0 17,772 0 17,772 

22 GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR (G/ATOR) ....................................................... 3 123,758 3 123,758 23 RQ–21 UAS ................................................................................................................ 4 80,217 4 80,217 

INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

24 GCSS-MC ................................................................................................................... 0 1,089 0 1,089 

25 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 0 13,258 0 13,258 26 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 56,379 0 56,379 29 RQ–11 UAV ................................................................................................................ 0 1,976 0 1,976 31 DCGS-MC ................................................................................................................... 0 1,149 0 1,149 32 UAS PAYLOADS .......................................................................................................... 0 2,971 0 2,971 

OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 

34 NEXT GENERATION ENTERPRISE NETWORK (NGEN) .................................................. 0 76,302 0 76,302 35 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES ............................................................................ 0 41,802 0 41,802 36 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 0 90,924 0 90,924 

37 RADIO SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 0 43,714 0 43,714 38 COMM SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS ................................................................. 0 66,383 0 66,383 39 COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT ............................................................. 0 30,229 0 30,229 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

40 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 2,738 0 2,738 

ADMINISTRATIVE VEHICLES 

41 COMMERCIAL CARGO VEHICLES ............................................................................... 0 88,312 0 88,312 

TACTICAL VEHICLES 

43 MOTOR TRANSPORT MODIFICATIONS ......................................................................... 0 13,292 0 13,292 45 JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE ................................................................................ 192 113,230 192 113,230 

46 FAMILY OF TACTICAL TRAILERS ................................................................................ 0 2,691 0 2,691 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

48 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL EQUIP ASSORT .............................................................. 0 18 0 18 50 TACTICAL FUEL SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 0 78 0 78 51 POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED ................................................................................. 0 17,973 0 17,973 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
448 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

52 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .......................................................................... 0 7,371 0 7,371 53 EOD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 0 14,021 0 14,021 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

54 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 31,523 0 31,523 

GENERAL PROPERTY 

58 TRAINING DEVICES .................................................................................................... 0 33,658 0 33,658 

60 FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 0 21,315 0 21,315 61 FAMILY OF INTERNALLY TRANSPORTABLE VEH (ITV) ................................................ 0 9,654 0 9,654 

OTHER SUPPORT 

62 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 6,026 0 6,026 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

64 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 22,848 0 22,848 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ................................................................... 199 1,362,769 0 0 199 1,362,769 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL FORCES 

1 F–35 .......................................................................................................................... 43 4,401,894 43 4,401,894 2 F–35 (AP) .................................................................................................................. 0 404,500 0 404,500 

TACTICAL AIRLIFT 

3 KC–46A TANKER ........................................................................................................ 15 2,884,591 15 2,884,591 

OTHER AIRLIFT 

4 C–130J ...................................................................................................................... 2 145,655 2 145,655 

6 HC–130J .................................................................................................................... 3 317,576 3 317,576 7 HC–130J (AP) ............................................................................................................ 0 20,000 0 20,000 8 MC–130J .................................................................................................................... 6 548,358 6 548,358 9 MC–130J (AP) ............................................................................................................ 0 50,000 0 50,000 

HELICOPTERS 

10 UUH–1N REPLACEMENT ............................................................................................ 0 18,337 8 302,300 8 320,637 

HH–60 Blackhawks, initial spares, and support equipment .......................... [8 ] [302,300 ] 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
449 

MISSION SUPPORT AIRCRAFT 

12 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/C ............................................................................................... 6 2,637 6 2,637 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

13 TARGET DRONES ........................................................................................................ 41 114,656 41 114,656 

14 RQ–4 ......................................................................................................................... 0 12,966 0 12,966 15 MQ–9 ......................................................................................................................... 0 122,522 0 –87,000 0 35,522 

Air Force requested realignment ..................................................................... [0 ] [–87,000 ] 

STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 

16 B–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 46,729 0 46,729 17 B–1B ......................................................................................................................... 0 116,319 0 116,319 18 B–52 .......................................................................................................................... 0 109,020 0 109,020 

TACTICAL AIRCRAFT 

20 A–10 .......................................................................................................................... 0 1,289 0 1,289 21 F–15 .......................................................................................................................... 0 105,685 0 105,685 22 F–16 .......................................................................................................................... 0 97,331 0 88,300 0 185,631 

Active missile warning system ........................................................................ [0 ] [12,000 ] Anti-jam global positioning system (GPS) upgrade ........................................ [0 ] [5,000 ] Digital radar warning system .......................................................................... [0 ] [23,000 ] Multi-mission computer and MIDS-JTRS ......................................................... [0 ] [48,300 ] 

23 F–22A ........................................................................................................................ 0 163,008 0 163,008 24 F–35 MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................................ 0 175,811 0 175,811 25 INCREMENT 3.2B ....................................................................................................... 0 76,410 0 76,410 26 INCREMENT 3.2B (AP) ............................................................................................... 0 2,000 0 2,000 

AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT 

27 C–5 ............................................................................................................................ 0 24,192 0 24,192 29 C–17A ........................................................................................................................ 0 21,555 0 21,555 30 C–21 .......................................................................................................................... 0 5,439 0 5,439 31 C–32A ........................................................................................................................ 0 35,235 0 35,235 32 C–37A ........................................................................................................................ 0 5,004 0 5,004 

TRAINER AIRCRAFT 

33 GLIDER MODS ............................................................................................................ 0 394 0 394 

34 T–6 ............................................................................................................................ 0 12,765 0 12,765 35 T–1 ............................................................................................................................ 0 25,073 0 25,073 36 T–38 .......................................................................................................................... 0 45,090 0 45,090 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

37 U–2 MODS ................................................................................................................. 0 36,074 0 36,074 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
450 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

38 KC–10A (ATCA) .......................................................................................................... 0 4,570 0 4,570 39 C–12 .......................................................................................................................... 0 1,995 0 1,995 40 VC–25A MOD ............................................................................................................. 0 102,670 0 102,670 41 C–40 .......................................................................................................................... 0 13,984 0 13,984 42 C–130 ........................................................................................................................ 0 9,168 0 9,168 43 C–130J MODS ............................................................................................................ 0 89,424 0 89,424 44 C–135 ........................................................................................................................ 0 64,161 0 64,161 45 COMPASS CALL MODS ............................................................................................... 0 130,257 0 25,600 0 155,857 

Air Force requested realignment from Initial Spares ...................................... [0 ] [25,600 ] 

46 RC–135 ..................................................................................................................... 0 211,438 0 211,438 

47 E–3 ............................................................................................................................ 0 82,786 0 82,786 48 E–4 ............................................................................................................................ 0 53,348 0 53,348 49 E–8 ............................................................................................................................ 0 6,244 0 6,244 50 AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM ........................................................... 0 223,427 0 223,427 51 FAMILY OF BEYOND LINE-OF-SIGHT TERMINALS ....................................................... 3 4,673 3 4,673 52 H–1 ............................................................................................................................ 0 9,007 0 9,007 54 H–60 .......................................................................................................................... 0 91,357 0 91,357 55 RQ–4 MODS ............................................................................................................... 0 32,045 0 32,045 56 HC/MC–130 MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 0 30,767 0 30,767 57 OTHER AIRCRAFT ....................................................................................................... 0 33,886 0 33,886 59 MQ–9 MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 141,929 0 141,929 60 CV–22 MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 63,395 0 63,395 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

61 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 0 686,491 0 61,400 0 747,891 

Air Force requested realignment ..................................................................... [0 ] [–25,600 ] Air Force requested realignment from MQ–9 .................................................. [0 ] [87,000 ] 

COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

62 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP ............................................................... 0 121,935 0 121,935 

POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
451 

63 B–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 154 0 154 64 B–2A .......................................................................................................................... 0 43,330 0 43,330 65 B–52 .......................................................................................................................... 0 28,125 0 28,125 66 C–17A ........................................................................................................................ 0 23,559 0 23,559 69 F–15 .......................................................................................................................... 0 2,980 0 2,980 70 F–16 .......................................................................................................................... 0 15,155 0 15,155 71 F–22A ........................................................................................................................ 0 48,505 0 48,505 74 RQ–4 POST PRODUCTION CHARGES ......................................................................... 0 99 0 99 

INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 

75 INDUSTRIAL RESPONSIVENESS .................................................................................. 0 14,126 0 14,126

WAR CONSUMABLES 

76 WAR CONSUMABLES .................................................................................................. 0 120,036 0 120,036 

OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES 

77 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ................................................................................. 0 1,252,824 0 1,252,824 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

78 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 16,952 0 16,952 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................................... 119 13,922,917 8 390,600 127 14,313,517 MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT—BALLISTIC 

1 MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQ-BALLISTIC ...................................................................... 0 70,247 0 70,247 

TACTICAL 

2 JOINT AIR-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE ................................................................... 360 431,645 360 431,645 3 LRASM0 ..................................................................................................................... 20 59,511 20 59,511 

4 SIDEWINDER (AIM–9X) .............................................................................................. 287 127,438 287 127,438 5 AMRAAM .................................................................................................................... 256 350,144 256 350,144 6 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ................................................................................... 284 33,955 284 33,955 

7 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ........................................................................................... 312 92,361 312 92,361 

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 

8 INDUSTR’L PREPAREDNS/POL PREVENTION .............................................................. 0 977 0 977 

CLASS IV 

9 ICBM FUZE MOD ....................................................................................................... 0 17,095 0 17,095 

10 MM III MODIFICATIONS .............................................................................................. 0 68,692 0 68,692 11 AGM–65D MAVERICK ................................................................................................. 0 282 0 28213 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ...................................................................... 0 21,762 0 21,762 14 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ........................................................................................... 0 15,349 0 15,349 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
452 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

MISSILE SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

15 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 0 81,607 0 81,607 

SPECIAL PROGRAMS 

30 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAMS .................................................................................... 0 46,125 0 46,125

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

31 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 1,009,431 0 1,009,431 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................................................ 1,519 2,426,621 0 0 1,519 2,426,621 SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE SPACE PROGRAMS 

1 ADVANCED EHF .......................................................................................................... 0 645,569 0 645,569 

2 AF SATELLITE COMM SYSTEM ................................................................................... 0 42,375 0 42,375 3 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS ......................................................................................... 0 26,984 0 26,984 4 FAMILY OF BEYOND LINE-OF-SIGHT TERMINALS ....................................................... 16 88,963 16 88,963 5 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER SATELLITES(SPACE) ............................................................... 0 86,272 0 86,272 6 GPS III SPACE SEGMENT ........................................................................................... 0 34,059 0 34,059 7 GLOBAL POSTIONING (SPACE) ................................................................................... 0 2,169 0 2,169 8 SPACEBORNE EQUIP (COMSEC) ................................................................................ 0 46,708 0 46,708 9 GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE) .................................................................................. 0 13,171 0 13,171

10 MILSATCOM ................................................................................................................ 0 41,799 0 41,799 11 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH CAPABILITY ............................................................ 0 768,586 0 768,586 12 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH(SPACE) ........................................................... 5 737,853 5 737,853 13 SBIR HIGH (SPACE) ................................................................................................... 0 362,504 0 362,504 14 NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM ...................................................................................... 0 4,395 0 4,395 15 SPACE MODS ............................................................................................................. 0 8,642 0 8,642 16 SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM SPACE ........................................................................... 0 123,088 0 123,088 

SPARES 

17 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 0 22,606 0 22,606 

TOTAL SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .............................................................. 21 3,055,743 0 0 21 3,055,743 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
453 

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 

1 ROCKETS .................................................................................................................... 0 18,734 0 18,734 

CARTRIDGES 

2 CARTRIDGES .............................................................................................................. 0 220,237 0 220,237 

BOMBS 

3 PRACTICE BOMBS ...................................................................................................... 0 97,106 0 97,106 

4 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 581,561 0 581,561 5 MASSIVE ORDNANCE PENETRATOR (MOP) ................................................................ 0 3,600 0 3,600 6 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .............................................................................. 12,133 303,988 12,133 303,988 

OTHER ITEMS 

7 CAD/PAD .................................................................................................................... 0 38,890 0 38,890 

8 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL (EOD) ................................................................... 0 5,714 0 5,714 9 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 740 0 740 

10 MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................................................... 0 573 0 573 11 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 5,156 0 5,156 

FLARES 

12 FLARES ...................................................................................................................... 0 134,709 0 134,709 

FUZES 

13 FUZES ........................................................................................................................ 0 229,252 0 229,252 

SMALL ARMS 

14 SMALL ARMS ............................................................................................................. 0 37,459 0 37,459 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE .............................................. 12,133 1,677,719 0 0 12,133 1,677,719 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 

1 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 14,437 0 14,437 

CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 

2 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE ...................................................................................... 0 24,812 0 24,812 3 CAP VEHICLES ........................................................................................................... 0 984 0 984 4 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 11,191 0 11,191

SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 

5 SECURITY AND TACTICAL VEHICLES ......................................................................... 0 5,361 0 5,361 6 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 4,623 0 4,623 

FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
454 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

7 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE VEHICLES ................................................................ 0 12,451 0 12,451 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

8 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 18,114 0 18,114

BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 

9 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV & CLEANING EQUIP ............................................................. 0 2,310 0 2,310 

10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 46,868 0 46,868 

COMM SECURITY EQUIPMENT(COMSEC) 

12 COMSEC EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................. 0 72,359 0 72,359 

INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS 

14 INTELLIGENCE TRAINING EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 6,982 0 6,982 15 INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIPMENT ............................................................................ 0 30,504 0 5,100 0 35,604 

Air Force requested realignment from AFNET ................................................. [0 ] [5,100 ] 

ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 

16 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS ................................................................... 0 55,803 0 55,803 17 NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM .................................................................................... 0 2,673 0 2,673 18 BATTLE CONTROL SYSTEM—FIXED ........................................................................... 0 5,677 0 5,677 19 THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................... 0 1,163 0 1,163 20 WEATHER OBSERVATION FORECAST .......................................................................... 0 21,667 0 21,667 21 STRATEGIC COMMAND AND CONTROL ...................................................................... 0 39,803 0 39,803 22 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN COMPLEX .............................................................................. 0 24,618 0 24,618 23 MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 0 15,868 0 15,868

25 INTEGRATED STRAT PLAN & ANALY NETWORK (ISPAN) ............................................ 0 9,331 0 9,331 

SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 

26 GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 0 41,779 0 41,779 27 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & CONTROL SYS ................................................................... 0 15,729 0 15,729 28 MOBILITY COMMAND AND CONTROL ......................................................................... 0 9,814 0 9,814 29 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM ................................................................. 0 99,460 0 99,460 30 COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ...................................................................................... 0 34,850 0 34,850 31 MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMM N ............................................................ 0 198,925 0 198,925 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
455 

32 WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE (WAS) ............................................................................ 0 6,943 0 6,943 33 C3 COUNTERMEASURES ............................................................................................ 0 19,580 0 19,580 34 GCSS-AF FOS ............................................................................................................. 0 1,743 0 1,743 36 THEATER BATTLE MGT C2 SYSTEM ........................................................................... 0 9,659 0 9,659 37 AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CTR-WPN SYS ................................................................ 0 15,474 0 15,474 38 AIR OPERATIONS CENTER (AOC) 10.2 ...................................................................... 0 30,623 0 30,623 

AIR FORCE COMMUNICATIONS 

39 INFORMATION TRANSPORT SYSTEMS ........................................................................ 0 40,043 0 40,043 40 AFNET ........................................................................................................................ 0 146,897 0 –5,100 0 141,797 

Air Force requested realignment ..................................................................... [0 ] [–5,100 ] 

41 JOINT COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT ELEMENT (JCSE) ............................................... 0 5,182 0 5,182 42 USCENTCOM .............................................................................................................. 0 13,418 0 13,418 

ORGANIZATION AND BASE 

52 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 0 109,836 0 109,836 

53 RADIO EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 0 16,266 0 16,266 54 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 0 7,449 0 7,449 55 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 0 109,215 0 109,215

MODIFICATIONS 

56 COMM ELECT MODS .................................................................................................. 0 65,700 0 65,700 

PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP 

58 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 54,416 0 54,416 

DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS HANDLING EQ 

59 MECHANIZED MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP ................................................................ 0 7,344 0 7,344 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

60 BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT ................................................................................... 0 6,852 0 6,852 63 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT ................................................................................................ 0 8,146 0 8,146 

64 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 28,427 0 28,427 

SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 

66 DARP RC135 .............................................................................................................. 0 25,287 0 25,287 

67 DCGS-AF .................................................................................................................... 0 169,201 0 169,201 69 SPECIAL UPDATE PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 0 576,710 0 576,710 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

70 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 15,119,705 0 15,119,705 

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

72 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 15,784 0 15,784 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .............................................................. 0 17,438,056 0 0 0 17,438,056 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
456 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD 

37 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD ........................................................................................... 39 29,211 0 –23,100 39 6,111 

Mentor Prote ́ge ́ ................................................................................................. [0 ] [–23,100 ] 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, NSA 

36 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ............................................... 0 4,399 0 4,399 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS 

40 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS .......................................................................................... 0 24,979 0 24,979 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

6 INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY ........................................................................... 0 21,347 0 21,347 7 TELEPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 0 50,597 0 50,597 

8 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 10,420 0 10,420

9 NET CENTRIC ENTERPRISE SERVICES (NCES) .......................................................... 0 1,634 0 1,634 

10 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEM NETWORK .............................................................. 0 87,235 0 87,235 11 CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ..................................................................................... 0 4,528 0 4,528 12 WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATION AGENCY ................................................................. 0 36,846 0 36,846 13 SENIOR LEADERSHIP ENTERPRISE ............................................................................ 0 599,391 0 599,391 15 JOINT REGIONAL SECURITY STACKS (JRSS) .............................................................. 0 150,221 0 150,221 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DLA 

17 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 2,055 0 2,055 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DSS 

20 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 1,057 0 1,057 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCAA 

1 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 2,964 0 2,964 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS 

38 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, TJS ............................................................................................ 0 7,988 0 7,988 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY 

23 THAAD ........................................................................................................................ 24 369,608 24 369,608 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
457 

24 AEGIS BMD ................................................................................................................ 35 463,801 35 463,801 25 BMDS AN/TPY–2 RADARS ......................................................................................... 0 5,503 0 5,50328 AEGIS ASHORE PHASE III .......................................................................................... 0 57,493 0 57,493 29 IRON DOME ................................................................................................................ 0 42,000 0 42,000 30 AEGIS BMD HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE .................................................................. 6 50,098 6 50,098 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DHRA 

3 PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................... 0 14,232 0 14,232 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY 

21 VEHICLES ................................................................................................................... 0 200 0 200 22 OTHER MAJOR EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 0 6,437 0 6,437

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DODEA 

19 AUTOMATION/EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT & LOGISTICS ................................................. 0 288 0 288 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCMA 

2 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 0 92 0 92 

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DMACT 

18 MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................... 4 8,060 4 8,060 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

41 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 568,864 0 568,864 

AVIATION PROGRAMS 

42 ROTARY WING UPGRADES AND SUSTAINMENT .......................................................... 0 150,396 0 18,600 0 168,996 

OCONUS training loss replacement ................................................................. [0 ] [18,600 ] 

43 UNMANNED ISR ......................................................................................................... 0 21,190 0 21,190 

45 NON-STANDARD AVIATION ......................................................................................... 0 4,905 0 4,905 46 U–28 .......................................................................................................................... 0 3,970 0 3,970 47 MH–47 CHINOOK ....................................................................................................... 0 25,022 0 25,022 49 CV–22 MODIFICATION ................................................................................................ 0 19,008 0 19,008 51 MQ–9 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE .......................................................................... 0 10,598 0 14,800 0 25,398 

MQ–9 capability enhancements ...................................................................... [0 ] [14,800 ] 

53 PRECISION STRIKE PACKAGE .................................................................................... 0 213,122 0 –13,100 0 200,022 

SOCOM requested transfer .............................................................................. [0 ] [–13,100 ] 

54 AC/MC–130J .............................................................................................................. 0 73,548 0 13,100 0 86,648 

SOCOM requested transfer .............................................................................. [0 ] [13,100 ] 

55 C–130 MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................. 0 32,970 0 32,970 

SHIPBUILDING 

56 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 0 37,098 0 37,098 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
458 

SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

57 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M ........................................................................................... 0 105,267 0 105,267 

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

58 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 0 79,963 0 79,963 

59 DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS .............................................. 0 13,432 0 13,432 60 OTHER ITEMS <$5M .................................................................................................. 0 66,436 0 66,436 61 COMBATANT CRAFT SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 0 55,820 0 55,820 62 SPECIAL PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 0 107,432 0 107,432 63 TACTICAL VEHICLES ................................................................................................... 0 67,849 0 67,849 64 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M ........................................................................................ 0 245,781 0 245,781 65 COMBAT MISSION REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 0 19,566 0 19,566 66 GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ............................................................... 0 3,437 0 3,437 67 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ......................................................... 0 17,299 0 17,299 69 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................................. 0 219,945 0 219,945

CBDP 

70 CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL SITUATIONAL AWARENESS ................................................... 0 148,203 0 148,203 71 CB PROTECTION & HAZARD MITIGATION .................................................................. 0 161,113 0 161,113 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................................... 108 4,524,918 0 10,300 108 4,535,218 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND 

1 JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .............................................................. 0 99,300 0 99,300 

TOTAL JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND .................................................. 0 99,300 0 0 0 99,300 TOTAL PROCUREMENT ............................................................................................... 27,440 101,971,592 106 463,384 27,546 102,434,976 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
459 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY ROTARY 

6 AH–64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN .......................................................................... 4 78,040 4 78,040 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

15 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP) ............................................................................ 0 21,400 0 21,400 20 EMARSS SEMA MODS (MIP) ...................................................................................... 2 42,700 2 42,700 

26 RQ–7 UAV MODS ....................................................................................................... 0 1,775 0 1,775 27 UAS MODS ................................................................................................................. 0 4,420 0 4,420 

GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS 

30 CMWS ........................................................................................................................ 0 56,115 0 56,115 

31 CIRCM ........................................................................................................................ 0 108,721 0 108,721 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY .................................................................. 6 313,171 0 0 6 313,171 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM 

4 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 4,055 455,830 4,055 455,830 

ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS 

7 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY ..................................................................... 83 15,567 83 15,567 8 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 815 80,652 815 80,652 

10 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS) ............................................................................... 698 75,991 698 75,991 12 LETHAL MINIATURE AERIAL MISSILE SYSTEM (LMAMS ............................................. 10 4,777 10 4,777 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY ..................................................................... 5,661 632,817 0 0 5,661 632,817 

PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
460 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES 

7 PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) .............................................................. 12 125,184 12 125,184 9 ASSAULT BRIDGE (MOD) ........................................................................................... 0 5,950 0 5,950 

WEAPONS & OTHER COMBAT VEHICLES 

17 MORTAR SYSTEMS ..................................................................................................... 0 22,410 0 22,410 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY ................................................................ 12 153,544 0 0 12 153,544 PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION 

2 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 9,642 0 9,642 

4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES ......................................................................................... 0 6,607 0 6,607 5 CTG, 20MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 1,077 0 1,077 6 CTG, 25MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 28,534 0 28,534 7 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 20,000 0 20,000 8 CTG, 40MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................................ 0 7,423 0 7,423 

MORTAR AMMUNITION 

9 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 10,000 0 10,000

10 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES ...................................................................................... 0 2,677 0 2,677 

TANK AMMUNITION 

12 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, ALL TYPES ............................................. 0 8,999 0 8,999 

ARTILLERY AMMUNITION 

14 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................ 0 30,348 0 30,348 15 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982 ..................................................................... 0 140 0 140 16 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND PRIMERS, ALL ............................................. 0 29,655 0 29,655 

MINES 

17 MINES & CLEARING CHARGES, ALL TYPES ............................................................... 0 16,866 0 16,866 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
461 

NETWORKED MUNITIONS 

18 SPIDER NETWORK MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ............................................................... 0 10,353 0 –10,353 0 0 

Early to need .................................................................................................... [0 ] [–10,353 ] 

ROCKETS 

19 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................ 0 63,210 0 63,210 20 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 0 42,851 0 42,851 

OTHER AMMUNITION 

22 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................ 0 6,373 0 6,373 23 GRENADES, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 0 4,143 0 4,143 

24 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES .................................................................................................. 0 1,852 0 1,852 

MISCELLANEOUS 

27 NON-LETHAL AMMUNITION, ALL TYPES ..................................................................... 0 773 0 773 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY ....................................................... 0 301,523 0 –10,353 0 291,170 OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY TACTICAL VEHICLES 

2 SEMITRAILERS, FLATBED: .......................................................................................... 0 4,180 0 4,180 

8 FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) .............................................................. 1,092 299,476 1,092 299,476

10 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ......................................................... 51 6,122 51 6,122 11 PLS ESP ..................................................................................................................... 0 106,358 0 106,358 12 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK EXT SERV ............................................... 0 203,766 0 203,766 13 TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE PROTECTION KITS ...................................................... 0 101,154 0 101,154 14 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP .............................................................................. 0 155,456 0 155,456 

COMM—JOINT COMMUNICATIONS 

19 WIN-T—GROUND FORCES TACTICAL NETWORK ........................................................ 0 9,572 0 9,572 

COMM—SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 

25 SHF TERM .................................................................................................................. 0 24,000 0 24,000 

COMM—INTELLIGENCE COMM 

47 CI AUTOMATION ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................... 0 1,550 0 1,550 

INFORMATION SECURITY 

51 COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY (COMSEC) .................................................................. 0 1,928 0 1,928 

COMM—BASE COMMUNICATIONS 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
462 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

56 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE MOD PROGRAM ............................................ 0 20,510 0 20,510 

ELECT EQUIP—TACT INT REL ACT (TIARA) 

62 DCGS-A (MIP) ............................................................................................................ 0 33,032 0 33,032 64 TROJAN (MIP) ............................................................................................................. 0 3,305 0 3,305 66 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING AND COLL(CHARCS) ..................................................... 0 7,233 0 7,233 69 BIOMETRIC TACTICAL COLLECTION DEVICES (MIP) .................................................. 0 5,670 0 5,670 

ELECT EQUIP—ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 

70 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER MORTAR RADAR ................................................................. 0 25,892 0 25,892 74 FAMILY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE CAPABILITIE ............................................... 0 11,610 0 11,610 75 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY COUNTERMEASURES .......................................... 0 23,890 0 23,890 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL SURV. (TAC SURV) 

80 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF SYSTEMS ................................................... 0 4,270 0 4,270 89 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM .............................................................................. 0 2,572 0 2,572 

ELECT EQUIP—TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS 

92 AIR & MSL DEFENSE PLANNING & CONTROL SYS .................................................... 31 69,958 31 69,958 

ELECT EQUIP—AUTOMATION 

102 AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP ..................................................................... 0 9,900 0 9,900 

ELECT EQUIP—AUDIO VISUAL SYS (A/V) 

108 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (SURVEYING EQUIPMENT) ................................................... 0 96 0 96 

CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT 

114 CBRN DEFENSE ......................................................................................................... 0 1,841 0 1,841 

BRIDGING EQUIPMENT 

115 TACTICAL BRIDGING .................................................................................................. 0 26,000 0 26,000 

ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION) EQUIPMENT 

124 ROBOTICS AND APPLIQUE SYSTEMS ......................................................................... 0 268 0 268 128 FAMILY OF BOATS AND MOTORS ............................................................................... 0 280 0 280 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
463 

COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

129 HEATERS AND ECU’S ................................................................................................. 0 894 0 894 

134 FORCE PROVIDER ...................................................................................................... 0 53,800 0 53,800 135 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT ...................................................................................... 0 2,665 0 2,665 136 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL PARACHUTE SYSTEM ........................................ 0 2,400 0 2,400 137 FAMILY OF ENGR COMBAT AND CONSTRUCTION SETS ............................................. 0 9,789 0 9,789 138 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M (ENG SPT) ........................................................................... 0 300 0 300 

PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT 

139 QUALITY SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 4,800 0 4,800 140 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM & WATER ...................................................... 174 78,240 174 78,240 

MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 

141 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL ..................................................................................... 0 5,763 0 5,763 

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 

142 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS .......................................................... 0 1,609 0 1,609 143 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (MAINT EQ) ....................................................................... 0 145 0 145 

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 

144 GRADER, ROAD MTZD, HVY, 6X4 (CCE) .................................................................... 0 3,047 0 3,047 148 TRACTOR, FULL TRACKED ......................................................................................... 0 4,426 0 4,426 151 HIGH MOBILITY ENGINEER EXCAVATOR (HMEE) ....................................................... 0 2,900 0 2,900 155 ITEMS LESS THAN $5.0M (CONST EQUIP) ................................................................. 0 96 0 96 

GENERATORS 

158 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP ..................................................................... 0 31,761 0 31,761 

MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

160 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS ............................................................................................... 0 846 0 846 

TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT (TMD) 

168 TEST EQUIPMENT MODERNIZATION (TEMOD) ............................................................ 0 1,140 0 1,140 

OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

170 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................... 0 8,500 0 8,500 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY ....................................................................... 1,348 1,373,010 0 0 1,348 1,373,010 

JOINT IMPROVISED-THREAT DEFEAT FUND NETWORK ATTACK 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
464 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

1 RAPID ACQUISITION AND THREAT RESPONSE ........................................................... 0 345,472 0 345,472 

STAFF AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

2 MISSION ENABLERS ................................................................................................... 0 62,800 0 62,800 

TOTAL JOINT IMPROVISED-THREAT DEFEAT FUND ................................................... 0 408,272 0 0 0 408,272 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 

2 F/A–18E/F (FIGHTER) HORNET .................................................................................. 2 184,912 2 184,912 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

26 STUASL0 UAV ............................................................................................................. 4 70,000 4 70,000 

MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 

35 SH–60 SERIES ........................................................................................................... 0 3,000 0 3,000 

36 H–1 SERIES ............................................................................................................... 0 3,740 0 3,740 37 EP–3 SERIES ............................................................................................................. 0 7,505 0 7,505 47 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT ..................................................................................... 0 14,869 0 14,869 51 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 98,240 0 98,24059 V–22 (TILT/ROTOR ACFT) OSPREY ............................................................................ 0 8,740 0 8,740 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

63 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ..................................................................................... 0 1,500 0 1,500 

AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP & FACILITIES 

65 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ............................................................................. 0 524 0 524 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 6 393,030 0 0 6 393,030 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY TACTICAL MISSILES 

10 HELLFIRE ................................................................................................................... 100 8,600 100 8,600 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
465 

TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY ................................................................... 100 8,600 0 0 100 8,600 PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC NAVY AMMUNITION 

1 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 40,366 0 40,366 2 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES .............................................................................. 0 8,860 0 8,860 6 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ..................................................................... 0 7,060 0 7,060 

13 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION ............................................................................... 0 1,122 0 1,122 14 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION ....................................................................... 0 3,495 0 3,495 

MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION 

15 SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION ....................................................................................... 0 1,205 0 1,205 17 40 MM, ALL TYPES .................................................................................................... 0 539 0 539 

18 60MM, ALL TYPES ..................................................................................................... 0 909 0 909 20 120MM, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................... 0 530 0 530 22 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES ................................................................................................ 0 469 0 469 23 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES .............................................................................................. 0 1,196 0 1,196 24 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES ........................................................................ 0 261 0 261 25 FUZE, ALL TYPES ....................................................................................................... 0 217 0 217 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC ........................................................ 0 66,229 0 0 0 66,229 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT 

81 DCGS-N ...................................................................................................................... 0 12,000 0 12,000 

OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

116 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP .................................................................. 0 99,329 0 99,329 

CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

124 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 0 630 0 630 

SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

133 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................... 0 25 0 25 

COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

137 COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 0 10,562 0 10,562 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
466 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

138 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 1,660 0 1,660 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY ........................................................................ 0 124,206 0 0 0 124,206 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS 

6 WEAPONS AND COMBAT VEHICLES UNDER $5 MILLION ........................................... 0 572 0 572 

GUIDED MISSILES 

10 JAVELIN ...................................................................................................................... 9 1,606 9 1,606 

OTHER SUPPORT (TEL) 

18 MODIFICATION KITS ................................................................................................... 0 2,600 0 2,600 

COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-TEL) 

19 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & ELEC) ............................................................. 0 2,200 0 2,200 

INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL) 

26 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................................ 0 20,981 0 20,981 29 RQ–11 UAV ................................................................................................................ 0 3,817 0 3,817 

OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL) 

35 COMMON COMPUTER RESOURCES ............................................................................ 0 2,600 0 2,600 37 RADIO SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................ 0 9,563 0 9,563 

ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 

53 EOD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................ 0 75,000 0 75,000 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS ................................................................... 9 118,939 0 0 9 118,939 AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE OTHER AIRLIFT 

4 C–130J ...................................................................................................................... 1 73,000 1 73,000 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
467 

15 MQ–9 ......................................................................................................................... 24 453,030 24 453,030 

STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 

19 LARGE AIRCRAFT INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES .................................................... 0 135,801 0 135,801 

TACTICAL AIRCRAFT 

20 A–10 .......................................................................................................................... 0 23,850 0 23,850 

OTHER AIRCRAFT 

47 E–3 ............................................................................................................................ 0 6,600 0 6,600 56 HC/MC–130 MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 0 13,550 0 13,550 

57 OTHER AIRCRAFT ....................................................................................................... 0 7,500 0 7,500 59 MQ–9 MODS .............................................................................................................. 0 112,068 0 112,068 

AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 

61 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS ................................................................................. 0 25,600 0 25,600 

OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES 

77 OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ................................................................................. 0 8,400 0 8,400 

TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ......................................................... 25 859,399 0 0 25 859,399 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE TACTICAL 

6 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE ................................................................................... 1,252 145,125 1,252 145,125 

7 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB ........................................................................................... 4,195 167,800 4,195 167,800 

CLASS IV 

11 AGM–65D MAVERICK ................................................................................................. 0 26,620 0 26,620 

TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE ............................................................ 5,447 339,545 0 0 5,447 339,545 PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE ROCKETS 

1 ROCKETS .................................................................................................................... 0 60,000 0 60,000 

CARTRIDGES 

2 CARTRIDGES .............................................................................................................. 0 9,830 0 9,830 

BOMBS 

4 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS ...................................................................................... 0 7,921 0 7,921 6 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION .............................................................................. 18,531 403,126 18,531 403,126 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
468 

SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item 

FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost 

FLARES 

12 FLARES ...................................................................................................................... 0 6,531 0 6,531 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE .............................................. 18,531 487,408 0 0 18,531 487,408 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES 

1 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES ............................................................................. 0 2,003 0 2,003 

CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES 

2 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE ...................................................................................... 0 9,066 0 9,066 4 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 12,264 0 12,264

SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES 

6 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 16,789 0 16,789

FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT 

7 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE VEHICLES ................................................................ 0 48,590 0 48,590 

MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

8 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 2,366 0 2,366 

BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 

9 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV & CLEANING EQUIP ............................................................. 0 6,468 0 6,468 

10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .................................................................................. 0 9,271 0 9,271 

ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS 

16 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS ................................................................... 0 42,650 0 42,650 

SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS 

29 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM ................................................................. 0 7,500 0 7,500 33 C3 COUNTERMEASURES ............................................................................................ 0 620 0 620 

ORGANIZATION AND BASE 

52 TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT ........................................................................................ 0 8,100 0 8,100 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
469 

MODIFICATIONS 

56 COMM ELECT MODS .................................................................................................. 0 3,800 0 3,800 

BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 

61 ENGINEERING AND EOD EQUIPMENT ......................................................................... 0 53,900 0 53,900 

SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS 

67 DCGS-AF .................................................................................................................... 0 800 0 800 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

68 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 3,472,094 0 3,472,094 

TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE .............................................................. 0 3,696,281 0 0 0 3,696,281 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA 

7 TELEPORT PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 0 3,900 0 3,900 

16 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS NETWORK ............................................................ 0 2,000 0 2,000 

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 

17 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 0 32,482 0 32,482 

AVIATION PROGRAMS 

41 MC–12 ....................................................................................................................... 0 5,000 0 5,000 

43 UNMANNED ISR ......................................................................................................... 0 11,880 0 11,880 46 U–28 .......................................................................................................................... 0 38,283 0 38,283 

AMMUNITION PROGRAMS 

57 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M ........................................................................................... 0 52,504 0 52,504 

OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS 

58 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................ 0 22,000 0 22,000 

60 OTHER ITEMS <$5M .................................................................................................. 0 11,580 0 11,580 62 SPECIAL PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 0 13,549 0 13,549 63 TACTICAL VEHICLES ................................................................................................... 0 3,200 0 3,200 69 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ................................................................................. 0 42,056 0 42,056 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE .................................................................... 0 238,434 0 0 0 238,434 

TOTAL PROCUREMENT ............................................................................................... 31,145 9,514,408 0 –10,353 31,145 9,504,055 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(471) 

TITLE XLII—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, 

AND EVALUATION 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
472 

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 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ......................................................................... 12,381 12,381 

2 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 253,116 253,116 3 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 69,166 69,166 4 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH CENTERS .......................................................................... 94,280 94,280 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 428,943 0 428,943 APPLIED RESEARCH 

5 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 31,533 5,500 37,033 

Ground vehicle coating system .............................................................................................. [5,500 ] 

6 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC SURVIVABILITY .................................................................................... 36,109 2,000 38,109 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [2,000 ] 

7 0602122A TRACTOR HIP ................................................................................................................................... 6,995 6,995 8 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 65,914 65,914 9 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 25,466 25,466 

10 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 44,313 44,313 11 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 28,803 28,803 12 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND SIMULATION ......................................................................................... 27,688 27,688 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
473 

13 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................ 67,959 67,959 14 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 85,436 85,436 15 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND EQUIPMENT DEFEATING TECHNOLOGY ...................................................... 3,923 3,92316 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 5,545 5,545 17 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 53,581 53,581 18 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES ...................................................................................... 56,322 56,322 19 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 36,079 36,079 20 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 26,497 26,497 21 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 23,671 23,671 22 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 22,151 22,151 23 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 37,803 37,803 24 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................................... 13,811 13,811 25 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................. 67,416 67,416 26 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................ 26,045 –5,000 21,045 

Decrease for social science research .................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

27 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 37,403 37,403 28 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 77,111 77,111 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 907,574 2,500 910,074 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

29 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 38,831 38,831 

30 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................. 68,365 68,365 31 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................. 94,280 94,280 32 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 68,714 68,714 33 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................... 122,132 50,000 172,132 

Emerging requirement ............................................................................................................ [50,000 ] 

34 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................... 3,904 3,904 35 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................ 14,417 14,417 37 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE ................................................................................................................................. 8,074 8,074 38 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING & SIMULATION SYSTEMS .................................................................. 18,969 18,969 39 0603020A TRACTOR ROSE ................................................................................................................................ 11,910 11,910 40 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM—TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................ 27,686 27,686 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
474 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

41 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL .................................................................................................................................. 2,340 2,340 42 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS ................................................................................................................................ 2,470 2,470 43 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 27,893 –5,000 22,893 

General decrease .................................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

44 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................. 52,190 52,190 45 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE ................................................................................................................................ 11,107 11,107 46 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................... 177,190 177,190 

47 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ....................................................... 17,451 17,451 48 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS PROGRAM ......................................................................................... 5,839 5,839 49 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................... 44,468 44,468 50 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 11,137 11,137 51 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 20,684 20,684 52 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE AND SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ........................................ 44,239 –5,000 39,239 

General program decrease ..................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

53 0603794A C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 35,775 35,775 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 930,065 40,000 970,065 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

54 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ............................................................................ 9,433 9,433 

55 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION .............................................................................................. 23,056 23,056 56 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND BARRIER—ADV DEV .............................................................................. 72,117 72,117 57 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND TARGET DEFEATING SYS-ADV DEV ........................................................ 28,244 28,244 58 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER AMMUNITION ..................................................................................... 40,096 40,096 59 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY .......................................................................................... 10,506 10,506 60 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM—ADV DEV ........................................................... 15,730 15,730 61 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 10,321 10,321 62 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY—DEM/VAL ...................................................................... 7,785 7,785 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
475 

63 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 2,300 2,300 64 0603801A AVIATION—ADV DEV ........................................................................................................................ 10,014 10,014 65 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ADV DEV ........................................................................ 20,834 20,834 66 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS—ADV DEV ........................................................................................................ 33,503 33,503 67 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 31,120 9,400 40,520 

Accelerate small arms improvement ..................................................................................... [9,400 ] 

68 0604100A ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................ 6,608 6,608 

69 0604114A LOWER TIER AIR MISSILE DEFENSE (LTAMD) SENSOR .................................................................... 35,132 35,132 70 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 70,047 70,047 71 0604120A ASSURED POSITIONING, NAVIGATION AND TIMING (PNT) ................................................................ 83,279 83,279 73 0305251A CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS FORCES AND FORCE SUPPORT ............................................................ 40,510 40,510 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................. 550,635 9,400 560,035 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

74 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS ......................................................................................................................... 83,248 83,248 

75 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 34,642 34,642 77 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR) ........................................................................ 12,172 12,172 78 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM ...................................................................................................... 3,958 3,958 79 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE ................................................................................................................................ 12,525 12,525 80 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS ......................................................................................................... 66,943 66,943 82 0604611A JAVELIN ............................................................................................................................................ 20,011 20,011 83 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES ........................................................................................... 11,429 11,429 84 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL ..................................................................................................................... 3,421 3,421 85 0604641A TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLE (TUGV) ............................................................................ 39,282 39,282 86 0604642A LIGHT TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLES .............................................................................................. 494 494 87 0604645A ARMORED SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION (ASM)—ENG DEV ................................................................ 9,678 9,678 

88 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS—ENG DEV ................................................................................................ 84,519 84,519 89 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, AND EQUIPMENT ............................................................................. 2,054 2,054 90 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING DEVICES—ENG DEV .................................................................................. 30,774 30,774 91 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE—ENG DEV .............................................. 53,332 53,332 92 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 17,887 17,887 93 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 8,813 8,813 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
476 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

94 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE SIMULATIONS (DIS)—ENG DEV ........................................................... 10,487 10,487 95 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL TRAINER (CATT) CORE ........................................................................ 15,068 15,068 96 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION ...................................................................... 89,716 89,716 97 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS—ENG DEV ............................................................................................ 80,365 80,365 98 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ........................................................................ 75,098 75,098 99 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS—ENG DEV .................................................... 4,245 4,245 

100 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV ................................ 41,124 41,124 101 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER—ENG DEV ...................................................................................... 39,630 39,630 

102 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & CONTROL HARDWARE & SOFTWARE ............................................... 205,590 205,590 103 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................................... 15,983 15,983 104 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS) ............................................................. 6,805 6,805 

105 0604823A FIREFINDER ...................................................................................................................................... 9,235 9,235 106 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS—WARRIOR DEM/VAL ........................................................................................ 12,393 12,393 107 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS—EMD ............................................................................................................ 1,756 1,756 108 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 74,236 74,236 109 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A) .......................................................... 155,584 –20,000 135,584 

Unjustified growth .................................................................................................................. [–20,000 ] 

110 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLE (AMPV) .................................................................................. 184,221 184,221 111 0605029A INTEGRATED GROUND SECURITY SURVEILLANCE RESPONSE CAPABILITY (IGSSR-C) ..................... 4,980 4,980 112 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK CENTER (JTNC) ..................................................................................... 15,041 15,041 113 0605031A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK (JTN) ...................................................................................................... 16,014 16,014 114 0605032A TRACTOR TIRE .................................................................................................................................. 27,254 27,254 115 0605033A GROUND-BASED OPERATIONAL SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM—EXPEDITIONARY (GBOSS-E) ................. 5,032 5,032 116 0605034A TACTICAL SECURITY SYSTEM (TSS) ................................................................................................. 2,904 2,904 117 0605035A COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) ........................................................................ 96,977 96,977 118 0605036A COMBATING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (CWMD) ................................................................ 2,089 2,089 

119 0605041A DEFENSIVE CYBER TOOL DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 33,836 33,836 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
477 

120 0605042A TACTICAL NETWORK RADIO SYSTEMS (LOW-TIER) .......................................................................... 18,824 18,824 121 0605047A CONTRACT WRITING SYSTEM ........................................................................................................... 20,663 –20,663 

Unjustified request ................................................................................................................. [–20,663 ] 

122 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 41,133 13,000 54,133 

ASE unfunded requirement ..................................................................................................... [13,000 ] 

123 0605052A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION CAPABILITY INC 2—BLOCK 1 ........................................................... 83,995 83,995 125 0605380A AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM (JTRS) ................................................................................... 5,028 5,028 126 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) .......................................................................................... 42,972 42,972 128 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD) ................................................................ 252,811 252,811 131 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION (MIP) ................................................................................... 4,955 4,955 132 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH .. 11,530 11,530 133 0605830A AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ....................................................................................... 2,142 2,142 134 0210609A PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT (PIM) ..................................................................................... 41,498 41,498 135 0303032A TROJAN—RH12 ................................................................................................................................ 4,273 4,273 136 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 14,425 14,425 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................. 2,265,094 –27,663 2,237,431 RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

137 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 25,675 25,675 

138 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 19,122 19,122 139 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 84,777 84,777 140 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER ................................................................................................................... 20,658 20,658 141 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL .................................................................................................................. 236,648 236,648 142 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................ 25,596 25,596 144 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND FACILITIES .............................................................................................. 293,748 293,748 145 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND TARGETS ............................................................. 52,404 52,404 146 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 38,571 38,571 147 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................................ 4,665 4,665 148 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO RDT&E ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ 6,925 6,925 149 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 21,677 21,677 150 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN ITEMS ................................................................................................... 12,415 12,415 151 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL TESTING ............................................................................................... 49,684 49,684 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
478 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

152 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER ............................................................................................................. 55,905 55,905 153 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD COLLABORATION & INTEG ............................................................ 7,959 7,959 154 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................... 51,822 51,822 155 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................. 33,323 2,500 35,823 

Program increase Geospatial ................................................................................................. [2,500 ] 

156 0605805A MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY ........................................................ 40,545 40,545 157 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT .............................................................. 2,130 2,130 158 0605898A MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 49,885 49,885 159 0303260A DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION INITIATIVE ...................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT .................................................................................... 1,136,134 2,500 1,138,634 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

161 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 9,663 9,663 

162 0603813A TRACTOR PULL ................................................................................................................................. 3,960 3,960 163 0605024A ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 3,638 3,638 164 0607131A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS .................................................. 14,517 14,517 165 0607133A TRACTOR SMOKE .............................................................................................................................. 4,479 4,479 166 0607134A LONG RANGE PRECISION FIRES (LRPF) ........................................................................................... 39,275 39,275 167 0607135A APACHE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM .................................................................................. 66,441 66,441 168 0607136A BLACKHAWK PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................... 46,765 46,765 169 0607137A CHINOOK PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ................................................................................ 91,848 91,848 170 0607138A FIXED WING PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................................... 796 796 171 0607139A IMPROVED TURBINE ENGINE PROGRAM .......................................................................................... 126,105 126,105 172 0607140A EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FROM NIE ............................................................................................. 2,369 2,369 173 0607141A LOGISTICS AUTOMATION ................................................................................................................... 4,563 4,563 174 0607665A FAMILY OF BIOMETRICS ................................................................................................................... 12,098 12,098 175 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT .................................................................................................. 49,482 49,482 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
479 

176 0202429A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT—COCOM EXERCISE .............................................................................. 45,482 –41,000 4,482 

Change in program requirement ............................................................................................ [–41,000 ] 

178 0203728A JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP OPERATION COORDINATION SYSTEM (JADOCS) ....................................... 30,455 30,455 179 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 316,857 12,000 328,857 

APS unfunded requirement ..................................................................................................... [12,000 ] 

180 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 4,031 4,031 181 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ................................................... 35,793 35,793 

182 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................. 259 259 183 0203758A DIGITIZATION .................................................................................................................................... 6,483 6,483 184 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................................................... 5,122 5,122 185 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS .................................................................... 7,491 7,491 186 0203808A TRACTOR CARD ................................................................................................................................ 20,333 20,333 188 0205410A MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT .................................................................................................. 124 124 190 0205456A LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD) SYSTEM ............................................................... 69,417 69,417 191 0205778A GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS) .................................................................. 22,044 22,044 192 0208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 12,649 12,649 194 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 11,619 11,619 195 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 38,280 38,280 196 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 27,223 –25,200 2,023 

GCSS unjustified request ....................................................................................................... [–25,200 ] 

197 0303142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT (SPACE) ...................................................................................... 18,815 18,815 198 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................... 4,718 4,718 

202 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ......................................................................................... 8,218 8,218 203 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 11,799 11,799 204 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 32,284 –32,000 284 

Change in tactical requirements ........................................................................................... [–32,000 ] 

205 0305219A MQ–1C GRAY EAGLE UAS ................................................................................................................ 13,470 13,470 206 0305232A RQ–11 UAV ...................................................................................................................................... 1,613 1,613 207 0305233A RQ–7 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 4,597 4,597 209 0310349A WIN-T INCREMENT 2—INITIAL NETWORKING .................................................................................. 4,867 4,867 210 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ 62,287 62,287 220 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 4,625 4,625 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
480 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 1,296,954 –86,200 1,210,754 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ................................................................ 7,515,399 –59,463 7,455,936 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 101,714 101,714 2 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ......................................................................... 18,508 18,508 

3 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 422,748 422,748 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 542,970 0 542,970 APPLIED RESEARCH 

4 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................... 41,371 41,371 

5 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ........................................................................................ 158,745 158,745 6 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 51,590 51,590 7 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 41,185 41,185 8 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................................ 45,467 45,467 9 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 118,941 118,941 

10 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING ENVIRONMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................. 42,618 42,618 11 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 6,327 6,327 12 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 126,313 10,000 136,313 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

13 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES APPLIED RESEARCH ......................................................................... 165,103 165,103 14 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................................. 33,916 33,916 15 0602898N SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT—ONR HEADQUARTERS ............................................... 29,575 29,575 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 861,151 10,000 871,151 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
481 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

16 0603114N POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................... 96,406 –15,000 81,406 

General decrease .................................................................................................................... [–15,000 ] 

17 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................ 48,438 48,438 18 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................................................. 26,421 26,421 19 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION (ATD) ................................................................ 140,416 140,416 20 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................... 13,117 13,117 21 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 249,092 –10,000 239,092 

Capable manpower, and power and energy .......................................................................... [–10,000 ] 

22 0603680N MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 56,712 56,712 

23 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ...................................................................... 4,789 4,789 24 0603747N UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 25,880 25,880 25 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING EXPERIMENTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 60,550 60,550 26 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................... 15,167 15,167 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 736,988 –25,000 711,988 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

27 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................... 48,536 48,536 28 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY .................................................................................................................. 5,239 5,239 30 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 1,519 1,519 31 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 7,041 7,041 32 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE .......................................................................................... 3,274 3,274 

33 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 57,034 57,034 34 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER MINE COUNTERMEASURES .......................................................... 165,775 –1,500 164,275 

Excess prior year funds .......................................................................................................... [–1,500 ] 

35 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO DEFENSE ................................................................................................. 87,066 87,066 36 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 7,605 7,605 37 0603525N PILOT FISH ....................................................................................................................................... 132,068 132,068 38 0603527N RETRACT LARCH .............................................................................................................................. 14,546 14,546 39 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER ............................................................................................................................ 115,435 115,435 40 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL ................................................................................................................. 702 702 41 0603553N SURFACE ASW .................................................................................................................................. 1,081 1,081 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
482 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

42 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................. 100,565 100,565 43 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEMS ..................................................................................... 8,782 8,782 44 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED DESIGN ................................................................................................. 14,590 14,590 45 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & FEASIBILITY STUDIES ...................................................................... 15,805 15,805 46 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ........................................................................................... 453,313 453,313 47 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY SYSTEMS ................................................................................... 36,655 36,655 48 0603576N CHALK EAGLE ................................................................................................................................... 367,016 367,016 49 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS) ........................................................................................................ 51,630 51,630 50 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ....................................................................................................... 23,530 23,530 51 0603595N OHIO REPLACEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 700,811 700,811 52 0603596N LCS MISSION MODULES ................................................................................................................... 160,058 –30,900 129,158 

Available prior year funding ................................................................................................... [–30,900 ] 

54 0603599N FRIGATE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................... 84,900 84,900 55 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS .............................................................................................................. 8,342 8,342 56 0603611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT VEHICLES ................................................................................................ 158,682 158,682 57 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM .................................................................... 1,303 1,303 58 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 46,911 46,911 60 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 4,556 4,556 61 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ......................................................................................................... 20,343 20,343 62 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. 52,479 52,479 63 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT ................................................................................................................ 5,458 5,458 64 0603734N CHALK CORAL .................................................................................................................................. 245,860 245,860 65 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY ........................................................................................................ 3,089 3,089 66 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE .............................................................................................................................. 323,526 323,526 67 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA ................................................................................................................................ 318,497 318,497 68 0603751N RETRACT ELM .................................................................................................................................. 52,834 52,834 69 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN ............................................................................................................................. 48,116 48,116 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
483 

70 0603787N SPECIAL PROCESSES ....................................................................................................................... 13,619 13,619 71 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 9,867 9,867 72 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 6,015 6,015 73 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TESTING ........................................................................................... 27,904 27,904 74 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEMS—DEM/VAL ................................................. 104,144 104,144 75 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS ................................................................... 32,700 32,700 76 0604112N GERALD R. FORD CLASS NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER (CVN 78—80) ......................................... 70,528 70,528 77 0604122N REMOTE MINEHUNTING SYSTEM (RMS) ........................................................................................... 3,001 3,001 78 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (TADIRCM) ....................................... 34,920 34,920 80 0604292N MH-XX .............................................................................................................................................. 1,620 1,620 81 0604454N LX (R) ............................................................................................................................................... 6,354 19,000 25,354 

Needed to maintain schedule ................................................................................................ [19,000 ] 

82 0604536N ADVANCED UNDERSEA PROTOTYPING .............................................................................................. 78,589 –34,400 44,189 

Ahead of need ........................................................................................................................ [–34,400 ] 

84 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ................................................................ 9,910 9,910 85 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING SUPPORT ..................... 23,971 23,971 86 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT ....................................................... 252,409 252,409 87 0605812M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT PH .. 23,197 23,197 88 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT—MIP ............................................................................................... 9,110 9,110 89 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT—MIP ................................................................................. 437 437 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................. 4,662,867 –47,800 4,615,067 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

90 0603208N TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT ........................................................................................................... 19,938 19,938 

91 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................ 6,268 6,268 92 0604214N AV–8B AIRCRAFT—ENG DEV ........................................................................................................... 33,664 33,664 93 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................. 1,300 1,300 94 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 5,275 5,275 95 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING ............................................................................................. 3,875 3,875 96 0604221N P–3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 1,909 1,909 97 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 13,237 13,237 98 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM .......................................................................................................... 36,323 36,323 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
484 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

99 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE ....................................................................................................................... 363,792 363,792 

100 0604245N H–1 UPGRADES ................................................................................................................................ 27,441 27,441 101 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS .......................................................................................................... 34,525 34,525 102 0604262N V–22A .............................................................................................................................................. 174,423 174,423 103 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 13,577 13,577 104 0604269N EA–18 .............................................................................................................................................. 116,761 116,761 105 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 48,766 48,766 106 0604273N EXECUTIVE HELO DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................... 338,357 338,357 107 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER (NGJ) ................................................................................................... 577,822 577,822 108 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM—NAVY (JTRS-NAVY) ..................................................................... 2,365 2,365 109 0604282N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER (NGJ) INCREMENT II ........................................................................... 52,065 52,065 110 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT SYSTEM ENGINEERING ................................................................. 282,764 282,764 111 0604311N LPD–17 CLASS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ........................................................................................... 580 580 112 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB) ....................................................................................................... 97,622 97,622 113 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................... 120,561 120,561 114 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM ............................................................................................................................... 45,622 45,622 116 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE CONTROL—COUNTER AIR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ............................... 25,750 25,750 118 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER SENSORS ............................................................................................... 85,868 85,868 119 0604503N SSN–688 AND TRIDENT MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................ 117,476 117,476 120 0604504N AIR CONTROL ................................................................................................................................... 47,404 47,404 121 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 112,158 112,158 122 0604518N COMBAT INFORMATION CENTER CONVERSION ................................................................................ 6,283 6,283 123 0604522N AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM ...................................................................... 144,395 144,395 124 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN ............................................................................................................................. 113,013 113,013 125 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 43,160 43,160 126 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ LIVE FIRE T&E ........................................................................................ 65,002 65,002 127 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 3,098 3,098 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
485 

128 0604580N VIRGINIA PAYLOAD MODULE (VPM) .................................................................................................. 97,920 97,920 129 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................ 10,490 10,490 130 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... 20,178 20,178 131 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 7,369 7,369 132 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, SIMULATION, AND HUMAN FACTORS ......................................................... 4,995 4,995 133 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON SYSTEMS ................................................................................................ 412 412 134 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT & CONTROL) .................................................................................... 134,619 134,619 135 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: HARD KILL) .................................................................................... 114,475 114,475 136 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW) ............................................................................... 114,211 114,211 137 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING ........................................................................................................... 11,029 11,029 138 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 9,220 9,220 139 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM ................................................................................................................... 42,723 42,723 140 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ................................................................................................ 531,426 531,426 141 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)—EMD ................................................................................................ 528,716 528,716 142 0604810M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER FOLLOW ON DEVELOPMENT—MARINE CORPS ........................................... 74,227 74,227 143 0604810N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER FOLLOW ON DEVELOPMENT—NAVY ........................................................... 63,387 63,387 144 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 4,856 4,856 145 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 97,066 97,066 146 0605024N ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 2,500 2,500 147 0605212N CH–53K RDTE .................................................................................................................................. 404,810 404,810 148 0605215N MISSION PLANNING .......................................................................................................................... 33,570 33,570 149 0605217N COMMON AVIONICS .......................................................................................................................... 51,599 51,599 150 0605220N SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR (SSC) ................................................................................................ 11,088 11,088 151 0605327N T-AO (X) ........................................................................................................................................... 1,095 1,095 152 0605414N CARRIER BASED AERIAL REFUELING SYSTEM (CBARS) .................................................................. 89,000 89,000 153 0605450N JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE (JAGM) .......................................................................................... 17,880 17,880 154 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME AIRCRAFT (MMA) ................................................................................... 59,126 59,126 155 0605504N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME (MMA) INCREMENT III ........................................................................... 182,220 182,220 156 0204202N DDG–1000 ........................................................................................................................................ 45,642 45,642 159 0304231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM—MIP ................................................................................................ 676 676 160 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC SYSTEMS .................................................................................................. 36,747 36,747 161 0305124N SPECIAL APPLICATIONS PROGRAM ................................................................................................... 35,002 35,002 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
486 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

162 0306250M CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 4,942 1,784 6,726 

Full spectrum cyber operations unfunded requirement ......................................................... [1,784 ] 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................. 6,025,655 1,784 6,027,439 MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

163 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 16,633 16,633 

164 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 36,662 36,662 165 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 42,109 42,109 166 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION ........................................................... 2,998 2,998 167 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—NAVY ...................................................................................... 3,931 3,931 168 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES ....................................................................................................... 46,634 46,634 169 0605285N NEXT GENERATION FIGHTER ............................................................................................................ 1,200 1,200 171 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICES ............................................................................................... 903 903 172 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ................................................................ 87,077 –10,800 76,277 

Unjustified growth .................................................................................................................. [–10,800 ] 

173 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 3,597 3,597 174 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT ........................................................................ 62,811 62,811 175 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT SUPPORT ............................................................................................ 106,093 106,093 176 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 349,146 349,146 177 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION CAPABILITY .......................................................................... 18,160 18,160 178 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT ............................................................ 9,658 9,658 

179 0605867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT ........................................................................... 6,500 6,500 180 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 22,247 22,247 181 0605898N MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 16,254 16,254 182 0606355N WARFARE INNOVATION MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................. 21,123 21,123 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 853,736 –10,800 842,936 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
487 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

188 0607658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY (CEC) .............................................................................. 84,501 84,501 

189 0607700N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND AND CONTROL ................................................................................ 2,970 2,970 190 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT ............................................................................ 136,556 136,556 191 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ....................................................................................... 33,845 33,845 192 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 9,329 9,329 193 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................... 17,218 17,218 195 0204136N F/A–18 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................ 189,125 189,125 196 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS (TACTICAL) ...................................................................................... 48,225 48,225 197 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................... 21,156 21,156 198 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK MISSION PLANNING CENTER (TMPC) ................................................. 71,355 71,355199 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .............................................................................................. 58,542 58,542 200 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL SUPPORT UNITS (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT) .................................................. 13,929 13,929 201 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR (G/ATOR) .............................................................................. 83,538 83,538 202 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 38,593 38,593 203 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT SUPPORT ...................................................................................................... 1,122 1,122 204 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) READINESS SUPPORT ........................................................................ 99,998 99,998 205 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 48,635 48,635 206 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS ...................................................................................................................... 124,785 124,785 207 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ............................................................................... 24,583 24,583 208 0205632N MK–48 ADCAP .................................................................................................................................. 39,134 39,134 209 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 120,861 120,861 210 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 101,786 101,786 211 0206313M MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................................. 82,159 82,159 212 0206335M COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (CAC2S) ................................................... 11,850 11,850213 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS .................................................. 47,877 47,877 214 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT SERVICES SUPPORT ................................................................................ 13,194 13,194 215 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS (MIP) ........................................................ 17,171 17,171 216 0206629M AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT VEHICLE ....................................................................................................... 38,020 38,020 217 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES ................................................................................................................... 56,285 56,285 218 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) .......................................................... 40,350 40,350 219 0219902M GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM—MARINE CORPS (GCSS-MC) ............................................... 9,128 9,128 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
488 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

223 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (SPACE) ............................................................................................ 37,372 37,372 224 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK ENTERPRISE SERVICES (CANES) .............................................. 23,541 23,541225 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 38,510 38,510 228 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES ..................................................................... 6,019 6,019 229 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES ......................................................................................... 8,436 8,436 230 0305205N UAS INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY ..................................................................................... 36,509 36,509 231 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 2,100 2,100 232 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 44,571 44,571 233 0305220N MQ–4C TRITON ................................................................................................................................ 111,729 111,729 234 0305231N MQ–8 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 26,518 26,518 235 0305232M RQ–11 UAV ...................................................................................................................................... 418 418 236 0305233N RQ–7 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 716 716 237 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL UAS (STUASL0) ................................................................................... 5,071 5,071 238 0305239M RQ–21A ............................................................................................................................................ 9,497 9,497 239 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 77,965 77,965 240 0305242M UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS (UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP) .................................................................... 11,181 11,181 241 0305421N RQ–4 MODERNIZATION .................................................................................................................... 181,266 181,266 242 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION SUPPORT ........................................................................................... 4,709 4,709 243 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ....................................................................................................... 49,322 49,322 245 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY (MARITECH) .............................................................................................. 3,204 3,204 250 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 1,228,460 1,228,460 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 3,592,934 0 3,592,934 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ................................................................. 17,276,301 –71,816 17,204,485 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF BASIC RESEARCH 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
489 

1 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 340,812 340,812 2 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................................ 145,044 145,044 3 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH INITIATIVES ................................................................................. 14,168 14,168 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 500,024 0 500,024 APPLIED RESEARCH 

4 0602102F MATERIALS ....................................................................................................................................... 126,152 126,152 

5 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES .............................................................................................. 122,831 122,831 6 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED RESEARCH .................................................................................. 111,647 111,647 7 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION ................................................................................................................ 185,671 5,000 190,671 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

8 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS ...................................................................................................................... 155,174 155,174 9 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 117,915 117,915 

10 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS .............................................................................................................. 109,649 109,649 11 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................................... 127,163 127,163 12 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION SCIENCES AND METHODS ....................................................................... 161,650 161,650 13 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH ..................................................................................................... 42,300 5,000 47,300 

Joint technology office ............................................................................................................ [5,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 1,260,152 10,000 1,270,152 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

14 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS .............................................................................. 35,137 35,137 

15 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (S&T) .......................................................................... 20,636 20,636 16 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS ................................................................................................... 40,945 40,945 17 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/DEMO ............................................................................................. 130,950 130,950 18 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 94,594 5,000 99,594 

Development of application-specific power circuit ............................................................... [5,000 ] 

19 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 58,250 –5,000 53,250 

General decrease .................................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

20 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 61,593 61,593 21 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (MSSS) ................................................................................. 11,681 11,681 22 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 26,492 26,492 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
490 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

23 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 102,009 102,009 24 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................ 39,064 39,064 25 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 46,344 46,344 26 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................. 58,110 –10,000 48,110 

Unjustified increase ................................................................................................................ [–10,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 725,805 –10,000 715,805 

ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

27 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 5,598 5,598 

28 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 7,534 7,534 29 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 24,418 24,418 30 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 4,333 4,333 32 0603830F SPACE SECURITY AND DEFENSE PROGRAM .................................................................................... 32,399 32,399 33 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE—DEM/VAL ........................................................................ 108,663 108,663 35 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE—BOMBER ..................................................................................................... 1,358,309 –302,300 1,056,009 

Excess to contract award ....................................................................................................... [–302,300 ] 

36 0604257F ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND SENSORS ......................................................................................... 34,818 34,818 37 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER .................................................................................................................. 3,368 3,368 38 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM (HDBTDS) PROGRAM .................................. 74,308 74,308 39 0604422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON ........................................................................................................ 118,953 118,953 40 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 9,901 9,901 41 0604776F DEPLOYMENT & DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE R&D .......................................................................... 25,890 25,890 42 0604857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SPACE .............................................................................................. 7,921 10,000 17,921 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

43 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 347,304 347,304 44 0605230F GROUND BASED STRATEGIC DETERRENT ........................................................................................ 113,919 113,919 46 0207110F NEXT GENERATION AIR DOMINANCE ................................................................................................ 20,595 20,595 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
491 

47 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG-RANGE RADAR (3DELRR) .................................................................... 49,491 49,491 48 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT) (SPACE) .......................................... 278,147 278,14749 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK EXECUTIVE AGENT (CDL EA) .......................................................................... 42,338 42,338 50 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 158,002 158,002 51 0306415F ENABLED CYBER ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................ 15,842 15,842 52 0901410F CONTRACTING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM ....................................................................... 5,782 5,782 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ............................................. 2,847,833 –292,300 2,555,533 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

54 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 12,476 12,476 

55 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................ 82,380 82,380 56 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT ..................................................................................................... 8,458 8,458 57 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)—EMD ............................................................................................ 54,838 54,838 58 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 34,394 34,394 59 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 23,945 23,945 60 0604426F SPACE FENCE ................................................................................................................................... 168,364 168,364 61 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK ...................................................................................................... 9,187 9,187 62 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD .................................................................... 181,966 181,966 63 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 20,312 20,312 64 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS ................................................................................................................................. 2,503 2,503 65 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT ................................................................................................................. 53,680 53,680 66 0604618F JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION ..................................................................................................... 9,901 9,901 67 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 7,520 7,520 68 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES ............................................................................................................. 77,409 77,409 69 0604800F F–35—EMD ..................................................................................................................................... 450,467 450,467 70 0604853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)—EMD ............................................ 296,572 296,572 71 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON ................................................................................................... 95,604 95,604 72 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION ........................................................................................................... 189,751 189,751 73 0605030F JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK CENTER (JTNC) ..................................................................................... 1,131 1,131 74 0605213F F–22 MODERNIZATION INCREMENT 3.2B ........................................................................................ 70,290 70,290 75 0605214F GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS FUZE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 937 937 76 0605221F KC–46 .............................................................................................................................................. 261,724 –140,000 121,724 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
492 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Ahead of need ........................................................................................................................ [–140,000 ] 

77 0605223F ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING ............................................................................................................. 12,377 –7,900 4,477 

Early to need .......................................................................................................................... [–7,900 ] 

78 0605229F CSAR HH–60 RECAPITALIZATION ..................................................................................................... 319,331 319,331 80 0605431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM (SPACE) .............................................................................................. 259,131 –30,000 229,131 

Delayed analysis of alternatives ............................................................................................ [–30,000 ] 

81 0605432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE) ............................................................................................................ 50,815 50,815 82 0605433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM (SPACE) ............................................................................................. 41,632 41,632 83 0605458F AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER 10.2 RDT&E ......................................................................................... 28,911 28,911 84 0605931F B–2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .......................................................................................... 315,615 –26,700 288,915 

Unobligated prior year funds ................................................................................................. [–26,700 ] 

85 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS MODERNIZATION .............................................................................................. 137,909 137,909 86 0207171F F–15 EPAWSS .................................................................................................................................. 256,669 256,669 87 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION TRAINING ................................................................................................... 12,051 12,051 88 0305176F COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER LOCATOR ............................................................................................ 29,253 29,253 89 0307581F JSTARS RECAP ................................................................................................................................. 128,019 128,019 90 0401319F PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT (PAR) ............................................................................... 351,220 351,220 91 0701212F AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................. 19,062 19,062 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................. 4,075,804 –204,600 3,871,204 

MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

92 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................. 21,630 21,630 93 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ................................................................................................................. 66,385 66,385 94 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE .............................................................................................................. 34,641 34,641 96 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 11,529 11,529 97 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 661,417 661,417 98 0605860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH PROGRAM (SPACE) .............................................................................. 11,198 11,198 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
493 

99 0605864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP) .......................................................................................................... 27,070 27,070 

100 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .................... 134,111 134,111 101 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT—TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT ........................................................ 28,091 28,091 102 0606017F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND MATURATION ................................................................................. 29,100 29,100 103 0606116F SPACE TEST AND TRAINING RANGE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 18,528 18,528 104 0606392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER (SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE ........................................................... 176,666 176,666 105 0308602F ENTEPRISE INFORMATION SERVICES (EIS) ...................................................................................... 4,410 4,410 106 0702806F ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ..................................................................................... 14,613 14,613 107 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING ................................................................................................................ 1,404 1,404 109 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................. 4,784 4,784 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 1,245,577 0 1,245,577 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

110 0603423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM III—OPERATIONAL CONTROL SEGMENT ......................................... 393,268 393,268 111 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE FLIGHT TRAINING .......................................................................... 15,427 15,427 

112 0604445F WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE .............................................................................................................. 46,695 46,695 115 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS) .............................................................. 10,368 10,368 116 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY EXECUTIVE AGENCY ............................................................................ 31,952 31,952 117 0605117F FOREIGN MATERIEL ACQUISITION AND EXPLOITATION ..................................................................... 42,960 42,960 118 0605278F HC/MC–130 RECAP RDT&E ............................................................................................................. 13,987 13,987 119 0101113F B–52 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 78,267 78,267 120 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE (ALCM) ......................................................................................... 453 453 121 0101126F B–1B SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 5,830 5,830 122 0101127F B–2 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................. 152,458 152,458 123 0101213F MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS ................................................................................................................. 182,958 182,958 124 0101313F STRAT WAR PLANNING SYSTEM—USSTRATCOM ............................................................................. 39,148 39,148 126 0101316F WORLDWIDE JOINT STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS .......................................................................... 6,042 6,042 128 0102110F UH–1N REPLACEMENT PROGRAM .................................................................................................... 14,116 14,116 129 0102326F REGION/SECTOR OPERATION CONTROL CENTER MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ................................ 10,868 10,868 130 0105921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO STRATCOM—SPACE ACTIVITIES .................................................................. 8,674 8,674 131 0205219F MQ–9 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 151,373 35,100 186,473 

Automatic Takeoff and Landing Control System ................................................................... [35,100 ] 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
494 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

133 0207131F A–10 SQUADRONS ........................................................................................................................... 14,853 14,853 134 0207133F F–16 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................ 132,795 132,795 135 0207134F F–15E SQUADRONS .......................................................................................................................... 356,717 356,717 136 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE SUPPRESSION ............................................................................................. 14,773 14,773 137 0207138F F–22A SQUADRONS .......................................................................................................................... 387,564 387,564 138 0207142F F–35 SQUADRONS ............................................................................................................................ 153,045 153,045 139 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES ................................................................................................................... 52,898 52,898 140 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR-TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM) .......................................................... 62,470 62,470 143 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE—PARARESCUE .................................................................................................... 362 362 144 0207247F AF TENCAP ....................................................................................................................................... 28,413 28,413 145 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS PROCUREMENT ................................................................................. 649 649 146 0207253F COMPASS CALL ................................................................................................................................ 13,723 13,723 147 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ............................................................. 109,859 109,859 148 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM) ...................................................................... 30,002 30,002 149 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS CENTER (AOC) ...................................................................................... 37,621 37,621 150 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING CENTER (CRC) ..................................................................................... 13,292 13,292 151 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS) ................................................................... 86,644 86,644 152 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 2,442 2,442 154 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM ACTIVITIES ............................................................................ 10,911 10,911 155 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL PARTY-MOD .............................................................................................. 11,843 11,843 156 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK ............................................................................................................. 1,515 1,515 157 0207452F DCAPES ............................................................................................................................................ 14,979 14,979 158 0207590F SEEK EAGLE ..................................................................................................................................... 25,308 25,308 159 0207601F USAF MODELING AND SIMULATION .................................................................................................. 16,666 16,666 160 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION CENTERS ........................................................................................ 4,245 4,245 161 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND EXERCISES ........................................................................................ 3,886 3,886 162 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................... 71,785 71,785 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
495 

164 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS ...................................................................................... 25,025 25,025 165 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS ...................................................................................... 29,439 29,439 168 0301017F GLOBAL SENSOR INTEGRATED ON NETWORK (GSIN) ....................................................................... 3,470 3,470 169 0301112F NUCLEAR PLANNING AND EXECUTION SYSTEM (NPES) ................................................................... 4,060 4,060 175 0301400F SPACE SUPERIORITY INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................................ 13,880 13,880 176 0302015F E–4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC) ............................................................. 30,948 30,948 177 0303001F FAMILY OF ADVANCED BLOS TERMINALS (FAB-T) ........................................................................... 42,378 42,378 178 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) .................................... 47,471 47,471 179 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 46,388 46,388 180 0303141F GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 52 52 181 0303142F GLOBAL FORCE MANAGEMENT—DATA INITIATIVE ........................................................................... 2,099 2,099 184 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................................ 90,762 90,762 187 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (GATM) ................................................................................... 4,354 4,354 188 0305110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK (SPACE) ......................................................................................... 15,624 15,624 189 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE ........................................................................................................................... 19,974 19,974 190 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, APPROACH, AND LANDING SYSTEM (ATCALS) ........................................... 9,770 9,770 191 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS .............................................................................................................................. 3,051 3,051 194 0305128F SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 405 405 195 0305145F ARMS CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................. 4,844 4,844 196 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES ....................................................................... 339 339 199 0305173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST AND EVALUATION CENTER .................................................................... 3,989 3,989 200 0305174F SPACE INNOVATION, INTEGRATION AND RAPID TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................ 3,070 3,070 201 0305179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE (IBS) ........................................................................................ 8,833 8,833 202 0305182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM (SPACE) ................................................................................................ 11,867 11,867 203 0305202F DRAGON U–2 ................................................................................................................................... 37,217 37,217 205 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS .......................................................................................... 3,841 3,841 206 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ............................................................................................. 20,975 20,975 207 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 18,902 18,902 208 0305220F RQ–4 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 256,307 256,307 209 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC COLLABORATIVE TARGETING ............................................................................ 22,610 22,610 211 0305238F NATO AGS ......................................................................................................................................... 38,904 38,904 212 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS ENTERPRISE ..................................................................................................... 23,084 23,084 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
496 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

213 0305258F ADVANCED EVALUATION PROGRAM .................................................................................................. 116,143 116,143 214 0305265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT .................................................................................................................. 141,888 141,888 215 0305600F INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ARCHITECTURES .............................................. 2,360 2,360 216 0305614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 72,889 72,889 217 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION ............................................................................................................. 4,280 4,280 218 0305906F NCMC—TW/AA SYSTEM ................................................................................................................... 4,951 4,951 219 0305913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM (SPACE) ............................................................................................... 21,093 21,093 220 0305940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS OPERATIONS .................................................................................. 35,002 35,002 222 0308699F SHARED EARLY WARNING (SEW) ..................................................................................................... 6,366 6,366 223 0401115F C–130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON .............................................................................................................. 15,599 15,599 224 0401119F C–5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS (IF) ......................................................................................................... 66,146 66,146 225 0401130F C–17 AIRCRAFT (IF) ......................................................................................................................... 12,430 12,430 226 0401132F C–130J PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................ 16,776 16,776 227 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM) ....................................................................... 5,166 5,166 229 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT ...................................................................................................... 13,817 13,817 230 0401318F CV–22 .............................................................................................................................................. 16,702 16,702 231 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT CONTROL ........................................................................................... 7,164 7,164 232 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) ....................................................................................................... 1,518 1,518 233 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT) .............................................................................. 61,676 61,676 234 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 9,128 9,128 235 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING .................................................................................................................. 1,653 1,653 236 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 57 57 237 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY ........................................................................................... 3,663 3,663 238 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 3,735 3,735 239 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION .......................................................................................................... 5,157 5,157 240 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND ANALYSIS AGENCY .................................................................................. 1,523 1,523 242 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 10,581 –6,800 3,781 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
497 

Cost estimating unjustified requset ...................................................................................... [–4,900 ] PBES unjustified request ........................................................................................................ [–1,900 ] 

250 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 13,091,557 13,091,557 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 17,457,056 28,300 17,485,356 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ..................................................................... 28,112,251 –468,600 27,643,651 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW BASIC RESEARCH 

1 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVE ................................................................................................. 35,436 35,436 2 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ....................................................................................................... 362,297 362,297 3 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES ......................................................................................................... 36,654 36,654 4 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH SCIENCE ....................................................................... 57,791 57,791 

5 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION PROGRAM ..................................................................................... 69,345 69,345 6 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY INSTITUTIONS .............................. 23,572 23,572 7 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 44,800 44,800 

SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH ........................................................................................................... 629,895 0 629,895 APPLIED RESEARCH 

8 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 17,745 17,745 9 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 115,213 115,213 

10 0602230D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ............................................................................................... 30,000 30,000 11 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH PROGRAM ................................................................................. 48,269 48,269 12 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF S&T PRIORITIES ................................................ 42,206 42,206 

13 0602303E INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................... 353,635 353,635 14 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE ...................................................................................................... 21,250 21,250 15 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 188,715 188,715 16 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 12,183 12,183 17 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 313,843 313,843 18 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 220,456 220,456 19 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 221,911 221,911 20 0602718BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFEAT TECHNOLOGIES ........................................................... 154,857 154,857 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
498 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

21 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED RESEARCH ..................................................... 8,420 8,420 22 1160401BB SOF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................... 37,820 37,820 

SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 1,786,523 0 1,786,523 

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

23 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................... 23,902 23,902 

25 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ........................................................................... 73,002 73,002 26 0603133D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTING ..................................................................................................... 19,343 19,343 27 0603160BR COUNTERPROLIFERATION INITIATIVES—PROLIFERATION PREVENTION AND DEFEAT ...................... 266,444 266,444 28 0603176C ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT .............................................................. 17,880 17,880 30 0603178C WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 71,843 71,843 31 0603179C ADVANCED C4ISR ............................................................................................................................. 3,626 3,626 32 0603180C ADVANCED RESEARCH ..................................................................................................................... 23,433 23,433 33 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 17,256 17,256 35 0603274C SPECIAL PROGRAM—MDA TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................ 83,745 83,745 36 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS ................................................................................................... 182,327 182,327 37 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................ 175,240 175,240 38 0603288D8Z ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................................................. 12,048 12,048 39 0603289D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS ......................................................................... 57,020 57,020 41 0603375D8Z TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ............................................................................................................... 39,923 39,923 42 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ............................. 127,941 127,941 43 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH .............................................................................................................................. 181,977 181,977 44 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .................................................................................. 22,030 22,030 45 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................................ 148,184 148,184 46 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITIES ................................................................................ 9,331 9,331 47 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ..................................... 158,398 158,398 48 0603680S MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM ...................................................................................... 31,259 31,259 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
499 

49 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 49,895 49,895 50 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................................................... 11,011 11,011 52 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ....................................................................... 65,078 65,078 53 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT ................................................. 97,826 97,826 54 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 7,848 7,848 55 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES ....................................................................................... 49,807 49,807 56 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ................................................................ 155,081 155,081 57 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................... 428,894 428,894 58 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 241,288 241,288 60 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE ................................................................................................ 14,264 14,264 61 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL PROJECTS .............................................................................................. 74,943 74,943 63 0603833D8Z ENGINEERING SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 17,659 17,659 64 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................. 87,135 87,135 65 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT ......................................................................... 37,329 4,000 41,329 

Competitive technology investment ....................................................................................... [4,000 ] 

66 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................................... 44,836 44,836 67 1160402BB SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 61,620 61,620 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 3,190,666 4,000 3,194,666 ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES 

68 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P .......................... 28,498 28,498 69 0603600D8Z WALKOFF .......................................................................................................................................... 89,643 89,643 

71 0603821D8Z ACQUISITION ENTERPRISE DATA & INFORMATION SERVICES .......................................................... 2,136 2,136 72 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ................................................ 52,491 52,491 

73 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT ......................................................... 206,834 206,834 74 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT ...................................................... 862,080 862,080 75 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—DEM/VAL ........................................................ 138,187 138,187 76 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSORS ........................................................................................... 230,077 230,077 77 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................. 401,594 401,594 78 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS—MDA ............................................................................................................. 321,607 321,607 79 0603892C AEGIS BMD ....................................................................................................................................... 959,066 959,066 80 0603893C SPACE TRACKING & SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 32,129 32,129 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
500 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

81 0603895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS .............................................................. 20,690 20,690 82 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE COMMAND AND CONTROL, BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND 

COMMUNICATI.

439,617 10,000 449,617 

Post Intercept Assessment Acceleration ................................................................................ [10,000 ]

83 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT ........................................................... 47,776 47,776 84 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS CENTER (MDIOC) ................................................ 54,750 54,750 85 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH ........................................................................................................................ 8,785 8,785 86 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR (SBX) .................................................................................................. 68,787 68,787 87 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 103,835 135,000 238,835 

Arrow (base program) ............................................................................................................ [50,000 ] Arrow–3 ................................................................................................................................... [25,000 ] David’s Sling .......................................................................................................................... [60,000 ] 

88 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST .................................................................................................. 293,441 293,441 89 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TARGETS ............................................................................................ 563,576 563,576 90 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING ................................................................................................................ 10,007 10,007 91 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE ........................................................................................................................ 10,126 1,000 11,126 

Long Endurance UAS .............................................................................................................. [1,000 ] 

92 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CORROSION PROGRAM ......................................................................... 3,893 5,000 8,893 

Corrosion prevention ............................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

93 0604115C TECHNOLOGY MATURATION INITIATIVES ........................................................................................... 90,266 90,266 94 0604132D8Z MISSILE DEFEAT PROJECT ................................................................................................................ 45,000 45,000 95 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES .......................................................................................... 844,870 844,870 96 0604342D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY OFFSET ....................................................................................................... 0 25,000 25,000 

Directed energy systems prototyping ..................................................................................... [25,000 ] 

97 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) UNMANNED SYSTEM COMMON DEVELOPMENT ......................... 3,320 3,320 99 0604682D8Z WARGAMING AND SUPPORT FOR STRATEGIC ANALYSIS (SSA) ........................................................ 4,000 4,000 

102 0604826J JOINT C5 CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT, INTEGRATION AND INTEROPERABILITY ASSESSMENTS ........ 23,642 23,642 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
501 

104 0604873C LONG RANGE DISCRIMINATION RADAR (LRDR) ............................................................................... 162,012 162,012 105 0604874C IMPROVED HOMELAND DEFENSE INTERCEPTORS ............................................................................ 274,148 55,000 329,148 

GBI Booster Acceleration ........................................................................................................ [30,000 ] RKV Risk Reduction ................................................................................................................ [25,000 ] 

106 0604876C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT TEST ................................................ 63,444 63,444 107 0604878C AEGIS BMD TEST .............................................................................................................................. 95,012 95,012 108 0604879C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSOR TEST .................................................................................... 83,250 83,250 109 0604880C LAND-BASED SM–3 (LBSM3) ........................................................................................................... 43,293 43,293 110 0604881C AEGIS SM–3 BLOCK IIA CO-DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................... 106,038 106,038 111 0604887C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE SEGMENT TEST ............................................................. 56,481 56,481 112 0604894C MULTI-OBJECT KILL VEHICLE ........................................................................................................... 71,513 50,000 121,513 

Technology maturation ........................................................................................................... [50,000 ] 

114 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM ............................................................... 2,636 2,636 115 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................ 969 969 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES ......................................... 6,919,519 281,000 7,200,519 

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION 

116 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD .............................. 10,324 10,324 117 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................... 181,303 181,303 

118 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—EMD ............................................................... 266,231 266,231 120 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (JTIDS) ....................................................... 16,288 16,288 121 0605000BR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DEFEAT CAPABILITIES .............................................................. 4,568 4,568 122 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................... 11,505 11,505 123 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL SECURITY INITIATIVE ................................................................................ 1,658 1,658 124 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY PROGRAM ................................................................................................ 2,920 2,920 126 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ................................................ 12,631 12,631 128 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY INTIATIVES (DAI)—FINANCIAL SYSTEM .............................................................. 26,657 26,657 129 0605090S DEFENSE RETIRED AND ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM (DRAS) .............................................................. 4,949 4,949 130 0605140D8Z TRUSTED FOUNDRY .......................................................................................................................... 69,000 69,000 131 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES ........................................................... 9,881 9,881 132 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 7,600 7,600 133 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (EEIM) .................................................... 2,703 2,703 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
502 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION ............................................................. 628,218 0 628,218 MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

134 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS) ......................................................................... 4,678 4,678 

135 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................. 4,499 4,499 136 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP) .......................................... 219,199 219,199 137 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS ................................................................................................... 28,706 100,000 128,706 

Classified assessment ............................................................................................................ [100,000 ] 

138 0605001E MISSION SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................... 69,244 69,244 139 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC) .............................................................. 87,080 87,080 140 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 23,069 23,069 142 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO) ...................................... 32,759 32,759 144 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ................................................................................................................... 32,429 32,429 145 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—OSD ........................................................................................ 3,797 3,797 146 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL SECURITY ........................................................................................ 5,302 5,302 147 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND INFORMATION INTEGRATION ............................................................ 7,246 7,246 148 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD (INTELLIGENCE) .................................................................................. 1,874 1,874 149 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ........................................................................... 85,754 85,754 158 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER .... 2,187 2,187 159 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 22,650 22,650 160 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC) ....................................................................... 43,834 43,834 161 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND EVALUATION .............................................. 22,240 22,240 162 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................ 19,541 5,000 24,541 

Program increase .................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

163 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ—R&D ................................................................................................................. 4,759 4,759 164 0605998KA MANAGEMENT HQ—DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC) ...................................... 4,400 4,400 165 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS .......................................................................................... 4,014 4,014 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
503 

166 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS SECURITY INITIATIVE (DOSI) ....................................................................... 2,072 2,072 167 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 7,464 7,464 170 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION OPERATIONS (IO) CAPABILITIES .......................................................... 857 857 171 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE (DMDPO) .......................................................... 916 916 172 0305172K COMBINED ADVANCED APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................. 15,336 15,336 173 0305193D8Z CYBER INTELLIGENCE ...................................................................................................................... 18,523 18,523 175 0804767D8Z COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT AND TRAINING TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2)—MHA ..................... 34,384 34,384 176 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ—MDA ................................................................................................................. 31,160 31,160 179 0903235D8W JOINT SERVICE PROVIDER (JSP) ...................................................................................................... 827 827 180 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 56,799 56,799 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 897,599 105,000 1,002,599 OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

181 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY SYSTEM (ESS) ............................................................................................ 4,241 4,241 

182 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH (RIO) AND PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE INFORMATION MANA 1,424 1,424 183 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE SHARED INFORMATION SYSTEM (OHASIS) ....................... 287 287 184 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT ............................................................ 16,195 16,195 185 0607310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 4,194 4,194 186 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY COOPERATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-TSCMIS) .. 7,861 7,861 187 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT) .......................... 33,361 33,361 189 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID SYSTEM (PDAS) ............................................................................... 3,038 3,038 190 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY .................................................................................................................... 57,501 57,501 192 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION INFORMATION SHARING ........................................................................... 5,935 5,935 196 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT ................................................................ 575 575 197 0302019K DEFENSE INFO INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING AND INTEGRATION ............................................... 18,041 18,041 198 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS—DCS ............................................................................................. 13,994 13,994 199 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK (MEECN) .................................... 12,206 12,206 200 0303135G PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE (PKI) ............................................................................................... 34,314 34,314 201 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI) .................................................................................... 36,602 36,602 202 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 8,876 8,876 203 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 159,068 13,000 172,068 

Cross Domain Solutions ......................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
504 

SEC. 4201. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Program Element Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Reduction to NSA Information Systems and Security Programs ........................................... [–8,000 ] Sharkseer ................................................................................................................................ [16,000 ] 

204 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM .................................................................................... 24,438 24,438 205 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................... 13,197 13,197 207 0303228K JOINT INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT (JIE) ........................................................................................ 2,789 2,789 209 0303430K FEDERAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ................................................... 75,000 75,000 

210 0303610K TELEPORT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................ 657 657 215 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................ 1,553 1,553 220 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................. 6,204 6,204 221 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY ............................................................................................................................... 17,971 17,971 223 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 5,415 5,415 226 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 3,030 3,030 229 0305327V INSIDER THREAT .............................................................................................................................. 5,034 5,034 230 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM .............................................................. 2,037 2,037 236 0307577D8Z INTELLIGENCE MISSION DATA (IMD) ................................................................................................ 13,800 13,800 238 0708012S PACIFIC DISASTER CENTERS ............................................................................................................ 1,754 1,754 239 0708047S DEFENSE PROPERTY ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM .............................................................................. 2,154 2,154 240 0902298J MANAGEMENT HQ—OJCS ................................................................................................................ 826 826 241 1105219BB MQ–9 UAV ........................................................................................................................................ 17,804 12,000 29,804 

MQ–9 capability enhancements ............................................................................................. [12,000 ] 

244 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................... 159,143 159,143 245 1160405BB INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 7,958 7,958 246 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ........................................................................................................ 64,895 64,895 247 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS .......................................................................................................................... 44,885 44,885 248 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................ 1,949 1,949 249 1160434BB UNMANNED ISR ................................................................................................................................ 22,117 22,117 250 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES .................................................................................................................. 3,316 3,316 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
505 

251 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 54,577 54,577 252 1160489BB GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 3,841 3,841 253 1160490BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................ 11,834 11,834 254 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................... 3,270,515 3,270,515 255 0303140K INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ................................................................................. 0 16,300 16,300 

Sharkseer email protection ..................................................................................................... [16,300 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 4,256,406 41,300 4,297,706 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW .................................................................... 18,308,826 431,300 18,740,126 OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 

1 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 78,047 78,047 

2 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 48,316 48,316 3 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES .............................................................................. 52,631 52,631 

SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ................................................................................................. 178,994 0 178,994 

TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE ................................................................................ 178,994 0 178,994 UNDISTRIBUTED UNDISTRIBUTED 

99 999999 UNDISTRIBUTED ............................................................................................................................... 0 4,000 4,000 

Cyber pilot program for installations .................................................................................... [4,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ............................................................................................................. 0 4,000 4,000 TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED .................................................................................................................... 0 4,000 4,000 

TOTAL RDT&E ................................................................................................................................... 71,391,771 –164,579 71,227,192 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
506 

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 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

55 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ................................................................................................ 9,375 9,375 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ................................................ 9,375 0 9,375 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

90 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING DEVICES—ENG DEV .................................................................................... 33 33 

117 0605035A COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM) ........................................................................... 10,900 10,900 122 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................... 73,110 73,110 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................... 84,043 0 84,043 OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

208 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED INTELLIGENCE ................................................................................................ 7,104 7,104 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 7,104 0 7,104 TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY .................................................................. 100,522 0 100,522 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES 

38 0603527N RETRACT LARCH ................................................................................................................................. 3,907 3,907 78 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES (TADIRCM) .......................................... 37,990 37,990 

SUBTOTAL ADVANCED COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES ................................................ 41,897 0 41,897 OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
507 

80 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 36,426 36,426 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 36,426 0 36,426 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY ................................................................... 78,323 0 78,323 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION 

58 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 425 425 

SUBTOTAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT & DEMONSTRATION ................................................................... 425 0 425 

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 

200 0305174F SPACE INNOVATION, INTEGRATION AND RAPID TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................... 4,715 4,715 220 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 27,765 27,765 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................... 32,480 0 32,480 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF ....................................................................... 32,905 0 32,905 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 

250 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................... 162,419 162,419 

SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................ 162,419 0 162,419 

TOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW ...................................................................... 162,419 0 162,419 TOTAL RDT&E ..................................................................................................................................... 374,169 0 374,169 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(509) 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
510 

TITLE XLIII—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 791,450 50,000 841,450 

Home station training unfunded requirement ............................................................................................................... [50,000 ] 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 68,373 68,373 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 438,823 438,823 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 660,258 660,258 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 863,928 863,928 060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1,360,597 68,000 1,428,597 

Flying hour program unfunded requirement .................................................................................................................. [68,000 ] 

070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 3,086,443 3,086,443 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 439,488 439,488 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 1,013,452 19,400 1,032,852 

Depot maintenance unfunded requirement ................................................................................................................... [19,400 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 7,816,343 7,816,343 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 2,234,546 354,400 2,588,946 

FSRM unfunded requirement .......................................................................................................................................... [354,400 ] 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 452,105 452,105 130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 155,658 155,658 170 COMBATANT COMMANDS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ............................................................................................................. 441,143 6,700 447,843 

SOUTHCOM LIDAR unfunded requirement ...................................................................................................................... [6,700 ] 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
511 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 19,822,607 498,500 20,321,107 

MOBILIZATION 

180 STRATEGIC MOBILITY ............................................................................................................................................................... 336,329 25,000 361,329 

Army prepositioned stock unfunded requirement .......................................................................................................... [25,000 ] 

190 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS ............................................................................................................................................... 390,848 390,848 200 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................... 7,401 7,401 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 734,578 25,000 759,578 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

210 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 131,942 131,942 

220 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 47,846 47,846 230 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 45,419 45,419 

240 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ....................................................................................................................... 482,747 482,747 250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 921,025 921,025 260 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 902,845 36,600 939,445 

Graduate pilot training unfunded requirement ............................................................................................................. [5,400 ] 

School Air OPTEMPO unfunded requirement .................................................................................................................. [31,200 ] 

270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 216,583 216,583 280 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 607,534 607,534 290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 550,599 –35,000 515,599 

Advertising reduction ..................................................................................................................................................... [–35,000 ] 

300 EXAMINING ............................................................................................................................................................................... 187,263 187,263 310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 189,556 189,556 320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 182,835 182,835 330 JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS .......................................................................................................................... 171,167 171,167 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 4,637,361 1,600 4,638,961 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
512 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 230,739 230,739 360 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................................. 850,060 850,060 370 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................ 778,757 4,000 782,757 

Corrosion oil assistance unfunded requirement ............................................................................................................ [4,000 ] 

380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 370,010 370,010 390 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 451,556 451,556 400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 1,888,123 1,888,123 410 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 276,403 276,403 420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 369,443 369,443 430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,096,074 –29,500 1,066,574 

Army museum early to need .......................................................................................................................................... [–29,500 ] 

440 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................................................................ 207,800 207,800 450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 240,641 240,641 460 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS ................................................................................................................... 250,612 250,612 470 INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS ............................................................................................................................. 416,587 416,587 480 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 36,666 36,666 500 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,151,023 6,000 1,157,023 

SOUTHCOM unfunded requirement ................................................................................................................................. [6,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................. 8,614,494 –19,500 8,594,994 UNDISTRIBUTED 

901 UNDISTRIBUTED ARMY PRINTING ............................................................................................................................................ 0 –34,300 –34,300 

15% printing reduction .................................................................................................................................................. [–34,300 ] 

906 UNDISTRIBUTED DCGS-A ......................................................................................................................................................... 0 –63,000 –63,000 

DCGS-A undistributed reduction .................................................................................................................................... [–63,000 ] 

907 UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ..................................................................................................................................... 0 –59,180 –59,180 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
513 

Foreign currency gains ................................................................................................................................................... [–59,180 ] 

912 UNDISTRIBUTED FUEL .............................................................................................................................................................. 0 –123,300 –123,300 

Fuel cost savings ........................................................................................................................................................... [–123,300 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 –279,780 –279,780 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ........................................................................................................................... 33,809,040 225,820 34,034,860 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 11,435 11,435 

020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 491,772 46,000 537,772 

Home station training unfunded requirement ............................................................................................................... [20,000 ] Lodging in kind unfunded requirement ......................................................................................................................... [26,000 ] 

030 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 116,163 116,163 040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 563,524 563,524 050 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 91,162 91,162 060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 347,459 300 347,759 

Range increase unfunded requirement .......................................................................................................................... [300 ] 

070 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 101,926 101,926 080 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 56,219 56,219 090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 573,843 573,843 100 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 214,955 21,500 236,455 

FSRM unfunded requirement .......................................................................................................................................... [21,500 ] 

110 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 37,620 37,620 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 2,606,078 67,800 2,673,878 ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

120 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 11,027 11,027 

130 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 16,749 16,749 140 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 17,825 17,825 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
514 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

150 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 6,177 6,177 160 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 54,475 54,475 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 106,253 0 106,253 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES .................................................................................................................... 2,712,331 67,800 2,780,131 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 708,251 70,000 778,251 

Home station training unfunded requirement ............................................................................................................... [70,000 ] 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 197,251 197,251 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 792,271 792,271 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 80,341 80,341 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 37,138 2,400 39,538 

Range increase unfunded requirement .......................................................................................................................... [2,400 ] 

060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 887,625 887,625 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 696,267 696,267 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 61,240 61,240 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 219,948 54,600 274,548 

Depot maintenance unfunded requirement ................................................................................................................... [42,300 ] TWV depot maintenance unfunded requirement ............................................................................................................ [12,300 ] 

100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 1,040,012 1,040,012 110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 676,715 32,100 708,815 

FSRM unfunded requirement .......................................................................................................................................... [32,100 ] 

120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 1,021,144 1,021,144 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 6,418,203 159,100 6,577,303 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
515 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 6,396 6,396 

140 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 68,528 68,528 150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 76,524 76,524 160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................... 7,712 7,712 170 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 245,046 4,500 249,546 

Director of Psychological Health (DPH) Positions .......................................................................................................... [9,500 ] Program decrease ........................................................................................................................................................... [–5,000 ] 

180 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 2,961 2,961 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 407,167 4,500 411,667 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ............................................................................................................................ 6,825,370 163,600 6,988,970 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 4,094,765 4,094,765 

020 FLEET AIR TRAINING ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,722,473 1,722,473 030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 52,670 52,670 040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................. 97,584 97,584 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 446,733 446,733 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 1,007,681 34,000 1,041,681 

AC Depot maintenance unfunded requirement .............................................................................................................. [34,000 ] 

070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 38,248 38,248 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 564,720 21,400 586,120 

E–6B and F–35 sustainment unfunded requirement .................................................................................................... [16,000 ] 

MV–22 JPBL unfunded requirement ............................................................................................................................... [5,400 ] 

090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 3,513,083 3,513,083 100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 743,765 743,765 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 5,168,273 5,168,273 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
516 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................ 1,575,578 1,575,578 130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 558,727 558,727 140 ELECTRONIC WARFARE ............................................................................................................................................................ 105,680 105,680 150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 180,406 180,406 160 WARFARE TACTICS ................................................................................................................................................................... 470,032 470,032 170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 346,703 346,703 180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,158,688 1,158,688 190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 113,692 113,692 200 DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................. 2,509 2,509 210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 91,019 91,019 220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 74,780 74,780 230 CRUISE MISSILE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 106,030 106,030 240 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,233,805 1,233,805 250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 163,025 163,025 260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................................................................... 553,269 553,269 270 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................... 350,010 350,010 280 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................................................... 790,685 –54,300 736,385 

Underexecution ................................................................................................................................................................ [–54,300 ] 

290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 1,642,742 160,900 1,803,642 

FSRM unfunded requirement .......................................................................................................................................... [160,900 ] 

300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 4,206,136 4,206,136 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 31,173,511 162,000 31,335,511 

MOBILIZATION 

310 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE ......................................................................................................................................... 893,517 893,517 

320 READY RESERVE FORCE .......................................................................................................................................................... 274,524 274,524 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
517 

330 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 6,727 6,727 340 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 288,154 288,154 350 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 95,720 95,720 360 INDUSTRIAL READINESS ........................................................................................................................................................... 2,109 2,109 370 COAST GUARD SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................... 21,114 21,114 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,581,865 0 1,581,865 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

380 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 143,815 143,815 

390 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 8,519 8,519 400 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS ..................................................................................................................................... 143,445 143,445 410 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 699,214 699,214 420 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5,310 5,310 430 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 172,852 172,852 440 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 222,728 222,728 450 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 225,647 225,647 460 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 130,569 130,569 470 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 73,730 73,730 480 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 50,400 50,400 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 1,876,229 0 1,876,229 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

490 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 917,453 917,453 

500 EXTERNAL RELATIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 14,570 14,570 510 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................ 124,070 124,070 520 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 369,767 369,767 530 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 285,927 –4,000 281,927 

NHHC unjustified growth ................................................................................................................................................ [–4,000 ] 

540 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 319,908 319,908 570 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 171,659 171,659 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
518 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

580 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................................................... 0 18,000 18,000 

Environmental program shortfall unfunded requirement .............................................................................................. [18,000 ] 

590 PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN ................................................................................................................................... 270,863 270,863 600 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 1,112,766 1,112,766 610 HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................... 49,078 49,078 620 COMBAT/WEAPONS SYSTEMS ................................................................................................................................................... 24,989 24,989 630 SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS ........................................................................................................................ 72,966 72,966 640 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................... 595,711 595,711 700 INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND AGENCIES .................................................................................................................... 4,809 4,809 800 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 517,440 517,440 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 4,851,976 14,000 4,865,976 UNDISTRIBUTED 

902 UNDISTRIBUTED NAVY PRINTING ............................................................................................................................................. 0 –7,300 –7,300 

15% printing reduction .................................................................................................................................................. [–7,300 ] 

908 UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ..................................................................................................................................... 0 –14,610 –14,610 

Foreign currency gains ................................................................................................................................................... [–14,610 ] 

913 UNDISTRIBUTED FUEL .............................................................................................................................................................. 0 –238,380 –238,380 

Fuel cost savings ........................................................................................................................................................... [–238,380 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 –260,290 –260,290 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ............................................................................................................................ 39,483,581 –84,290 39,399,291 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
519 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 674,613 63,700 738,313 

Enterprise network defense unfunded requirement ....................................................................................................... [5,700 ] Exercise program unfunded requirement ....................................................................................................................... [58,000 ] 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 947,424 28,100 975,524 

Combat optics mods unfunded requirement ................................................................................................................. [13,300 ] 

Critical/ no fail EOD unfunded requirement .................................................................................................................. [600 ] Nano/VTOL unfunded requirement ................................................................................................................................. [14,200 ] 

030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 206,783 7,800 214,583 

Depot maintenance unfunded requirement ................................................................................................................... [7,800 ] 

040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING ..................................................................................................................................................... 85,276 85,276 050 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................................... 632,673 78,500 711,173 

Facility demolition unfunded requirement ..................................................................................................................... [39,200 ] FSRM unfunded requirement .......................................................................................................................................... [39,300 ] 

060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,136,626 2,136,626 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 4,683,395 178,100 4,861,495 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

070 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 15,946 15,946 

080 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 935 935 090 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 99,305 99,305 100 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 45,495 45,495 110 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 369,979 369,979 120 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 165,566 165,566 130 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 35,133 35,133 140 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 23,622 23,622 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 755,981 0 755,981 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 34,534 34,534 

160 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 355,932 355,932 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
520 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 76,896 76,896 200 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 47,520 47,520 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 514,882 0 514,882 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

903 UNDISTRIBUTED MARINE CORPS PRINTING ............................................................................................................................. 0 –14,300 –14,300 

15% printing reduction .................................................................................................................................................. [–14,300 ] 

909 UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ..................................................................................................................................... 0 –2,870 –2,870 

Foreign currency gains ................................................................................................................................................... [–2,870 ] 

914 UNDISTRIBUTED FUEL .............................................................................................................................................................. 0 –24,660 –24,660 

Fuel cost savings ........................................................................................................................................................... [–24,660 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 –41,830 –41,830 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ........................................................................................................... 5,954,258 136,270 6,090,528 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 526,190 526,190 

020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................................. 6,714 6,714 030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 86,209 86,209 040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 389 389 050 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 10,189 10,189 070 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 560 560 090 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 13,173 13,173 100 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 109,053 109,053 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
521 

120 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION ...................................................................................................................................................... 27,226 27,226 130 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 27,571 5,800 33,371 

FSRM unfunded requirement .......................................................................................................................................... [5,800 ] 

140 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 99,166 99,166 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 906,440 5,800 912,240 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

150 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1,351 1,351 

160 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 13,251 13,251 170 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 3,445 3,445 180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 3,169 3,169 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 21,216 0 21,216 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES .................................................................................................................... 927,656 5,800 933,456 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 94,154 94,154 

020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 18,594 18,594 030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 25,470 5,500 30,970 

FSRM unfunded requirement .......................................................................................................................................... [5,500 ] 

040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 111,550 111,550 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 249,768 5,500 255,268 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

050 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 902 902 

060 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11,130 11,130 070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 8,833 8,833 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 20,865 0 20,865 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
522 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ............................................................................................................... 270,633 5,500 276,133 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 3,294,124 3,294,124 

020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................ 1,682,045 2,800 1,684,845 

HH–60 unfunded requirement ........................................................................................................................................ [2,800 ] 

030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ............................................................................................................... 1,730,757 1,730,757 040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 7,042,988 150,400 7,193,388 

Weapon system sustainment unfunded requirement .................................................................................................... [150,400 ] 

050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 1,657,019 1,657,019 060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2,787,216 2,787,216 070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING .......................................................................................................................................... 887,831 887,831 080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................... 1,070,178 1,070,178 100 LAUNCH FACILITIES .................................................................................................................................................................. 208,582 208,582 110 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................................... 362,250 362,250 120 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 907,245 907,245 130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 199,171 199,171 131 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 930,757 930,757 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 22,760,163 153,200 22,913,363 

MOBILIZATION 

140 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,703,059 1,703,059 

150 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................ 138,899 138,899 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
523 

160 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,553,439 66,400 1,619,839 

Weapon system sustainment unfunded requirement .................................................................................................... [66,400 ] 

170 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 258,328 258,328 180 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 722,756 722,756 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 4,376,481 66,400 4,442,881 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

190 OFFICER ACQUISITION .............................................................................................................................................................. 120,886 120,886 

200 RECRUIT TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................................. 23,782 23,782 210 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC) ........................................................................................................................ 77,692 77,692 220 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 236,254 157,700 393,954 

FSRM unfunded requirement .......................................................................................................................................... [157,700 ] 

230 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 819,915 819,915 240 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 387,446 387,446 250 FLIGHT TRAINING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 725,134 725,134 260 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 264,213 264,213 270 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 86,681 86,681 280 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 305,004 305,004 290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 104,754 –27,000 77,754 

Advertising unjustified growth ....................................................................................................................................... [–27,000 ] 

300 EXAMINING ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3,944 3,944 310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION ................................................................................................................................. 184,841 184,841 320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 173,583 173,583 330 JUNIOR ROTC ........................................................................................................................................................................... 58,877 58,877 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 3,573,006 130,700 3,703,706 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

340 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,107,846 1,107,846 

350 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 924,185 924,185 360 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 48,778 48,778 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
524 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

370 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 321,013 321,013 380 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,115,910 1,115,910 390 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 811,650 811,650 400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 269,809 269,809 410 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 961,304 961,304 420 CIVIL AIR PATROL .................................................................................................................................................................... 25,735 25,735 450 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................ 90,573 90,573 460 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,131,603 1,131,603 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 6,808,406 0 6,808,406 UNDISTRIBUTED 

904 UNDISTRIBUTED AIR FORCE PRINTING .................................................................................................................................... 0 –8,900 –8,900 

15% printing reduction .................................................................................................................................................. [–8,900 ] 

910 UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ..................................................................................................................................... 0 –33,450 –33,450 

Foreign currency gains ................................................................................................................................................... [–33,450 ] 

915 UNDISTRIBUTED FUEL .............................................................................................................................................................. 0 –394,560 –394,560 

Fuel cost savings ........................................................................................................................................................... [–394,560 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 –436,910 –436,910 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................... 37,518,056 –86,610 37,431,446 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,707,882 1,707,882 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 230,016 29,000 259,016 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
525 

Lodging in kind unfunded requirement ......................................................................................................................... [29,000 ] 

030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 541,743 541,743 040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 113,470 11,700 125,170 

FSRM unfunded requirement .......................................................................................................................................... [11,700 ] 

050 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 384,832 384,832 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 2,977,943 40,700 3,018,643 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 

060 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 54,939 54,939 

070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 14,754 14,754 080 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC) ..................................................................................................................... 12,707 12,707 090 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP) ............................................................................................................................ 7,210 7,210 100 AUDIOVISUAL ............................................................................................................................................................................ 376 376 

SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................. 89,986 0 89,986 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ................................................................................................................ 3,067,929 40,700 3,108,629 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 

010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 3,282,238 3,282,238 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 723,062 723,062 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,824,329 43,200 1,867,529 

Weapon system sustainment engines unfunded requirement ....................................................................................... [3,200 ] 

Weapon system sustainment unfunded requirement .................................................................................................... [40,000 ] 

040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 245,840 14,000 259,840 

FSRM unfunded requirement .......................................................................................................................................... [14,000 ] 

050 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 575,548 575,548 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 6,651,017 57,200 6,708,217 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
526 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES 

060 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 23,715 23,715 

070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING ............................................................................................................................................... 28,846 28,846 

SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................... 52,561 0 52,561 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .............................................................................................................................. 6,703,578 57,200 6,760,778 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ........................................................................................................................................................... 506,113 506,113 

020 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ............................................................................................................................... 524,439 524,439 

030 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES ........................................................................................................... 4,898,159 –45,300 4,852,859 

Unjustified growth in total civilian compensation ........................................................................................................ [–45,300 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 5,928,711 –45,300 5,883,411 TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

040 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY ......................................................................................................................................... 138,658 138,658 

050 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF ........................................................................................................................................................... 85,701 10,000 95,701 

Model alternative design of reconnaissance strike group ............................................................................................ [10,000 ] 

070 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND RECRUITING ............................................................................................... 365,349 365,349 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 589,708 10,000 599,708 

ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 

080 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................................... 160,480 25,000 185,480 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
527 

Starbase .......................................................................................................................................................................... [25,000 ] 

100 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ....................................................................................................................................... 630,925 630,925 

110 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY .......................................................................................................................... 1,356,380 1,356,380 120 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................................. 683,620 683,620 130 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ............................................................................................................................. 1,439,891 1,439,891 150 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY ........................................................................................................................................ 24,984 24,984 160 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY .................................................................................................................................................. 357,964 –5,800 352,164 

Price Comparability Office unjustified growth ............................................................................................................... [–5,800 ] 

170 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ....................................................................................................................................................... 223,422 223,422 180 DEFENSE PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING AGENCY .......................................................................................................................... 112,681 112,681 190 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY ........................................................................................................................... 496,754 –414,800 81,954 

Transfer Combatting Terrorism Fellowship to to Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund ......................................... [–26,800 ] Transfer Defense Institute of International Legal Studies to Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund ..................... [–2,600 ] Transfer Defense Institution Reform Initiative to to Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund ................................... [–25,600 ] Transfer Global Train and Equip to Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund ............................................................ [–270,200 ] Transfer Ministry of Defense Advisors to to Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund ................................................ [–9,200 ] Transfer Regional Centers to Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund ....................................................................... [–58,600 ] Transfer Wales initaitive Fund/Partnership for Peace to Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund ............................ [–21,800 ] 

200 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................. 538,711 538,711 230 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................... 35,417 35,417 240 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY ................................................................................................................................... 448,146 448,146 260 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................... 2,671,143 30,000 2,701,143 

Impact Aid ...................................................................................................................................................................... [25,000 ] Impact Aid severe disabilities ....................................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

270 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY ...................................................................................................................................................... 446,975 446,975 290 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 155,399 –32,200 123,199 

Guam public health lab ................................................................................................................................................. [–32,200 ] 

300 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ............................................................................................................................... 1,481,643 21,000 1,502,643 

Cuts for BRAC planning ................................................................................................................................................. [–4,000 ] DOD rewards early to need ............................................................................................................................................ [–5,000 ] Secretary of Defense Delivery Unit ................................................................................................................................. [30,000 ] 

310 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................... 89,429 89,429 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
528 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

320 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ................................................................................................................................ 629,874 629,874 330 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 14,069,333 –15,300 14,054,033 

Reduction to NSA Information Systems and Security Program (4GT4) ......................................................................... [–27,000 ] Sharkseer email protection ............................................................................................................................................ [11,700 ] 

SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................. 26,053,171 –392,100 25,661,071 UNDISTRIBUTED 

905 UNDISTRIBUTED TO DEFENSE-WIDE ........................................................................................................................................ 0 –1,400 –1,400 

15% printing reduction .................................................................................................................................................. [–1,400 ] 

911 UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ..................................................................................................................................... 0 –10,580 –10,580 

Foreign currency gains ................................................................................................................................................... [–10,580 ] 

916 UNDISTRIBUTED FUEL .............................................................................................................................................................. 0 –41,100 –41,100 

Fuel cost savings ........................................................................................................................................................... [–41,100 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 –53,080 –53,080 

TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........................................................................................................ 32,571,590 –480,480 32,091,110 MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF 

4GTT US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE ................................................................................................ 14,194 14,194 

SUBTOTAL US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF ............................................................................................. 14,194 0 14,194 

OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID 

4GTD OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID ............................................................................................................ 105,125 105,125 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
529 

SUBTOTAL OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID ........................................................................................ 105,125 0 105,125 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT 

1PL3 FORMER SOVIET UNION (FSU) THREAT REDUCTION ................................................................................................................ 325,604 325,604 

SUBTOTAL COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT ....................................................................................................... 325,604 0 325,604 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY 

493 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY ................................................................................................................................... 170,167 170,167 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY ................................................................................................................. 170,167 0 170,167 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY 

044G ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY .................................................................................................................................... 281,762 281,762 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY .................................................................................................................. 281,762 0 281,762 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE 

042G ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................................... 371,521 371,521 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................ 371,521 0 371,521 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE 

045G ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE .............................................................................................................................. 9,009 9,009 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE ............................................................................................................ 9,009 0 9,009 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES 

047G ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES ........................................................................................................ 197,084 197,084 

SUBTOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES ..................................................................................... 197,084 0 197,084 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
530 

SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................................. 1,474,466 0 1,474,466 UNDISTRIBUTED UNDISTRIBUTED 

999 UNDISTRIBUTED ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0 20,000 20,000 

Commission on Military, National, and Public Service ................................................................................................. [15,000 ] 

Temporary Duty Assignment Per Diem Rate Waiver ...................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ..................................................................................................................................................... 0 20,000 20,000 

TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED ............................................................................................................................................................ 0 20,000 20,000 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 171,318,488 71,310 171,389,798 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
531 

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 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 723,945 723,945 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 5,904 5,904 

030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 38,614 38,614 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,651,817 1,651,817 050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 835,138 835,138 060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 165,044 165,044 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 1,756,378 1,756,378 080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS ....................................................................................................................................... 348,174 348,174 090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 350,000 350,000 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 40,000 40,000 140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................................ 5,990,878 5,990,878 150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM ................................................................................................................. 5,000 5,000 160 RESET ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,092,542 1,092,542 170 COMBATANT COMMANDS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ............................................................................................................. 79,568 79,568 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 13,083,002 0 13,083,002 

MOBILIZATION 

190 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS ............................................................................................................................................... 350,200 350,200 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 350,200 0 350,200 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
532 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 3,565 3,565 

270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................. 9,021 9,021 280 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 2,434 2,434 320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 1,254 1,254 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 16,274 0 16,274 

ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES 

350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 740,400 740,400 

380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 13,974 13,974 420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 105,508 105,508 450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 165,678 165,678 460 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 835,551 835,551 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................. 1,861,111 0 1,861,111 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY ........................................................................................................................... 15,310,587 0 15,310,587 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES OPERATING FORCES 

010 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 708 708 

020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 14,822 14,822 030 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 375 375 040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................... 2,088 2,088 050 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 608 608 060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 5,425 5,425 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
533 

090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 14,653 14,653 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 38,679 0 38,679 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES .................................................................................................................... 38,679 0 38,679 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG OPERATING FORCES 

010 MANEUVER UNITS .................................................................................................................................................................... 16,149 16,149 

020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES ............................................................................................................................................... 748 748 030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE .................................................................................................................................................... 34,707 34,707 040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS .......................................................................................................................................................... 10,472 10,472 060 AVIATION ASSETS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 32,804 32,804 070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 12,435 12,435 100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................................... 18,800 18,800 120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................................................................................................. 920 920 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 127,035 0 127,035 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG ............................................................................................................................ 127,035 0 127,035 

AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND MINISTRY OF DEFENSE 

010 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2,173,341 2,173,341 

020 INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................................................... 48,262 48,262 030 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 76,216 76,216 040 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 220,139 220,139 

SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF DEFENSE .......................................................................................................................................... 2,517,958 0 2,517,958 MINISTRY OF INTERIOR 

050 SUSTAINMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... 860,441 860,441 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
534 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

060 INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................................................... 20,837 20,837 070 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 8,153 8,153 080 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 41,326 41,326 

SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF INTERIOR ......................................................................................................................................... 930,757 0 930,757 

TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND ...................................................................................................................... 3,448,715 0 3,448,715 COUNTER ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND THE LEVANT FUND COUNTER ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND THE LEVANT FUND 

010 COUNTER ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND THE LEVANT FUND .................................................................................................... 630,000 630,000 1,260,000 

Transfer from Coalition Support Fund ........................................................................................................................... [180,000 ] Transfer from Counterterrorism Partnership Fund ......................................................................................................... [200,000 ] Transfer from Syria Train and Equip ............................................................................................................................. [250,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL COUNTER ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND THE LEVANT FUND ................................................................................. 630,000 630,000 1,260,000 

TOTAL COUNTER ISLAMIC STATE IN IRAQ AND THE LEVANT FUND ....................................................................................... 630,000 630,000 1,260,000 SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND 

010 SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND ............................................................................................................................................... 250,000 –250,000 0 

Transfer to Counter Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Fund (former Iraq Train and Equip) ................................ [–250,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND ............................................................................................................................. 250,000 –250,000 0 

TOTAL SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND ................................................................................................................................... 250,000 –250,000 0 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
535 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY OPERATING FORCES 

010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 860,621 860,621 

040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................. 4,603 4,603 050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................... 159,049 159,049 060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 113,994 113,994 070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................ 1,840 1,840 080 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 35,529 35,529 090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 1,073,080 1,073,080 100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING ................................................................................................................................ 17,306 17,306 110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,903,431 2,903,431 130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 21,257 21,257 160 WARFARE TACTICS ................................................................................................................................................................... 22,603 22,603 170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 22,934 22,934 180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 568,511 568,511 190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 11,358 11,358 250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT ............................................................................................................................. 61,000 61,000 260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE ......................................................................................................................................................... 289,045 289,045 270 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT ....................................................................................................................................... 8,000 8,000 290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION ............................................................................................................... 27,089 27,089 300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 219,525 219,525 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 6,420,775 0 6,420,775 MOBILIZATION 

330 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 1,530 1,530 

350 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................... 8,904 8,904 370 COAST GUARD SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................................................... 162,692 162,692 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 173,126 0 173,126 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
536 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

410 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 43,365 43,365 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 43,365 0 43,365 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

490 ADMINISTRATION ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3,764 3,764 

500 EXTERNAL RELATIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 515 515 520 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 5,409 5,409 

530 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................. 1,578 1,578 540 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 25,617 25,617 570 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 126,700 126,700 600 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 9,261 9,261 640 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................... 1,501 1,501 650 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 15,780 15,780 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 190,125 0 190,125 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY ............................................................................................................................ 6,827,391 0 6,827,391 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATIONAL FORCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 703,489 703,489 

020 FIELD LOGISTICS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 266,094 266,094 030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 147,000 147,000 060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 18,576 18,576 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 1,135,159 0 1,135,159 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
537 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

110 TRAINING SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................................................. 31,750 31,750 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 31,750 0 31,750 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION .............................................................................................................................................. 73,800 73,800 

160 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 3,650 3,650 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 77,450 0 77,450 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS ........................................................................................................... 1,244,359 0 1,244,359 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES OPERATING FORCES 

030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 16,500 16,500 

050 AVIATION LOGISTICS ................................................................................................................................................................. 2,522 2,522 100 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 7,243 7,243 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 26,265 0 26,265 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES .................................................................................................................... 26,265 0 26,265 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

010 OPERATING FORCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 2,500 2,500 

040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 804 804 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 3,304 0 3,304 TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE ............................................................................................................... 3,304 0 3,304 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
538 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE OPERATING FORCES 

010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 1,339,461 28,000 1,367,461 

ERI nuclear readiness .................................................................................................................................................... [28,000 ] 

020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES ............................................................................................................................................ 1,096,021 1,096,021 030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS) ............................................................................................................... 152,278 152,278 040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 1,185,506 1,185,506 050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION ................................................................................................. 56,700 56,700 060 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 941,714 941,714 070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING .......................................................................................................................................... 30,219 30,219 080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS ..................................................................................................................................... 207,696 207,696 100 LAUNCH FACILITIES .................................................................................................................................................................. 869 869 110 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................................... 5,008 5,008 120 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT ......................................................................................................... 100,081 100,081 130 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 79,893 79,893 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 5,195,446 28,000 5,223,446 MOBILIZATION 

140 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 2,774,729 2,774,729 

150 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS ................................................................................................................................................ 108,163 108,163 

160 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 891,102 891,102 180 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3,686 3,686 

SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION ........................................................................................................................................................ 3,777,680 0 3,777,680 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
539 

TRAINING AND RECRUITING 

230 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 52,740 52,740 

240 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................. 4,500 4,500 

SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING .................................................................................................................................. 57,240 0 57,240 

ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES 

340 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 86,716 86,716 

380 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 59,133 59,133 400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 165,348 165,348 

410 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................................. 141,883 –25,100 116,783 

Program reduction .......................................................................................................................................................... [–25,100 ] 

450 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................ 61 61 460 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 15,323 15,323 

SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................ 468,464 –25,100 443,364 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................... 9,498,830 2,900 9,501,730 

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE OPERATING FORCES 

030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE .............................................................................................................................................................. 51,086 51,086 

050 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6,500 6,500 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 57,586 0 57,586 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE ................................................................................................................ 57,586 0 57,586 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG OPERATING FORCES 

020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 3,400 3,400 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
540 

SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

050 BASE SUPPORT ........................................................................................................................................................................ 16,600 16,600 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 20,000 0 20,000 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG .............................................................................................................................. 20,000 0 20,000 

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE OPERATING FORCES 

030 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES ........................................................................................................... 2,650,651 2,650,651 

SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES .............................................................................................................................................. 2,650,651 0 2,650,651 ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES 

100 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY ....................................................................................................................................... 13,436 13,436 

110 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY .......................................................................................................................... 13,564 13,564 130 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY ............................................................................................................................. 47,579 47,579 150 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY ........................................................................................................................................ 111,986 111,986 170 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY ....................................................................................................................................................... 13,317 13,317 190 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY ........................................................................................................................... 1,412,000 –1,100,000 312,000 

Reduction to Coalition Support Funds ........................................................................................................................... [–100,000 ] Transfer to Counter Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Fund (former Iraq Train and Equip) ................................ [–180,000 ] Transfer to Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund ................................................................................................... [–820,000 ] 

260 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................... 67,000 67,000 300 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ............................................................................................................................... 31,106 31,106 320 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ................................................................................................................................ 3,137 3,137 330 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................................................................... 1,618,397 1,618,397 

SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................. 3,331,522 –1,100,000 2,231,522 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
541 

TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE ........................................................................................................ 5,982,173 –1,100,000 4,882,173 UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE 

888 UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................................ 0 350,000 350,000 

Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative ........................................................................................................................... [350,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE ........................................................................................................ 0 350,000 350,000 

TOTAL UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................... 0 350,000 350,000 

TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 43,464,924 –367,100 43,097,824 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(543) 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
544 

TITLE XLIV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL. 

SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY PERSONNEL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 128,902,332 –1,250,890 127,651,442 

Defense Officer Personnel Management Act reforms ......................................................................................... [100,000 ] 

Foreign currency gains ........................................................................................................................................ [–72,940 ] 

Military Personnel underexecution ...................................................................................................................... [–880,450 ] 

Non-adoption of Air Force Pilot Bonus Increase ................................................................................................ [–2,500 ] Non-adoption of DOD retirement reforms ........................................................................................................... [–400,000 ] Rural Guard Act .................................................................................................................................................. [5,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................. 128,902,332 –1,250,890 127,651,442 MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS .............................................................................................. 6,366,908 6,366,908 SUBTOTAL MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS ........................................................................... 6,366,908 0 6,366,908 

TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................. 135,269,240 –1,250,890 134,018,350 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
545 

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY PERSONNEL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 3,562,258 3,562,258 SUBTOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS ............................................................................................................. 3,562,258 0 3,562,258 MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS .............................................................................................. 0 0 SUBTOTAL MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS ........................................................................... 0 0 0 

TOTAL MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................................................. 3,562,258 0 3,562,258 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(547) 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
548 

TITLE XLV—OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY 

020 ARMY SUPPLY MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 56,469 56,469 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .................................................................................................................... 56,469 0 56,469 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE 

020 WORKING CAPITAL FUND ................................................................................................................................................... 63,967 63,967 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE ............................................................................................................ 63,967 0 63,967 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE 

020 WORKING CAPITAL FUND SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................... 37,132 37,132 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE ..................................................................................................... 37,132 0 37,132 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA 

010 WORKING CAPITAL FUND SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................... 1,214,045 1,214,045 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA ..................................................................................................................... 1,214,045 0 1,214,045 TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND ...................................................................................................................................... 1,371,613 0 1,371,613 CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
549 

1 O&M .................................................................................................................................................................................. 147,282 147,282 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................... 147,282 0 147,282 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION 

2 RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................................... 388,609 388,609 

SUBTOTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 388,609 0 388,609 PROCUREMENT 

3 PROC ................................................................................................................................................................................. 15,132 15,132 

SUBTOTAL PROCUREMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 15,132 0 15,132 

TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION ........................................................................................................ 551,023 0 551,023 DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES 

010 DEFENSEWIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................. 730,087 –258,300 471,787 

Transfer to Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund ............................................................................................. [–258,300 ] 

SUBTOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES ................................................................................. 730,087 –258,300 471,787 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM 

020 DRUG INTRDCT & CNTR-DRG ACT, DEF ........................................................................................................................... 114,713 114,713 

SUBTOTAL DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................... 114,713 0 114,713 

TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ........................................................................................... 844,800 –258,300 586,500 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

010 DEFENSEWIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................. 318,882 –7,300 311,582 

Audit FTE unjustified growth ................................................................................................................................... [–7,300 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................... 318,882 –7,300 311,582 RDT&E 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
550 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

020 DEFENSEWIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................. 3,153 3,153 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................. 3,153 0 3,153 TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .................................................................................................................. 322,035 –7,300 314,735 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 

010 IN-HOUSE CARE ................................................................................................................................................................ 9,240,160 9,240,160 

020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE ..................................................................................................................................................... 15,738,759 15,738,759 030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................... 2,367,759 2,367,759 040 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................. 1,743,749 1,743,749 050 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................. 311,380 311,380 060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................... 743,231 743,231 070 BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 2,086,352 2,086,352 210 UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY .............................................................................................................................. 0 –6,470 –6,470 

Foreign currency gains ............................................................................................................................................ [–6,470 ] 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................................................... 32,231,390 –6,470 32,224,920 RDT&E 

080 R&D RESEARCH ................................................................................................................................................................ 9,097 9,097 

090 R&D EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................................... 58,517 58,517 100 R&D ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 221,226 221,226 110 R&D DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION ................................................................................................................................... 96,602 96,602 120 R&D ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................... 364,057 364,057 130 R&D MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT ................................................................................................................................... 58,410 58,410 140 R&D CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT ................................................................................................................................... 14,998 14,998 

SUBTOTAL RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................. 822,907 0 822,907 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
551 

PROCUREMENT 

150 PROC INITIAL OUTFITTING ................................................................................................................................................. 20,611 20,611 160 PROC REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION ......................................................................................................................... 360,727 360,727 

180 PROC JOINT OPERATIONAL MEDICINE INFORMATION SYSTEM .......................................................................................... 2,413 2,413 200 PROC DOD HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MODERNIZATION .................................................................................. 29,468 29,468 

SUBTOTAL PROCUREMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 413,219 0 413,219 

UNDISTRIBUTED 

220 UNDISTRIBUTED DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM .................................................................................................................. 0 440,000 440,000 

Incorporation of value-based health care into TRICARE program ......................................................................... [24,500 ] Pilot program on health insurance for reserve component members .................................................................... [20,000 ] Reduction for unauthorized fertility treatment benefits ......................................................................................... [–38,000 ] Reduction for unjustified travel expenses .............................................................................................................. [–6,500 ] Reimbursement rates for Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration program ................................................... [40,000 ] TRICARE reform implementation ............................................................................................................................. [400,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED .............................................................................................................................................. 0 440,000 440,000 

TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................. 33,467,516 433,530 33,901,046 SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF) SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF) 

99 SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF) ................................................................................................... 0 673,100 673,100 

Transfer from Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities ................................................................................ [258,300 ] Transfer of Combatting Terrorism Fellowship Program .......................................................................................... [26,800 ] Transfer of Defense Institute of International Legal Studies ................................................................................. [2,600 ] Transfer of Defense Institution Reform Initiative ................................................................................................... [25,600 ] Transfer of Global Train and Equip Program ......................................................................................................... [270,200 ] Transfer of Ministry of Defense Advisors ................................................................................................................ [9,200 ] Transfer of Regional Centers .................................................................................................................................. [58,600 ] Transfer of Wales Initaitive Fund/Partnership for Peace ........................................................................................ [21,800 ] 

SUBTOTAL SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF) ................................................................................ 0 673,100 673,100 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
552 

SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

TOTAL SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF) ....................................................................................... 0 673,100 673,100 

TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 36,556,987 841,030 37,398,017 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
553 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY 

020 ARMY SUPPLY MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 46,833 46,833 

SUBTOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY .................................................................................................................... 46,833 0 46,833 

DLA WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS 

030 DLA WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS ......................................................................................................................................... 93,800 93,800 

SUBTOTAL DLA WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS ...................................................................................................................... 93,800 0 93,800 

TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND ...................................................................................................................................... 140,633 0 140,633 

DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES 

010 DEFENSEWIDE ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................................................................. 215,333 215,333 

SUBTOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES ................................................................................. 215,333 0 215,333 

TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF ........................................................................................... 215,333 0 215,333 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

010 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ........................................................................................................................................ 22,062 22,062 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...................................................................................................................... 22,062 0 22,062 

TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .................................................................................................................. 22,062 0 22,062 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
554 

SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Line Item FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE 

010 IN-HOUSE CARE ................................................................................................................................................................ 95,366 95,366 020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE ..................................................................................................................................................... 233,073 233,073 030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT .................................................................................................................................... 3,325 3,325 

SUBTOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE .......................................................................................................................... 331,764 0 331,764 

TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................. 331,764 0 331,764 

COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND 

090 COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND ..................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 –1,000,000 0 

Ahead of need ......................................................................................................................................................... [–150,000 ] Transfer to Counter Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant Fund (former Iraq Train and Equip) .......................... [–200,000 ] Transfer to Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund ............................................................................................. [–650,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND .................................................................................................. 1,000,000 –1,000,000 0 

TOTAL COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND ......................................................................................................... 1,000,000 –1,000,000 0 SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF) SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF) 

99 SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF) ................................................................................................... 0 1,470,000 1,470,000 

Transfer from Coalition Support Fund .................................................................................................................... [820,000 ] Transfer from Counterterrorism Partnership Fund .................................................................................................. [650,000 ] 

SUBTOTAL SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF) ................................................................................ 0 1,470,000 1,470,000 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
555 

TOTAL SECURITY COOPERATION ENHANCEMENT FUND (SCEF) ....................................................................................... 0 1,470,000 1,470,000 

TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 1,709,792 470,000 2,179,792 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(557) 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
558 

TITLE XLVI—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION. 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION MILCON, ARMY MILCON, ARMY ALASKA Fort Wainwright Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Hangar ............................. 47,000 47,000 MILCON, ARMY CALIFORNIA Concord Access Control Point .................................................. 12,600 12,600 MILCON, ARMY COLORADO Fort Carson Guard Readiness Center ............................................ 0 16,500 16,500 MILCON, ARMY COLORADO Fort Carson Automated Infantry Platoon Battle Course ............... 8,100 8,100 MILCON, ARMY COLORADO Fort Carson Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Hangar ............................. 5,000 5,000 MILCON, ARMY GEORGIA Fort Gordon Company Operations Facility ..................................... 0 10,600 10,600 MILCON, ARMY GEORGIA Fort Gordon Cyber Protection Team Ops Facility .......................... 90,000 90,000 MILCON, ARMY GEORGIA Fort Stewart Automated Qualification/Training Range .................. 14,800 14,800 MILCON, ARMY GERMANY East Camp Grafenwoehr Training Support Center ............................................ 22,000 22,000 MILCON, ARMY GERMANY Garmisch Dining Facility ............................................................ 9,600 9,600 MILCON, ARMY GERMANY Wiesbaden Army Airfield Controlled Humidity Warehouse ................................. 16,500 16,500 MILCON, ARMY GERMANY Wiesbaden Army Airfield Hazardous Material Storage Building ....................... 2,700 2,700 MILCON, ARMY GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay Mass Migration Complex ........................................... 33,000 –33,000 0 MILCON, ARMY HAWAII Fort Shafter Command and Control Facility, Incr 2 ...................... 40,000 40,000 MILCON, ARMY TEXAS Fort Hood Automated Infantry Platoon Battle Course ............... 7,600 7,600 MILCON, ARMY UTAH Camp Williams Live Fire Exercise Shoothouse ................................... 7,400 7,400 MILCON, ARMY VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir Secure Admin/Operations Facility, Incr 2 .................. 64,000 64,000 MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Prior Year Savings ..................................................... 0 –30,000 –30,000 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
559 

MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Minor Construction FY17 ........................................... 25,000 25,000 

MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design FY17 ........................................ 80,159 80,159 

MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Host Nation Support FY17 ......................................... 18,000 18,000 

SUBTOTAL MILCON, ARMY ................................................................................................................................................................. 503,459 –35,900 467,559 

MIL CON, NAVY MIL CON, NAVY ARIZONA Yuma VMX–22 Maintenance Hangar ................................... 48,355 48,355 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Coronado Coastal Campus Entry Control Point ........................ 13,044 13,044 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Coronado Grace Hopper Data Center Power Upgrades ............. 10,353 10,353 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Coronado Coastal Campus Utilities Infrastructure ................... 81,104 81,104 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Lemoore F–35C Engine Repair Facility .................................... 26,723 26,723 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Miramar Communications Complex and Infrastructure ........... 0 34,700 34,700 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Miramar F–35 Parking Apron ................................................... 0 40,000 40,000 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA San Diego Energy Security Hospital Microgrid ........................... 6,183 –6,183 0 MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Seal Beach Missile Magazines ..................................................... 21,007 21,007 MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Eglin AFB WMD Field Training Facilities .................................... 20,489 20,489 MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Power Upgrade—Harmon .......................................... 62,210 62,210 MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Hardening of Guam POL Infrastructure .................... 26,975 26,975 MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Barking Sands Upgrade Power Plant & Electrical Distrib Sys .......... 43,384 43,384 MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Regimental Consolidated Comm/Elec Facility ........... 72,565 72,565 MIL CON, NAVY JAPAN Kadena AB Aircraft Maintenance Complex .................................. 26,489 26,489 MIL CON, NAVY JAPAN Sasebo Shore Power (Juliet Pier) ........................................... 16,420 16,420 MIL CON, NAVY MAINE Kittery Unaccompanied Housing ........................................... 17,773 17,773 MIL CON, NAVY MAINE Kittery Utility Improvements for Nuclear Platforms .............. 30,119 30,119 MIL CON, NAVY MARYLAND Patuxent River UCLASS RDT&E Hangar ............................................. 40,576 40,576 MIL CON, NAVY NEVADA Fallon Air Wing Simulator Facility ........................................ 13,523 13,523 MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune Range Facilities Safety Improvements ...................... 18,482 18,482 MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Marine Corps 

Air Station 

Central Heating Plant Conversion ............................. 12,515 12,515 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
560 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MIL CON, NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA Beaufort Aircraft Maintenance Hangar .................................... 83,490 83,490 MIL CON, NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA Parris Island Recruit Reconditioning Center & Barracks ............... 29,882 29,882 MIL CON, NAVY SPAIN Rota Communication Station ............................................. 23,607 23,607 MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Norfolk Chambers Field Magazine Recap .............................. 0 27,000 27,000 MIL CON, NAVY WASHINGTON Bangor Service Pier Electrical Upgrades ............................... 18,939 18,939 MIL CON, NAVY WASHINGTON Bremerton Submarine Refit Maint Support Facility .................... 21,476 21,476 MIL CON, NAVY WASHINGTON Bremerton Nuclear Repair Facility .............................................. 6,704 6,704 MIL CON, NAVY WASHINGTON Whidbey Island Triton Mission Control Facility ................................... 30,475 30,475 MIL CON, NAVY WASHINGTON Whidbey Island EA–18G Maintenance Hangar ................................... 45,501 45,501 MIL CON, NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 29,790 29,790 

MIL CON, NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 88,230 88,230 

MIL CON, NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Triton Forward Operating Base Hangar .................... 41,380 41,380 

SUBTOTAL MIL CON, NAVY ................................................................................................................................................................ 1,027,763 95,517 1,123,280 

MILCON, AIR FORCE MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Clear AFS Fire Station ................................................................ 20,000 20,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35A ADAL Field Training Detachment Fac ............ 22,100 22,100 MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35A Hangar/Propulsion MX/Dispatch .................... 44,900 44,900 MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35A Missile Maintenance Facility .......................... 12,800 12,800 MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35A Aircraft Weather Shelters (Sqd 1) ................. 79,500 79,500 MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35A Earth Covered Magazines .............................. 11,300 11,300 MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35A Hangar/Squad Ops/AMU Sq #2 ...................... 42,700 42,700 MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F–35A Aircraft Weather Shelter (Sqd 2) ................... 82,300 82,300 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
561 

MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Joint Base ElmendorfRichardson Add/Alter AWACS Alert Hangar .................................. 29,000 29,000 

MILCON, AIR FORCE ARIZONA Luke AFB F–35A Squad Ops/Aircraft Maint Unit #5 ................. 20,000 20,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE AUSTRALIA Darwin APR—Expand Parking Apron .................................... 28,600 28,600 MILCON, AIR FORCE AUSTRALIA Darwin APR—Aircraft MX Support Facility ........................... 1,800 1,800 MILCON, AIR FORCE CALIFORNIA Edwards Air Force Base Flightline Fire Station ................................................ 24,000 24,000 

MILCON, AIR FORCE COLORADO Buckley Air Force Base Small Arms Range Complex ...................................... 13,500 13,500 MILCON, AIR FORCE DELAWARE Dover AFB Aircraft Maintenance Hangar .................................... 39,000 39,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE FLORIDA Eglin AFB Flightline Fire Station ................................................ 13,600 13,600 MILCON, AIR FORCE FLORIDA Eglin AFB Advanced Munitions Technology Complex ................. 75,000 75,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE FLORIDA Patrick AFB Fire/Crash Rescue Station ......................................... 13,500 13,500 MILCON, AIR FORCE GEORGIA Moody AFB Personnel Recovery 4-Bay Hangar/Helo Mx Unit ....... 30,900 30,900 MILCON, AIR FORCE GERMANY Ramstein AB 37 AS Squadron Operations/Aircraft Maint Unit ....... 13,437 13,437 MILCON, AIR FORCE GERMANY Spangdahlem AB EIC—Site Development and Infrastructure .............. 43,465 43,465 MILCON, AIR FORCE GUAM Joint Region Marianas APR—Munitions Storage Igloos, Ph 2 ...................... 35,300 35,300 MILCON, AIR FORCE GUAM Joint Region Marianas Block 40 Maintenance Hangar .................................. 31,158 31,158 MILCON, AIR FORCE GUAM Joint Region Marianas APR—SATCOM C4I Facility ....................................... 14,200 14,200 MILCON, AIR FORCE JAPAN Kadena AB APR—Replace Munitions Structures ......................... 19,815 19,815 MILCON, AIR FORCE JAPAN Yokota AB Construct Combat Arms Training & Maint Fac ........ 8,243 8,243 MILCON, AIR FORCE JAPAN Yokota AB C–130J Corrosion Control Hangar ............................. 23,777 23,777 MILCON, AIR FORCE KANSAS McConnell AFB Air Traffic Control Tower ........................................... 11,200 11,200 MILCON, AIR FORCE KANSAS McConnell AFB KC–46A Alter Flight Simulator Bldgs ........................ 3,000 3,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE KANSAS McConnell AFB KC–46A ADAL Taxiway Delta ..................................... 5,600 5,600 MILCON, AIR FORCE LOUISIANA Barksdale AFB Consolidated Communication Facility ....................... 21,000 21,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE MARIANA ISLANDS Unspecified Location APR—Land Acquisition ............................................. 9,000 9,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews Consolidated Communications Center ...................... 0 50,000 50,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews 21 Points Enclosed Firing Range .............................. 13,000 13,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews PAR Relocate JADOC Satellite Site ............................ 3,500 3,500 MILCON, AIR FORCE MASSACHUSETTS Hanscom AFB System Management Engineering Facility ................ 20,000 20,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE MONTANA Malmstrom AFB Missile Maintenance Facility ..................................... 14,600 14,600 MILCON, AIR FORCE NEVADA Nellis AFB F–35A POL Fill Stand Addition .................................. 10,600 10,600 MILCON, AIR FORCE NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB North Fitness Center .................................................. 21,000 21,000 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
562 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILCON, AIR FORCE NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB Hazardous Cargo Pad and Taxiway ........................... 10,600 10,600 MILCON, AIR FORCE NEW MEXICO Kirtland AFB Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH) Simulator ............. 7,300 7,300 MILCON, AIR FORCE OHIO Wright-Patterson AFB Relocated Entry Control Facility 26A ......................... 12,600 12,600 MILCON, AIR FORCE OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC–46A FTU/FTC Simulator Facility Ph 2 ................. 11,600 11,600 MILCON, AIR FORCE OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB E3 Mission and Flight Simulator .............................. 0 26,000 26,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB KC–46A Depot System Integration Laboratory .......... 17,000 17,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio BMT Recruit Dormitory 6 ........................................... 67,300 67,300 MILCON, AIR FORCE TURKEY Incirlik AB Airfield Fire/Crash Rescue Station ............................ 13,449 13,449 MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES Al Dhafra Large Aircraft Maintenance Hangar .......................... 35,400 35,400 MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Croughton RAF Main Gate Complex ................................................... 16,500 16,500 MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Croughton RAF JIAC Consolidation—Ph 3 ......................................... 53,082 53,082 MILCON, AIR FORCE UTAH Hill AFB 649 MUNS STAMP/Maint & Inspection Facility ......... 12,000 12,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE UTAH Hill AFB F–35A Munitions Maintenance Complex ................... 10,100 10,100 MILCON, AIR FORCE UTAH Hill AFB Composite Aircraft Antenna Calibration Fac ............ 7,100 7,100 MILCON, AIR FORCE UTAH Hill AFB 649 MUNS Precision Guided Missile MX Facility ...... 8,700 8,700 MILCON, AIR FORCE UTAH Hill AFB 649 MUNS Munitions Storage Magazines ................. 6,600 6,600 MILCON, AIR FORCE VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley-Eustis Fuel System Maintenance Dock ................................. 14,200 14,200MILCON, AIR FORCE VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley-Eustis Air Force Targeting Center ........................................ 45,000 45,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE WASHINGTON Fairchild AFB Pipeline Dorm, USAF SERE School (150 RM) ............ 27,000 27,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Prior Year Savings ..................................................... 0 –22,300 –22,300 

MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning & Design .................................................... 143,582 143,582 MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Unspecified Minor Military Construction ................... 30,000 30,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE WYOMING F. E. Warren AFB Missile Transfer Facility Bldg 4331 .......................... 5,550 5,550 

SUBTOTAL MILCON, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,481,058 53,700 1,534,758 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
563 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MIL CON, DEF-WIDE ALASKA Clear AFS Long Range Discrim Radar Sys Complex Ph1 .......... 155,000 155,000 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE ALASKA Fort Greely Missile Defense Complex Switchgear Facility ........... 9,560 9,560 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE ALASKA Joint Base ElmendorfRichardson Construct Truck Offload Facility ................................ 4,900 4,900 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE ARIZONA Fort Huachuca JITC Building 52110 Renovation ............................... 4,493 4,493 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Seal Team Ops Facility ...................................... 47,290 47,290 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Seal Team Ops Facility ...................................... 47,290 47,290 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Special RECON Team ONE Operations Fac ........ 20,949 20,949 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Human Performance Training Center ................ 15,578 15,578 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Training Detachment ONE Ops Facility ............. 44,305 44,305 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Travis AFB Replace Hydrant Fuel System .................................... 26,500 26,500 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE DELAWARE Dover AFB Welch ES/Dover MS Replacement .............................. 44,115 44,115 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE DIEGO GARCIA Diego Garcia Improve Wharf Refueling Capability ......................... 30,000 30,000 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE FLORIDA Patrick AFB Replace Fuel Tanks ................................................... 10,100 10,100 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GEORGIA Fort Benning SOF Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Hangar ........ 4,820 4,820 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GEORGIA Fort Gordon Medical Clinic Replacement ...................................... 25,000 25,000 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GERMANY Kaiserlautern AB Sembach Elementary/Middle School Replacement .... 45,221 45,221 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GERMANY Rhine Ordnance Barracks Medical Center Replacement Incr 6 .......................... 58,063 58,063 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Iwakuni Construct Truck Offload & Loading Facilities ........... 6,664 6,664 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Kadena AB Kadena Elementary School Replacement .................. 84,918 84,918 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Kadena AB SOF Simulator Facility (MC–130) .............................. 12,602 12,602 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Kadena AB SOF Maintenance Hangar .......................................... 42,823 42,823 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Kadena AB Medical Materiel Warehouse ...................................... 20,881 20,881 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Yokota AB Hangar/AMU ............................................................... 39,466 39,466 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Yokota AB Operations and Warehouse Facilities ........................ 26,710 26,710 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Yokota AB Simulator Facility ....................................................... 6,261 6,261 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Yokota AB Airfield Apron ............................................................. 41,294 41,294 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE KWAJALEIN Kwajalein Atoll Replace Fuel Storage Tanks ...................................... 85,500 85,500 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MAINE Kittery Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement .......................... 27,100 27,100 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MARYLAND Bethesda Naval Hospital MEDCEN Addition/Alteration Incr 1 ........................... 50,000 50,000 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
564 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize Building #2 Incr 2 ...................... 195,000 195,000 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Campus Feeders Phase 3 ............................... 17,000 17,000 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MARYLAND Fort Meade Access Control Facility .............................................. 21,000 21,000 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MISSOURI St. Louis Land Acquisition-Next NGA West (N2W) Campus ..... 801 801 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune Dental Clinic Replacement ........................................ 31,000 31,000 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Tactical Equipment Maintenance Facility .......... 23,598 23,598 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Parachute Rigging Facility ................................. 21,420 21,420 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Special Tactics Facility (PH3) ............................ 30,670 30,670 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Combat Medic Training Facility ......................... 10,905 10,905 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE SOUTH CAROLINA Joint Base Charleston Construct Hydrant Fuel System ................................. 17,000 17,000 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE TEXAS Red River Army Depot Construct Warehouse & Open Storage ...................... 44,700 44,700 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE TEXAS Sheppard AFB Medical/Dental Clinic Replacement .......................... 91,910 91,910 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE UNITED KINGDOM Croughton RAF Croughton Elem/Middle/High School Replacement ... 71,424 71,424 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force 

Lakenheath 

Construct Hydrant Fuel System ................................. 13,500 13,500 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Pentagon Pentagon Metro Entrance Facility ............................. 12,111 –12,111 0 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Pentagon Upgrade IT Facilities Infrastructure-RRMC ............... 8,105 8,105 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WAKE ISLAND Wake Island Test Support Facility .................................................. 11,670 11,670 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Battalion Complex ..................................................... 0 64,400 64,400 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Prior Year Savings ..................................................... 0 –132,200 –132,200 

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 ................................................. 23,585 23,585 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
565 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 71,647 71,647 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Worldwide Unspecified Minor Construction ............... 2,414 2,414 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 5,994 5,994 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Energy Conservation Investment Program ................ 150,000 150,000 

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 ................................................. 13,450 13,450 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

ECIP Design ............................................................... 10,000 10,000 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Milcon .......................................... 3,913 3,913 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 24,000 24,000 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 8,500 8,500 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Exercise Related Minor Construction ......................... 8,631 8,631 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 3,427 3,427 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 27,653 27,653 MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning & Design .................................................... 27,660 27,660 

SUBTOTAL MIL CON, DEF-WIDE ........................................................................................................................................................ 2,056,091 –79,911 1,976,180 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
566 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILCON, ARNG MILCON, ARNG HAWAII Hilo Combined Support Maintenance Shop ...................... 31,000 31,000 MILCON, ARNG IOWA Davenport National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 23,000 23,000 MILCON, ARNG KANSAS Fort Leavenworth National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 29,000 29,000 MILCON, ARNG NEW HAMPSHIRE Hooksett National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop ............... 11,000 11,000 MILCON, ARNG NEW HAMPSHIRE Rochester National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Shop ............... 8,900 8,900 MILCON, ARNG OKLAHOMA Ardmore National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 22,000 22,000 MILCON, ARNG PENNSYLVANIA York National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 9,300 9,300 MILCON, ARNG RHODE ISLAND East Greenwich National Guard/Reserve Center Building (JFHQ) ....... 20,000 20,000 MILCON, ARNG UTAH Camp Williams National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 37,000 37,000 MILCON, ARNG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 12,001 12,001 

MILCON, ARNG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 8,729 8,729 

MILCON, ARNG WYOMING Laramie National Guard Readiness Center ............................. 21,000 21,000 

SUBTOTAL MILCON, ARNG ................................................................................................................................................................. 232,930 0 232,930 

MILCON, ANG MILCON, ANG CONNECTICUT Bradley IAP Construct Small Air Terminal .................................... 6,300 6,300 MILCON, ANG FLORIDA Jacksonville IAP Replace Fire Crash/Rescue Station ........................... 9,000 9,000 MILCON, ANG HAWAII Joint Base Pearl HarborHickam F–22 Composite Repair Facility ................................ 11,000 11,000 

MILCON, ANG IOWA Sioux Gateway Airport Construct Consolidated Support Functions ............... 12,600 12,600 MILCON, ANG MINNESOTA Duluth IAP Load Crew Training/Weapon Shops ........................... 7,600 7,600 MILCON, ANG NEW HAMPSHIRE Pease International Trade 

Port 

KC–46A Install Fuselage Trainer Bldg 251 .............. 1,500 1,500 

MILCON, ANG NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte/Douglas IAP C–17 Corrosion Control/Fuel Cell Hangar ................. 29,600 29,600 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
567 

MILCON, ANG NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte/Douglas IAP C–17 Type III Hydrant Refueling System .................. 21,000 21,000 MILCON, ANG SOUTH CAROLINA McEntire ANGS Replace Operations and Training Facility ................. 8,400 8,400 MILCON, ANG TEXAS Ellington Field Consolidate Crew Readiness Facility ........................ 4,500 4,500 MILCON, ANG VERMONT Burlington IAP F–35 Beddown 4-Bay Flight Simulator ..................... 4,500 4,500 MILCON, ANG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 17,495 17,495 

MILCON, ANG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Locations Planning and Design ................................................. 10,462 10,462 

SUBTOTAL MILCON, ANG ................................................................................................................................................................... 143,957 0 143,957 

MILCON, ARMY R MILCON, ARMY R ARIZONA Phoenix Army Reserve Center ................................................. 0 30,000 30,000 MILCON, ARMY R CALIFORNIA Fort Hunter Liggett Emergency Services Center ....................................... 21,500 21,500 MILCON, ARMY R CALIFORNIA Fort Hunter Liggett Transient Training Barracks ...................................... 19,000 19,000 MILCON, ARMY R VIRGINIA Dublin Organizational Maintenance Shop/AMSA ................... 6,000 6,000 MILCON, ARMY R WISCONSIN Fort McCoy AT/MOB Dining Facility .............................................. 11,400 11,400 MILCON, ARMY R WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 7,500 7,500 

MILCON, ARMY R WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 2,830 2,830 

SUBTOTAL MILCON, ARMY R ............................................................................................................................................................. 68,230 30,000 98,230 

MIL CON, NAVY RES MIL CON, NAVY RES LOUISIANA New Orleans Joint Reserve Intelligence Center .............................. 11,207 11,207 MIL CON, NAVY RES NEW YORK Brooklyn Electric Feeder Ductbank ........................................... 1,964 1,964 MIL CON, NAVY RES NEW YORK Syracuse Marine Corps Reserve Center .................................... 13,229 13,229 MIL CON, NAVY RES TEXAS Galveston Reserve Center Annex ................................................ 8,414 8,414 MIL CON, NAVY RES WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

MCNR Planning & Design ......................................... 3,783 3,783 

SUBTOTAL MIL CON, NAVY RES ........................................................................................................................................................ 38,597 0 38,597 

MILCON, AF RES 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
568 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

MILCON, AF RES NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB KC–46A Two Bay Corrosion/Fuel Cell Hangar ........... 90,000 90,000 MILCON, AF RES NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB KC–46A ADAL Bldg for AGE/Fuselage Training ......... 5,700 5,700 MILCON, AF RES NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB KC–46A ADAL Squadron Operations Facilities .......... 2,250 2,250 MILCON, AF RES PENNSYLVANIA Pittsburgh IAP C–17 Construct Two Bay Corrosion/Fuel Hangar ...... 54,000 54,000 MILCON, AF RES PENNSYLVANIA Pittsburgh IAP C–17 ADAL Fuel Hydrant System .............................. 22,800 22,800 MILCON, AF RES PENNSYLVANIA Pittsburgh IAP C–17 Const/OverlayTaxiway and Apron ..................... 8,200 8,200 MILCON, AF RES WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning & Design .................................................... 4,500 4,500 

MILCON, AF RES WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Unspecified Minor Construction ................................ 1,500 1,500 

SUBTOTAL MILCON, AF RES .............................................................................................................................................................. 188,950 0 188,950 

NATO SEC INV PRGM NATO SEC INV PRGM WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED NATO Security Investment 

Program 

Nato Security Investment Program ............................ 177,932 177,932 

NATO SEC INV PRGM WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Prior Year Savings ..................................................... 0 –30,000 –30,000 

SUBTOTAL NATO SEC INV PRGM ....................................................................................................................................................... 177,932 –30,000 147,932 

TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 5,918,967 33,406 5,952,373 

FAMILY HOUSING FAM HSG CON, ARMY FAM HSG CON, ARMY KOREA Camp Humphreys Family Housing New Construction ............................. 143,563 143,563 FAM HSG CON, ARMY KOREA Camp Walker Family Housing New Construction ............................. 54,554 54,554 FAM HSG CON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning & Design .................................................... 2,618 2,618 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
569 

SUBTOTAL FAM HSG CON, ARMY ...................................................................................................................................................... 200,735 0 200,735 

FAM HSG O&M, ARMY FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Management .............................................................. 40,344 40,344 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Services ...................................................................... 7,993 7,993 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 10,178 10,178 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Miscellaneous ............................................................ 400 400 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 60,745 60,745 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 55,428 55,428 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 131,761 131,761 

FAM HSG O&M, 

ARMY 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Housing Privitization Support .................................... 19,146 19,146 

SUBTOTAL FAM HSG O&M, ARMY ..................................................................................................................................................... 325,995 0 325,995 

FAM HSG CON, N/MC FAM HSG CON, N/MC MARIANA ISLANDS Guam Replace Andersen Housing PH I ................................ 78,815 78,815 FAM HSG CON, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Construction Improvements ....................................... 11,047 11,047 

FAM HSG CON, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning & Design .................................................... 4,149 4,149 

SUBTOTAL FAM HSG CON, N/MC ....................................................................................................................................................... 94,011 0 94,011 

FAM HSG O&M, N/MC FAM HSG O&M, N/ 

MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 56,685 56,685 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
570 

SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Budget Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

FAM HSG O&M, N/ 

MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 17,457 17,457 

FAM HSG O&M, N/ 

MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Management .............................................................. 51,291 51,291 

FAM HSG O&M, N/ 

MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Miscellaneous ............................................................ 364 364 

FAM HSG O&M, N/ 

MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Services ...................................................................... 12,855 12,855 

FAM HSG O&M, N/ 

MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 54,689 54,689 

FAM HSG O&M, N/ 

MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 81,254 81,254 

FAM HSG O&M, N/ 

MC 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Housing Privatization Support ................................... 26,320 26,320 

SUBTOTAL FAM HSG O&M, N/MC ...................................................................................................................................................... 300,915 0 300,915 

FAM HSG CON, AF FAM HSG CON, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Construction Improvements ....................................... 56,984 56,984 

FAM HSG CON, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning & Design .................................................... 4,368 4,368 

SUBTOTAL FAM HSG CON, AF ........................................................................................................................................................... 61,352 0 61,352 

FAM HSG O&M, AF FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Housing Privatization Support ................................... 41,809 41,809 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
571 

FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 37,241 37,241 

FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Management .............................................................. 42,919 42,919 

FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Services ...................................................................... 13,026 13,026 

FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 31,690 31,690 

FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Miscellaneous ............................................................ 1,745 1,745 

FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 20,530 20,530 

FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 85,469 85,469 

SUBTOTAL FAM HSG O&M, AF .......................................................................................................................................................... 274,429 0 274,429 

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 ................................................................ 399 399 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 367 367 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 11,044 11,044 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 800 800 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 500 500 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Leasing ...................................................................... 40,984 40,984 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
572 

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 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Furnishings ................................................................ 20 20 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Services ...................................................................... 32 32 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Utilities ...................................................................... 174 174 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Maintenance .............................................................. 349 349 

FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Management .............................................................. 388 388 

SUBTOTAL FAM HSG O&M, DW ......................................................................................................................................................... 59,157 0 59,157 

FAM HSG IMPROVE FUND FAM HSG IMPROVE 

FUND 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Program Expenses ..................................................... 3,258 3,258 

SUBTOTAL FAM HSG IMPROVE FUND ............................................................................................................................................... 3,258 0 3,258 

TOTAL FAMILY HOUSING ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,319,852 1,319,852 

DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE DOD BRAC—ARMY DOD BRAC—ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Closure, Army Base Realignment and Closure ................................. 14,499 14,499 

SUBTOTAL DOD BRAC—ARMY .......................................................................................................................................................... 14,499 0 14,499 

DOD BRAC—NAVY 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
573 

DOD BRAC—NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Closure, Navy Base Realignment & Closure .................................... 110,606 110,606 

DOD BRAC—NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

DON–172: NWS Seal Beach, Concord, CA ................. 4,648 4,648 

DOD BRAC—NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

DON–138: NAS Brunswick, ME .................................. 557 557 

DOD BRAC—NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

DON–157: MCSA Kansas City, MO ............................ 100 100 

DOD BRAC—NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

DON–84: JRB Willow Grove & Cambria Reg AP ........ 3,397 3,397 

DOD BRAC—NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

DON–100: Planing, Design and Management .......... 4,604 4,604 

DOD BRAC—NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

DON–101: Various Locations ..................................... 10,461 10,461 

SUBTOTAL DOD BRAC—NAVY ........................................................................................................................................................... 134,373 0 134,373 

DOD BRAC—AIR FORCE DOD BRAC—AIR 

FORCE 

WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

DoD BRAC Activities—Air Force ................................ 56,365 56,365 

SUBTOTAL DOD BRAC—AIR FORCE ................................................................................................................................................. 56,365 0 56,365 

TOTAL DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ....................................................................................................................... 205,237 205,237 TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC .................................................................................................... 7,444,056 33,406 7,477,462 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
574 

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 WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

ERI: Planning and Design ......................................... 18,900 18,900 

SUBTOTAL MILCON, ARMY ................................................................................................................................................................. 18,900 0 18,900 

MIL CON, NAVY MIL CON, NAVY DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonier OCO: Medical/Dental Facility ..................................... 37,409 37,409 MIL CON, NAVY ICELAND Keflavik ERI: P–8A Hangar Upgrade ....................................... 14,600 14,600 MIL CON, NAVY ICELAND Keflavik ERI: P–8A Aircraft Rinse Rack .................................. 5,000 5,000 MIL CON, NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

Planning and Design ................................................. 1,000 1,000 

MIL CON, NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

ERI: Planning and Design ......................................... 1,800 1,800 

SUBTOTAL MIL CON, NAVY ................................................................................................................................................................ 59,809 0 59,809 

MILCON, AIR FORCE MILCON, AIR FORCE BULGARIA Graf Ignatievo ERI: Fighter Ramp Extension ..................................... 7,000 7,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE BULGARIA Graf Ignatievo ERI: Construct Sq Ops/Operational Alert Fac ........... 3,800 3,800 MILCON, AIR FORCE BULGARIA Graf Ignatievo ERI: Upgrade Munitions Storage Area ....................... 2,600 2,600 MILCON, AIR FORCE DJIBOUTI Chabelley Airfield OCO: Construct Chabelley Access Road .................... 3,600 3,600 MILCON, AIR FORCE DJIBOUTI Chabelley Airfield OCO: Construct Parking Apron and Taxiway ............. 6,900 6,900 MILCON, AIR FORCE ESTONIA Amari Air Base ERI: Construct Bulk Fuel Storage .............................. 6,500 6,500 MILCON, AIR FORCE GERMANY Spangdahlem AB ERI: Upgrade Hardened Aircraft Shelters .................. 2,700 2,700 MILCON, AIR FORCE GERMANY Spangdahlem AB ERI: F/A–22 Upgrade Infrastructure/Comm/Util ........ 1,600 1,600 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
575 

MILCON, AIR FORCE GERMANY Spangdahlem AB ERI: F/A–22 Low Observable/Comp Repair Fac ........ 12,000 12,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE GERMANY Spangdahlem AB ERI: Construct High Cap Trim Pad & Hush House ... 1,000 1,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE GERMANY Spangdahlem AB ERI: Upgrade Munitions Storage Doors ..................... 1,400 1,400 MILCON, AIR FORCE LITHUANIA Siauliai ERI: Munitions Storage .............................................. 3,000 3,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE POLAND Lask AB ERI: Construct Squadron Operations Facility ............ 4,100 4,100 MILCON, AIR FORCE POLAND Powidz AB ERI: Construct Squadron Operations Facility ............ 4,100 4,100 MILCON, AIR FORCE ROMANIA Campia Turzii ERI: Extend Parking Aprons ....................................... 6,000 6,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE ROMANIA Campia Turzii ERI: Construct Munitions Storage Area ..................... 3,000 3,000 MILCON, AIR FORCE ROMANIA Campia Turzii ERI: Construct Two-Bay Hangar ................................ 6,100 6,100 MILCON, AIR FORCE ROMANIA Campia Turzii ERI: Construct Squadron Operations Facility ............ 3,400 3,400 MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

OCO: Planning and Design ........................................ 940 940 

MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

CTP: Planning and Design ........................................ 9,000 9,000 

SUBTOTAL MILCON, AIR FORCE ........................................................................................................................................................ 88,740 0 88,740 

MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide 

Locations 

ERI: Unspecified Minor Construction ......................... 5,000 5,000 

SUBTOTAL MIL CON, DEF-WIDE ........................................................................................................................................................ 5,000 0 5,000 

TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 172,449 0 172,449 TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC .................................................................................................... 172,449 0 172,449 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(577) 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
578 

TITLE XLVII—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL 

SECURITY PROGRAMS 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS. 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Discretionary Summary By Appropriation 

Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies Appropriation Summary: 

Energy Programs 

Nuclear Energy ......................................................................................................................................................... 151,876 0 151,876 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

National nuclear security administration: 

Weapons activities .......................................................................................................................................... 9,243,147 –7,750 9,235,397 

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ................................................................................................................... 1,807,916 70,000 1,877,916 

Naval reactors ................................................................................................................................................ 1,420,120 0 1,420,120 Federal salaries and expenses ....................................................................................................................... 412,817 0 412,817 

Total, National nuclear security administration ................................................................................................... 12,884,000 62,250 12,946,250 Environmental and other defense activities: 

Defense environmental cleanup ..................................................................................................................... 5,382,050 –135,100 5,246,950 Other defense activities ................................................................................................................................. 791,552 0 791,552 

Total, Environmental & other defense activities ................................................................................................. 6,173,602 –135,100 6,038,502 

Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities ........................................................................................................................ 19,057,602 –72,850 18,984,752 

Total, Discretionary Funding ............................................................................................................................................................. 19,209,478 –72,850 19,136,628 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
579 

Nuclear Energy 

Idaho sitewide safeguards and security ................................................................................................................................... 129,303 129,303 Idaho operations and maintenance .......................................................................................................................................... 7,313 7,313 Consent Based Siting ................................................................................................................................................................ 15,260 15,260 

Total, Nuclear Energy ........................................................................................................................................................................ 151,876 0 151,876 

Weapons Activities 

Directed stockpile work 

Life extension programs 

B61 Life extension program .................................................................................................................................... 616,079 616,079 W76 Life extension program .................................................................................................................................... 222,880 222,880 W88 Alt 370 ............................................................................................................................................................. 281,129 281,129 

W80–4 Life extension program ............................................................................................................................... 220,253 220,253 

Total, Life extension programs ....................................................................................................................................... 1,340,341 0 1,340,341 

Stockpile systems 

B61 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 57,313 57,313 W76 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 38,604 38,604 W78 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 56,413 56,413 W80 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 64,631 64,631 B83 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 41,659 41,659 W87 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 81,982 81,982 W88 Stockpile systems ............................................................................................................................................ 103,074 103,074 

Total, Stockpile systems ................................................................................................................................................. 443,676 0 443,676 Weapons dismantlement and disposition 

Operations and maintenance .................................................................................................................................. 68,984 –12,750 56,234 

Program reduction .......................................................................................................................................... [–12,750 ] 

Stockpile services 

Production support .................................................................................................................................................. 457,043 457,043 Research and development support ........................................................................................................................ 34,187 34,187 R&D certification and safety ................................................................................................................................... 156,481 156,481 Management, technology, and production .............................................................................................................. 251,978 251,978 

Total, Stockpile services ................................................................................................................................................. 899,689 0 899,689 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
580 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Nuclear material commodities 

Uranium sustainment .............................................................................................................................................. 20,988 20,988 Plutonium sustainment ........................................................................................................................................... 184,970 184,970 Tritium sustainment ................................................................................................................................................ 109,787 109,787 Domestic uranium enrichment ................................................................................................................................ 50,000 50,000 Strategic matrials sustainment .............................................................................................................................. 212,092 212,092 

Total, Nuclear material commodities ............................................................................................................................. 577,837 0 577,837 

Total, Directed stockpile work ................................................................................................................................................ 3,330,527 –12,750 3,317,777 

Research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) 

Science 

Advanced certification ............................................................................................................................................. 58,000 58,000 

Primary assessment technologies ........................................................................................................................... 99,000 99,000 

Dynamic materials properties ................................................................................................................................. 106,000 106,000 Advanced radiography ............................................................................................................................................. 50,500 50,500 Secondary assessment technologies ....................................................................................................................... 76,000 76,000 Academic alliances and partnerships ..................................................................................................................... 52,484 52,484 

Total, Science .................................................................................................................................................................. 441,984 0 441,984 

Engineering 

Enhanced surety ...................................................................................................................................................... 37,196 37,196 

Weapon systems engineering assessment technology ............................................................................................ 16,958 16,958 

Nuclear survivability ................................................................................................................................................ 43,105 43,105 Enhanced surveillance ............................................................................................................................................. 42,228 42,228 

Total, Engineering ............................................................................................................................................................ 139,487 0 139,487 Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield 

Ignition ..................................................................................................................................................................... 75,432 75,432 Support of other stockpile programs ...................................................................................................................... 23,363 23,363 Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support ................................................................................................ 68,696 68,696 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
581 

Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion .............................................................................................................. 5,616 5,616 Joint program in high energy density laboratory plasmas ..................................................................................... 9,492 9,492 Facility operations and target production ............................................................................................................... 340,360 340,360 

Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield ........................................................................................................ 522,959 0 522,959 Advanced simulation and computing .............................................................................................................................. 663,184 663,184 Stockpile Responsiveness Program .................................................................................................................................. 0 5,000 5,000 

Program Increase ..................................................................................................................................................... [5,000 ] 

Advanced manufacturing 

Additive manufacturing ........................................................................................................................................... 12,000 12,000 

Component manufacturing development ................................................................................................................ 46,583 46,583 Processing technology development ........................................................................................................................ 28,522 28,522 

Total, Advanced manufacturing ...................................................................................................................................... 87,105 0 87,105 

Total, RDT&E ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,854,719 5,000 1,859,719 Infrastructure and operations (formerly RTBF) 

Operating 

Operations of facilities 

Kansas City Plant ........................................................................................................................................... 101,000 101,000 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ....................................................................................................... 70,500 70,500 

Los Alamos National Laboratory ..................................................................................................................... 196,500 196,500 Nevada Test Site ............................................................................................................................................ 92,500 92,500 

Pantex ............................................................................................................................................................. 55,000 55,000 Sandia National Laboratory ............................................................................................................................ 118,000 118,000 

Savannah River Site ....................................................................................................................................... 83,500 83,500 Y–12 National security complex ..................................................................................................................... 107,000 107,000 

Total, Operations of facilities ................................................................................................................................ 824,000 0 824,000 

Safety and environmental operations .............................................................................................................................. 110,000 110,000 Maintenance and repair of facilities ............................................................................................................................... 294,000 294,000 Recapitalization: 

Infrastructure and safety ........................................................................................................................................ 554,643 554,643 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
582 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Capability based investment ................................................................................................................................... 112,639 112,639 

Total, Recapitalization ..................................................................................................................................................... 667,282 0 667,282 Construction: 

17–D–640, U1a Complex Enhancements Project, NNSS ........................................................................................ 11,500 11,500 17–D–630 Electrical Infrastructure Upgrades, LLNL .............................................................................................. 25,000 25,000 16–D–515 Albuquerque complex upgrades project ................................................................................................ 15,047 15,047 15–D–613 Emergency Operations Center, Y–12 .................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 15–D–302, TA–55 Reinvestment project, Phase 3, LANL ...................................................................................... 21,455 21,455 07–D–220-04 Transuranic liquid waste facility, LANL .......................................................................................... 17,053 17,053 06–D–141 PED/Construction, UPF Y–12, Oak Ridge, TN ....................................................................................... 575,000 575,000 04–D–125—04 RLUOB equipment installation ..................................................................................................... 159,615 159,615 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 826,670 0 826,670 

Total, Infrastructure and operations ...................................................................................................................................... 2,721,952 0 2,721,952 Secure transportation asset 

Operations and equipment ............................................................................................................................................... 179,132 179,132 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 103,600 103,600 

Total, Secure transportation asset ......................................................................................................................................... 282,732 0 282,732 Defense nuclear security 

Operations and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................... 657,133 657,133 Construction: 

14–D–710 Device assembly facility argus installation project, NV ....................................................................... 13,000 13,000 

Total, Defense nuclear security .............................................................................................................................................. 670,133 0 670,133 Information technology and cybersecurity ................................................................................................................................. 176,592 176,592 Legacy contractor pensions ....................................................................................................................................................... 248,492 248,492 Rescission of prior year balances ............................................................................................................................................. –42,000 –42,000 

Total, Weapons Activities .................................................................................................................................................................. 9,243,147 –7,750 9,235,397 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
583 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D 

Global material security .......................................................................................................................................... 337,108 337,108 

Material management and minimization ................................................................................................................ 341,094 341,094 

Nonproliferation and arms control .......................................................................................................................... 124,703 124,703 Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D ................................................................................................................... 393,922 393,922 Nonproliferation Construction: 

99–D–143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility, SRS ....................................................................... 270,000 70,000 340,000 

MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility Construction .......................................................................................... [70,000 ] 

Total, Nonproliferation construction ..................................................................................................................... 270,000 70,000 340,000 

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs ...................................................................................................... 1,466,827 70,000 1,536,827 

Legacy contractor pensions ....................................................................................................................................................... 83,208 83,208 Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program ....................................................................................................... 271,881 271,881 Rescission of prior year balances ............................................................................................................................................. –14,000 –14,000 

Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ......................................................................................................................................... 1,807,916 70,000 1,877,916 

Naval Reactors 

Naval reactors operations and infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 449,682 449,682 Naval reactors development ...................................................................................................................................................... 437,338 437,338 Ohio replacement reactor systems development ...................................................................................................................... 213,700 213,700 S8G Prototype refueling ............................................................................................................................................................. 124,000 124,000 Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 47,100 47,100 

Construction: 

17–D–911, BL Fire System Upgrade ................................................................................................................................ 1,400 1,400 

15–D–904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3 ............................................................................................................... 700 700 15–D–902 KS Engineroom team trainer facility .............................................................................................................. 33,300 33,300 14–D–901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, NRF ........................................................................................ 100,000 100,000 10-D–903, Security upgrades, KAPL ................................................................................................................................ 12,900 12,900 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................................... 148,300 0 148,300 

Total, Naval Reactors ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1,420,120 0 1,420,120 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
584 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Federal Salaries And Expenses 

Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 412,817 412,817 

Total, Office Of The Administrator ................................................................................................................................................... 412,817 0 412,817 Defense Environmental Cleanup 

Closure sites: 

Closure sites administration ............................................................................................................................................ 9,389 9,389 

Hanford site: 

River corridor and other cleanup operations ................................................................................................................... 69,755 69,755 Central plateau remediation ............................................................................................................................................ 620,869 620,869 Richland community and regulatory support ................................................................................................................... 14,701 14,701 Construction: 

15–D–401 Containerized sludge removal annex, RL .............................................................................................. 11,486 11,486 

Total, Hanford site .................................................................................................................................................................... 716,811 0 716,811 

Idaho National Laboratory: 

Idaho cleanup and waste disposition .............................................................................................................................. 359,088 359,088 Idaho community and regulatory support ........................................................................................................................ 3,000 3,000 

Total, Idaho National Laboratory ............................................................................................................................................. 362,088 0 362,088 

Los Alamos National Laboratory 

EMLA cleanup activities ................................................................................................................................................... 185,606 10,000 195,606 

Program Increase ..................................................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

EMLA community and regulatory support ........................................................................................................................ 3,394 3,394 

Total, Los Alamos National Laboratory ................................................................................................................................... 189,000 10,000 199,000 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
585 

NNSA sites 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ......................................................................................................................... 1,396 1,396 Separations Process Research Unit ................................................................................................................................. 3,685 3,685 Nevada .............................................................................................................................................................................. 62,176 62,176 Sandia National Laboratories ........................................................................................................................................... 4,130 4,130 

Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites .................................................................................................................................. 71,387 0 71,387 

Oak Ridge Reservation: 

OR Nuclear facility D & D 

OR Nuclear facility D & D ....................................................................................................................................... 93,851 93,851 Construction: 

14–D–403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility ....................................................................................... 5,100 5,100 

Total, OR Nuclear facility D & D .................................................................................................................................... 98,951 0 98,951 

U233 Disposition Program ................................................................................................................................................ 37,311 37,311 OR cleanup and disposition ............................................................................................................................................. 54,557 54,557 OR reservation community and regulatory support ......................................................................................................... 4,400 4,400 Oak Ridge technology development ................................................................................................................................. 3,000 3,000 

Total, Oak Ridge Reservation .................................................................................................................................................. 198,219 0 198,219 

Office of River Protection: 

Waste treatment and immobilization plant 

WTP operations ........................................................................................................................................................ 3,000 3,000 

15–D–409 Low activity waste pretreatment system, ORP ..................................................................................... 73,000 73,000 

01–D–416 A-D/ORP-0060 / Major construction ..................................................................................................... 690,000 690,000 

Total, Waste treatment and immobilization plant ......................................................................................................... 766,000 0 766,000 

Tank farm activities 

Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ............................................................................................. 721,456 721,456 

Total, Tank farm activities .............................................................................................................................................. 721,456 0 721,456 

Total, Office of River protection ............................................................................................................................................. 1,487,456 0 1,487,456 

Savannah River sites: 

Nuclear Material Management ......................................................................................................................................... 311,062 311,062 Environmental Cleanup .................................................................................................................................................... 152,504 152,504 SR community and regulatory support ............................................................................................................................ 11,249 11,249 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
586 

SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

Program FY 2017 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized 

Radioactive liquid tank waste: 

Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition ................................................................................. 645,332 645,332 Construction: 

15–D–402—Saltstone Disposal Unit #6, SRS .............................................................................................. 7,577 7,577 17–D–401—Saltstone Disposal Unit #7 ....................................................................................................... 9,729 9,729 05–D–405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah River Site .................................................................. 160,000 160,000 

Total, Construction ................................................................................................................................................. 177,306 0 177,306 

Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste .............................................................................................................................. 822,638 0 822,638 

Total, Savannah River site ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,297,453 0 1,297,453 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

Operations and maintenance ........................................................................................................................................... 257,188 10,000 267,188 

Program increase ..................................................................................................................................................... [10,000 ] 

Construction: 

15–D–411 Safety significant confinement ventilation system, WIPP .................................................................... 2,532 2,532 15–D–412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP .............................................................................................................................. 2,533 2,533 

Total, Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... 5,065 0 5,065 

Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ........................................................................................................................................... 262,253 10,000 272,253 

Program direction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 290,050 290,050 Program support ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14,979 14,979 Safeguards and Security ........................................................................................................................................................... 255,973 255,973 Technology development ............................................................................................................................................................ 30,000 30,000 Infrastructure recapitalization ................................................................................................................................................... 41,892 41,892 Defense Uranium enrichment D&D ........................................................................................................................................... 155,100 –155,100 0 

Program decrease ............................................................................................................................................................. [–155,100 ] 

Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup ............................................................................................................................................ 5,382,050 –135,100 5,246,950 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
587 

Other Defense Activities 

Environment, health, safety and security 

Environment, health, safety and security ........................................................................................................................ 130,693 130,693 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 66,519 66,519 

Total, Environment, Health, safety and security .................................................................................................................... 197,212 0 197,212 Independent enterprise assessments 

Independent enterprise assessments ............................................................................................................................... 24,580 24,580 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 51,893 51,893 

Total, Independent enterprise assessments ........................................................................................................................... 76,473 0 76,473 

Specialized security activities ................................................................................................................................................... 237,912 237,912 Office of Legacy Management 

Legacy management ......................................................................................................................................................... 140,306 140,306 Program direction ............................................................................................................................................................. 14,014 14,014 

Total, Office of Legacy Management ...................................................................................................................................... 154,320 0 154,320 Defense-related activities Defense related administrative support 

Chief financial officer ...................................................................................................................................................... 23,642 23,642 Chief information officer .................................................................................................................................................. 93,074 93,074 

Project management oversight and Assessments ........................................................................................................... 3,000 3,000 

Total, Defense related administrative support ....................................................................................................................... 116,716 0 116,716 Office of hearings and appeals ................................................................................................................................................ 5,919 5,919 

Subtotal, Other defense activities .................................................................................................................................................... 791,552 0 791,552 

Total, Other Defense Activities ......................................................................................................................................................... 791,552 0 791,552 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(589) 

DIVISION E—UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY 

JUSTICE REFORM 

Short title (Sec. 5001) 

TITLE LI—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Definitions (sec. 5101) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 801 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 1, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to amend the definition of ‘‘judge advocate’’; to reflect the change within the Department of the Air Force 

from the ‘‘Judge Advocate General’s Department’’ to the ‘‘Judge Advocate General’s Corps’’; and to amend the definition of ‘‘military 

judge’’ to conform to the proposed changes in Article 30a of the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 830a) allowing military 

judges to address certain matters prior to referral of charges. 

Clarification of persons subject to UCMJ while on inactiveduty training (sec. 5102) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 802 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 2, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) that would clarify jurisdiction for reserve component members during time periods incidental to Inactive-Duty Training (IDT). 

Staff judge advocate disqualification due to prior involvement in case (sec. 5103) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 806 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 6, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to modify the provision under Article 

6(c) that disqualifies certain individuals from acting as a staff 

judge advocate or legal officer to any reviewing authority to include 

appellate judges, and counsel who have participated in the same 

case, including special victims’ counsel, in any proceeding before a 

military judge, preliminary hearing officer, or appellate court, 

among those disqualified. 

Conforming amendment relating to military magistrates 

(sec. 5104) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 806a of title 10, United States Code, (Article 6a, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform Article 6a with the provision to allow the detailing of military magistrates to proceedings 

under Article 30a and to add ‘‘military magistrates’’ to the list of 

officials whose fitness to perform duties shall be subject to invesVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00625 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
590 

tigation and disposition under regulations prescribed by the President. 

Rights of victim (sec. 5105) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 806b of title 10, United States Code, (Article 6b, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to clarify the relationship between the 

rights of victims and the disposition of offenses, as well as the procedures for judicial appointment of individuals to assume the rights 

of certain victims. The provision would modify Article 6b to incorporate procedures on defense counsel interviews of victims of sexrelated offenses into Article 6b and would extend those procedures 

to victims of all offenses, consistent with related victims’ rights provisions. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(591) 

TITLE LII—APPREHENSION AND RESTRAINT 

Restraint of persons charged (sec. 5121) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 810 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 10, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform the language of the section 

to reflect current military justice practice regarding the arrest or 

confinement of an individual who is charged with an offense under 

the UCMJ. Additionally, it would amend Article 10 to require forwarding of charges and, when applicable, the preliminary hearing 

report, whenever a person is ordered into arrest or confinement before trial. 

Modification of prohibition of confinement of members of 

the Armed Forces with enemy prisoners and certain others (sec. 5122) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 812 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 12, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to limit the prohibition on confining 

military members with foreign nationals to situations where the 

foreign nationals are not members of the U.S. Armed Forces and 

are detained under the law of war. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(593) 

TITLE LIII—NON-JUDICIAL PUNISHMENT 

Modification of confinement as non-judicial punishment 

(sec. 5141) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 815 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 15, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to remove punishment in the form of 

confinement on a diet limited to bread and water from the list of 

authorized punishments. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(595) 

TITLE LIV—COURTS-MARTIAL JURISDICTION 

Courts-martial classified (sec. 5161) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 816 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 16, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish standard panel sizes in all 

courts-martial: 8 members in a general court-martial (subject to the 

requirements of Article 25a in capital cases), and 4 members in a 

special court-martial. The provision would require a military judge 

to be detailed to all special courts-martial and would provide the 

military justice system with an option for a judge-alone trial by 

special court-martial, with confinement limited to 6 months or less, 

as reflected in the proposed changes to Article 19. 

Jurisdiction of general courts-martial (sec. 5162) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 818 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 18, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform Article 18 to the proposed 

changes to Article 16 concerning the types of general courts-martial 

and the proposed changes to Article 56 concerning sex-related offenses. 

Jurisdiction of special courts-martial (sec. 5163) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 819 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 19, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform to the proposal in Article 

16 that would authorize special courts-martial to be referred for 

trial by military judge-alone, and to authorize a military judge to 

designate a military magistrate to preside over trials, and to conform to current practice requiring a military judge, qualified defense counsel, and a recorder at every special court-martial. 

Summary court-martial as non-criminal forum (sec. 5164) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 820 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 20, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) by adding a new subsection defining 

the summary court-martial as a non-criminal forum and clarifying 

that a finding of guilty at a summary court-martial does not constitute a criminal conviction. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(597) 

TITLE LV—COMPOSITION OF COURTSMARTIAL 

Technical amendment relating to persons authorized to convene general courts-martial (sec. 5181) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 822 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 22, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) by removing the words ‘‘in chief’’ to reflect the current terminology for the commander of a naval fleet. 

Who may serve on courts-martial and related matters (sec. 

5182) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 825 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 25, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to permit convening authorities to detail enlisted personnel to court-martial panels, subject to the 

accused’s ability to specifically elect an all-officer panel, under the 

same rules and procedures with which an accused may elect onethird enlisted panel membership; to remove the statutory prohibition against detailing enlisted members to courts-martial who are 

from the same unit as an enlisted accused; and to conform to the 

proposed amendments to Article 29 concerning impaneling of members. 

Number of court-martial members in capital cases (sec. 

5183) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 825a of title 10, United States Code, (Article 25a, Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require a fixed-size panel of 

twelve members in capital cases. 

Detailing, qualifications, and other matters relating to military judges (sec. 5184) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 826 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 26, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform the section to the current 

practice of detailing a military judge to every general and special 

court-martial; to provide for cross-service detailing of military 

judges; to require a chief trial judge in each armed force; and to 

provide appropriate criteria for service as a military judge. The 

provision would also authorize the President to establish uniform 

regulations concerning minimum tour lengths for military judges 

with provisions for early reassignment as necessary. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
598 

Qualifications of trial counsel and defense counsel (sec. 

5185) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 827 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 27, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to disqualify appellate judges who have 

participated as trial counsel in the same case. The provision would 

require that all defense counsel detailed to general or special 

courts-martial must be qualified under Article 27(b), and all trial 

counsel and assistant trial counsel detailed to special courts-martial, and all assistant trial counsel detailed to general courts-martial, must be determined to be competent to perform such duties 

under regulations prescribed by the President. The provision would 

also require, to the greatest extent practicable, at least one defense 

counsel detailed for a court-martial in a case in which the death 

penalty may be adjudged shall be learned in the law applicable to 

capital cases. 

Assembly and impaneling of members and related matters 

(sec. 5186) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 829 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 29, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to clarify the function of assembly and 

impanelment in general and special courts-martial with members, 

and the limited situations in which members may be absent from 

the court-martial after assembly; to provide for the impaneling of 

12 members in a capital general court-martial, 8 members in a 

non-capital general court-martial, and 4 members in a special 

court-martial; to authorize (but not require) the convening authority to direct the use of alternate members; and to authorize noncapital general courts-martial to proceed with a minimum of 6 

members if one or more members are excused for good cause after 

the members have been impaneled. It would further amend Article 

29 to clarify that a newly-detailed court-martial member or military judge may consider the record of previously admitted evidence 

through the use of an electronic or other similar recording. 

Military magistrates (sec. 5187) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new section 826a 

(Article 26a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the minimum qualifications for military magistrates, and to 

provide that military magistrates may be assigned under service 

regulations to perform duties other than those described under Articles 19 and 30a. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(599) 

TITLE LVI—PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE 

Charges and specifications (sec. 5201) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 830 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 30, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to reorganize the section into three 

subsections: (a) to provide the mode of preferring charges and specifications and the oath requirement; (b) to provide the required 

statement of the person who signs the charges; and (c) to prescribe 

the duty of a proper authority to notify the accused of the charges 

and to dispose of them in the interest of justice and discipline. The 

provision would amend Article 30 to clarify the sequence of the notification and disposition requirements and to require that both actions take place as soon as practicable. 

Proceedings conducted before referral (sec. 5202) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new section 830a 

(Article 30a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to 

provide statutory authority for military judges or magistrates to 

provide timely review, prior to referral of charges, of certain matters currently subject to judicial review only on a delayed basis at 

trial. 

Preliminary hearing required before referral to general 

court-martial (sec. 5203) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 832 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 32, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require the preliminary hearing officer to provide an analysis of information that will be useful in fulfilling the statutory responsibilities of the staff judge advocate, in 

providing legal determinations and a disposition recommendation 

to the convening authority under Article 34; and to assist the convening authority, in disposing of the charges and specifications in 

the interest of justice and discipline. 

Disposition guidance (sec. 5204) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 833 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 33, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to move the requirement for prompt 

forwarding of charges in cases involving pretrial arrest or confinement from Article 33 to Article 10. The provision would require the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to establish non-binding guidance regarding factors 

that commanders, convening authorities, staff judge advocates, and 

judge advocates may take into account when exercising their duties 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
600 

with respect to disposition of charges and specifications in the interest of justice and discipline. 

Advice to convening authority before referral for trial (sec. 

5205) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 834 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 34, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to clarify the relationship between the 

staff judge advocate’s advice under Article 34 and the general 

standard for disposition of charges and specifications under Article 

30. The provision would require the convening authority to consult 

with a judge advocate before referral of charges to special courtsmartial. The provision would clarify that formal corrections to the 

charges and specifications may be made before referral for trial in 

special court-martial as well as in general courts-martial. 

Service of charges and commencement of trial (sec. 5206) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 835 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 35, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform procedures for service of 

charges and waiting period requirements to current practice and 

other UCMJ articles. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(601) 

TITLE LVII—TRIAL PROCEDURE 

Duties of assistant defense counsel (sec. 5221) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 838 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 38, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require all defense counsel, including assistant defense counsel, to be qualified under Article 27(b), 

UCMJ. 

Sessions (sec. 5222) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 839 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 39, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish uniform requirements for 

arraignment by a military judge and to eliminate references to 

courts-martial without a military judge, and to conform to the provision under Article 53 to authorize judicial sentencing in all noncapital general courts-martial and all special courts-martial. 

Technical amendment relating to continuances (sec. 5223) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 840 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 40, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to eliminate references to courts-martial without a military judge, and to clarify that the authority to 

grant continuances extends to summary courts-martial. 

Conforming amendments relating to challenges (sec. 5224) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 841 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 41, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform the section with changes 

proposed to amend Article 16 concerning fixed panel sizes and to 

eliminate special courts-martial without a military judge. 

Statute of limitations (sec. 5225) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 843 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 43, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to extend the statute of limitations applicable to child abuse offenses from the current 5 years or the life 

of the child, whichever is longer, to 10 years or life of the child, 

whichever is longer. The provision would extend the statute of limitations for Article 83 fraudulent enlistment cases from 5 years to: 

(1) the length of the enlistment, in the case of enlisted members; 

(2) the length of the appointment, in the case of officers; or (3) 5 

years, whichever is longer. The provision would extend the statute 

of limitations when DNA testing implicates an identified person in 

the commission of an offense by excluding periods prior to the DNA 

identification in computing the period of limitations. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
602 

Former jeopardy (sec. 5226) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 844 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 44, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to more closely align double jeopardy 

protections under the UCMJ with federal civilian practice. 

Pleas of the accused (sec. 5227) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 845 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 45, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to permit an accused to plead guilty in 

capital cases where a sentence of death is not mandatory. The provision would delete the reference to a court-martial without a military judge. The provision would eliminate the need for separate 

service regulations authorizing entry of findings upon acceptance of 

a guilty plea. The provision would add a new subsection to provide 

for harmless error review in guilty plea cases. 

Subpoena and other process (sec. 5228) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 846 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 46, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to clarify authority to issue and enforce 

subpoenas for witnesses and other evidence, to allow subpoenas 

duces tecum to be issued for investigations of offenses under the 

UCMJ when authorized by a general court-martial convening authority, and to authorize military judges to issue warrants and orders for the production of stored electronic communications under 

the Stored Communications Act (sections 2701–2712 of chapter 

121, title 18, United States Code). The provision would amend Article 46 by moving the provisions under subsection (b) concerning defense counsel interviews of victims of sex-related offenses to Article 

6b and extend those provisions to victims of all offenses, consistent 

with related victims’ rights provisions. 

Refusal of person not subject to UCMJ to appear, testify, or 

produce evidence (sec. 5229) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 847 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 47, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to provide that civilians who fail to 

comply with military subpoenas issued under Article 46, UCMJ, 

are guilty of an offense against the United States. 

Contempt (sec. 5230) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 848 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 48, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize the contempt power for 

military judges and military magistrates detailed to pre-referral 

proceedings under the proposed Article 30a. The provision would 

also clarify that judges on the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Armed Forces and the service courts of criminal appeals do not 

have to be detailed to cases or proceedings in order to exercise the 

contempt power under this article. The provision would clarify that 

the president (as opposed to the judge) of a court of inquiry is vested with the contempt power, and would provide for appellate reVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00638 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
603 

view of contempt punishments consistent with the review of other 

orders and judgments under the UCMJ. 

Depositions (sec. 5231) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 849 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 49, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform the UCMJ with the language and function of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15(a)(1), 

and to move the procedural aspects of Article 49 to Rules for 

Courts-Martial 702. The provision would clarify that a convening 

authority or a military judge may order depositions only if the requesting party demonstrates that, due to exceptional circumstances, it is in the interest of justice that the testimony of a 

prospective witness be preserved for use at a court-martial, military commission, court of inquiry, or other military court or board. 

The provision would clarify parties who may request a deposition, 

and require that, whenever practicable, depositions be taken before 

an impartial judge advocate. The provision would provide that: (1) 

representation of the parties with respect to a deposition shall be 

by counsel detailed in the same manner as trial counsel and defense counsel are detailed under Article 27; and (2) the accused 

shall have the right to be represented by civilian or military counsel in the same manner as such counsel are provided for in Article 

38(b). The provision would clarify situations in which depositions 

may be used in military proceedings with a more direct reference 

to the military rules of evidence. The provision would amend the 

section to provide that testimony by deposition may be presented 

in capital cases only by the defense. 

Admissibility of sworn testimony by audiotape or videotape 

from records of courts of inquiry (sec. 5232) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 850 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 50, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize sworn testimony from a 

court of inquiry to be played, in addition to read, into evidence in 

courts-martial and military commissions not established under section 948a, et seq., of title 10, United States Code, when it is otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence. 

Conforming amendment relating to defense of lack of mental responsibility (sec. 5233) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 850a of title 10, United States Code, (Article 50a, Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to delete provisions pertaining to 

courts-martial without a military judge. 

Voting and rulings (sec. 5234) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 851 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 51, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to delete references pertaining to 

courts-martial without a military judge. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
604 

Votes required for conviction, sentencing, and other matters 

(sec. 5235) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 852 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 52, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require concurrence of at least 

three-fourths of the members present and to require concurrence of 

at least three-fourths of the members present on offenses in a case 

referred for trial as a capital case, where there was not a unanimous finding of guilty. The provision would eliminate the language 

concerning tie votes on challenges, motions, and other questions, 

which is applicable only to special courts-martial without a military 

judge, and which would no longer be necessary given the provision 

in Article 16 that would eliminate these members-only courts-martial. The provision would conform the statute to the proposal in Article 53 for judicial sentencing in all non-capital cases, and member 

sentencing in capital cases with respect to sentences of death and 

life without parole. 

Findings and sentencing (sec. 5236) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 853 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 53, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require sentencing by a military 

judge in all non-capital general and special courts-martial. The provision would require that, in cases where the accused may be sentenced to death, the members shall participate in the sentence determination. 

Plea agreements (sec. 5237) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code to add a new section 853a 

(Article 53a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) that would 

authorize: (1) construction and negotiation of charge and sentence 

agreements; (2) military judges to determine whether to accept a 

proposed plea agreement; and (3) the operation of sentence agreements with respect to the military judge’s sentencing authority. 

The new Article 53a would provide that the military judge shall accept any lawful sentence agreement submitted by the parties, except that: (1) in the case of an offense with a sentencing parameter 

under Article 56, the military judge may reject the agreement only 

if it proposes a sentence that is both outside the sentencing parameter and plainly unreasonable; and (2) in the case of an offense 

without a sentencing parameter, the military judge may reject the 

agreement only if it proposes a sentence that is plainly unreasonable. 

Record of trial (sec. 5238) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 854 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 54, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require certification of the record by 

a court reporter. The provision would require a complete record in 

any general or special court-martial if the sentence includes death, 

dismissal, discharge, or confinement or forfeitures of pay for more 

than 6 months. The provision would provide all victims who testify 

at a court-martial with access to records of trial. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(605) 

TITLE LVIII—SENTENCES 

Sentencing (sec. 5261) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 856 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 56, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to replace the court-martial practice of 

‘‘unitary’’ sentencing with ‘‘segmented’’ sentencing where, if confinement is adjudged for guilty findings, the amount of confinement 

for each guilty finding would be determined separately. The provision would also authorize segmented sentencing for fines. The provision would authorize sentencing parameters and criteria to provide guidance to military judges in determining an appropriate sentence and would authorize the United States to appeal a sentence 

to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The provision would incorporate 

Article 56a, authorizing a sentence of confinement for life without 

the eligibility of parole any time a life sentence is authorized, into 

Article 56 without substantive change. 

Effective date of sentences (sec. 5262) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 857 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 57, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to consolidate portions of Article 57 

and 57a that govern deferment of sentences, and portions of Articles 57 and 71 that govern when sentences become effective into 

Article 57, as modified. The provision would make a conforming 

change to remove from Article 71 the authority for a convening authority to suspend a sentence under Article 71(d). The provision 

would strike Articles 57a and 71, because the authorities in those 

two Articles would be included in Article 57, as modified. 

Sentence of reduction in enlisted grade (sec. 5263) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 858a of title 10, United States Code, (Article 58a, Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize reduction of enlisted 

members to the grade of E–1 whenever the approved sentence of 

a court-martial includes a punitive discharge, confinement, or hard 

labor without confinement. The amendments would conform the 

section to the changes proposed in post-trial procedure under Article 60 and the proposed Article 60c. 

Repeal of sentence reduction provision when interim guidance takes effect (sec. 5264) 

The committee recommends a provision that would sunset section 856a of title 10, United States Code, (Article 56a, Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) after sentencing parameters and 

criteria are established under Article 56. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(607) 

TITLE LIX—POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND 

REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL 

Post-trial processing in general and special courts-martial 

(sec. 5281) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 860 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 60, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to provide for the distribution of the 

trial results and to authorize post-trial motions to be filed with the 

military judge in general and special courts-martial. 

Limited authority to act on sentence in specified post-trial 

circumstances (sec. 5282) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new section 860a 

(Article 60a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to consolidate current limitations on the convening authority’s post-trial authority in most general and special courts-martial, subject to a narrowly limited suspension authority and a revised authority to adjust an adjudged sentence in cases where an accused provides substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another 

person. 

The provision would retain and clarify existing limitations on the 

convening authority’s post-trial actions in general and special 

courts-martial in which: (1) the maximum sentence of confinement 

for any offense is more than 2 years; (2) adjudged confinement exceeds 6 months; (3) the sentence includes dismissal or discharge; 

or (4) the accused is found guilty of designated sex-related offenses. 

Under current law, the convening authority in such cases is prohibited from modifying the findings of the court-martial, or reducing, 

commuting, or suspending a punishment of death, confinement of 

more than 6 months, or a punitive discharge. 

The provision would provide a limited suspension authority in 

specified circumstances. For the convening authority to exercise 

this authority, the military judge would be required to make a specific suspension recommendation in the Statement of Trial Results. 

The suspension authority would be limited to punishments of confinement in excess of 6 months and punitive discharges. The provision would retain, with clarifying amendments, the key features of 

current law with respect to the convening authority’s power to reduce the sentence of an accused who assists in the prosecution or 

investigation of another person. As amended, the provision would 

authorize the President to prescribe rules providing for a convening 

authority to exercise this power after entry of judgment. This provision would allow for the reduction of a sentence of an accused who 

provides substantial assistance in the prosecution of another perVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00643 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
608 

son, even well after his own trial is over and appellate review is 

complete. 

The provision would allow the accused and a victim of the offense 

to submit matters to the convening authority for consideration. 

The provision would require the decision of the convening authority to be forwarded to the military judge. If the convening authority modified the sentence of the court-martial, the convening 

authority would be required to explain the reasons for the modification. An explanation for the convening authority’s decision would 

only be required when the convening authority modifies the sentence. No approval of the findings or sentence would be required. 

The decision of the convening authority would be forwarded to the 

military judge, who would incorporate any change in the sentence 

into the entry of judgment. In a case where the accused provides 

substantial assistance and a designated convening authority reduces the sentence of the accused after entry of judgment, the convening authority’s action would be forwarded to the chief trial 

judge, who would be responsible for ensuring appropriate modification of the entry of judgment. Because a modification might happen 

during or after the completion of appellate review, the modified 

entry of judgment would be forwarded to the Judge Advocate General for appropriate action. 

Post-trial actions in summary courts-martial and certain 

general and special courts-martial (sec. 5283) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, to add a new section 860b 

(Article 60b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) that 

would clarify the convening authority’s post-trial authorities and 

responsibilities with respect to the findings and sentence of summary courts-martial and a limited number of general and special 

courts-martial which, because of the offenses charged and the sentence adjudged, would not be covered under Article 60a. Consistent 

with existing law, the convening authority in such cases would be 

authorized to act on the findings and the sentence, and could order 

rehearings, subject to certain limitations. The procedural requirements under Article 60b, including consideration of matters submitted by the accused and victim, would be the same as provided 

in Article 60a. In summary courts-martial, the convening authority 

would be required to act on the sentence, and would have discretion to act on the findings, as under current law. 

Entry of judgment (sec. 5284) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, to create a new section 860c 

(Article 60c of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) that 

would require the military judge to enter the judgment of the 

court-martial into the record in all general and special courts-martial, and would mark the conclusion of trial proceedings. The judgment would reflect the Statement of Trial Results, any action by 

the convening authority on the findings or sentence, and any posttrial rulings by the military judge. The judgment also would indicate the time when the accused’s case becomes eligible for direct 

appeal to a service court of criminal appeals under Article 66, or 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
609 

for review by the Judge Advocate General under Article 65. This 

requirement for an entry of judgment is modeled after Federal 

Rules of Criminal Procedure 32(k). The findings and sentence of a 

summary court-martial, as modified by any post-trial action by the 

convening authority under Article 60b, would constitute the judgment of the court-martial. 

Waiver of right to appeal and withdrawal of appeal (sec. 

5285) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 861 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 61, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform the section with proposed 

amendments to Articles 60, 65, and 69 concerning post-trial processing. 

Appeal by the United States (sec. 5286) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 862 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 62, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize the government to appeal 

a decision when, upon defense motion, the military judge sets aside 

a panel’s finding of guilty because of legally insufficient evidence, 

except in cases where such an appeal would violate Article 44’s prohibitions on double jeopardy. The provision would align the rule of 

construction with the similar rule applicable to interlocutory appeals in federal civilian courts. The provision would amend Article 

62 to conform to the proposed revisions to the review and appeal 

provisions under Articles 66 and 69. 

Rehearings (sec. 5287) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 863 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 63, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to remove the sentence limitation at a 

rehearing in cases in which an accused changes a plea from guilty 

to not guilty, or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of a pretrial agreement; or after a sentence is set aside based on a government appeal. 

Judge advocate review of finding of guilty in summary 

court-martial (sec. 5288) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 864 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 64, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to apply only to the initial review of 

summary courts-martial. Article 65, as amended, would provide for 

review of general and special courts-martial that do not qualify for 

direct review by the service courts of criminal appeals. 

Transmittal and review of records (sec. 5289) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 865 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 65, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require that the record of trial be 

forwarded to appellate defense counsel for review whenever the 

case is eligible for an appeal under Article 66, and to require a review by the Judge Advocate General of all general and special 

court-martial cases not eligible for direct appeal under Article 66. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
610 

The provision would require a review of all general and special 

courts-martial cases that are eligible for an appeal under Article 

66, but where appeal has been waived, withdrawn, or not filed. 

Courts of Criminal Appeals (sec. 5290) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 866 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 66, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish an appeal as of right in 

non-capital cases under the UCMJ, similar to the federal civilian 

appellate courts, and expand the opportunity for direct review of 

courts-martial convictions by the service courts of criminal appeals. 

The provision would provide statutory standards for factual sufficiency review, sentence appropriateness review, and review of excessive post-trial delay. The provision would provide the courts of 

criminal appeals with express authority to order a hearing, rehearing or remand for further proceedings as may be necessary to address a substantial issue. 

Review by Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (sec. 5291) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 867 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 67, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform the section with proposed 

creation of an ‘‘entry of judgment’’ in Article 60c and related 

amendments to Articles 60 and 66. The provision would require the 

Judge Advocate General to notify the other Judge Advocates General prior to certifying a case for review by the Court of Appeals 

for the Armed Forces. 

Supreme Court review (sec. 5292) 

The committee recommends a technical amendment to section 

867a of title 10, United States Code, (Article 67a, Uniform Code of 

Military Justice (UCMJ)). 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the United 

States Government, to provide a recommendation to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the 

Senate, within 180 days of enactment of this Act, to address whether servicemembers should be provided with the same level of access 

to the Supreme Court available to defendants in federal and state 

criminal proceedings, as well as in military commissions. 

Review by Judge Advocate General (sec. 5293) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 869 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 69, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize an accused, after a decision is issued by the Office of the Judge Advocate General under 

Article 69, to apply for discretionary review by the Court of Criminal Appeals under Article 66. The Judge Advocates General would 

retain authority to certify cases for review by the appellate courts. 

Appellate defense counsel in death penalty cases (sec. 5294) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 870 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 70, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require, to the greatest extent pracVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00646 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
611 

ticable, that in appeals of courts-martial in which the death penalty has been adjudged, at least one appellate defense counsel representing an accused must be learned in the law applicable to capital cases. 

Authority for hearing on vacation of suspension of sentence 

to be conducted by qualified judge advocate (sec. 5295) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 872 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 72, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize a special court-martial 

convening authority to detail a judge advocate to conduct a vacation hearing. 

Extension of time for petition for new trial (sec. 5296) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 873 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 73, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to extend the time to file a petition for 

a new trial from 2 years to 3 years. 

Restoration (sec. 5297) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 875 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 75, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require the President to establish 

rules governing the eligibility for pay and allowances during the 

period after a court-martial sentence is set aside or disapproved. 

Leave requirements pending review of certain court-martial 

convictions (sec. 5298) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 876a of title 10, United States Code, (Article 76a, Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to conform Article 76a with proposed changes in Article 60 and the proposed new Article 60c, with 

no substantive changes. Article 76a currently authorizes the services, at their discretion, to place an accused on involuntary leave 

if the accused has been sentenced to an unsuspended punitive discharge or dismissal that has been approved by the convening authority. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(613) 

TITLE LX—PUNITIVE ARTICLES 

Reorganization of punitive articles (sec. 5301) 

The committee recommends a provision that would transfer and 

redesignate certain articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

within subchapter X of chapter 10 of title 10, United States Code. 

Conviction of offense charged, lesser included offenses, and 

attempts (sec. 5302) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 879 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 79, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize the President to designate 

an authoritative, but non-exhaustive, list of lesser included offenses 

for each punitive article of the UCMJ in addition to judicially determined lesser included offenses. 

Soliciting commission of offenses (sec. 5303) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 882 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 82, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to consolidate the general solicitation 

offense under Article 134, the general article, with specific solicitation offenses under Article 82. 

Malingering (sec. 5304) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 883 to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

83, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of malingering. 

Breach of medical quarantine (sec. 5305) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 884 to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

84, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of breaking a medical quarantine. 

Missing movement; jumping from vessel (sec. 5306) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 887 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 87, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense of jumping from 

a vessel into the water. 

Offenses against correctional custody and restriction (sec. 

5307) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 887b to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

87b, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of violating various forms of custody and breaking restriction. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
614 

Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer; assault of 

superior commissioned officer (sec. 5308) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 889 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 89, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense of assaulting a 

superior commissioned officer. 

Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer (sec. 

5309) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 890 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 90, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to remove the offense of assaulting a 

superior commissioned officer, which will be transferred to Article 

89. 

Prohibited activities with military recruit or trainee by person in position of special trust (sec. 5310) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 893a to title 10, United States Code, (Article 93a, Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) that would provide specific accountability for sexual misconduct committed by recruiters and 

trainers during the various phases within the recruiting and basic 

military training environments. Because of the unique nature of 

military training and the initial training environments among the 

services, the statute would authorize the service secretaries to publish regulations designating the types of physical intimacy that 

would constitute ‘‘prohibited sexual activity’’ under the new article. 

Article 93a would apply to military recruiters and trainers who 

knowingly engage in prohibited sexual activity with prospective recruits or junior members of the Armed Forces in initial training environments. Consent would not be a defense to this offense. Article 

93a would address specific conduct and would not supersede or preempt service regulations governing professional conduct by staff involved in recruiting, entry level training, or other follow on training 

programs. The Secretary concerned may prescribe by regulation 

any additional initial career qualification training programs related 

to servicemembers that would be covered under this statute. 

Offenses by sentinel or lookout (sec. 5311) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 895 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 95, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense of loitering by 

sentinels or lookouts. 

Disrespect toward sentinel or lookout (sec. 5312) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 895a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

95a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of disrespect toward sentinels or lookouts. 

Release of prisoner without authority; drinking with prisoner (sec. 5313) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 896 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 96, Uniform Code 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
615 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense of drinking liquor with a prisoner. 

Penalty for acting as a spy (sec. 5314) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 903 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 103, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to replace the mandatory death penalty currently prescribed with a discretionary death penalty similar 

to that authorized under existing Article 106a (Espionage) and for 

all other capital offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Public records offenses (sec. 5315) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 904 to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

104, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of altering, concealing, removing, mutilating, obliterating, or 

destroying a public record. 

False or unauthorized pass offenses (sec. 5316) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 905a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

105a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish false 

or unauthorized pass offenses. 

Impersonation offenses (sec. 5317) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 906 to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

106, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of impersonating a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned 

or petty officer, or an agent or official, and conform the article to 

the definition of ‘‘officer’’ in section 101(1) of title 10, United States 

Code. 

Insignia offenses (sec. 5318) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 906a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

106a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of wearing unauthorized insignia, decorations, badges, ribbons, devices, or lapel buttons. 

False official statements; false swearing (sec. 5319) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 907 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 107, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense of false swearing. 

Parole violation (sec. 5320) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 907a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

107a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of violating parole. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
616 

Wrongful taking, opening, etc. of mail matter (sec. 5321) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 909a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

109a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of wrongfully taking, opening, secreting, destroying, or stealing mail. 

Improper hazarding of vessel or aircraft (sec. 5322) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 910, title 10, United States Code, (Article 110, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense of improper hazarding of an aircraft. 

Leaving scene of vehicle accident (sec. 5323) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 911 to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

111, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of fleeing the scene of an accident. 

Drunkenness and other incapacitation offenses (sec. 5324) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 912 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 112, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense of incapacitation 

for duty from drunkenness or drug use and drunk prisoner. 

Lower blood alcohol content limits for conviction of drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel 

(sec. 5325) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 913 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 113, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to lower the blood alcohol standard for 

conviction of drunken or reckless operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or 

vessel from 0.10 grams to 0.08 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters 

of blood, and to allow service secretaries to prescribe lower levels 

of blood alcohol to convict if such lower limits are based on scientific developments as reflected in federal law of general applicability. 

Endangerment offenses (sec. 5326) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 914 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 114, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense of reckless 

endangerment, discharge of firearm/endangering human life, and 

carrying of a concealed weapon. 

Communicating threats (sec. 5327) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 915 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 115, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense of communicating a threat. 

Technical amendment relating to murder (sec. 5328) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 918 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 118, Uniform Code 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
617 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to strike the words ‘‘forcible sodomy’’ 

which has the effect of clarifying that forcible sodomy is included 

within the sexual offenses punishable under Article 120. 

Child endangerment (sec. 5329) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 919a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

119, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of child endangerment. 

Rape and sexual assault offenses (sec. 5330) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 920 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 120, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to amend the definition of ‘‘sexual act’’ 

in both Article 120 (rape and sexual assault generally) and Article 

120b (rape and sexual assault of a child) to conform to the definition of that term in federal criminal law in the civilian sector, 

under section 2246(2)(A)–(C) of title 18, United States Code. The 

current definition of ‘‘sexual act’’ under Articles 120 and 120b is 

both overly broad (in that it captures non-sexual acts) and unduly 

narrow (in that it does not include all of the prohibited acts involving children listed in section 2246(2)(D)) of title 18. 

The committee remains concerned about the crimes of sexual assault and rape where the assailant is in a position of authority over 

the victim. The committee expects that the use of rank, authority 

or position to commit a sexual assault or rape will be considered 

as an aggravating factor in the development of sentencing parameters under Article 56, UCMJ. 

Deposit of obscene matter in the mail (sec. 5331) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 920a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

120a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of depositing, or causing to be deposited, obscene materials 

in the mails. 

Fraudulent use of credit cards, debit cards, and other access 

devices (sec. 5332) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 921a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

121a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of misuse of credit cards, debit cards, and other electronic 

payment technology, also known as ‘‘access devices.’’ 

False pretenses to obtain services (sec. 5333) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 921b to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

121, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of obtaining services under false pretenses. 

Robbery (sec. 5334) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 922 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 122, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) by removing the words ‘‘with the intent 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
618 

to steal’’ from the section, eliminating the requirement to prove 

that the accused intended to permanently deprive the victim of his 

property. 

Receiving stolen property (sec. 5335) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 922a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

122a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of knowingly receiving, buying, or concealing stolen property. 

Offenses concerning Government computers (sec. 5336) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 923 to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

123, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to prohibit certain 

actions directed at U.S. Government computers and U.S. Government protected information. 

Bribery (sec. 5337) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 924a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

124a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of bribery. 

Graft (sec. 5338) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 924b to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

124b, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of graft. 

Kidnapping (sec. 5339) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 925 to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

125, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of kidnapping. 

Arson; burning property with intent to defraud (sec. 5340) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 926 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 126, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to include the offense of burning with 

intent to defraud. 

Assault (sec. 5341) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 928 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 128, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to prescribe a standard that focuses on 

the malicious intent of the accused rather than the ‘‘likelihood’’ of 

the activity actually resulting in harm. The provision would also 

amend this section to include the offense of assault with intent to 

commit murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, robbery, sodomy, 

arson, burglary, or housebreaking. 

Burglary and unlawful entry (sec. 5342) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 929 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 129, Uniform Code 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
619 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) that would remove the ‘‘private dwelling’’ and ‘‘nighttime’’ elements of the offense, and to establish the 

offense of unlawful entry. 

Stalking (sec. 5343) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 930 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 130, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offenses of 

cyberstalking and threats to intimate partners. The provision 

would continue to address stalking activity involving a broad range 

of misconduct including, but not limited to, sexual offenses. The redesignated stalking offense would not preempt service regulations 

that specify additional types of misconduct that may be punishable 

at court-martial, including under Article 92 (failure to obey order 

or regulation), nor would it preempt other forms of misconduct 

from being prosecuted under other appropriate Articles, such as 

under Article 134, the general article. These uniquely military offenses are available to address similar misconduct that causes, for 

example, substantial emotional distress or targets professional reputation. 

Subornation of perjury (sec. 5344) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 931a to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

131a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of subornation of perjury. 

Obstructing justice (sec. 5345) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 931b to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

131b, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of obstructing justice. 

Misprision of serious offense (sec. 5346) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 931c to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

131c, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of misprision of serious offense. 

Wrongful refusal to testify (sec. 5347) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 931d to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

131d, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of wrongful refusal to testify. 

Prevention of authorized seizure of property (sec. 5348) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 931e to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

131e, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of prevention of authorized seizure of property. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
620 

Wrongful interference with adverse administrative proceeding (sec. 5349) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 931g to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

131g, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to establish the offense of wrongful interference with adverse administrative proceeding. The proceedings covered by this offense would include any 

administrative proceeding or action initiated against a servicemember that could lead to discharge, loss of special or incentive pay, administrative reduction in grade, loss of a security clearance, bar to 

reenlistment, or reclassification. 

Retaliation (sec. 5350) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 932 to chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 

132, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) that would prohibit 

retaliation against witnesses, victims, or persons who report or 

plan to report a criminal offense to law enforcement or military authority or a protected communication to appropriate authority. Article 132 would not preempt service regulations that specify additional types of retaliatory conduct that may be punishable at courtmartial under Article 92 (failure to obey order or regulation), nor 

would it preempt other forms of retaliatory conduct from being 

prosecuted under other appropriate Articles, such as Article 109 

(destruction of property), Article 93 (cruelty and maltreatment), Article 128 (Assault), Article 131b (obstructing justice), Article 130 

(stalking), or Article 134, the General article. 

Extraterritorial application of certain offenses (sec. 5351) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 934 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 134, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to authorize prosecution under clause 

3 of Article 134, of all non-capital federal crimes of general applicability, regardless of where the federal crime is committed. This 

change would make military practice uniform throughout the world 

and would align it with the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction 

Act, section 3261 of title 18, United States Code. 

Subtitle LXI—Miscellaneous Provisions 

Technical amendments relating to courts of inquiry (sec. 

5401) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 935 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 135, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to provide individuals employed by the 

Department of Homeland Security, the department under which 

the Coast Guard operates, the right to be designated as parties in 

interest when they have a direct interest in the subject of a court 

of inquiry convened under Article 135. This change would align the 

rights of employees of the Department of Homeland Security with 

the rights of employees of the Department of Defense, ensuring 

consistent application of this statute for all military services. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
621 

Technical amendment to Article 136 (sec. 5402) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 936 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 136, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to remove, from the section heading, 

the authority to act as a notary which is not provided for in the 

text of the section. 

Articles of Uniform Code of Military Justice to be explained 

to officers upon commissioning (sec. 5403) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 937 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 137, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ)) to require that officers, in addition to 

enlisted personnel, receive training on the UCMJ upon entry to 

service, and periodically thereafter. The amendment would require 

specific military justice training for military commanders and convening authorities, and would require the Secretary of Defense to 

prescribe regulations for additional specialized training on the 

UCMJ for combatant commanders and commanders of combined 

commands. The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to maintain an electronic version of the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martial that would be updated periodically and 

made available on the Internet for review by servicemembers and 

the public. 

Military justice case management; data collection and accessibility (sec. 5404) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 940a to title 10, United States Code, (Article 140a, Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) that would require the Secretary 

of Defense to prescribe uniform standards and criteria for case 

processing and management, military justice data collection, production and distribution of records of trial, and access to case information. The purpose of this section is to enhance the management 

of military justice cases, to standardize the collection of data necessary for evaluation and analysis, and to provide appropriate public access to military justice information at all stages of court-martial proceedings. At a minimum, the system developed for implementation should permit timely and appropriate access to filings, 

objections, instructions, and judicial rulings at the trial and appellate level, and to actions at trial and in subsequent proceedings 

concerning the findings and sentences of courts-martial. 

The provision would require promulgation of standards by the 

Secretary of Defense not later than 2 years after enactment of this 

Act, with an effective date for such standards not later than 4 

years after enactment. 

The committee expects that the system developed would provide 

comprehensive information to the public, including docket information and calendar for all court-martial proceedings open to the public; the location of proceedings, including instructions for members 

of the public to obtain access to the military installation; copies of 

official documents, redacted when appropriate, including the charge 

sheet, any motions and documents filed in connection with the proceeding, written rulings and opinions, and a summary of oral rulings; the results of trial; the authenticated record of the proceeding; 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
622 

actions by the convening authority; briefs, answers, and motions 

filed by the parties and amici in military appellate proceedings; 

opinions of military appellate courts; results of reviews conducted 

by the Judge Advocates General; documents ordering remission, 

suspension, or vacation of any sentence; and any other information 

related to the proceeding that the Secretary of Defense determines 

should be available to the public. 

Subtitle LXII—Military Justice Review Panel and Annual 

Reports 

Military Justice Review Panel (sec. 5421) 

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 946 of title 10, United States Code, (Article 146, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ, or ‘‘the Code’’)) and retitle the section 

as ‘‘Military Justice Review Panel.’’ The Military Justice Review 

Panel would replace the Code Committee and would be an independent, blue ribbon panel of experts tasked to conduct a periodic 

evaluation of military justice practices and procedures on a regular 

basis, thereby enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the 

UCMJ and the Code’s implementing regulations. 

The proposed Military Justice Review Panel would be composed 

of thirteen members. Each of the following officials would select 

one person to serve on the Panel: the Secretary of Defense (in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security), the Attorney 

General, the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, Air 

Force, and Coast Guard, and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. The remaining members of the 

Panel would be selected by the Secretary of Defense based upon the 

recommendations of each of the following: the chairman and ranking minority member of the House Armed Services Committee and 

the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Chief Justice of the 

United States, and the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Armed Forces. The Secretary of Defense would designate 

one member as the Chair. The Panel would have a full-time staff. 

The Panel would issue its first report 4 years after the effective 

date of the Act, focusing on the implementation of any recent 

amendments to the UCMJ and Manual for Courts-Martial. 8 years 

after the effective date of the Act, the Panel would issue its first 

comprehensive review of the UCMJ and Manual for Courts-Martial. Thereafter, the Panel would issue comprehensive reports every 

8 years. Within each 8-year cycle, the Panel would issue targeted 

reports at the mid-point of each cycle, and could issue additional 

reports on matters referred to the Panel by the Secretary of Defense or Congress. 

This provision is based on the committee’s determination that 

periodic review needs to be scheduled on a regular basis, but that 

it should not be so frequent that the constant process of review and 

change becomes more disruptive than helpful to judges and lawyers 

who must have a degree of stability in order to engage in effective 

practice. Accordingly, the comprehensive reviews are scheduled on 

an 8-year schedule. 

This provision reflects the committee’s expectation that the Joint 

Service Committee will continue to conduct its vital role within the 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
623 

executive branch, addressing the type of targeted adjustments in 

law and regulation that are required on a more frequent basis to 

address specific issues in the law. 

Annual reports (sec. 5422) 

The committee recommends a provision that would add a new 

section 946a to title 10, United States Code, (Article 146a, Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)) that would retain the valuable informational aspects of the annual reports issued individually by the 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the Judge Advocates General, and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. The committee expects that the individual reports will 

be compiled into a single volume using the procedures currently 

employed, to create a consolidated report. 

Subtitle LXIII—Conforming Amendments and Effective 

Dates 

Amendments to UCMJ subchapter tables of sections (sec. 

5441) 

The committee recommends a provision that would make conforming amendments to the tables of sections for specified subchapters of chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice). 

Effective dates (sec. 5442) 

The committee recommends a provision by which the amendments made by this title shall take effect on the first day of the 

first calendar month that begins 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS 

Departmental Recommendations 

On April 19, 2016, Senator McCain, with concurrence from Senator Reed, introduced by request the Administration’s proposed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. This bill— 

S. 2814—was introduced for the purpose of placing the Administration’s proposals before Congress and the public without expressing 

the views of Senators McCain or Reed on the substance of those 

proposals. In accordance with past practice, the committee reported 

an original bill rather than acting on S. 2814. 

Committee Action 

The committee vote to report the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2017 passed by roll call vote, 23–3, as follows: 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 

Kaine, King, and Heinrich. Opposed: Senators Fischer, Lee, and 

Cruz 

The other 22 roll call votes on motions and amendments to the 

bill which were considered during the course of the full committee 

markup are as follows: 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
624 

1. MOTION: To conduct full committee markup of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 in closed session 

because of classified and proprietary information expected to be 

discussed. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 16–10 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Fischer, 

Cotton, Rounds, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Reed, Nelson, Manchin, 

Donnelly, Hirono, and King 

Opposed: Senators Ayotte, Ernst, Lee, Cruz, McCaskill, Shaheen, 

Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Kaine, and Heinrich 

2. MOTION: To strike provisions related to Pentagon reform and 

replace with a commission to study what reforms should be implemented in the Department of Defense. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10–16 

In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, 

Cruz, McCaskill, and Manchin 

3. MOTION: To include a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to furnish athletic footwear that complies with 

section 2533a of title 10, United States Code, directly to members 

of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps instead of providing a cash allowance. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 15–11 

In favor: Senators Ayotte, Rounds, Sullivan, Graham, Reed, Nelson, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, 

Kaine, King, Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Fischer, 

Cotton, Ernst, Tillis, Lee, Cruz, and McCaskill 

4. MOTION: To include a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to eliminate the development and fielding of 

Armed-Force-specific combat and camouflage utility uniforms and 

families of uniforms in order to adopt and field a common combat 

and camouflage utility uniform or family of uniforms for specific 

combat environments to be used by all members of the Armed 

Forces no later than October 1, 2019. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12–14 

In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, 

Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, and 

Cruz 

5. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from using any funds to invite, assist, or otherwise assure the participation of the Government of Cuba in any 

joint or multilateral exercise or related security conference between 

the United States and Cuba until the Secretary, in coordination 

with the Director of National Intelligence, submits to Congress certain assurances. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14–12 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
625 

Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, 

Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

6. MOTION: Amendment changed provision to limit disclosure of 

the B–21 engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) contract award value to the congressional defense committees only, 

rather than full public disclosure. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 19–7 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, 

Tillis, Lee, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Ayotte, Cotton, Ernst, Sullivan, Graham, Cruz 

7. MOTION: To include a provision that would urge base commanders to allow servicemembers to attend the Accessing Higher 

Education Track at least one year prior to their date of separation 

as a consumer protection measure to prevent recruitment by predatory for-profit schools. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10–15–1 

In favor: Senators Reed, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, 

Cruz, and Manchin 

No Instruction: Nelson 

8. 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 14–12 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, and 

Cruz 

Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, 

Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

9. MOTION: To eliminate an additional $70.0 million provided to 

the Department of Energy to continue construction of the MOX 

Fuel Fabrication Facility. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 7–18–1 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Lee, Cruz, Reed, Nelson, and 

Manchin 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, 

Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

No Instruction: Wicker 

10. MOTION: To eliminate the word ‘‘limited’’ from the National 

Missile Defense Act of 1999. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 16–10 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, 

Cruz, Manchin, and Kaine 

Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, King, and Heinrich 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
626 

11. MOTION: To strike a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program on privatization of the 

defense commissary system. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13–13 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Ayotte, Rounds, Tillis, Nelson, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, 

and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Ernst, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz, Reed, McCaskill, Manchin, and King 

12. MOTION: To strike sections from a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to optimize management practices across the 

defense commissary system and the exchange system. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12–14 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Ayotte, Rounds, Tillis, Nelson, Gillibrand, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Ernst, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz, Reed, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, and 

Blumenthal 

13. MOTION: Motion to strike a provision to require women to 

register for the selective service beginning in January 1, 2018 and 

to prohibit court jurisdiction of claims regarding class of persons 

with a duty to register. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 7–19 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Cotton, Rounds, Lee, 

and Cruz 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Ayotte, Fischer, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

14. MOTION: To include a provision that would require National 

Guard units selected for the U.S. Army’s Associated Units program 

to be funded at 100 percent level of authorized Active Guard and 

Reserve personnel. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 7–19 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, Cotton, Tillis, Lee, Graham, Cruz, and 

Donnelly 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, 

Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

15. MOTION: Amendment would have replaced provision that 

limits funding for an EC–130H Compass Call recapitalization program unless the Air Force conducts a full and open competition for 

the replacement aircraft, and instead provide committee approval 

for the Air Force to proceed with a new start program and acquire 

10 Gulfstream G550 business class aircraft through a sole source 

acquisition strategy. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10–16 

In favor: Senators Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Tillis, Graham, Nelson, Shaheen, Hirono, Kaine, and King 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Cotton, Rounds, 

Ernst, Sullivan, Lee, Cruz, Reed, McCaskill, Manchin, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, and Heinrich 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
627 

16. MOTION: To include a provision that would authorize the 

transfer of Department of Defense funds to the USAID for the purposes of countering violent extremism. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12–14 

In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, 

Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, and 

Cruz 

17. MOTION: To include a provision on the inapplicability of regulations limiting the sale or donation or property of the federal government for state and local enforcement activities unless enacted 

by Congress. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13–13 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Cruz, and Donnelly 

Opposed: Senators Ernst, Lee, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, 

Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, 

and Heinrich 

18. MOTION: To strike a provision regarding Department of Defense implementation of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10–16 

In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and Heinrich 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, 

Cruz, Manchin, and King 

19. MOTION: To amend and enhance certain maritime programs 

of the Department of Transportation, and for other purposes. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10–16 

In favor: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Sullivan, Lee, Cruz, Nelson 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Graham, Reed, 

McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, 

Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

20. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the 

transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to countries on 

which the State Department has issued a threat warning. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 16–10 

In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, 

Cruz, Manchin, and Donnelly 

Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, 

Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich 

21. MOTION: To include a provision to modify section 2576a of 

title 10, United States Code, relating to the authority to transfer 

Department of Defense property for law enforcement activities. 

VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14–12 

In favor: Senators Ernst, Lee, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, 

Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, 

and Heinrich 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
628 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, and Cruz 

22. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit lethal 

equipment assistance to the vetted Syrian opposition. 

VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 4–22 

In favor: Senators Lee, Cruz, Manchin, and Gillibrand 

Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, 

Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Reed, 

Nelson, McCaskill, Shaheen, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, 

King, and Heinrich 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget Office 

cost estimate on this legislation because it was not available at the 

time the report was filed. It will be included in material presented 

during Senate floor debate on the legislation. 

Regulatory Impact 

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the bill be 

included in the report on the bill. The committee finds that there 

is no regulatory impact in the case of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2017. 

Changes In Existing Law 

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law made by 

certain portions of the bill have not been shown in this section of 

the report because, in the opinion of the committee, it is necessary 

to dispense with showing such changes in order to expedite the 

business of the Senate and reduce the expenditure of funds. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(629) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. INHOFE 

I voted in favor of the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee. It provides critical funding to improve the combat readiness 

of our military and support the service members and families who 

make countless sacrifices to serve our country. The bill takes significant steps to reform the Department of Defense, modernize the 

military health system, and reform the defense acquisition system 

to harness American innovation. During markup, we were able to 

address several concerns with the bill to include reorganization of 

the department and health care, but these changes must continue 

to be vetted both on the floor and in conference to ensure they enhance, not degrade combat readiness and support. I was pleased 

the committee included my amendments that require the Secretary 

of Defense to submit a plan to Government Accounting Office review before any action is taken to consolidate or realign the defense 

health care system. However, there are issues that still need to be 

resolved either with legislation on the Senate floor or during conference. 

First, the readiness of our force must be addressed by the approval of additional funding. Our military readiness is at all-time 

lows, our modernization is not keeping pace with requirements, our 

military infrastructure is crumbling, and our force size is inadequate to meet growing worldwide threats. We must pass an 

amendment on the floor to increase funds or our military will not 

be able to meet ongoing national security requirements. 

Second, I support provisions regarding Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo), 

Cuba, that prohibits the use of funds for transfer or release of 

Gitmo detainees to the United States, prohibits the use of funds to 

construct, close or modify Gitmo facilities, and prohibits the use of 

funds to transfer or release Gitmo detainees to Libya, Somalia, 

Syria or Yemen until Dec. 31st, 2017. I also support the prohibition 

of transferring a Gitmo detainee until the Secretary of Defense 

submits an unclassified report on the detainee’s terrorist activities, 

affiliations, and actions taken against the United States or its allies. However, I do not support language in this bill that allows the 

transfer of these terrorist detainees from Gitmo to the United 

States for emergency medical treatment or the authority to use 

fund to design and plan construction or modification of facilities in 

United States or its territories or possessions to house Gitmo detainees. I plan to offer language to remove these authorizations as 

well as offer a bill that would require the Secretary of Defense to 

make the notice of transfer or release of any Gitmo detainee available to the public 21 days prior to the intended release date. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
630 

Third, I strongly disagree with legislation contained in this bill 

that would begin the process to privatize our military’s commissary 

benefit, despite a congressionally directed study on the impacts of 

privatization not being completed. There are too many unknowns 

as to whether privatization could directly impact a military member’s ability to provide for their families as well as the potential for 

it to affect retention. This is why in last year’s NDAA, Congress 

voted to stop the ill-advised provision to begin privatization until 

the Defense Department conducted an assessment for the potential 

costs and benefits of such action. That report has not been completed, yet the Senate’s NDAA includes language this year that 

takes another attempt at launching a pilot privatization program 

on five major military installations. I am committed to fighting this 

again on the Senate floor. I also intend to file an amendment that 

require the Secretary of Defense to look at varying Basic Allowance 

for Subsistence rates in response to the new commissary variable 

pricing plan. 

Finally, I will work with my colleagues to eliminate burdensome 

restrictions on the sale or donation of excess defense property to 

State or local agencies for law enforcement activities and remove 

language in the NDAA that would require women to sign up for the 

draft. 

JAMES M. INHOFE. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(631) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MS. AYOTTE 

The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) voted overwhelmingly to approve its version of the fiscal year (FY) 2017 National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), again demonstrating the committee’s bipartisan support for our men and women in uniform. 

This bill and associated report includes some provisions that I do 

not support. However, with our servicemembers in harm’s way, I 

believe this bill as a whole is worthy of support. 

As I have stated before and as many witnesses before our committee have testified, the United States confronts a growing and diverse range of threats, and yet the readiness of our armed forces 

has declined dangerously. This has occurred because our defense 

budget is based on artificial and insufficient budget caps rather 

than an objective assessment of the threats we confront and a 

clear-eyed determination of the military we need to protect our national security interests. 

One of the most important priorities for Congress is to eliminate 

once and for all defense sequestration and the artificial budget caps 

that I opposed and that have increased the gap between the military we have and the military we need. Congress also has a responsibility to pass authorization and appropriation bills on time in 

order to give the Department of Defense (DoD) and defense suppliers the fiscal predictability required to ensure our troops have 

what they need to defend our country. I remain committed to working in a bipartisan manner to accomplish these objectives. 

A–10 

The A–10 aircraft has continued to perform exceptionally well in 

Iraq and Syria, providing uniquely effective close air support 

(CAS), combat search and rescue, and forward air controller (airborne) capabilities. As Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said earlier this year, the A–10 ‘‘has been devastating ISIL from the air.’’ 

With the A–10 successfully attacking ISIL in Iraq and Syria and 

deterring aggression in Europe and the Korean peninsula, I am 

disappointed that the Air Force has continued to pursue its misguided efforts to prematurely divest the A–10. As General Joseph 

Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on March 

22, 2016, ‘‘I absolutely believe that we need a transition plan, and 

there needs to be a replacement for the A–10 before it goes away.’’ 

That is why I am pleased that the committee has voted once 

again to prohibit the dangerous and premature divestment of the 

A–10 aircraft. Soldiers, special operators, and Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTACs) who understand CAS best say that the A– 

10 provides unique capabilities that cannot be replicated by any 

other aircraft in the department’s inventory. They also say that the 

premature divestment of the A–10 before an equally or more capaVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00667 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
632 

ble CAS replacement reaches full operational capability will create 

a capability gap that would put our ground troops at risk. 

When our ground troops are under fire and they call for help, we 

have an obligation to send them the best possible CAS. A failure 

to do so can mean the difference between life and death. That is 

why I will continue to fight to oppose the premature divestment of 

the A–10 before an equally or more capable CAS replacement 

achieves full operational capability. 

Guantanamo Detainees 

I am pleased that the SASC-passed NDAA includes provisions I 

have advocated for that will prohibit Guantanamo detainees from 

being transferred to the United States, prohibit the construction or 

modification of facilities in the United States to house Guantanamo 

detainees, and prohibit the closure of U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo. However, in light of the administration’s refusal to provide 

the American people with even the most basic information regarding Guantanamo detainees, I am particularly pleased that the 

SASC-passed NDAA includes my amendment to require greater 

transparency regarding Guantanamo detainees before they can be 

transferred or released internationally. 

In May 2009, President Obama said, ‘‘I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. And that’s why, 

whenever possible, my administration will make all information 

available to the American people so that they can make informed 

judgements and hold us accountable.’’ Unfortunately, when it 

comes to Guantanamo transfers, the administration has not honored that commitment. 

Every time the administration releases or transfers a dangerous 

Guantanamo Bay detainee, the Pentagon issues a press statement 

that contains virtually no information. The only specific information released by the DoD to the public is the detainee’s name and 

the name of the country to which the detainee will be released. 

With more than 30 percent of former Guantanamo detainees suspected or confirmed of reengaging in terrorism and with the administration confirming that former Guantanamo detainees have killed 

Americans, the administration’s lack of transparency with the 

American people regarding Guantanamo detainees is deeply troubling. 

The administration does not provide important information regarding the detainee’s previous terrorist activities, associations, or 

support for attacks on the United States and our allies. The American people do not even know if the former Guantanamo detainee 

will be detained or released by the host country. 

Based on these concerns, last year I worked successfully to include Section 1037 in the final NDAA. Section 1037 requires that 

the Secretary of Defense provide an unclassified report to Congress 

that summarizes the terrorist activities and affiliations for detainees at Guantanamo. 

In an April 4 letter to Secretary Carter, more than two months 

after the report was due by law, I wrote, ‘‘To be clear, if the administration refuses to provide the requested information in unclassified form—and instead conceals this information from the American people by placing it unnecessarily in a classified annex—that 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
633 

will not comply with the law’s intent and would be inconsistent 

with the President’s stated commitment to transparency.’’ 

Unfortunately, when the report was finally submitted to Congress, that is exactly what DoD did. The department classified all 

of the substantive information ignoring the law and the whole purpose of the provision—transparency with the American people. 

I recognize there are strongly held views regarding Guantanamo 

on both sides of the debate. The future of the detention facility at 

Guantanamo may be controversial, but the need to be forthright 

with the American people about Guantanamo detainees before they 

are released should not be controversial. 

That is why I will continue to press the administration to be 

more forthcoming with the American people regarding the terrorist 

activities and affiliations of Guantanamo detainees and why I urge 

my colleagues to include this provision in the final bill. 

Let our female servicemembers do their jobs 

In October 2014, a detainee at Guantanamo who played an important role in planning the 9/11 attack filed a motion requesting 

that the military commission stop using female military guards as 

escorts. Despite the fact that a vast majority of Muslim detainees 

at Guantanamo expressed no similar objection, he complained that 

being touched by the female guards violated his religious beliefs. 

He was later joined in his motion by the four other members of the 

so-called ‘‘9/11 Five’’, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed—the 

mastermind of 9/11. 

In response, in January 2015, a military judge issued a temporary court order ‘‘limiting the use of female guards to physically 

touch the Accused during movements to and from attorney-client 

meetings and Commission hearings, absent exigent circumstances, 

until such time as the Commission makes a final ruling. . .’’ 

When asked about this situation at Guantanamo, the former 

Commander of SOUTHCOM, General John Kelly, called this treatment of our female servicemembers ‘‘un-American’’, and Secretary 

of Defense Ashton Carter and General Joseph Dunford called it 

‘‘outrageous.’’ 

I led a Congressional Delegation to Guantanamo last October to 

learn more. While we were there, we met with several of the female guards. These women trained hard to do their jobs and volunteered to serve at Guantanamo. Yet, these women serving in the 

military are being prevented from fully doing their jobs because 

those who planned and facilitated the 9/11 attacks have a problem 

with women. 

These female servicemembers told us they can’t believe that terrorists who murdered almost 3,000 people on U.S. soil are being allowed to dictate how U.S. service members do their jobs—simply 

because they are women. That is an insult to every woman who 

puts her life on the line to serve our country. 

This situation has resulted in negative professional, operational, 

and morale impacts. The inability of female guards to fully perform 

their jobs has disadvantaged them in their evaluations and future 

promotions. Operationally, the women have to be pulled off duty rotations and soldiers have to be pulled from elsewhere to replace 

them. This has been particularly onerous given the time-consuming 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
634 

security clearances required to work with the most dangerous detainees at Guantanamo. The order has also had a negative impact 

on morale. Understandably, the female guards have a hard time 

understanding how they can be denied the ability to serve in positions for which they are fully qualified and lawfully entitled—simply because they are women. 

Members of the guard force—both males and females—submitted 

Equal Opportunity (EO) complaints, all of which were substantiated. 

This amendment that I introduced along with Senator Lindsey 

Graham and that SASC voted to adopt would ensure that never 

again at Guantanamo or anywhere else in the United States military could a military commission prevent a qualified service member from doing their lawful duty simply based on their gender. 

Military health care and compensation 

While I believe this bill passed by the committee includes some 

positive and necessary health care reforms, I am concerned that 

the committee has voted to increase TRICARE enrollment fees, copayments, catastrophic caps, and deductibles and voted to deprive 

servicemembers of the full pay raise they deserve. 

When Americans join the military, they agree to risk their lives 

and endure unique hardships on our behalf. Americans who make 

this choice do not expect to get rich, and they are certainly not 

looking for a handout. However, they do have a right to expect 

quality equipment, realistic training, reasonable compensation, and 

top-notch health care. Many service members joined the military 

with the reasonable expectation of receiving essentially free health 

care, only to unfortunately find themselves and their families paying more and more for health care as they continue to serve and 

then retire. 

Those who seek to justify these increases in military health care 

expenses for servicemembers, retirees, and their families argue 

that (1) these increases are relatively modest; (2) artificial budget 

caps and increasing personnel costs make these increases necessary; and (3) health care provided to servicemembers and retirees 

remains among the most generous in the world. I would like to address each of these points. 

While some argue that the increased fees are relatively modest, 

that is not the case—especially when the increases are considered 

on a cumulative basis. For example, under this bill, the TRICARE 

Select (currently TRICARE Prime) single and family enrollment 

fees for working age retirees would increase by about 24 percent. 

Plus, the SASC-passed bill would result in a new fee for TRICARE 

Choice (currently TRICARE Extra and Standard). Single enrollment would incur a $150 initial fee with increases of $60 per year, 

and family enrollment would incur a $300 initial fee with increases 

of $120 per year. Further, annual deductibles for active duty families and working-age retirees in TRICARE Choice would double, 

while catastrophic caps in a given year would increase by 50 percent for active duty families and 14 percent for working-age retirees. In addition, retail and mail order pharmacy copays for those 

who do not live near military hospitals or clinics would increase 

each year. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
635 

Many of these increases are not modest increases, and when they 

are considered cumulatively, they will likely have a significant and 

negative financial impact on many servicemembers, retirees, and 

their families. 

To make matters worse, DoD requested and the committee authorized a 1.6 percent increase in military basic pay. As the department’s budget proposal recognizes, this is less than the 2.1 percent 

increase under the formula in current law, which attempts to align 

military pay raises with the annual increase in the wages and salaries of private industry employees as measured by the Employment 

Cost Index (ECI). 

While I am pleased that the committee has authorized a pay 

raise for those who sacrifice so much for our security and freedom, 

I am disappointed that the department did not request and the 

committee did not authorize a pay raise of 2.1 percent to at least 

keep pace with wages and salaries in the private sector. 

There is no question that artificial budget caps that ignore the 

threats we face are forcing DoD and Congress to make difficult 

budget decisions—including in the areas of military compensation 

and health care. Within these misguided defense budget caps, it is 

also true that personnel costs risk crowding out necessary readiness investments related to weapons and training. 

However, it is important to remember that Congress and the administration created and imposed these artificial budget caps, and 

therefore, Congress and the administration could eliminate them as 

well. I am proud that I voted against sequestration and have 

worked to end it once and for all. Unfortunately, Congress and the 

administration have failed to show the wisdom and courage to permanently eliminate the budget caps that are making us less safe 

and encouraging Congress and the administration to ask those who 

have already sacrificed so much for our freedom and security to 

sacrifice even more. 

It is also worth pointing out that it is the job of Congress to look 

across the entire federal budget in order to establish funding priorities—maintaining or increasing funding in high priority areas and 

cutting funding that is less important. It is ridiculous to suggest 

that one of the first ways we should seek to balance our federal 

budget is by asking service members, military retirees, and their 

family members to pay more for their health care. If budgets reflect 

priorities, these proposed increases in military health care costs 

suggest that Congress’s priorities need a dramatic readjustment. 

Especially in light of continued DoD waste and inefficiency, it is 

a false choice to suggest that we must choose between providing 

servicemembers the compensation and health care they deserve 

and providing them the weapons and training they need. If there 

is not enough room within existing budgets to arm and train our 

troops as our national security interests require, while also providing them the compensation and health care they deserve, that 

once again demonstrates the insufficiency of the current defense 

budget. 

Finally, some attempt to justify increases in health care costs by 

comparing military health care with civilian health care provided 

elsewhere. It is true that military health care in many cases is 

more generous than most civilian health care plans, but that is enVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:41 May 22, 2016 Jkt 020113 PO 00000 Frm 00671 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR255.XXX SR255

srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
636 

tirely appropriate. Military service is uniquely difficult, valuable, 

and honorable, and the sacrifices service members and their family 

members voluntarily endure cannot be compared to any other profession. For those reasons, it is appropriate for them to expect—and 

necessary for Congress to provide—health care that is both generous and top-notch. 

In order to ensure that our service members, retirees, and their 

family members have the weapons, training, compensation, and 

health care they deserve, I will continue to fight for a permanent 

repeal of the artificial budget caps. In the meantime, we should do 

everything in our power to provide the military compensation and 

health care that our service members, retirees, and their family 

members have earned. A failure to do so would not only be wrong, 

but it could also endanger the viability of the all-volunteer force. 

KELLY AYOTTE. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(637) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. KAINE 

I wanted to provide additional views on the FY 2017 National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). I voted to report the measure 

from the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), but I do have 

concerns regarding certain provisions in the bill. 

I want to thank Senator McCain for championing the issue of 

DOD reform. There is no doubt in my mind that every member of 

the SASC is concerned about the ability of the Department to 

adapt and remain successful in today’s security environment. I am 

also concerned with the appearance that the Department is mired 

in duplicative processes and complicated organizational designs. 

Many of the witnesses at several of our hearings attested to this, 

but they also provided insight into the process. 

On November 10th, 2015 in front of a hearing by this Committee, 

Jim Thomas from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis 

said, ‘‘all of these ideas would require detailed analysis to fully understand their strengths and avoid outcomes that might inadvertently leave us worse off.’’ At that same hearing we heard from 

James Locher, a former staff member of the Senate Armed Services 

Committee during the Goldwater-Nichols reform, who stated ‘‘pinpointing problems was the committee’s sole focus for eighteen 

months. As part of this thorough process, the committee staff produced a 645-page staff study with detailed analyses of each problem area . . . a hasty reform without a deep appreciation for the 

origins of the behaviors that currently limit Pentagon effectiveness 

would be a mistake.’’ Additional comments by witnesses like the 

Honorable David Walker, ‘‘there needs to be a fundamental review 

and reassessment of the current organizational structure and personnel practices,’’ or Former Under Secretary of Defense Michele 

Flournoy, ‘‘it is imperative that we think through the second and 

third order effects of any changes proposed . . . great care should 

be taken to hear the full range of views and consider the unintended consequences,’’ should have provided the necessary direction 

and caution to this committee to pursue a deliberative, well-researched and open approach. 

While I have the utmost respect for the Committee’s Professional 

Staff and have full confidence that they crafted legislation to try 

and address significant challenges at the Department, it is the responsibility of the members to vote the proposals into law. Despite 

the numerous hearings and countless witnesses, the only theme 

was that reform was needed with only conceptual suggestions. To 

date, no study has proposed the legislation contained within this 

bill. No civilian or military officials offered their views for consideration. 

In the absence of a study, independent investigative work or 

views from outside stakeholders on these provisions due to the embargoed nature of the mark, I am just not sure whether these 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
638 

changes are the right ones or not. Should we require the Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs to consult with and seek the advice of others? 

Should the headquarters budget be reduced, like it was last year, 

by 25%? Is an additional 15% of staff adequate in a time of War 

or crisis? Will the new Under-Secretary for Research and Engineering make the Department’s acquisition process run more efficiently? Last year we did not provide a pay increase to General Officers, this year we reduced their number by 25%. The combination 

of these two provisions makes me wonder whether we are doing all 

we can to cultivate the next Eisenhower, Halsey, Abrams or 

Dunford. 

The reforms contained may be exactly what are needed, but the 

embargoed status prevents us from getting any outside opinion or 

expert analysis prior to our consideration and vote. I am not challenging the concept or need for reform, but instead the process that 

led us to this point. We can readily resolve this by empowering an 

appropriate study to ensure we are validating the proposals. 

We made significant reforms empowering acquisition professionals to have greater flexibility and offer service chiefs greater 

ownership of their acquisition programs. We have also charged the 

Department with necessary authorities to ‘‘hire top talent’’ in an attempt to drive innovation. Many of us on this committee have demanded a more comprehensive military strategy in countering the 

myriad threats around the globe. In addition, this bill encourages 

numerous outreach and coordination programs with our Allies and 

Partners. These requests are not hollow or zero-sum. People are required to assist our service chiefs with acquisition programs. People develop more comprehensive doctrines and offset strategies. 

Hiring and retaining top-talent means just that. 

What impact will the re-organization of the Department and significant changes in personnel policies have on our operations in the 

midst of a two-front Cold War and expanding conflict in the Middle 

East? Do we challenge the advice our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

is providing? How do we get ‘‘top talent’’ if each spring we re-organize and cut our Department of Defense workforce? How will a reduction in General and Flag officers impact current and future senior officers? What are the secondary effects to changes in Combatant Command responsibilities? How will our Allies and Adversaries 

interpret the reduction or disappearance of General officers in overseas billets? I submit that most of the members of this Committee 

do not know the answers to these questions, but we should get the 

answers before we vote in favor of these reforms. 

I share the Chairman’s desire to improve the organization and 

capability of the Department of Defense. I know he has reached a 

comfort level with the reform proposals contained within, that in 

time I may be able to accept. However, I am mindful of the cautions relayed by many of our witnesses. Each member of this committee has the solemn duty to cast their vote based on their confidence and understanding of these proposals. We should take our 

independent oversight responsibility very seriously. I do not believe 

that voting in favor of these proposals following a few days of ‘‘inoffice’’ review of an embargoed product fulfills that responsibility. 

I remain committed to working with this committee in a bipartisan 

fashion and encourage my colleagues to seek a more measured and 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
639 

informed approach to any legislation that has the potential to negatively impact the very Department we seek to improve. 

I supported this bill out of committee so that it could be debated 

by the full Senate, hopefully with additional context of views and 

opinions by Defense experts. 

TIM KAINE. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(640) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. HEINRICH 

The bill reported by the committee includes a provision adopted 

by amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense to 

grant unfettered access to military installations to any school that 

participates in the Department’s tuition assistance program under 

the guise of providing ‘‘advising and support services’’ to students 

on that military installation. It is unclear as to why such advising 

and support cannot be provided off post, via video call capabilities 

almost universally available on smart phones, or by complying with 

current DOD regulations that affords access to military posts to 

such schools, so long as they go through the base commander and 

base education office. These regulations seem appropriate to ensure 

predatory recruiting practices are curtailed, which gave rise to 

those regulations in the first place. 

A particularly troubling aspect of this language, in addition to requiring unfettered access, is that the language requires access to 

be granted in proportion to the number of students enrolled by 

each school. This would result in an outcome where public universities teaching on base will be required to have less access to base 

than those conducing online courses with high enrollment numbers. 

Current DOD regulations treat all schools the same; this unprecedented change will favor some over others and has the potential to 

incentivize predatory conduct. The more students you sign up, the 

greater your ability to sign up even more. Moreover, this appears 

to create a significant security concern for commanders. 

I support the principle that schools should have access to their 

students for advisement purposes. But we must make sure we do 

not create security issues or unfair advantages for some schools 

over others, and that service members, especially junior members 

who use this benefit the most, are protected from recruiting practices that often do not have the service member’s best interests at 

heart. I urge a thoughtful reconsideration of this provision during 

floor debate on the bill to ensure it does not inadvertently and unnecessarily put service members at risk. 

MARTIN HEINRICH. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(641) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

MINORITY VIEWS OF MR. LEE AND MR. CRUZ 

The 2017 National Defense Authorization Act passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee entails a broad range of reforms to 

the structure of Department of Defense, the Department’s acquisitions process, and the military healthcare system. Chairman 

McCain, Ranking Member Reed, and the members of this committee should be commended for the thorough analysis of these 

issues that was undertaken over the past year, resulting in a determination that multiple reform efforts were required in order to preserve the military’s technological and manpower advantages over 

potential adversaries. We believe that these concepts, which were 

written and debated in an embargoed process, should be carefully 

reviewed with military leaders and service organizations before enactment, to ensure that the implementation of each reform occurs 

without causing undue harm to the service members or their families. 

However, we in good conscience cannot support the legislation 

passed by the committee due to the inclusion of language requiring 

women to register for Military Selective Service, and we have concerns regarding the process by which this issue has been handled 

by the committee. The Secretary of Defense’s decision in December, 

2015, to open all Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) to war 

fighters regardless of gender, will fundamentally alter the structure of combat forces. The Secretary has assured Congress that his 

policy change will improve the combat effectiveness of the military 

in the long-term and that each military service will uphold their 

rigorous physical standards across all combat MOSs. 

In making this decision however, the Secretary of Defense did 

not undertake an exhaustive study of secondary consequences as 

Congress had desired, including any impact on the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA). In Rostker vs. Goldberg (1981), the Supreme Court determined that requiring only men to register for Selective Service was not a violation of the Constitution, in part, because the Department of Defense placed restrictions on women 

serving in combat occupations. The Secretary’s reversal of this policy in 2015 has arguably put the constitutionality of the MSSA 

back into question. 

This legal issue can be adjudicated in several ways: Congress 

could act to amend the MSSA in order to include both men and 

women, Congress could act to repeal the MSSA all together, or 

Congress could debate the matter and leave the MSSA unaltered. 

Additionally, the courts could adjudicate the constitutionality of the 

MSSA, striking it, remanding it for changes, or reinforcing the current policy. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
642 

The decision to compel women into possible combat service 

through the Selective Service is a different issue entirely than allowing women to voluntarily compete for an assignment in a combat MOS. We strongly believe that it is in the best interests of our 

national security and American society for this choice to be made 

by Congress, after an extensive review of the Selective Service system and military personnel requirements. In light of the fact that 

the decision whether or not to require women to register for the 

draft will in some way impact virtually every family in the United 

States, we further contend that the issue must be debated and adjudicated in the full and open view of the American public, not in 

a closed session of the Committee. 

On these grounds, we respectfully oppose the legislation that was 

produced by the Committee and believe that this issue demands 

open and transparent debate on the floor of the Senate. 

MIKE LEE AND TED CRUZ. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with HEARING