[Senate Report 114-49]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
114th Congress } { Report
SENATE
lst Session } { 114-49
_____________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 88
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
REPORT
[to accompany s. 1376]
on
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION,
TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
----------
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
May 19, 2015.--Ordered to be printed
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
114th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 114-49
_______________________________________________________________
Calendar No. 88
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
REPORT
[to accompany s. 1376]
on
TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 FOR MILITARY
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION,
TO PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
__________
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
May 19, 2015.--Ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma JACK REED, Rhode Island
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama BILL NELSON, Florida
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
TOM COTTON, Arkansas KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JONI ERNST, Iowa JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska TIM KAINE, Virginia
MIKE LEE, Utah ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
TED CRUZ, Texas
Christian Brose, Staff Director
Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Purpose of the Bill.............................................. 1
Committee Overview....................................... 2
Summary of Discretionary Authorizations and Budget
Authority Implication.................................. 4
Budgetary Effects of This Act (Sec. 4)................... 5
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS................. 7
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 7
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 7
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)............... 7
Subtitle B--Navy Programs.................................... 7
Amendment to cost limitation baseline for CVN-78 class
aircraft carrier program (sec. 111).................... 7
Limitation on availability of funds for USS John F.
Kennedy (CVN-79) (sec. 112)............................ 8
Limitation on availability of funds for USS Enterprise
(CVN-80) (sec. 113).................................... 8
Modification of CVN-78 class aircraft carrier program
(sec. 114)............................................. 9
Limitation on availability of funds for Littoral Combat
Ship (sec. 115)........................................ 10
Extension and modification of limitation on availability
of funds for Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 116)........... 11
Construction of additional Arleigh Burke destroyer (sec.
117)................................................... 11
Fleet replenishment oiler program (sec. 118)............. 11
Reporting requirement for Ohio-class replacement
submarine program (sec. 119)........................... 12
Subtitle C--Air Force Programs............................... 12
Limitations on retirement of B-1, B-2, and B-52 bomber
aircraft (sec. 131).................................... 12
Limitation on retirement of Air Force fighter aircraft
(sec. 132)............................................. 12
Limitation on availability of funds for F-35A aircraft
procurement (sec. 133)................................. 14
Prohibition on retirement of A-10 aircraft (sec. 134).... 15
Prohibition on availability of funds for retirement of
EC-130H Compass Call aircraft (sec. 135)............... 16
Limitation on transfer of C-130 aircraft (sec. 136)...... 17
Limitation on use of funds for T-1A Jayhawk aircraft
(sec. 137)............................................. 17
Restriction on retirement of the Joint Surveillance
Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), EC-130H Compass
Call, and Airborne Early Warning and Control (AWACS)
aircraft (sec. 138).................................... 18
Sense of the Congress regarding the OCONUS basing of the
F-35A aircraft (sec. 139).............................. 18
Sense of Congress on F-16 Active Electronically Scanned
Array (AESA) radar upgrade (sec. 140).................. 18
Subtitle D--Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters.... 18
Report on Army and Marine Corps modernization plan for
small arms (sec. 151).................................. 18
Budget Items................................................. 18
Army..................................................... 18
Common missile warning system........................ 18
PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement................... 18
Army Tactical Missile System......................... 19
Improved recovery vehicle............................ 19
Precision sniper rifle............................... 19
Compact semi-automatic sniper system................. 19
Common remotely operated weapons station............ 19
Handgun.............................................. 19
Sniper rifle modifications........................... 20
Items less than $5.0 million......................... 20
Army ammunition decrease............................. 20
Transportable Tactical Command Communications........ 20
Prophet Ground System................................ 20
Counterfire radars................................... 20
Global Combat Support System--Army................... 21
Automated data processing equipment.................. 21
Non-system training devices......................... 21
Navy..................................................... 21
F/A-18E/F aircraft procurement....................... 21
F-35C................................................ 21
F-35B................................................ 21
AV-8 series aircraft................................. 22
F-18 series kill chain enhancements.................. 22
V-22 Osprey.......................................... 22
Tomahawk............................................. 22
Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile............. 23
Ordnance support equipment........................... 23
Virginia-class submarines............................ 23
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers....................... 24
Afloat Forward Staging Base......................... 24
Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA) Replacement........... 24
LX(R)............................................... 25
Landing craft utility replacement.................... 25
T-ATS(X)............................................. 25
Destroyer modernization.............................. 25
Littoral Combat Ship Mine Countermeasures Mission
Module............................................. 25
Remote Minehunting System........................... 26
Submarine towed arrays............................... 26
Surface electronic warfare improvement program....... 26
Tube-launched, optically-tracked, wireless-guided
missile............................................ 27
Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar....................... 27
Air Force................................................ 27
F-35A................................................ 27
MQ-9................................................. 27
F-15 capability upgrades............................. 28
Budget request realignment........................... 28
C-130H Propulsion System Enhancements................ 28
C-130H avionics modernization program............... 29
A-10 Munitions Buyback............................... 29
Battlefield air operations kits...................... 30
Air Force Network Procurements....................... 30
Joint terminal attack controller training and
rehearsal system simulators........................ 30
Defense Wide............................................. 30
MC-12................................................ 30
MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle......................... 31
Items of Special Interest.................................... 31
Armored vehicle transmission industrial base............. 31
Army UH-60A to UH-60L conversions for the National Guard. 32
Combat Logistics Fleet................................... 32
Comptroller General of the United States review of the
implementation of recommendations from the National
Commission on the Structure of the Air Force........... 33
Comptroller General review of the CVN-78 class aircraft
carrier program........................................ 34
Enhance cockpit displays to improve safety and mission
effectiveness.......................................... 35
Expeditionary Health Services Systems.................... 35
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program........................ 35
Joint Standoff Weapon.................................... 37
Land mobile radio....................................... 37
Missile and munitions industrial base.................... 37
Modernization for Light Armored Vehicles................. 37
Navy maritime security barriers.......................... 38
Navy training helicopters................................ 38
Night Vision Reset....................................... 39
Patriot Product Improvement Future Lower Tier Sensor
Alternatives........................................... 39
Route and area clearance mine protected vehicles......... 39
San Antonio-Class Amphibious Transport Dock program...... 40
Single-source providers of critical acquisition program
components............................................. 40
Standoff precision guided weapons........................ 40
Unmanned Undersea Vehicles............................... 41
Vehicle occupant protection technology................... 42
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION........... 43
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 43
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)............... 43
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 43
Centers for science, technology, and engineering
partnership (sec. 211)................................. 43
Department of Defense technology offset program to build
and maintain the military technological superiority of
the United States (sec. 212)........................... 44
Reauthorization of Defense Research and Development Rapid
Innovation Program (sec. 213).......................... 46
Reauthorization of Global Research Watch Program (sec.
214)................................................... 46
Science and technology activities to support business
systems information technology acquisition programs
(sec. 215)............................................. 47
Expansion of eligibility for financial assistance under
Department of Defense science, mathematics, and
research for transformation program to include citizens
of countries participating in the technical cooperation
program (sec. 216)..................................... 48
Streamlining the Joint Federated Assurance Center (sec.
217)................................................... 49
Limitation on availability of funds for development of
the Shallow Water Combat Submersible (sec. 218)........ 49
Limitation on availability of funds for distributed
common ground system of the Army (sec. 219)............ 50
Limitation on availability of funds for Distributed
Common Ground System of the United States Special
Operations Command (sec. 220).......................... 51
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 51
Assessment of air-land mobile tactical communications and
data network requirements and capabilities (sec. 231).. 51
Study of field failures involving counterfeit electronic
parts (sec. 232)....................................... 51
Demonstration of persistent close air support
capabilities (sec. 233)................................ 52
Airborne data link plan (sec. 234)....................... 52
Report on the technology readiness levels of the
technologies and capabilities critical to the Long
Range Strike Bomber aircraft (sec. 235)................ 54
Budget Items................................................. 54
Army defense research sciences........................... 54
High-performance computing modernization................. 55
Infantry support weapons................................. 55
Integrated personnel and pay systems for Army and Air
Force.................................................. 55
Common infrared countermeasures.......................... 56
Aircraft survivability development....................... 56
Joint Tactical Radio System.............................. 56
Munitions Standardization, Effectiveness and Safety...... 57
Stryker modification and improvement..................... 57
Navy defense research sciences........................... 57
Undersea warfare applied research........................ 58
Capable manpower, enablers, and sea basing............... 58
Advanced submarine system development.................... 58
USS Gerald R. Ford full ship shock trials................ 58
LX(R).................................................... 59
Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and
Strike System.......................................... 59
Submarine tactical warfare systems development........... 59
F-35B/C engineering and manufacturing development........ 59
Submarine acoustic warfare development................... 59
Mk-48 ADCAP.............................................. 60
Air Force defense research sciences...................... 60
Nanostructured and biological materials.................. 60
Long range strike--bomber................................ 60
F-35A engineering and manufacturing development.......... 60
KC-46 aerial refueling tanker aircraft program........... 61
F-15 capability upgrades................................. 61
Budget request realignment............................... 61
Logistics information technology......................... 62
Applied research for the advancement of science and
technology priorities.................................. 62
Multi-azimuth defense fast intercept round engagement
system................................................. 62
Materials and biological technology...................... 62
Science and technology analytic assessments.............. 63
Joint capability technology demonstration................ 63
Network-centric warfare technology....................... 63
Quick Reaction Special Projects.......................... 64
Advanced sensor application program...................... 64
Corrosion control and prevention funding increase........ 64
Global Combat Support System--Joint Systems engineering.. 64
MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle............................. 65
C-130 terrain following/terrain avoidance radar.......... 65
Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance Payload
Technology Improvements Program........................ 66
Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration and prototyping. 66
Items of Special Interest.................................... 67
Advancement in radar technologies........................ 67
Advancements in Antenna Research and Capabilities........ 67
Air Force seismic activity research...................... 67
Conditions and Capabilities of the Undersea Warfare Test
Capabilities........................................... 68
Cost estimate for a land-based electromagnetic railgun
program................................................ 68
Database on Department of Defense research grants........ 69
Entrepreneurial sabbatical for Department of Defense
laboratory scientists.................................. 69
Expedited approval for attendance at conferences in
support of science and innovation activities of
Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security
Administration......................................... 70
High Power Microwave Counter-electronics Capabilities.... 71
Improved turbine engine program.......................... 72
Improvised Explosive Device Detection Systems............ 72
Market survey of active protection systems............... 72
Medical evaluation of Anthropomorphic data on vehicle
blast testing.......................................... 73
National Defense Education Program....................... 73
Training Range Upgrades.................................. 73
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 75
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 75
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)............... 75
Subtitle B--Energy and the Environment....................... 75
Modification of energy management reporting requirements
(sec. 311)............................................. 75
Report on efforts to reduce high energy costs at military
installations (sec. 312)............................... 75
Southern Sea Otter military readiness areas (sec. 313)... 75
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment........................ 76
Repeal of limitation on authority to enter into a
contract for the sustainment, maintenance, repair, or
overhaul of the F117 engine (sec. 321)................. 76
Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 76
Modification of annual report on prepositioned materiel
and equipment (sec. 331)............................... 76
Subtitle E--Limitations and Extensions of Authority.......... 76
Modification of requirements for transferring aircraft
within the Air Force inventory (sec. 341).............. 76
Limitation on use of funds for Department of Defense
sponsorships, advertising, or marketing associated with
sports-related organizations or sporting events (sec.
342)................................................... 77
Temporary authority to extend contracts and leases under
ARMS Initiative (sec. 343)............................. 78
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 78
Streamlining of Department of Defense management and
operational headquarters (sec. 351).................... 78
Adoption of retired military working dogs (sec. 352)..... 80
Modification of required review of projects relating to
potential obstructions to aviation (sec. 353).......... 80
Pilot program on intensive instruction in certain Asian
languages (sec. 354)................................... 81
Budget Items................................................. 81
Transfer to overseas contingency operations.............. 81
Army and Army Reserve readiness unfunded priorities
increases.............................................. 82
Insider threat unfunded priorities increases............. 82
Streamlining Combatant Commands.......................... 83
Army outreach reduction.................................. 83
United States Southern Command unfunded priorities
increase............................................... 83
Streamlining Management Headquarters..................... 84
Foreign currency fluctuation deductions.................. 84
Bulk fuel savings........................................ 85
Army and Air National Guard Operation Phalanx increase... 85
Army National Guard portrait cuts........................ 86
Army National Guard marketing program reduction.......... 86
Army National Guard readiness funding increase........... 86
Marine Corps readiness unfunded priorities increases..... 87
Criminal Investigative Equipment......................... 87
A-10 to F-15E training transition........................ 87
Air Force readiness unfunded priorities increases........ 88
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command...................... 88
Air Force Headquarters reductions........................ 88
Remotely piloted aircraft................................ 89
Air Force acquisition tools reduction.................... 89
Air Force enterprise information technology systems...... 89
Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System
reduction.............................................. 89
EC-130H Buyback.......................................... 90
A-10 Operation and Maintenance Buyback................... 90
Middle East Assurance Initiative......................... 90
Department of Defense Rewards Program reduction.......... 91
Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program................... 91
Funding for impact aid................................... 91
Defense-wide funding decreases for Office of Economic
Adjustment (OEA)....................................... 92
Defense-wide funding decrease for base realignment and
closure planning and support........................... 92
Studies of fleet platform architectures for the Navy..... 92
A-10 retirement manpower transfer........................ 92
Items of Special Interest.................................... 93
Army and Air Force full spectrum training requirements... 93
Body armor modernization................................. 94
Care of stock in storage................................. 94
Category I ammunition items in OCONUS environments....... 95
Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF)........................... 96
Commercial innovation in energy technologies............. 96
Defense Logistics Agency and military services'
integrated demand planning for spare parts............. 97
Department of Defense airfield reflective pavement
markings............................................... 97
Department of Defense energy security and efficiency
technologies........................................... 98
Department of Defense fuel consumption estimates......... 98
Department of Defense investment in community relations
activities............................................. 99
Depot maintenance core workload capability............... 99
Effects of operation and maintenance funding levels...... 100
Encouraging the Use of the Innovative Readiness Training
(IRT) Program.......................................... 101
Enhanced Performance Round and Special Operations Science
and Technology review.................................. 101
Fabric-based respiratory protective equipment............ 102
Foreign language training................................ 102
Installation access programs and systems................. 103
Major test range and test facility bases reimbursement... 103
Medical textile apparel for healthcare workers and
patients............................................... 103
Mentor Protege program................................... 104
Obstructions on or near military installations........... 104
Operational Energy....................................... 104
Personal protection equipment............................ 105
Red Hill underground fuel storage facility............... 105
Report on those at-risk of exposure to perflourochemicals
from the Haven Well in Portsmouth, New Hampshire....... 106
Resilience of Department of Defense-owned utility
infrastructure......................................... 106
Tubular light-emitting diode technology.................. 107
Utah Test and Training Range............................. 107
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 109
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 109
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)............... 109
Enhancement of authority for management of end strengths
for military personnel (sec. 402)...................... 109
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 109
End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)............ 109
End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of
the reserves (sec. 412)................................ 110
End strengths for military technicians (dual status)
(sec. 413)............................................. 110
Fiscal year 2016 limitation on number of non-dual status
technicians (sec. 414)................................. 110
Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on
active duty for operational support (sec. 415)......... 111
Chief of the National Guard Bureau authority in increase
certain end strengths applicable to the Army National
Guard (sec. 416)....................................... 111
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 111
Military personnel (sec. 421)............................ 111
Budget Items................................................. 112
Military personnel funding changes....................... 112
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 113
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy......................... 113
Authority of promotion boards to recommend officers of
particular merit be placed at the top of the promotion
list (sec. 501)........................................ 113
Minimum grades for certain corps and related positions in
the Army, Navy, and Air Force (sec. 502)............... 113
Enhancement of military personnel authorities in
connection with the defense acquisition workforce (sec.
503)................................................... 114
Enhanced flexibility for determination of officers to
continue on active duty and for selective early
retirement and early discharge (sec. 504).............. 114
Authority to defer until age 68 mandatory retirement for
age of a general or flag officer serving as Chief or
Deputy Chief of Chaplains of the Army, Navy or Air
Force (sec. 505)....................................... 115
Reinstatement of enhanced authority for selective early
discharge of warrant officers (sec. 506)............... 115
Authority to conduct warrant officer retired grade
determinations (sec. 507).............................. 115
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 115
Authority to designate certain Reserve officers as not to
be considered for selection for promotion (sec. 511)... 115
Clarification of purpose of reserve component special
selection boards as limited to correction of error at a
mandatory promotion board (sec. 512)................... 116
Reconciliation of contradictory provisions relating to
citizenship qualifications for enlistment in the
reserve components of the Armed Forces (sec. 513)...... 116
Authority for certain Air Force reserve component
personnel to provide training and instruction regarding
pilot instructor training (sec. 514)................... 116
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities...................... 116
Duty required for eligibility for preseparation
counseling for members being discharged or released
from active duty (sec. 521)............................ 116
Expansion of pilot programs on career flexibility to
enhance retention of members of the Armed Forces (sec.
522)................................................... 117
Sense of Senate on development of gender-neutral
occupational standards for occupational assignments in
the Armed Forces (sec. 523)............................ 117
Subtitle D--Member Education and Training.................... 117
PART I--Educational Assistance Reform.................... 117
Limitation on tuition assistance for off-duty
training or education (sec. 531)................... 117
Termination of program of educational assistance for
reserve component members supporting contingency
operations and other operations (sec. 532)......... 118
Reports on educational levels attained by certain
members of the Armed Forces at time of separation
from the Armed Forces (sec. 533)................... 118
Sense of Congress on transferability of unused
education benefits to family members (sec. 534).... 118
No entitlement to unemployment insurance while
receiving Post-9/11 Education Assistance (sec. 535) 118
PART II--Other Matters................................... 118
Repeal of statutory specification of minimum duration
of in-resident instruction for courses of
instruction offered as part of Phase II Joint
Professional Military Education (sec. 536)......... 118
Quality assurance of certification programs and
standards for professional credentials obtained by
members of the Armed Forces (sec. 537)............. 119
Support for athletic programs of the United States
Military Academy (sec. 538)........................ 119
Online access to the higher education component of
the transition assistance program (sec. 539)....... 119
Subtitle E--Military Justice................................. 120
Modification of Rule 304 of the Military Rules of
Evidence relating to the corroboration of a confession
or admission (sec. 546)................................ 120
Modification of Rule 104 of the Rules for Courts-Martial
to establish certain prohibitions concerning
evaluations of Special Victims' Counsel (sec. 547)..... 120
Right of victims of offenses under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice to timely disclosure of certain
materials and information in connection with
prosecution of offenses (sec. 548)..................... 120
Enforcement of certain crime victims' rights by the Court
of Criminal Appeals (sec. 549)......................... 121
Release to victims upon request of complete record of
proceedings and testimony of courts-martial in cases in
which sentences adjudged could include punitive
discharge (sec. 550)................................... 121
Representation and assistance of victims by Special
Victims' Counsel in questioning by military criminal
investigators (sec. 551)............................... 121
Authority of Special Victims' Counsel to provide legal
consultation and assistance in connection with various
government proceedings (sec. 552)...................... 121
Enhancement of confidentiality of restricted reporting of
sexual assault in the military (sec. 553).............. 121
Establishment of Office of Complex Investigations within
the National Guard Bureau (sec. 554)................... 122
Modification of deadline for establishment of Defense
Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and
Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (sec.
555)................................................... 122
Comptroller General of the United States reports on
prevention and response to sexual assault by the Army
National Guard and the Army Reserve (sec. 556)......... 122
Sense of Congress on the service of military families and
on sentencing retirement eligible members of the Armed
Forces (sec. 557)...................................... 122
Subtitle F--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family
Readiness Matters.......................................... 123
Continuation of authority to assist local educational
agencies that benefit dependents of members of the
armed forces and Department of Defense civilian
employees (sec. 561)................................... 123
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec.
562)................................................... 123
Authority to use appropriated funds to support Department
of Defense student meal programs in domestic dependent
elementary and secondary schools located outside the
United States (sec. 563)............................... 123
Biennial surveys of military dependents on military
family readiness matters (sec. 564).................... 123
Subtitle G--Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements............. 123
Extension of semiannual reports on the involuntary
separation of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 571)... 123
Remotely piloted aircraft career field manning shortfalls
(sec. 572)............................................. 124
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 125
PART I--Financial Literacy and Preparedness of Members of
the Armed Forces....................................... 125
Improvement of financial literacy and preparedness of
members of the Armed Forces (sec. 581)............. 125
Financial literacy training with respect to certain
financial services for members of the uniformed
services (sec. 582)................................ 125
Sense of Congress on financial literacy and
preparedness of members of the Armed Forces (sec.
583)............................................... 125
PART II--Other Matters....................................... 125
Authority for applications for correction of military
records to be initiated by the Secretary concerned
(sec. 586)......................................... 125
Recordation of obligations for installment payments
of incentive pays, allowances, and similar benefits
when payment is due (sec. 587)..................... 125
Enhancements to Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program
(sec. 588)......................................... 126
Priority processing of applications for
Transportation Worker Identification Credentials
for members undergoing discharge or release from
the Armed Forces (sec. 589)........................ 126
Issuance of Recognition of Service ID cards to
certain members separating from the Armed Forces
(sec. 590)......................................... 126
Revised policy on network services for military
services (sec. 591)................................ 126
Increase in number of days of Active Duty required to
be performed by reserve component members for duty
to be considered federal service for purposes of
unemployment compensation for ex-servicemembers
(sec. 592)......................................... 127
Items of Special Interest.................................... 127
Assessment on Servicemembers lacking post-transition
housing................................................ 127
Availability of Special Victims' Counsel as Individual
Military Counsel....................................... 128
Changes to the Joint Travel Regulation................... 128
Comptroller General of the United States assessment of
Department of Defense personnel strategies for unmanned
aerial systems......................................... 129
Comptroller General report on Department of Defense
credentialing and licensing programs................... 129
Cyber security training, testing and certification....... 130
Disability pilot program feasibility report.............. 130
Extending Special Victims' Counsel eligibility for
civilian sexual assault survivors...................... 131
Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview................... 132
Increase in number of persons from U.S. Pacific Command
area of operations who receive instruction at military
academies.............................................. 133
Increasing the transparency of the military justice
system................................................. 133
Leadership reorganization of the United States Air Force
Judge Advocate General's Corps......................... 133
National Guard and Reserve headquarters.................. 134
Public Schools on Department of Defense Installations.... 135
Punishment for collateral misconduct revealed by reports
of sexual misconduct................................... 135
Religious freedom and role of military chaplains......... 135
Report on review of petitions for review of discharge or
dismissal from the Armed Forces of veterans with mental
health issues connected with post-traumatic stress
disorder or traumatic brain injury..................... 136
Report on Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff decisions on combat integration........ 137
Social Security Number Use Reduction Plan................ 138
Support for military families impacted by grief,
behavioral health disorders, or substance abuse........ 138
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.............. 139
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 139
Fiscal year 2016 increase in military basic pay (sec.
601)................................................... 139
Modification of percentage of national average monthly
cost of housing usable in computation of basic
allowance for housing inside the United States (sec.
602)................................................... 139
Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in
rates of basic allowance for housing (sec. 603)........ 139
Basic allowance for housing for married members of the
uniformed services assigned for duty within normal
commuting distance and for other members living
together (sec. 604).................................... 139
Repeal of inapplicability of modification of basic
allowance for housing to benefits under the laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (sec.
605)................................................... 140
Limitation on eligibility for supplemental subsistence
allowances to members serving outside the United States
and associated territory (sec. 606).................... 140
Availability of information (sec. 607)................... 140
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 140
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay
authorities for reserve forces (sec. 611).............. 140
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay
authorities for health care professionals (sec. 612)... 140
One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities
for nuclear officers (sec. 613)........................ 141
One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37
consolidated special pay, incentive pay, and bonus
authorities (sec. 614)................................. 141
One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of
other title 37 bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)..... 141
Increase in maximum annual amount of nuclear officer
bonus pay (sec. 616)................................... 141
Repeal of obsolete authority to pay bonus to encourage
Army personnel to refer persons for enlistment in the
Army (sec. 617)........................................ 141
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances............. 142
Repeal of obsolete special travel and transportation
allowance for survivors of deceased members from the
Vietnam conflict (sec. 621)............................ 142
Subtitle D--Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor
Benefits................................................... 142
Part I--Retired Pay Reform............................... 142
Thrift Savings Plan participation for members of the
uniformed services (sec. 631)...................... 142
Modernized retirement system for members of the
uniformed services (sec. 632)...................... 142
Lump sum payments of certain retired pay (sec. 633).. 143
Continuation pay after 12 years of service for
members of the uniformed services participating in
the modernized retirement systems (sec. 634)....... 143
Authority for retirement flexibility for members of
the uniformed services (sec. 635).................. 143
Treatment of Department of Defense Military
Retirement Fund as a qualified trust (sec. 636).... 144
Part II--Other Matters................................... 144
Death of former spouse beneficiaries and subsequent
remarriages under Survivor Benefit Plan (sec. 641). 144
Transitional compensation and other benefits for
dependents of members of the Armed Forces
ineligible to receive retired pay as a result of
court-martial sentence (sec. 642).................. 144
Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentality Benefits and Operations.................... 144
Commissary system matters (sec. 651)..................... 144
Plan on privatization of the Defense Commissary System
(sec. 652)............................................. 145
Comptroller General of the United States report on the
Commissary Surcharge, Non-appropriated Fund, and
Privately-financed Major Construction Program (sec.
653)................................................... 145
Items of Special Interest.................................... 146
Comptroller General of the United States assessment of
potential costs and benefits from privatizing
Department of Defense commissaries..................... 146
Comptroller General of the United States review of the
Department of Defense special and incentive pay program 147
Comptroller General of the United States review of the
Gold Star Advocate Program............................. 147
Report on wait-times at child development centers........ 148
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................ 151
Subtitle A--Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits........... 151
Urgent care authorization under the TRICARE program (sec.
701)................................................... 151
Modifications of cost-sharing requirements for the
TRICARE pharmacy benefits program (sec. 702)........... 151
Expansion of continued health benefits coverage to
include discharged and released members of the Selected
Reserve (sec. 703)..................................... 152
Expansion of reimbursement for smoking cessation services
for certain TRICARE beneficiaries (sec. 704)........... 152
Pilot program on treatment of members of the Armed Forces
for post-traumatic stress disorder related to military
sexual trauma (sec. 705)............................... 152
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration....................... 152
Access to health care under the TRICARE program (sec.
711)................................................... 152
Portability of health plans under the TRICARE program
(sec. 712)............................................. 153
Improvement of mental health care provided by health care
providers of the Department of Defense (sec. 713)...... 153
Comprehensive standards and access to contraception
counseling for members of the Armed Forces (sec. 714).. 153
Waiver of recoupment of erroneous payments due to
administrative error under the TRICARE Program (sec.
715)................................................... 153
Designation of certain non-Department mental health care
providers with knowledge relating to treatment of
members of the Armed Forces (sec. 716)................. 154
Limitation on conversion of military medical and dental
positions to civilian medical and dental positions
(sec. 717)............................................. 154
Extension of authority for joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Demonstration Fund (sec. 718).......................... 154
Extension of authority for DOD-VA Health Care Sharing
Incentive Fund (sec. 719).............................. 155
Pilot program on incentive programs to improve health
care provided under the TRICARE program (sec. 720)..... 155
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters........................ 155
Publication of certain information on health care
provided by the Department of Defense through the
Hospital Compare web site of the Department of Health
and Human Services (sec. 731).......................... 155
Publication of data on patient safety, quality of care,
satisfaction, and health outcome measures under the
TRICARE program (sec. 732)............................. 155
Annual report on patient safety, quality of care, and
access to care at military medical treatment facilities
(sec. 733)............................................. 156
Report on plans to improve experience with and eliminate
performance variability of health care provided by the
Department of Defense (sec. 734)....................... 156
Report on plan to improve pediatric care and related
services for children of members of the Armed Forces
(sec. 735)............................................. 156
Report on preliminary mental health screenings for
individuals becoming members of the Armed Forces (sec.
736)................................................... 157
Comptroller General report on use of quality of care
metrics at military treatment facilities (sec. 737).... 157
Items of Special Interest.................................... 157
Annual report on autism care demonstration program....... 157
Antimicrobial coatings................................... 158
Continued support for diagnosis and treatment for
traumatic brain injury................................. 158
Intensive behavioral counseling.......................... 158
Mild traumatic brain injury research..................... 159
Molecular diagnostics.................................... 159
Newborn infant screening evaluation and treatment........ 159
Preseparation counseling on opioid therapy for chronic
pain management........................................ 160
Prosthetic socket manufacturing cells.................... 160
Reform of the TRICARE program............................ 161
Training for physician assistants specializing in
psychiatric care....................................... 161
TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration.......... 162
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS................................................ 163
Acquisition policy reform overview........................... 163
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management................ 166
Role of service chiefs in the acquisition process (sec.
801)................................................... 166
Expansion of rapid acquisition authority (sec. 802)...... 167
Middle tier of acquisition for rapid prototyping and
rapid fielding (sec. 803).............................. 167
Amendments to other transaction authority (sec. 804)..... 167
Use of alternative acquisition paths to acquire critical
national security capabilities (sec. 805).............. 168
Secretary of Defense waiver of acquisition laws to
acquire vital national security capabilities (sec. 806) 169
Acquisition authority of the Commander of United States
Cyber Command (sec. 807)............................... 170
Advisory panel on streamlining and codifying acquisition
regulations (sec. 808)................................. 171
Review of time-based requirements process and budgeting
and acquisition systems (sec. 809)..................... 173
Improvement of program and project management by the
Department of Defense (sec. 810)....................... 173
Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities,
Procedures, and Limitations................................ 174
Preference for fixed-price contracts in determining
contract type for development programs (sec. 821)...... 174
Applicability of cost and pricing data and certification
requirements (sec. 822)................................ 174
Risk-based contracting for smaller contract actions under
the Truth In Negotiations Act (sec. 823)............... 174
Limitation of the use of reverse auctions and lowest
priced technically acceptable contracting methods (sec.
824)................................................... 175
Rights in technical data (sec. 825)...................... 175
Procurement of supplies for experimental purposes (sec.
826)................................................... 176
Extension of authority to acquire products and services
produced in countries along a major route of supply to
Afghanistan (sec. 827)................................. 177
Reporting related to failure of contractors to meet goals
under negotiated comprehensive small business
subcontracting plans (sec. 828)........................ 177
Competition for religious services contracts (sec. 829).. 177
Treatment of interagency and state and local purchases
when the Department of Defense acts as contract
intermediary for the General Services Administration
(sec. 830)............................................. 177
Pilot program for streamlining awards for innovative
technology projects (sec. 831)......................... 177
Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition
Programs................................................... 178
Acquisition strategy required for each major defense
acquisition program (sec. 841)......................... 178
Risk reduction in major defense acquisition programs
(sec. 842)............................................. 178
Designation of milestone decision authority (sec. 843)... 179
Revision of Milestone A decision authority
responsibilities for major defense acquisition programs
(sec. 844)............................................. 179
Revision of Milestone B decision authority
responsibilities for major defense acquisition programs
(sec. 845)............................................. 180
Tenure and accountability of program managers for program
development periods (sec. 846)......................... 181
Tenure and accountability of program managers for program
execution periods (sec. 847)........................... 181
Repeal of requirement for stand-alone manpower estimates
for major defense acquisition programs (sec. 848)...... 182
Penalty for cost overruns (sec. 849)..................... 182
Streamlining of reporting requirements applicable to
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering regarding major defense acquisition
programs (sec. 850).................................... 183
Configuration steering boards for cost control under
major defense acquisition programs (sec. 851).......... 183
Subtitle D--Provisions Related to Commercial Items........... 183
Inapplicability of certain laws and regulations to the
acquisition of commercial items and commercially
available off-the-shelf items (sec. 861)............... 183
Market research and preference for commercial items (sec.
862)................................................... 183
Continuing validity of commercial item determinations
(sec. 863)............................................. 184
Treatment of commercial items purchased as major weapon
systems (sec. 864)..................................... 184
Limitation on conversion of procurements from commercial
acquisition procedures (sec. 865)...................... 185
Treatment of goods and services provided by a non-
traditional contractors as commercial items (sec. 866). 186
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 187
Streamlining of requirements relating to defense business
systems (sec. 871)..................................... 187
Acquisition workforce (sec. 872)......................... 187
Unified information technology services (sec. 873)....... 187
Cloud strategy for Department of Defense (sec. 874)...... 188
Development period for Department of Defense information
technology systems (sec. 875).......................... 188
Revisions to pilot program on acquisition of military
purpose non-developmental items (sec. 876)............. 189
Extension of the Department of Defense Mentor-Protege
pilot program (sec. 877)............................... 189
Improved auditing of contracts (sec. 878)................ 189
Survey on the costs of regulatory compliance (sec. 879).. 189
Government Accountability Office report on bid protests
(sec. 880)............................................. 190
Steps to identify and address potential unfair
competitive advantage of technical advisors to
acquisition officials (sec. 881)....................... 190
HUBZone qualified disaster areas (sec. 882).............. 191
Base closure HUBZones (sec. 883)......................... 191
Items of Special Interest.................................... 191
AbilityOne Program....................................... 191
Acquisition of Commercial Test, Research, and Measurement
Capability............................................. 191
Barriers to innovation from non-traditional and
commercial contractors................................. 192
Competition in the procurement of collaboration services. 193
Inspector General report on pricing of engine sustainment
contract............................................... 193
Mitigation strategy to prevent fraud and abuse in the
Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program.. 194
Obtaining technical data for operations, maintenance,
installation, and training purposes.................... 195
Review of should-cost process Security and facility
clearances............................................. 196
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 197
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management................. 197
Update of statutory specification of functions of
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff relating to
advice on requirements, programs, and budget (sec. 901) 197
Reorganization and redesignation of Office of Family
Policy and Office of Community Support for Military
Families with Special Needs (sec. 902)................. 197
Repeal of requirement for annual Department of Defense
funding for Ocean Research Advisory Panel (sec. 903)... 197
Items of Special Interest.................................... 198
Special Operations Policy and Oversight Council.......... 198
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 199
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 199
General transfer authority (sec. 1001)................... 199
Annual audit of financial statements of Department of
Defense components by independent external auditors
(sec. 1002)............................................ 199
Treatment as part of the base budget of certain amounts
authorized for overseas contingency operations upon
enactment of an act revising the Budget Control Act
discretionary spending limits for fiscal year 2016
(sec. 1003)............................................ 199
Sense of Senate on sequestration (sec. 1004)............. 200
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities.......................... 200
Extension of authority to support unified counter-drug
and counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011).. 200
Extension and expansion of authority to provide
additional support for counter-drug activities of
certain foreign governments (sec. 1012)................ 201
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 201
Studies of fleet platform architectures for the Navy
(sec. 1021)............................................ 201
Amendment to National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (sec.
1022).................................................. 202
Extension of authority for reimbursement of expenses for
certain Navy mess operations afloat (sec. 1023)........ 203
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism................................. 203
Prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify
facilities in the United States to house detainees
transferred from United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1031)....................... 203
Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals
detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
(sec. 1032)............................................ 203
Reenactment and modification of certain prior
requirements for certifications relating to transfer of
detainees at Untied States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, to foreign countries and other foreign
entities (sec. 1033)................................... 204
Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to
the United States for emergency or critical medical
treatment (sec. 1034).................................. 204
Prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release to
Yemen of individuals detained at United States Naval
Facility, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1035)............. 205
Report on current detainees at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, determined or assessed
to be high risk or medium risk (sec. 1036)............. 205
Report to Congress on memoranda of understanding with
foreign countries regarding transfer of detainees at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec.
1037).................................................. 205
Semiannual Reports on use of United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and any other Department of
Defense or Bureau of Prisons prison or other detention
or disciplinary facility in recruitment and other
propaganda of terrorist organizations (sec. 1038)...... 206
Extension and modification of authority to make rewards
for combating terrorism (sec. 1039).................... 206
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 206
Assistance to secure the southern land border of the
United States (sec. 1041).............................. 206
Protection of Department of Defense installations (sec.
1042).................................................. 206
Strategy to protect United States national security
interests in the Arctic region (sec. 1043)............. 207
Extension of limitations on the transfer to the regular
Army of AH-64 Apache helicopters assigned to the Army
National Guard (sec. 1044)............................. 207
Treatment of certain previously transferred Army National
Guard helicopters as counting against number
transferrable under exception to limitation on transfer
of Army National Guard helicopters (sec. 1045)......... 207
Management of military technicians (sec. 1046)........... 207
Sense of Congress on consideration of the full range of
Department of Defense manpower worldwide in decisions
on the proper mix of military, civilian, and contractor
personnel to accomplish the national defense strategy
(sec. 1047)............................................ 208
Sense of the Senate on the United States Marine Corps
(sec. 1048)............................................ 208
Subtitle F--Studies and Reports.............................. 208
Repeal of reporting requirements (sec. 1061)............. 208
Termination of requirement for submittal to Congress of
reports required of the Department of Defense by
statute (sec. 1062).................................... 210
Annual submittal to Congress of munitions assessments
(sec. 1063)............................................ 210
Potential role for United States ground forces in the
Pacific theater (sec. 1064)............................ 211
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 211
Technical and clerical amendments (sec. 1081)............ 211
Authority to provide training and support to personnel of
foreign ministries of defense (sec. 1082).............. 212
Expansion of outreach for veterans transitioning from
serving on Active Duty (sec. 1083)..................... 212
Modification of certain requirements applicable to major
medical facility lease for a Department of Veterans
Affairs outpatient clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma (sec.
1084).................................................. 212
Items of Special Interest.................................... 212
Air and Missile Defense Radar backfit.................... 212
Analysis of domestic Department of Defense installations'
gas and oil reserves................................... 213
Comptroller General of the United States study on options
for the Department of Defense close air support mission 213
Congressional Defense Review to Prepare for Future
Strategic Challenges................................... 214
Cruiser and dock landing ship phased modernization....... 215
Human industrial operations augmentation technology...... 215
National Guard Counterdrug Program....................... 216
Shipbuilding industrial base and workload allocation..... 216
Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike
(UCLASS) Program....................................... 216
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS............................. 219
Legislative Provisions....................................... 219
Required probationary period for new employees of the
Department of Defense (sec. 1101)...................... 219
Delay of periodic step increase for civilian employees of
the Department of Defense based upon unacceptable
performance (sec. 1102)................................ 219
Procedures for reduction in force of Department of
Defense civilian personnel (sec. 1103)................. 219
United States Cyber Command workforce (sec. 1104)........ 219
One-year extension of authority to waive annual
limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on
pay for federal civilian employees working overseas
(sec. 1105)............................................ 220
Five-year extension of expedited hiring authority for
designated defense acquisition workforce positions
(sec. 1106)............................................ 220
One-year extension of discretionary authority to grant
allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian
personnel on official duty in a combat zone (sec. 1107) 220
Extension of rate of overtime pay for Department of the
Navy employees performing work aboard or dockside in
support of the nuclear aircraft carrier forward
deployed in Japan (sec. 1108).......................... 221
Expansion of temporary authority to make direct
appointments of candidates possessing bachelor's
degrees to scientific and engineering positions at
science and technology reinvention laboratories (sec.
1109).................................................. 221
Extension of authority for the civilian acquisition
workforce personnel demonstration project (sec. 1110).. 221
Pilot program on dynamic shaping of the workforce to
improve the technical skills and expertise at certain
Department of Defense laboratories (sec. 1111)......... 221
Pilot program on temporary exchange of financial
management and acquisition personnel (sec. 1112)....... 222
Pilot program on enhanced pay authorities for certain
acquisition and technology positions in the Department
of Defense (sec. 1113)................................. 223
Pilot program on direct hire authority for veteran
technical experts into the defense acquisition
workforce (sec. 1114).................................. 223
Direct hire authority for technical experts into the
defense acquisition workforce (sec. 1115).............. 223
Items of Special Interest.................................... 223
Report on comparison of cost performance of functions by
Department of Defense civilian personnel with cost of
performance of functions by Department contractors..... 223
Report on Department of Defense application of the
Federal Employees' Compensation Act.................... 224
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS................... 227
Subtitle A--Training and Assistance.......................... 227
One-year extension of funding limitations for authority
to build the capacity of foreign security forces (sec.
1201).................................................. 227
Extension, expansion, and modification of authority for
reimbursement to the Government of Jordan for border
security operations (sec. 1202)........................ 227
Extension of authority to conduct activities to enhance
the capability of foreign countries to respond to
incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (sec.
1203).................................................. 227
Redesignation, modification, and permanent extension of
National Guard State Partnership Program (sec. 1204)... 227
Authority to provide support to national military forces
of allied countries for counterterrorism operations in
Africa (sec. 1205)..................................... 228
Authority to build the capacity of foreign military
intelligence forces (sec. 1206)........................ 228
Prohibition on assistance to entities in Yemen controlled
by the Houthi movement (sec. 1207)..................... 228
Report on potential support for the vetted Syrian
opposition (sec. 1208)................................. 228
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
Iraq....................................................... 228
Drawdown of United States forces in Afghanistan (sec.
1221).................................................. 228
Extension and modification of Commanders' Emergency
Response Program (sec. 1222)........................... 229
Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and
provide defense services to the military and security
forces of Afghanistan (sec. 1223)...................... 229
Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement
of certain coalition nations for support provided to
United States military operations (sec. 1224).......... 229
Prohibition on transfer to violent extremist
organizations of equipment or supplies provided by the
United States to the Government of Iraq (sec. 1225).... 230
Report on lines of communication of Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant and other foreign terrorist
organizations (sec. 1226).............................. 231
Modification of protection for Afghan allies (sec. 1227). 231
Extension of authority to support operations and
activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in
Iraq (sec. 1228)....................................... 231
Sense of Senate on support for the Kurdistan Regional
Government (sec. 1229)................................. 231
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Iran......................... 231
Modification and extension of the annual report on the
military power of Iran (sec. 1241)..................... 231
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation....... 232
Ukraine security assistance initiative (sec. 1251)....... 232
Eastern European Training Initiative (sec. 1252)......... 232
Increased presence of United States ground forces in
Eastern Europe to deter aggression on the border of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (sec. 1253)......... 233
Sense of Congress on European Defense and North Atlantic
Treaty Organization spending (sec. 1254)............... 233
Additional matters in annual report on military and
security developments involving the Russian Federation
(sec. 1255)............................................ 233
Report on alternative capabilities to procure and sustain
nonstandard rotary wing aircraft historically procured
through Rosoboronexport (sec. 1256).................... 233
Subtitle E--Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region...... 234
South China Sea Initiative (Sec. 1261)................... 234
Sense of Congress reaffirming the importance of
implementing the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region
(Sec. 1262)............................................ 234
Sense of the Senate on Taiwan Asymmetric Military
Capabilities and Bilateral Training Activities (Sec.
1263).................................................. 234
Subtitle F--Reports and Related Matters...................... 235
Item in quarterly reports on assistance to counter the
Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant on forces
ineligible to receive assistance due to a gross
violation of human rights (sec. 1271).................. 235
Report on bilateral agreement with Israel on joint
activities to establish an anti-tunneling defense
system (sec. 1272)..................................... 235
Sense of Senate and report on Qatar fighter aircraft
capability contribution to regional security (sec.
1273).................................................. 235
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 235
NATO Special Operations Headquarters (sec. 1281)......... 235
Two-year extension and modification of authorization for
non-conventional assisted recovery capabilities (sec.
1282).................................................. 236
Items of Special Interest.................................... 236
Additional Analysis of People's Liberation Army Cyber
Capabilities........................................... 236
Annual report on the military power of Iran.............. 236
Briefing on United States Unmanned Aerial System Export
Requests............................................... 237
Countering Russian propaganda............................ 238
Designation of lead Inspector General for Overseas
Contingency Operations in Afghanistan.................. 238
Organizational management of Department of Defense
security assistance programs........................... 239
Report on capability of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization to respond to unconventional or hybrid
warfare tactics such as used by the Russian Federation
in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.......................... 240
Support of foreign forces participating in operations
against the Lord's Resistance Army..................... 240
United States-Indonesia military cooperation............. 241
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION......................... 243
Subtitle A--Funding Allocations.............................. 243
Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec.
1301).................................................. 243
Funding allocations (sec. 1302).......................... 243
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 245
Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 245
Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401)........................ 245
National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402)................ 245
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec.
1403).................................................. 245
Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense-
wide (sec. 1404)....................................... 245
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1405).................... 245
Defense Health Program (sec. 1406)....................... 245
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 245
Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Demonstration Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health
Care Center, Illinois (sec. 1411)...................... 245
Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces
Retirement Home (sec. 1412)............................ 246
Inspections of the Armed Forces Retirement Home by the
Inspector General of the Department of Defense (sec.
1413).................................................. 246
Budget Items................................................. 246
United States Southern Command unfunded priorities
increase............................................... 246
Drug Demand Reduction Program............................ 247
Department of Defense Inspector General Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation reduction............... 247
Department of Defense Inspector General procurement
reduction.............................................. 247
Defense Health Program (sec. 1406)....................... 247
Foreign currency fluctuation deduction................... 248
Items of Special Interest.................................... 248
Clarification of funding available for additional support
for counter-drug activities and activities to counter
transnational organized crime.......................... 248
Comptroller General review of electronic waste recycling. 248
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS......................................... 251
Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations....... 251
Purpose (sec. 1501)...................................... 251
Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502).............. 251
Procurement (sec. 1503).................................. 251
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1504).. 251
Operation and Maintenance (sec. 1505).................... 251
Military personnel (sec. 1506)........................... 251
Working capital funds (sec. 1507)........................ 251
Drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-
wide (sec. 1508)....................................... 251
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509).................... 252
Defense Health Program (sec. 1510)....................... 252
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (sec. 1511)........... 252
Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................ 252
Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)....... 252
Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)................... 252
Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters.......... 252
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1531)............. 252
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1532) 252
Availability of Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Fund funds for training of foreign security forces to
defeat improvised explosive devices (sec. 1533)........ 253
Budget Items................................................. 253
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund............ 253
Office of Security Cooperation--Iraq..................... 253
Reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support
provided to United States military operations.......... 254
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund....................... 254
Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative................... 255
Items of Special Interest.................................... 255
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Analysis Tool.......... 255
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS... 257
Subtitle A--Space Activities................................. 257
Integrated policy to deter adversaries in space (sec.
1601).................................................. 257
Principal advisor on space control (sec. 1602)........... 258
Exception to the prohibition on contracting with Russian
suppliers of rocket engines for the Evolved Expendable
Launch Vehicle program (sec. 1603)..................... 258
Elimination of launch capabilities contracts under
Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program (sec. 1604).. 259
Allocation of funding for Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle Program (sec. 1605)............................ 260
Inclusion of plan for development and fielding of a full-
up engine in rocket propulsion system development
program (sec. 1606).................................... 260
Limitations on availability of funds for the Defense
Meteorological Satellite Program (sec. 1607)........... 261
Quarterly reports on Global Positioning System III space
segment, Global Positioning System operational control
segment, and Military Global Positioning System User
Equipment acquisitions programs (sec. 1608)............ 262
Plan for consolidation of acquisition of commercial
satellite communications services (sec. 1609).......... 263
Council on oversight of the Department of Defense
Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Enterprise (sec.
1610).................................................. 263
Analysis of Alternative for Wide-band Communications
(sec. 1611)............................................ 263
Expansion of goals for pilot program for acquisition of
commercial satellite services (sec. 1612).............. 264
Streamline commercial space launch activities (sec. 1613) 264
Subtitle B--Cyber Warfare, Cyber Security, and Related
Matters.................................................... 264
Authorization of Military Cyber Operations (sec. 1621)... 264
Designation of Department of Defense entity responsible
for acquisition of critical cyber capabilities (sec.
1622).................................................. 265
Incentive for submittal to Congress by President of
integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace
(sec. 1623)............................................ 266
Authorization for procurement of relocatable Sensitive
Compartmented Information Facility (sec. 1624)......... 266
Evaluation of cyber vulnerabilities of major weapon
systems of the Department of Defense (sec. 1625)....... 266
Assessment of capabilities of United States Cyber Command
to defend the United States from cyber attack (sec.
1626).................................................. 267
Biennial exercises on responding to cyber attacks against
critical infrastructure (sec. 1627).................... 268
Subtitle C--Nuclear Forces................................... 269
Designation of Air Force officials to be responsible for
policy on and procurement of Nuclear Command and
Control Communications Systems (sec. 1631)............. 269
Comptroller General of the United States review of
recommendations relating to the Nuclear Security
Enterprise (sec. 1632)................................. 269
Assessment of global nuclear environment (sec. 1633)..... 270
Deadline for Milestone A decision on Long-Range Standoff
Weapon (sec. 1634)..................................... 272
Availability of Air Force procurement funds for certain
commercial off-the-shelf parts for intercontinental
ballistic missiles fuzes (sec. 1635)................... 272
Sense of Congress on policy on the nuclear triad (sec.
1636).................................................. 272
Subtitle D--Missile Defense Programs......................... 272
Plan for expediting deployment time of continental United
States interceptor site (sec. 1641).................... 272
Additional missile defense sensor coverage for the
protection of the United States homeland (sec. 1642)... 273
Air defense capability at North Atlantic Treaty
Organization missile defense sites (sec. 1643)......... 274
Availability of funds for Iron Dome short-range rocket
defense system (sec. 1644)............................. 274
Israeli cooperative missile defense program codevelopment
and potential coproduction (sec. 1645)................. 274
Development and deployment of multiple-object kill
vehicle for missile defense of the United States
homeland (sec. 1646)................................... 275
Requirement to replace capability enhancement I
exoatmospheric kill vehicles (sec. 1647)............... 275
Airborne boost phase defense system (sec. 1648).......... 276
Extension of limitation on providing certain sensitive
missile defense information to the Russian Federation
(sec. 1649)............................................ 277
Extension of requirement for Comptroller General of the
United States review and assessment of missile defense
acquisition programs (sec. 1650)....................... 277
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 277
Measures in response to violations of the Intermediate-
Range Nuclear Forces Treaty by the Russian Federation
(sec. 1661)............................................ 277
Modification of notification and assessment of proposal
to modify or introduce new aircraft or sensors for
flight by the Russian Federation under the Open Skies
Treaty (sec. 1662)..................................... 278
Milestone A decision for the conventional prompt global
strike weapons system (sec. 1663)...................... 279
Budget Items................................................. 279
Conventional prompt global strike........................ 279
Divert attitude control system in support of multi-object
kill vehicle........................................... 279
Fiber combining laser prototype.......................... 279
Funding for U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense
programs............................................... 280
Multiple Object Kill Vehicle............................. 280
Operationally Responsive Space program................... 280
Redesigned Kill Vehicle.................................. 281
Sharkseer zero day defense for enterprise email.......... 281
Standard Missile-3 block IB.............................. 282
U.S. Cyber Command technology development................ 282
Items of Special Interest.................................... 282
Assessment of the information security threats of
wireless-enabled capabilities at Department of Defense
facilities............................................. 282
Comptroller General review of space system acquisition
and acquisition oversight.............................. 283
Continuation of nuclear command, control and
communications assessments by the Government
Accountability Office.................................. 283
Missile Defense Agency assessment of capabilities to
defend against current and projected missile threats... 284
Organization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense
for Nuclear Deterrence Mission......................... 284
Report on Advanced Extremely High Frequency Terminals for
bomber aircraft........................................ 285
Report on Follow-On Commander's Evaluation Tests and
Demonstration and Shake Out tests...................... 285
Report on space-based missile defense interceptor........ 285
Reserve component Cyber Protection Teams................. 286
Solid Rocket Motor industrial base....................... 287
Space control modeling and simulation range.............. 287
The importance and use of U.S. FAA licensed spaceports... 287
Upgrades to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System.... 288
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 291
Summary and explanation of funding tables................ 291
Short title (sec. 2001).................................. 291
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
specified by law (sec. 2002)........................... 291
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................ 293
Summary.................................................. 293
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2101)................................... 293
Family housing (sec. 2102)................................... 294
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103).... 294
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)............ 294
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year
2013 project (sec. 2105)................................... 294
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2012
projects (sec. 2106)....................................... 294
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013
projects (sec. 2107)....................................... 294
Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2016
project (sec. 2108)........................................ 294
Limitation on construction of new facilities at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba (sec. 2109)...................................... 295
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION........................... 297
Summary.................................................. 297
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2201)................................... 298
Family housing (sec. 2202)................................... 298
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203).... 298
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)............ 298
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012
projects (sec. 2205)....................................... 298
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013
projects (sec. 2206)................................... 298
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION..................... 299
Summary...................................................... 299
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2301)....................................... 299
Family housing (sec. 2302)................................... 299
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303).... 299
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)....... 300
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year
2010 project (sec. 2305)................................... 300
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year
2014 project (sec. 2306)................................... 300
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year
2015 project (sec. 2307)................................... 300
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2012
project (sec. 2308)........................................ 300
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013
project (sec. 2309)........................................ 300
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............... 303
Summary...................................................... 303
Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2401)....................................... 303
Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402).......... 303
Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403) 303
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year
2012 project (sec. 2404)................................... 304
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012
projects (sec. 2405)....................................... 304
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013
projects (sec. 2406)....................................... 304
Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain
fiscal year 2014 project (sec. 2407)....................... 304
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM........................................................ 305
Summary...................................................... 305
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2501)................................................ 305
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)............ 305
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 307
Summary...................................................... 307
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorizations of
Appropriations............................................. 307
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2601)....................... 307
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2602)................................... 307
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve
construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2603). 308
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2604)....................... 308
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2605)....................... 308
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and
Reserve (sec. 2606).................................... 308
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 308
Modification and extension of authority to carry out
certain fiscal year 2013 project (sec. 2611)........... 308
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2015 projects (sec. 2612)......................... 308
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012
projects (sec. 2613)................................... 309
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013
projects (sec. 2614)................................... 309
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES............. 311
Summary and explanation of tables............................ 311
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and
closure activities funded through Department of Defense
Base Closure Account (sec. 2701)........................... 311
Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and
closure (BRAC) round (sec. 2702)........................... 311
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS........... 313
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes............................................ 313
Authority for acceptance and use of contributions for
certain mutually beneficial projects (sec. 2801)....... 313
Change in authorities relating to scope of work
variations for military construction projects (sec.
2802).................................................. 313
Extension of temporary, limited authority to use
operation and maintenance funds for construction
projects in certain areas outside the United States
(sec. 2803)............................................ 313
Modification of reporting requirement on in-kind
construction and renovation payments (sec. 2804)....... 313
Lab modernization pilot program (sec. 2805).............. 314
Conveyance to Indian tribes of certain housing units
(sec. 2806)............................................ 314
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 314
Utility systems conveyance authority (sec. 2811)......... 314
Leasing of non-excess property of military departments
and defense agencies; treatment of value provided by
local education agencies and elementary and secondary
schools (sec. 2812).................................... 314
Modification of facility repair notification requirement
(sec. 2813)............................................ 315
Increase of threshold of notice and wait requirement for
certain facilities for reserve components and parity
with authority for unspecified minor military
construction and repair projects (sec. 2814)........... 315
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances................................. 315
Release of reversionary interest retained as part of the
conveyance to the economic development alliance of
Jefferson County, Arkansas (sec. 2821)................. 315
Items of Special Interest.................................... 315
Kwajalein Atoll infrastructure........................... 315
Military construction delay report....................... 316
Military construction supporting major range and test
facility bases......................................... 316
Military training ranges for Special Operations Forces.. 317
Redevelopment of the former Indiana Army Ammunition Plant 318
Repair by replacement.................................... 318
Safe and suitable housing for junior enlisted
servicemembers......................................... 319
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................................... 321
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 321
Overview..................................................... 321
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 321
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)..... 321
Defense environmental clean-up (sec. 3102)............... 322
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)..................... 322
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 322
Responsive capabilities program (sec. 3111).............. 322
Long-term plan for meeting national security requirements
for unencumbered uranium (sec. 3112)................... 323
Defense nuclear nonproliferation management plan (sec.
3113).................................................. 323
Plan for deactivation and decommissioning of
nonoperational defense nuclear facilities (sec. 3114).. 323
Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant contract
oversight (sec. 3115).................................. 323
Assessment of emergency preparedness of defense nuclear
facilities (sec. 3116)................................. 324
Laboratory-and facility-directed research and development
programs (sec. 3117)................................... 324
Limitation on bonuses for employees of the National
Nuclear Security Administration who engage in improper
program management (sec. 3118)......................... 324
Modification of authorized personnel levels of the Office
of the Administrator for Nuclear Security (sec. 3119).. 325
Modification of submission of assessments of certain
budget requests relating to the nuclear weapons
stockpile (sec. 3120).................................. 325
Repeal of phase three review of certain defense
environmental cleanup projects (sec. 3121)............. 325
Modifications to cost-benefit analysis for competition of
management and operating contracts (sec. 3122)......... 326
Review of implementation of recommendations of the
Congressional Advisory Panel on the governance of the
Nuclear Security Enterprise (sec. 3123)................ 326
Budget Items................................................. 326
Defense Environmental Cleanup, Los Alamos National
Laboratory............................................. 326
Deferred Maintenance..................................... 326
Enhanced surveillance.................................... 326
Plutonium disposition program............................ 327
Responsive capabilities program.......................... 329
Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning
fund................................................... 329
Items of Special Interest.................................... 329
Ability of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to
communicate with the Secretary of Energy............... 329
Interoperable Warhead--1................................. 330
Lithium supply and demand................................ 331
Microlab Technology Transfer............................. 331
Report on program management at the National Nuclear
Security Administration................................ 331
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 333
Authorization for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
(sec. 3201)................................................ 333
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES....................................... 333
Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001 )...... 333
Clarification of applicability of undistributed reductions of
certain operation and maintenance funding among all
operation and maintenance funding (sec. 4002).............. 333
Funding tables (secs. 4101-4701)............................. 333
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT........................................... 343
Procurement (sec. 4101)...................................... 344
Procurement for overseas contingency operations (sec. 4102).. 386
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.......... 395
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 4201)...... 396
Research, development, test, and evaluation for overseas
contingency operations (sec. 4202)......................... 429
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 431
Operation and maintenance (sec. 4301)........................ 432
Operation and maintenance for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4302)................................................ 452
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL................................... 463
Military personnel (sec. 4401)............................... 464
Military personnel for overseas contingency operations (sec.
4402)...................................................... 465
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 467
Other authorizations (sec. 4501)............................. 468
Other authorizations for overseas contingency operations
(sec. 4502)................................................ 472
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................ 475
Military construction (sec. 4601)............................ 476
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS..... 497
Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 4701).. 511
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS......................................... 511
Departmental Recommendations............................. 511
Committee Action......................................... 511
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate................ 514
Regulatory Impact........................................ 514
Changes in Existing Law.................................. 515
ADDITIONAL VIEWS................................................. 516
Additional Views of Mr. Reed............................. 516
Additional Views of Mr. Inhofe........................... 518
Additional Views of Ms. Ayotte........................... 520
Additional Views of Mr. Tillis........................... 524
Calendar No. 88
114th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 114-49
======================================================================
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, TO
PRESCRIBE MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
_______
May 19, 2015.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. McCain, from the Committee on Armed Services,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1376]
The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an
original bill to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year
-------- for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths
for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and recommends
that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
This bill would:
(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b)
research, development, test and evaluation, (c)
operation and maintenance and the revolving and
management funds of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2016;
(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each
military active duty component of the Armed Forces for
fiscal year 2016;
(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the
Selected Reserve of each of the reserve components of
the Armed Forces for fiscal year 2016;
(4) impose certain reporting requirements;
(5) impose certain limitations with regard to
specific procurement and research, development, test
and evaluation actions and manpower strengths; provide
certain additional legislative authority, and make
certain changes to existing law;
(6) authorize appropriations for military
construction programs of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2016; and
(7) authorize appropriations for national security
programs of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2016.
Committee overview
For seven decades, the U.S. military has been the most
reliable guarantor of the foundations of international order
that American statesmen of both parties helped to establish in
the aftermath of World War II. The relative security and
prosperity that our nation has enjoyed, and made possible for
so many others across the world, has been painstakingly
maintained through the deterrence of adversaries, the
cooperation with allies and partners, the global leadership of
the United States, and the credibility and capability of our
Armed Forces.
The committee is concerned that growing threats abroad and
continued limitations on defense spending at home are
increasingly harming the ability of the United States, and its
military, to play an effective leadership role in the world.
Indeed, military readiness and capabilities have deteriorated
to the point where senior military leaders have warned that we
are putting at risk the lives of the men and women who serve in
our Armed Forces. There is a growing consensus that we must
reverse this damage so that we can respond adequately to a host
of disturbing challenges to the international order that
adversely impact our national security. These challenges
include:
In Ukraine, Russia has sought to redraw an
international border and annex the territory of another
sovereign country through the use of military force. It
continues aggressively to destabilize Ukraine, with
troubling implications for security in Europe.
A terrorist army with tens of thousands of
fighters, many holding Western passports, has taken
over a vast swath of territory and declared an Islamic
State in the heart of the Middle East. Nearly 3,000
U.S. troops have returned to Iraq to combat this
threat, with U.S. aircraft flying hundreds of strike
missions a month over Iraq and Syria.
Amid negotiations over its nuclear program,
Iran continues to pursue its ambitions to challenge
regional order in the Middle East by increasing its
development of ballistic missiles, support for
terrorism, training and arming of pro-Iranian militant
groups, and other malign activities in places such as
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Bahrain, and Yemen.
Yemen has collapsed, as a Shia insurgency
with ties to the Iranian regime has toppled the U.S.-
backed government in Sanaa, Al-Qaeda continues to use
parts of the country to plan attacks against the West,
the U.S. Embassy has been evacuated, and a U.S.-backed
coalition of Arab nations has intervened militarily to
reverse the gains of the Houthi insurgency and to
restore the previous government to power.
Libya has become a failed state, beset by
civil war and a growing presence of transnational
terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda and ISIL, similar to
Afghanistan in 2001.
North Korea, while continuing to develop its
nuclear arsenal and ever-more capable ballistic
missiles, committed the most destructive cyberattack
ever on U.S. territory.
China is increasingly taking coercive
actions to assert expansive territorial claims that
unilaterally change the status quo in the South and
East China Seas and raise tensions with U.S. allies and
partners, all while continuing to expand and modernize
its military in ways that challenge U.S. access and
freedom of movement in the Western Pacific.
The men and women of our armed forces--as well as the
civilians and contractors who support them--have worked
honorably and courageously to address these challenges on our
behalf, often at great personal risk and significant sacrifice
to themselves and their families. The committee, Congress, and
the American people owe them a debt of gratitude for this
service.
Despite the challenges we face and our commitment to the
men and women of the Department of Defense (DOD), the
President's budget for fiscal year 2016 proposes reductions in
force structure and compensation that increase risk for our
nation and for the men and women who protect us. These
reductions are driven by fiscal limitations that Congress
dictated when we enacted the Budget Control Act of 2011 and
reaffirmed (with minor relief in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 for
the DOD and other agencies) in the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2013. The impact of these budget limitations on our Armed
Forces has been a major oversight priority for the committee.
To date, in this 1st Session of the 114th Congress, the
Senate Committee on Armed Services has conducted 49 hearings
and formal briefings on the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2016. We have received testimony from many of
America's most respected statesmen, thinkers, and former
military commanders and these leaders have all conveyed a
similar message: We are experiencing a nearly unprecedented
period of global turmoil and at current sequestration levels
will not be able effectively respond to these threats. In order
to provide a framework for the consideration of these matters,
the committee identified 10 guidelines for its consideration of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.
These guidelines are as follows:
(1) Ensure the long-term viability of the all-
volunteer force by sustaining the quality of life of
the men and women of the total force (active duty,
National Guard and Reserves) and their families, as
well as Department of Defense civilian personnel,
through fair pay, policies and enhanced retirement
benefits, and by addressing the needs of the wounded,
ill and injured service members and their families.
(2) Ensure that our men and women in uniform have the
advanced equipment they need to succeed in future
combat against technologically sophisticated
adversaries, in the most efficient and effective manner
that provides best value to the taxpayers, by
initiating a comprehensive overhaul of the acquisition
system.
(3) Initiate a reorganization of the Department of
Defense in order:
a. to focus limited resources on operations rather
than administration
b. ensure military personnel can develop critical
military skills
c. stabilize organizations and programs
(4) Drive innovation by allocating funds for advanced
technology development and next generation
capabilities.
(5) Build capacity and capability by reducing the
strike fighter shortfall, munitions deficit, and
increasing fleet capabilities
(6) Advance our ability to protect our eastern
European friends and allies
(7) Reduce our Nation's strategic risk by taking
action aimed at restoring, as soon as possible, the
readiness of the military services to conduct the full
range of their assigned missions.
(5) Enhance the capability of the U.S. armed forces
and the security forces of allied and friendly nations
to defeat ISIL, al Qaeda, and other violent extremist
organizations.
(6) Improve the ability of the armed forces to
counter emerging and nontraditional threats, focusing
on terrorism, cyber warfare, and the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and their means of
delivery.
(7) Address the threats from nuclear weapons and
materials by strengthening nonproliferation programs,
modernizing our nuclear deterrent, and ensuring the
safety, security and reliability of the stockpile, the
delivery systems, and the nuclear infrastructure.
(8) Terminate troubled or unnecessary programs and
activities, identify efficiencies, and reduce defense
expenditures in light of the Nation's budget deficit
problems. Ensure the future capability, viability, and
fiscal sustainability of the all-volunteer force.
(10) Promote aggressive and thorough oversight of the
Department's programs and activities to ensure proper
stewardship of taxpayer dollars and compliance with
relevant laws and regulations.
SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS AND BUDGET AUTHORITY
IMPLICATION
The administration's budget request for national defense
discretionary programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate
Committee on Armed Services for fiscal year 2016 was $604.1
billion. Of this amount, $534.2 billion was requested for base
Department of Defense (DOD) programs, $19.0 billion was
requested for national security programs in the Department of
Energy (DOE) and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
(DNFSB), and $50.9 billion was requested for Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO).
The committee recommends an overall discretionary
authorization of $604.1 billion in fiscal year 2016, including
$496.5 billion for base DOD programs, $18.7 billion for
national security programs in the DOE and the DNFSB, and $88.9
billion for OCO.
The two tables preceding the detailed program adjustments
in Division D of this bill summarize the direct discretionary
authorizations in the committee recommendation and the
equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2016 defense
programs. The first table summarizes the committee's
recommended discretionary authorizations by appropriation
account for fiscal year 2016 and compares these amounts to the
request. The second table summarizes the total budget authority
implication for national defense by including national defense
funding for items that are not in the jurisdiction of the
defense committees or are already authorized.
BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT (SEC. 4)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the budgetary effects of this Act be determined in
accordance with the procedures established in the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (title I of Public Law 111-139).
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for procurement activities at the levels
identified in section 4101 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Navy Programs
Amendment to cost limitation baseline for CVN-78 class aircraft carrier
program (sec. 111)
The committee recommends a provision that would further
amend section 122 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) as
amended by section 121(a) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) by striking
``$11,498,000,000'' and inserting ``$11,398,000,000''. While
the lead ship (CVN-78) cost cap remains $12.9 billion, this
change would apply to CVN-79 and subsequent CVN-78 class
nuclear aircraft carriers.
The initial CVN-78 class aircraft carrier cost cap was
established by the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), which set the
cost cap for the lead ship at $10.5 billion, plus adjustments
for inflation and other factors, and at $8.1 billion for
subsequent CVN-78 class carriers, plus adjustments for
inflation and other factors. The cost cap was amended by the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66) to $12.9 billion and $11.5 billion, respectively.
While the estimated procurement cost of each of the first
three CVN-78 class aircraft carriers increased more than $2.0
billion since 2008, the Navy has held cost relatively constant
over the past three years. The committee is encouraged by the
fiscal year 2016 budget request, which indicates the lead ship
is on track to deliver in March 2016 at its cost cap and the
estimated procurement costs for CVN-79 and CVN-80 are
decreasing. From the fiscal year 2015 budget request to the
fiscal year 2016 budget request, the estimated procurement
costs for CVN-79 and CVN-80 decreased by $150.0 million and
$402.2 million, respectively.
In recognition of the gains made in controlling the cost of
CVN-78 class aircraft carriers and to allow for $50.0 million
of unexpected growth in the CVN-79 procurement cost, the
committee recommends reducing the cost cap by $100.0 million
from $11.5 billion to $11.4 billion, plus adjustments for
inflation and other factors, for CVN-79 and subsequent aircraft
carriers.
Limitation on availability of funds for USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)
(sec. 112)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit
$100.0 million in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy procurement
funds for USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) subject to the
submission of a certification regarding full ship shock trials
and two reports.
The committee is concerned by the Navy's decision to delay
by up to 7 years full ship shock trials on CVN-78 class nuclear
aircraft carriers from the lead ship, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-
78), to CVN-79. While the committee understands the Navy is
concerned with the cost of the test and potential deployment
delay, it is the committee's view that the benefits outweigh
these concerns. With the abundance of new technology, including
the catapult, arresting gear, and radar, as well as the
reliance on electricity rather than steam to power key systems,
there continues to be a great deal of risk in this program.
Testing CVN-78 will not only improve the design of future
carriers, but also reduce the costs associated with
retrofitting engineering changes. Even more importantly, the
thought that CVN-78 could deploy and potentially fight without
this testing would be imprudent and puts sailors at risk. As a
result, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
certify that the Navy will conduct by not later than September
30, 2017, full ship shock trials on CVN-78.
The committee is also concerned by the cost growth in CVN-
78 class aircraft carrier program and the potential for further
growth in the future. The committee understands the $2.4
billion in CVN-78 cost growth is attributable to government
furnished equipment, design and engineering changes, and
shipbuilder performance. The committee views cost reduction
efforts in all three of these areas as essential. As a result,
the committee directs the specified report.
The committee views CVN-78 class aircraft carriers as
extraordinarily important instruments of U.S. national military
power. However, with costs ranging from $11.5 billion to more
than $13.0 billion, these ships are also extraordinarily
expensive, and only one shipbuilder in the world is capable of
building these ships. Since the first advance procurement
funding for this program was appropriated in fiscal year 2001,
each of the first three ships in the class have experienced
more than $2.0 billion in procurement cost growth. In view of
the vital importance of aircraft carriers to national defense,
the cost per ship, lack of competition, and history of cost
overruns, the committee directs a report, which examines
potential requirements, capabilities, and alternatives for
future development of aircraft carriers that would replace or
supplement CVN-78 class aircraft carriers.
Limitation on availability of funds for USS Enterprise (CVN-80) (sec.
113)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit
$191.4 million in advance procurement funds for USS Enterprise
(CVN-80), until the Secretary of the Navy submits a
certification and report to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and of the House of Representatives. $191.4 million
is the sum of funding requested for plans (detailed) and basic
construction for CVN-80.
The committee is concerned by the $13.5 billion estimated
procurement cost of CVN-80. This cost is $2.1 billion, or 18
percent greater, than the estimated procurement cost of USS
John F. Kennedy (CVN-79). While the committee understands
inflation contributes to this cost increase, the committee
believes greater savings should be achieved through a stable
design and the benefits of industrial base learning curve
efficiencies.
As a result, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to
submit a certification that the design of CVN-80 will repeat
that of CVN-79, with exceptions only as specified, and pursuant
to section 114 of this Act. In addition, the Secretary of the
Navy is directed to submit a report on the plans costs of CVN-
80, including a detailed description and justification of the
cost elements.
Modification of CVN-78 class aircraft carrier program (sec. 114)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subsection (f) of section 122 of the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364; 120 Stat. 2104), as added by section 121(c) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66; 127 Stat. 692), by adding a reporting requirement
to the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79) quarterly report.
The committee is concerned by the continuing substantial
plans costs, design changes, and engineering changes associated
with the CVN-78 class aircraft carrier program. While non-
recurring plans costs are expected for the lead ship in a
class, the committee would expect these costs to drop
substantially once the class design is complete and the follow-
on ships enter construction. The plans cost for the lead ship,
USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), amounts to $3.3 billion, which is
25 percent of the overall ship cost ($12.9 billion). The plans
cost for the next ship, CVN-79, is estimated at $880.0 million.
The committee understands these costs are attributable to
detail design and lead yard services, which include: planning,
material sourcing, engineering, and program management
performed by the shipbuilder.
The committee is also acutely aware of past cost growth and
schedule delays associated with design and engineering changes
to this program. The committee believes design and engineering
changes to this program should be limited to operational
necessity, safety, or cost reduction initiatives that meet
threshold requirements.
As a result, beginning January 1, 2016, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit, as part of the
CVN-79 quarterly report, a description of new design and
engineering changes to CVN--78 class aircraft carriers that
exceed $5.0 million and occurred during the reporting period.
The report shall include program or ship cost increases for
each design or engineering change and any cost reduction
achieved. The Secretary of the Navy and Chief of Naval
Operations shall each personally sign (not autopen) this
additional reporting requirement. This certification may not be
delegated. The certification shall include a determination that
each change serves the national security interests of the
United States; cannot be deferred to a future ship due to
operational necessity, safety, or substantial cost reduction;
and was personally reviewed and endorsed by the Secretary of
the Navy and Chief of Naval Operations.
Limitation on availability of funds for Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 115)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit 75
percent of fiscal year 2016 funds for research and development,
design, construction, procurement or advance procurement of
materials for the upgraded Littoral Combat Ships (LCS),
designated as LCS-33 and subsequent, until the Secretary of the
Navy submits to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and of the House of Representatives: a capabilities based
assessment to assess capability gaps and associated capability
requirements and risks for the upgraded LCS, an updated
capabilities development document for the upgraded LCS, and a
report describing the upgraded LCS modernization.
The committee understands that the Secretary of Defense
directed the Navy to explore ``alternative proposals to procure
a capable and lethal small surface combatant, generally
consistent with the capabilities of a frigate''. The outcome of
this analysis, subsequently approved by the Secretary of
Defense, was modifications to the two existing variants of the
LCS. The committee recognizes the significant analysis the Navy
did accomplish, which is similar to an analysis of alternatives
in defense acquisition.
However, the committee is concerned by the absence of
analysis to identify the specific capability gaps and mission
needs that the Navy is seeking to address, which would have
been appropriate prior the Secretary of Defense's initial
tasking. Without this analysis, it is unclear why the
capabilities of the current LCS are inadequate and if the
proposed modifications will be sufficient to address a defined
warfighting gap. In addition, given the significant proposed
changes to the LCS, the committee believes an updated
capabilities development document is warranted and understands
the Navy is pursuing this action.
Finally, the committee believes this modernization of the
LCS class needs to be pursued in a comprehensive and
analytically-derived manner, particularly because these ships
are planned to be in service until 2050. Large surface
combatants, submarines, and tactical aircraft follow
documented, proven modernization processes to outpace the
advances of potential adversaries. Most relevant for the LCS is
the advanced capability build process for large surface
combatants, which is based on a naval capabilities document.
The 14 sections of this document are listed in the recommended
provision.
Therefore, this provision would direct the Navy to deliver
a capabilities based assessment, an updated capabilities
development document certified by the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council, and a report on LCS modernization.
Extension and modification of limitation on availability of funds for
Littoral Combat Ship (sec. 116)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 123 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) by extending the limitation on funds for LCS-25
and LCS-26 until pre-existing requirements are met and would
additionally require the Navy to provide to the congressional
defense committees the following: an acquisition strategy for
LCS-25 through LCS-32; a LCS mission module acquisition
strategy; a plan to outfit Flight 0 and Flight 0+ Littoral
Combat Ships with capabilities identified for the upgraded
Littoral Combat Ship; and a current test and evaluation master
plan for the Littoral Combat Ship mission modules.
The committee believes the additional requirements are in
keeping with defense acquisition policies and best practices.
The committee is concerned that the introduction of an upgraded
LCS, beginning with LCS-33, will further complicate
configuration management of the LCS seaframes and mission
modules. Opportunistic modifications or ``backfits'' of
existing LCS with some, but not all, of these upgraded
capabilities are another source of concern. The committee needs
clarity on the LCS seaframe acquisition strategy, requirement
for mission modules in light of the upgraded LCS decision, cost
and schedule of the Navy's plan to modify or ``backfit''
existing LCS, and how the Navy will achieve developmental and
operational testing for each component and mission module.
Construction of additional Arleigh Burke destroyer (sec. 117)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of the Navy to enter into a contract beginning with
the fiscal year 2016 program year for the procurement of one
Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in addition to the ten DDG-51s in
the fiscal year 2013 through 2017 multiyear procurement
contract or for one DDG-51 in fiscal year 2018. The Secretary
may employ incremental funding for such procurement.
Additional funding and incremental funding authority would
help relieve pressure on the shipbuilding budget as funding
requirements grow for the Ohio-class replacement program over
the next several years. As a result, the committee recommends
incremental funding authority for 1 Arleigh Burke-class
destroyer in addition to the 10 DDG-51s in the fiscal year
2013-2017 multiyear procurement contract or for a DDG-51 in
fiscal year 2018.
Fleet replenishment oiler program (sec. 118)
The committee recommends a provision that would grant the
Secretary of the Navy contracting authority to procure up to
six fleet replenishment oilers (T-AO(X)). This new ship class
is a non-developmental recapitalization program based on
existing commercial technology and standards. The ship design
is considered to be low risk by the Navy, with the design
scheduled to be complete prior to the start of construction on
the lead ship. This provision would generate an estimated $45.0
million in savings per ship compared to annual procurement cost
estimates. In addition, the provision would provide a long-term
commitment to the shipbuilder and vendors, which would enable
workforce stability and planning efficiency.
Reporting requirement for Ohio-class replacement submarine program
(sec. 119)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit Ohio-class replacement submarine
cost tracking information, together with annual budget
justification materials. While the first Ohio-class replacement
submarine is not planned to be authorized until fiscal year
2021, the national importance of this program and significant
cost will continue to merit close oversight by the
congressional defense committees. In response to a committee
request, the Navy provided the committee an information paper
dated February 3, 2015 with the following elements in fiscal
year 2010 dollars and then-year dollars: lead ship end cost
(with plans), lead ship end cost (less plans), lead ship non-
recurring engineering cost, average follow-on ship (hulls 2-12)
cost, operations and sustainment cost per hull per year, Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics (OSD AT&L) average follow-on ship (hulls 2-12)
affordability target, and OSD AT&L operations & sustainment
cost per hull per year affordability target (including
disposal). The committee recommends this format continue to be
used to enable cost visibility, direct comparison of cost
elements, and year-on-year trend analysis.
Subtitle C--Air Force Programs
Limitations on retirement of B-1, B-2, and B-52 bomber aircraft (sec.
131)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
retirement of B-1, B-2, or B-52 bomber aircraft to be retired
during a fiscal year prior to initial operational capability
(IOC) of the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) unless the
Secretary of Defense certifies, in the materials submitted in
support of the budget of the President for that fiscal year as
submitted to Congress, that:
(1) the retirement of the aircraft is required to
reallocate funding and manpower resources to enable
LRS-B to reach IOC and full operational capability
(FOC); and
(2) the Secretary has concluded that retirements of
B-1, B-2, and B-52 bomber aircraft in the near-term
will not detrimentally affect operational capability.
The committee acknowledges the need to recapitalize the Air
Force's bomber fleet with the LRS-B and recognizes the need for
a carefully phased retirement of legacy bomber aircraft to
facilitate this transition as LRS-B approaches IOC.
Limitation on retirement of Air Force fighter aircraft (sec. 132)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 8062 of title 10, United States Code, by adding a new
subsection requiring the Secretary of the Air Force to maintain
a minimum total active inventory of 1,950 fighter aircraft,
within which the Secretary must also maintain a minimum of
1,116 fighter aircraft as primary mission aircraft inventory
(combat-coded).
The provision would also provide additional limitations on
fighter retirements by requiring the Secretary of the Air Force
to certify to the defense committees that:
(1) the retirement of such fighter aircraft will not
increase the operational risk of meeting the National
Defense Strategy; and
(2) the retirement of such aircraft will not reduce
the total fighter force structure below 1,950 fighter
aircraft or primary mission aircraft inventory below
1,116 and would require a report setting forth the
following:
(a) The rationale for the retirement of
existing fighter aircraft and an operational
analysis of replacement fighter aircraft that
demonstrates performance of the designated
mission at an equal or greater level of
effectiveness as the retiring aircraft;
(b) An assessment of the implications for the
Air Force, the Air National Guard, and the Air
Force Reserve of the force mix ratio of fighter
aircraft; and
(c) Such other matters relating to the
retirement of fighter aircraft as the Secretary
considers appropriate.
Lastly, the provision would also require a report at least
90 days prior to the date on which a fighter aircraft is
retired that includes the following:
(1) A list of each aircraft in the inventory of
fighter aircraft, including for each such aircraft:
(a) the mission design series type;
(b) the variant; and
(c) the assigned unit and military
installation where such aircraft is based.
(2) A list of each fighter aircraft proposed for
retirement, including for each such aircraft:
(a) the mission design series type;
(b) the variant; and
(c) the assigned unit and military
installation where such aircraft is based.
(3) A list of each unit affected by a proposed
retirement listed under (2) above and how such unit is
affected.
(4) For each military installation and unit listed
under (2)(c) above, changes, if any, to the designed
operational capability (DOC) statement of the unit as a
result of a proposed retirement.
(5) Any anticipated changes in manpower
authorizations as a result of a proposed retirement
listed under (2) above.
The committee understands the Air Force determined through
extensive analysis that a force structure of 1,200 primary
mission aircraft and 2,000 total aircraft is required to
execute the National Defense Strategy with increased
operational risk. Subsequently, based on the 2012 Defense
Strategic Guidance and fiscal constraints, analysis showed the
Air Force could decrease fighter force structure by
approximately 100 additional aircraft; however, at an even
higher level of risk.
The committee acknowledges that the original F-35
procurement plan projected 516 F-35A variants to be delivered
by fiscal year 2016, but schedule delays and subsequent re-
baselining of the program now projects only 103 F-35A aircraft
delivered by fiscal year 2016. This occurred simultaneously
with the Air Force retiring over 400 fighter aircraft in the
period since fiscal year 2010. These factors result in a
fighter aircraft shortfall that will gradually improve as the
F-35A procurement rate increases.
The Air Force currently fields 54 fighter squadrons in
fiscal year 2015. The proposed fiscal year 2016 retirement of
an additional five A-10 combat squadrons would reduce the total
to 49 fighter squadrons. Of the 49 squadrons remaining in
fiscal year 2016, the Air Force estimates less than half would
be fully combat mission ready. Therefore, the committee has
proposed a provision elsewhere in this act prohibiting the
retirement of additional A-10 aircraft. The limitation on total
aircraft numbers proposed by the committee in the provision
would allow the Air Force to stand down one 24 primary assigned
aircraft squadron at Hill Air Force Base in fiscal year 2016,
in order to transition the people and resources of the squadron
to the F-35A aircraft.
The committee believes further reductions in fighter force
capacity, in light of ongoing and anticipated operations in
Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant, coupled with a potential delay of force withdrawals
from Afghanistan, poses excessive risk to the Air Force's
ability to execute the National Defense Strategy, causes
remaining fighter squadrons to deploy more frequently, and
drives even lower readiness rates across the combat air forces.
The committee expects the Air Force to execute the fiscal year
program in accordance with the spirit and intent of this
provision.
Limitation on availability of funds for F-35A aircraft procurement
(sec. 133)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
availability of fiscal year 2016 funds for F-35A procurement to
not more than $4.3 billion until the Secretary of Defense
certifies to the congressional defense committees that F-35A
aircraft delivered in fiscal year 2018 will have full combat
capability with currently planned Block 3F hardware, software,
and weapons carriage.
The committee acknowledges that in light of increasing
potential adversary capabilities and growing anti-access/area
denial threat environments around the globe, the requirement
for a robust fifth generation fighter capability is a necessary
element for our combatant commanders' continued ability to
execute their warfighting responsibilities. The committee also
acknowledges the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program represents
our only in-production fifth generation fighter aircraft and is
a crucial capability that cannot be understated. The committee
encourages the Secretary to exhibit increased management
oversight of this critical program to ensure compliance with
cost, schedule, and performance objectives.
The committee is concerned, however, that the 57 percent
increase in F-35A production to 44 aircraft in the budget
request, over the fiscal year 2015 level of 28 aircraft,
presents an increased risk of cost growth and schedule delays.
The ongoing System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase is
now approximately 65 percent complete, and continues
development, testing, and evaluation concurrently with
production. Any further software development delays or test and
evaluation deficiency discoveries and deferments could incur
increased retrofit costs for delivered aircraft, and delay
required capabilities to the warfighter.
Prohibition on retirement of A-10 aircraft (sec. 134)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of any funds during fiscal year 2016 to retire, prepare
to retire, or place in storage any A-10 aircraft. The provision
would also require the Secretary of the Air Force to maintain a
minimum of 171 A-10 aircraft in primary mission aircraft
inventory (combat-coded) status. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to commission an independent entity
outside the Department of Defense to conduct an assessment of
the required capabilities and mission platform to replace the
A-10 aircraft. The committee expects the Air Force to execute
the fiscal year program in accordance with the spirit of this
provision.
The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the
retirement of the A-10 fleet purely on the basis of the fiscal
environment and not on grounds of the ability of the combat air
forces to effectively meet the requirements of the combatant
commanders and defense strategy. The committee also believes
that with the A-10 fleet currently engaged in operations
against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL),
providing a theater security package in Europe to assure our
allies and partners, and continuing rotational deployment
operations to Afghanistan, divesting this capability at this
time incurs unacceptable risk in the capacity and readiness of
the combat air forces without a suitable replacement available.
Additionally, in fiscal year 2015 the Air Force implemented
the move of 18 A-10s to backup aircraft inventory status,
reducing all but two of the A-10 fleet's combat squadrons to 18
primary assigned aircraft each.
Specifically, the Secretary of the Air Force should ensure
that the Air Force does not close or consolidate A-10 units,
make changes to standard sustainment processes, or reduce A-10
pilot training or A-10 flying hours disproportionally to
reductions applied to pilots or flying hours for other Air
Force aircraft. Additionally, the provision would require the
Secretary of the Air Force to ensure that the Air Force
maintains a minimum of 171 A-10 aircraft designated as primary
mission aircraft inventory (PMAI) to retain viable combat
squadron sizes through sufficient primary assigned aircraft.
The committee also recommends an increase of $279.7 million
for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force; $16.2 million for
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force; and
$38.5 million for Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.
The committee recommends no increase in Air Force military
personnel accounts. The Air Force is encouraged to find the
billets necessary to fill A-10 and F-35 manpower authorizations
from within the 2,200 billets reduced from its management
headquarters and its 6,000 billet increase request authorized
in title IV of this Act. The committee expects that the
Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force will use some of
the thousands of military positions freed up in the 4-year, 30
percent reduction of headquarter and defense agency staffs to
recruit the necessary maintenance personnel for these aircraft.
The committee believes that combat capability, not headquarter
staffs, should be the priority of the service leaders.
Prohibition on availability of funds for retirement of EC-130H Compass
Call aircraft (sec. 135)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of any funds during fiscal year 2016 to retire, prepare
to retire, or place in storage any EC-130H Compass Call
aircraft. The committee believes that the Air Force is
proposing the retirement of EC-130H Compass Call aircraft
purely on the basis of the fiscal environment and not on
grounds of the ability of the Air Force to meet effectively the
requirements of the combatant commanders and the national
defense strategy.
The EC-130H Compass Call provides an unparalleled
capability for our combatant commanders to disrupt enemy
command and control communications and limit adversary
coordination essential for enemy force management. As a manned
platform, Compass Call is able to operate independently in a
degraded communications environment. The Compass Call is also
flexible since the crew includes electronic warfare officers
and linguists who can make real-time decisions in the execution
of electronic warfare.
The committee was concerned with the Air Force's fiscal
year 2015 budget proposal to retire half the EC-130H fleet
beginning in fiscal year 2016. The Senate report accompanying
S. 2410 (S. Rept. 113-176) of the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) directed the Air Force to
develop a plan, including milestones and resource requirements,
to replace, modernize, or re-host the current Compass Call
capabilities.
In the Air Force's report transmitted to the committee by
the Under Secretary of the Air Force in September 2014, the Air
Force stated, ``. . . budget realities have forced the Air
Force to extreme measures to cut costs and yet attempt to
maintain capabilities. The decision to reduce the Compass Call
fleet by nearly half after [fiscal year 2015] is one of those
extreme measures . . .''
Additionally, the Air Force stated, ``This decision is not
without risk, in that the Air Force will NOT be able to meet
combatant commander operations plan capacity requirements,
however, it is made fully informed of those risks. Because of
this, alternatives to ensure capabilities will not be lost to
combatant commanders will be analyzed, assessed, and selected
in a disciplined, rigorous fashion, with answers expected no
later than [fiscal year 2017].''
The committee believes the Air Force response in the report
indicates it has not yet sufficiently identified, through
studies and analysis, how it will continue to provide the
required capability and capacity to meet combatant commander
requirements for this segment of the airborne electronic attack
mission at acceptable risk, and will not gain insight through
observations and conclusions until at least fiscal year 2017.
Additionally, the Air Force has placed the restoration of the
EC-130H Compass Call fleet on its fiscal year 2016 unfunded
priority list received by the committee in March 2015.
The committee also notes that while the primary mission
electronic warfare capabilities are critical, the EC-130H is
not the ideal platform for anti-access/area denial (A2/AD)
combat environments, and gaps may continue to exist even with
planned platform upgrades.
The committee understands there may be options available to
transition Compass Call capabilities to a new platform that can
address capability requirements in combatant commander
operations plans. The committee is interested in ways the Air
Force could potentially use existing and future EC-130H
modernization and sustainment funds to begin procurement of a
new platform to meet an initial operations capability in 2019,
provide full-spectrum electronic attack capabilities against an
advanced threat in highly contested environments, and thereby
obviate mission capability gaps.
The committee recommends an increase of $27.3 million for
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force and $28.7 million for
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends no
increase for Air Force military personnel accounts and directs
the Air Force to examine its existing force structure and
reduction of management headquarters military personnel billets
to adequately staff the EC-130H fleet at its current
operational capability.
Limitation on transfer of C-130 aircraft (sec. 136)
The committee recommends a provision that would place a
limitation on all of the funds authorized or appropriated by
this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2016 for
the Air Force that may be obligated or expended to transfer
from one facility of the Department of Defense to another any
C-130H aircraft, initiate any C-130 manpower authorization
adjustments, retire or prepare to retire any C-130H aircraft,
or close any C-130H unit until 90 days after the date on which
the Secretary of the Air Force, in consultation with the
Secretary of the Army, and after certification by the
commanders of the XVIII Airborne Corps, 82nd Airborne Division,
and United States Army Special Operations Command, certifies to
the committees on Armed Services of the Senate and of the House
of Representatives that:
(1) the United States Air Force will maintain
dedicated C-130 wings to support the daily training and
contingency requirements of the XVIII Airborne Corps,
82nd Airborne Division, and United States Army Special
Operations Command at manning levels required to
support and operate the number of aircraft that existed
as part of the regular and reserve Air Force operations
in support of such units as of September 30, 2014; and
(2) failure to maintain such Air Force operations
will not adversely impact the daily training
requirement of those airborne and special operations
units.
Limitation on use of funds for T-1A Jayhawk aircraft (sec. 137)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit all
the funds authorized or appropriated by this Act or that
otherwise may be obligated or expended for fiscal year 2016 for
avionics modifications to the T-1A Jayhawk aircraft until 30
days after the Secretary of the Air Force submits to the
congressional defense committees the report required under
section 142 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291).
Restriction on retirement of the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar
System (JSTARS), EC-130H Compass Call, and Airborne Early
Warning and Control (AWACS) aircraft (sec. 138)
The committee recommends a provision that would restrict
the Secretary of the Air Force from retiring any Joint
Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), EC-130H
Compass Call, and Airborne Early Warning and Control System
(AWACS) aircraft until the follow-on replacement aircraft
program enters low-rate initial production.
Sense of the Congress regarding the OCONUS basing of the F-35A aircraft
(sec. 139)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress regarding basing of the F-35A aircraft
outside of the continental United States.
Sense of Congress on F-16 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA)
radar upgrade (sec. 140)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Congress on F-16 Active Electronically Scanned
Array (AESA) radar upgrades.
Subtitle D--Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters
Report on Army and Marine Corps modernization plan for small arms (sec.
151)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretaries of the Army and Navy to jointly submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives a report on the plan of the Army and Marine
Corps to modernize small arms.
Budget Items
Army
Common missile warning system
The budget request included $78.3 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Army (APA) for common missile warning system. The
committee recommends an increase of $26.0 million in APA for
procurement of common missile warning systems. Additional
funding for common missile warning systems was included on the
Chief of Staff of the Army's unfunded priorities list.
PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement
The budget included $414.9 million in Missile Procurement,
Army (MPA) for PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) missiles
for use in the Medium Extended Air Defense System and Patriot
missile defense systems. The PAC-3 MSE provides substantial
improvement in interceptor altitude, range, propulsion,
lethality and agility while furthering insensitive munitions
compliance. The committee recommends an increase of $200.0
million in MPA for procurement of MSE missiles. Additional
funding was included on the Chief of Staff of the Army's
unfunded priority list.
Army Tactical Missile System
The budget request included $30.1 million in Missile
Procurement, Army (MPA) for Army Tactical Missile Systems
(ATACMS) modifications. The committee is concerned about the
Army's plan to enter into a production contract prior to the
completion of testing. Therefore, the committee recommends a
decrease of $10.0 million in MPA for ATACMS.
Improved recovery vehicle
The budget request included $123.6 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for improved recovery
vehicles (M88A2 Hercules). The committee recommends an increase
of $72.0 million in WTCV for the procurement of 16 additional
M88A2s. Additional funding for the improved recovery vehicle
was included on the Chief of Staff of the Army's unfunded
priorities list.
Precision sniper rifle
The budget request included $2.0 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for the precision sniper
rifle. Given this requirement is early to need, the committee
recommends a decrease of $2.0 million in WTCV for the precision
sniper rifle due to program delay.
Compact semi-automatic sniper system
The budget request included $1.5 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for the compact semi-
automatic sniper system. Given this requirement is early to
need, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.5 million in
WTCV for the compact semi-automatic sniper system due to
program delay.
Common remotely operated weapons station
The budget request included $8.4 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for common remotely
operated weapons station (CROWS). At the Army's request, the
committee recommends an increase of $6.4 million in WTCV for
the CROWS. The Army will use the additional funds to
synchronize the conversion and fielding of systems in a
sustainable configuration.
Handgun
The budget request included $5.4 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for handguns. The
committee recommends a decrease of $5.4 million in WTCV for
handguns due to program delay.
Sniper rifle modifications
The budget request included $2.4 million in Weapons and
Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for sniper rifle
modifications. Given this requirement is early to need, the
committee recommends a decrease of $1.4 million in WTCV for
sniper rifle modifications due to program delay.
Items less than $5.0 million
The budget request included $391,000 in Weapons and Tracked
Combat Vehicles, Army (WTCV) for items less than $5.0 million.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in WTCV
for the items less than $5.0 million. The Army would use the
additional funds to procure nonstandard weapons for Regionally
Aligned Forces training.
Army ammunition decrease
The budget request included $1.2 billion in Procurement of
Ammunition, Army (PAA), of which $7.7 million was for LI
1450EA3000 CTG, Handgun, All Types and $79.9 million was for LI
3222ER8001 CTG, 40mm, All Types.
The committee believes that funding related to both line
items are requested ahead of need.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of
$952,000 in LI 1450EA3000 PAA for CTG, Handgun, All Types and
$10.0 million in LI 3222ER8001 CTG, 40mm, All Types.
Transportable Tactical Command Communications
The budget request included $45.0 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA), for the Transportable Tactical Command
Communications (T2C2) system. The committee notes that the
program's Milestone C decision has been delayed to late fiscal
year 2015. Therefore, a portion of the funds requested for
fiscal year 2016 are early to need. The committee recommends a
decrease of $15.0 million in OPA for T2C2.
Prophet Ground System
The budget request included $63.6 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for Prophet ground systems. The
committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million in OPA for the
Prophet due to unjustified growth in production.
Counterfire radars
The budget request included $217.4 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA), for counterfire radars (AN/TPQ-53).
The committee notes that this program is delayed due to
problems discovered during initial operational test and
evaluation resulting in unobligated funds available from prior
year appropriations. Procurement funds requested for fiscal
year 2016 are not operationally urgent and appear early to
need. The committee recommends a decrease of $75.0 million in
OPA for counterfire radars to allow the program test and
production schedules to synchronize in fiscal year 2017.
The committee directs that not later than 180 days after
the dates of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the
Army shall submit to the congressional defense committees a
report on counterfire radars explaining the under execution of
fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 funds as well as repair
problems. The report should also include actions planned and
taken to correct the deficiencies. Specifically, the report
should address problems discovered during initial operation
testing and evaluation. The committee directs that not later
than 60 days after the report of the Secretary, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall review the report and submit
to the congressional defense committees an assessment of the
matter contained in the report.
Global Combat Support System--Army
The budget request included $162.7 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Global Combat Support System--
Army (GCSS-A). The committee recommends a decrease of $16.0
million in OPA for GCSS-A due to unjustified program growth.
Automated data processing equipment
The budget request included $106.4 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for automated data processing
equipment. The committee recommends a decrease of $12.0 million
to this program. The committee recommends that the Army should
ensure that information technology procurements are not
redundant with capabilities available under joint, other
Service, or other agency programs.
Non-system training devices
The budget request included $303.2 million in Other
Procurement, Army (OPA) for non-system training devices. The
committee recommends a decrease of $25.0 million in OPA for
non-system training devices due to unjustified cost growth.
Navy
F/A-18E/F aircraft procurement
The budget request included no funds in Aircraft
Procurement, Navy (APN), for F/A-18E/F aircraft. Procuring
additional F/A-
18E/F aircraft will reduce near-term strike fighter inventory
gaps and risk. This item was included on the Chief of Naval
Operations' unfunded priorities list. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $1.2 billion in APN for 12 F/A-18E/F
aircraft and initial spares.
F-35C
The budget request included $897.5 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Navy (APN), for four F-35C aircraft. The committee
recommends a decrease of $24.5 million in APN due to
anticipated efficiencies savings and excess support equipment
cost growth.
F-35B
The budget request included $1.5 billion in Aircraft
Procurement, Navy (APN), for nine F-35B aircraft. The committee
recommends a decrease of $25.1 million in APN due to
anticipated efficiencies savings and excess support equipment
cost growth. Additionally, the committee recommends an increase
in F-35B procurement to a total quantity of 15 F-35B aircraft
to mitigate the strike fighter shortfall. This request was on
the Commandant of the Marine Corps' unfunded priority list.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.1
billion in APN for the procurement of six additional F-35B
aircraft.
AV-8 series aircraft
The budget request included $83.2 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Navy (APN), for AV-8 series aircraft. Link 16
upgrades are necessary for the fleet of AV-8 aircraft to
improve pilot situational awareness, joint communications, and
force protection. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $3.3 million in APN. This item was included on the
Commandant of the Marine Corps' unfunded priorities list.
F-18 series kill chain enhancements
The budget request included $986.8 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Navy (APN), for F-18 series aircraft
modifications. The committee recommends an increase of $170.0
million in APN for F-18 aircraft series radio frequency kill
chain enhancements to counter sophisticated digital weapons and
combat systems currently proliferated around the world. This
item was included on the Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded
priorities list.
V-22 Osprey
The base budget request included $121.2 million for
procurement of V-22 Osprey. The committee notes the Commandant
of the Marine Corps' unfunded requirement for MV-22 integrated
aircraft survivability ($15.0 million) and MV-22 ballistic
protection ($8.0 million). As a result, the committee
recommends an increase of $23.0 million to this program.
Tomahawk
The budget request included $184.8 million in Weapons
Procurement, Navy to procure 100 Tomahawk missiles. The future
years defense program envisions shutting down the Tomahawk
production line after the fiscal year 2016 procurement.
The committee is concerned about the Navy's decision to
truncate production. The Tomahawk is a combat-proven missile,
having been used well over 2,000 times in the last two decades,
most recently against targets in Syria during Operation
Inherent Resolve in September 2014 and remains the country's
first-strike weapon of choice. The Navy has stated that the
current Tomahawk inventory is sufficient for munitions
requirements and will meet the Navy's needs until its
replacement is operational in the mid-2020s. The Next
Generation Land Attack Weapon, however, is only in initial
planning stages and is not due to enter service until 2024. The
committee believes the assumption of this much risk in a
capability as important as long-range strike is not prudent in
the current and projected security environment.
Additionally, the Navy plans to begin recertification of
its existing Block IV missiles beginning in 2019. By its own
analysis, the Navy recognizes that the existence of a
production gap between the end of new missile builds and the
start of recertification will put tremendous strain on the
Tomahawk supplier base and involve millions of dollars to
requalify suppliers for recertification. The committee is
concerned by the Navy's plan as it moves toward
recertification.
The committee believes that it would be imprudent to ramp
down and close production of the Tomahawk missile at this time.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0
million to keep Tomahawk production at the minimum sustaining
rate of 196 missiles per year.
Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile
The budget request included $192.9 million in Weapons
Procurement, Navy funding to procure 192 Advanced Medium Range
Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM). The AMRAAM remains the preeminent
all-weather, radar-guided missile fielded by the U.S. Navy and
Air Force. The most up-to-date version, the AIM-120D, provides
enhanced lethality to the warfighter and is essential to
success in any potential conflict involving air combat. Chief
of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert testified to the Navy's
shortfall in AMRAAM before the committee. The committee
believes the Navy needs to address the shortfall and therefore
recommends an increase of $15.0 million to procure additional
missiles.
Ordnance support equipment
The budget request included $57.6 million in Weapons
Procurement, Navy for Ordnance Support Equipment. The committee
recommends an increase of $3.7 million.
Virginia-class submarines
The budget request included $2.0 billion in advance
procurement and $3.3 billion in procurement in Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy for Virginia-class submarines.
The committee notes that the Virginia-class submarine
program has continued to perform well, delivering submarines
early and within budget to combatant commanders. As Assistant
Secretary of Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition
Sean Stackley testified on March 18, 2015, ``Submarines'
stealth and ability to conduct sustained forward-deployed
operations in anti-access/area-denial environments serve as
force multipliers by providing high-quality intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance as well as indication and
warning of potential hostile action. In addition, attack
submarines are effective in anti-surface warfare and undersea
warfare in almost every environment, thus eliminating any safe-
haven that an adversary might pursue with access-denial
systems. As such, they represent a significant conventional
deterrent.''
Despite these important capabilities and the success of the
Virginia-class submarine program, the committee notes that on
March 18, 2015, Vice Admiral Joseph P. Mulloy testified that
the Navy is only meeting approximately 54 percent of combatant
commander requests for attack submarines.
The Navy has a validated requirement for 48 attack
submarines, and currently has a fleet of 53 attack submarines.
However, the committee notes that the Navy's attack submarine
fleet will drop to 41 submarines in fiscal year 2029. This
smaller attack submarine fleet, combined with an increasing
demand for the unique capabilities they provide, could result
in the Navy meeting an even smaller percentage of combatant
commander requests for attack submarines. The committee
believes it is important that the Navy procure two Virginia-
class submarines per year in fiscal years 2016 to 2020.
The committee understands that the Virginia Payload Module
(VPM) will help mitigate the nearly 60 percent decrease in
undersea strike capacity associated with the declining number
of attack submarines and retirement of the Navy's guided
missile submarines (SSGNs) in the 2020s. The VPM will increase
the capacity of Virginia-class submarines from 12 to 40 cruise
missiles. The committee believes it is essential to accelerate
as soon as practicable the inclusion of the VPM on Virginia-
class submarines. Furthermore, once inclusion of the VPM is
determined to be feasible, the committee supports inclusion of
the VPM on every new construction Virginia-class submarine.
Therefore, the Secretary of the Navy is directed to submit
a report to the committee no later than December 1, 2015 on the
feasibility of accelerating the VPM introduction to Virginia-
class submarines, as well as an assessment of the industrial
base impact of building Ohio-class replacement submarines,
Virginia-class submarines with the VPM, and Virginia-class
submarines without the VPM, simultaneously.
Furthermore, in light of the importance of Virginia-class
submarines and the VPM, the committee recommends an increase of
$800.0 million in advance procurement and the full requested
amount in procurement for Virginia-class submarines.
Arleigh Burke-class destroyers
The budget request included $3.1 billion in Shipbuilding
and Conversion, Navy for procurement of Arleigh Burke-class
destroyers (DDG-51). Additional funding and incremental funding
authority would help relieve pressure on the shipbuilding
budget as funding requirements grow for the Ohio-class
replacement program over the next several years. As a result,
the committee recommends an increase of $400.0 million and
incremental funding authority for 1 Arleigh Burke-class
destroyer in addition to the 10 DDG-51s in the fiscal year
2013-2017 multiyear procurement contract or for a DDG-51 in
fiscal year 2018.
Afloat Forward Staging Base
The budget request included no funding in Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy for advance procurement of afloat forward
staging base (AFSB). The committee notes the Navy has procured
two AFSBs and has a new requirement to provide support to the
Crisis Response Security Force that justifies an increase in
AFSBs from two to three. As a result, the committee recommends
an increase of $97.0 million to this program for advance
procurement.
Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA) Replacement
The budget request included $277.5 million in Shipbuilding
and Conversion, Navy for advance procurement of amphibious
assault ship (LHA) replacement. The committee notes additional
advance procurement funding would expedite delivery of this
ship enabling the Navy to reach the force structure assessment
objective of 11 large deck amphibious ships as early as fiscal
year 2023. As a result, the committee recommends an increase of
$199.0 million to this program.
LX(R)
The budget request included no funding in Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy for advance procurement of LX(R), which is
expected to functionally replace LSD-41 and LSD-49 class ships.
The committee notes accelerating the delivery of LX(R) class
ships to the fleet will enable the Navy to meet a greater
amount of combatant commander demand for amphibious warships.
As a result, the committee recommends an increase of $51.0
million in advance procurement for this program.
Landing craft utility replacement
The budget request included no funding in Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy for procurement of landing craft utility
replacement. The committee understands accelerating this
program from fiscal year 2018 to 2016 has acceptable technical
risk and will alleviate some pressure on the shipbuilding
budget in future years. As a result, the committee recommends
an increase of $34.0 million to this program to procure one
landing craft utility replacement.
T-ATS(X)
The budget request included no funding in Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy for procurement of T-ATS(X). The committee
notes T-ATS(X) will replace two ship classes--Safeguard-class
salvage and rescue ships (T-ARS) and Powhatan-class fleet ocean
tugs (T-ATF). The committee understands accelerating this
program by one year from fiscal year 2017 to 2016 has
acceptable technical risk and will alleviate some pressure on
the shipbuilding budget in future years. As a result, the
committee recommends an increase of $75.0 million to this
program to procure one T-ATS(X).
Destroyer modernization
The budget request included $364.2 million in Other
Procurement, Navy for DDG modernization. The committee notes
the Navy's DDG modernization program increases the Fleet's Navy
Integrated Fire Control--Counter Air and Ballistic Missile
Defense capacity, which improves the U.S. ability to pace high-
end adversary weapons systems. Procuring one additional combat
system ship set in fiscal year 2016 will allow the Navy to
modernize an additional DDG in fiscal year 2018 with these
capabilities. As a result, the committee recommends an increase
of $60.0 million to this program. This was a Chief of Naval
Operations' unfunded priority.
Littoral Combat Ship Mine Countermeasures Mission Module
The budget request included $85.1 million in Other
Procurement, Navy to procure Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Mine
Countermeasures (MCM) mission modules. The committee notes the
Navy has two MCM mission modules delivered and four MCM mission
modules procured through fiscal year 2015. The Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) has stated that only
one MCM module of each increment is required to complete
operational testing. During developmental testing, as noted by
DOT&E, ``attempts to demonstrate the sequence of events
necessary for an LCS to complete end-to-end mine clearance
operations have been limited by low operator proficiency,
software immaturity, system integration problems, and poor
reliability of MCM components including RMS/RMMV.'' As a
result, the committee recommends a decrease of $55.8 million
for this program due to procurement in excess of need ahead of
satisfactory operational testing.
This reduction would reduce the hardware components to the
manufacturer minimum sustaining rate--a reduction from two to
one Airborne Mine Neutralization Systems (AMNS), two to one
Airborne Laser Mine Detection Systems (ALMDS), six to one AN/
AQS-20A Minehunting Sonars, and two to zero COBRA systems (two
other COBRA systems are requested in LI 2624, which satisfies
the manufacturer minimum sustaining rate).
Remote Minehunting System
The budget request included $87.6 million in Other
Procurement, Navy for the Remote Minehunting System (RMS). In
January 2015, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
noted in his annual report, ``RMS had not demonstrated
sufficient performance or successful integration with
interfacing LCS systems to demonstrate the Navy's minimum
Increment 1 warfighting capability, and developmental testing
completed in the first quarter of fiscal year 2015 demonstrated
continued performance issues and RMS mission package
integration challenges.'' The committee believes that upgrading
two previously procured systems may provide further assets for
testing to demonstrate whether upgrades improve performance and
reliability. As a result, the committee recommends a decrease
of $65.6 million for this program due to procurement in excess
of need, ahead of satisfactory developmental and operational
testing.
Submarine towed arrays
The budget request included $214.8 million in Other
Procurement, Navy for fast attack submarine (SSN) acoustics.
The committee notes TB-29X and TB-34X submarine towed arrays
improve detection, classification, and tracking capabilities
for deployed Virginia-class SSNs. Accelerating procurement by
four additional TB-29X and four additional TB-34X arrays will
improve operational availability of advanced towed sensors and
flexibility of operational, forward-deployed submarines. This
was a Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded priority. As a
result, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million
to this program.
Surface electronic warfare improvement program
The budget request included $324.7 million in Other
Procurement, Navy for AN/SLQ-32. The committee notes the
Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) provides
for upgraded electromagnetic sensing capabilities for surface
ships. SEWIP Block II provides an upgraded receiver/antenna
group and improved electromagnetic interference mitigation and
combat system interface. Procuring two additional units in
fiscal year 2016 would outfit two additional ships in fiscal
year 2018. This was a Chief of Naval Operations' unfunded
priority. As a result, the committee recommends an increase of
$28.0 million to this program.
Tube-launched, optically-tracked, wireless-guided missile
The budget request included $12.5 million in Procurement,
Marine Corps (PMC) for tube-launched, optically-tracked,
wireless-guided (TOW) missiles. The committee recommends an
increase of $140.0 million in PMC for TOW missiles to replenish
a depleted inventory. The additional funding was included on
the Commandant of the Marine Corps' unfunded priority list.
Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar
The budget request included $130.7 million in Procurement,
Marine Corps (PMC) for the Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/
ATOR). The committee notes that excessive concurrency makes the
G/ATOR program a relatively high risk development effort. This
has been demonstrated in poor developmental test results to
date and a major system design change introducing a less mature
technology not tested in previous radars. G/ATOR continues to
struggle with software performance and reliability problems
resulting in significant schedule delays. The committee
recommends a decrease of $32.1 million in PMC for G/ATOR
procurement.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit to Congress a
report on G/ATOR regarding the procurement in excess of need
and ahead of satisfactory testing. The report should explain
the poor development test results and why there has been major
system changes. Furthermore, the report should address the
software performance and reliability problems that have
resulted in significant schedule delays. Not later than 60 days
after the report of the Secretary is submitted, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall review the report and submit
to the congressional defense committees an assessment of the
matters contained in the report.
Air Force
F-35A
The budget request included $5.3 billion in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for 44 F-35A aircraft. The
committee recommends a decrease of $99.1 million in APAF due to
anticipated efficiencies savings and excess support equipment
cost growth.
MQ-9
The budget request included $553.0 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for 29 MQ-9 aircraft. The
committee recommends an increase of $480.0 million in APAF for
24 additional MQ-9 aircraft and initial spares to support
increased combatant commander requirements for medium altitude
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support.
Additional funding was included on the Chief of Staff of the
Air Force's unfunded priorities list.
The committee also recommends under title V in this Act a
provision that would direct the Secretary of the Air Force to
submit a report on actions the Air Force will take to rectify
persistent remotely piloted aircraft career field manning
shortfalls. The committee expects the Air Force to take
required actions to correct these shortfalls to facilitate
these additional aircraft to fulfill combatant commander
requirements.
F-15 capability upgrades
The budget request included $464.4 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for F-15 fighter aircraft
modifications. The F-15 series of fighter aircraft will be
operated through the 2030 decade, and must have capability
upgrades to increase its operational effectiveness against
advanced threats and operate in increasingly contested
environments, and training aircraft modified to mirror combat
configurations for the most effective aircrew training.
Additional funding was included in the Chief of Staff of the
Air Force's unfunded priorities list.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $11.6
million for the Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability
System (EPAWSS), an increase of $48.0 million for six F-15C
advanced electronically scanned array (AESA) radar upgrades, an
increase of $192.5 million for 24 F-15D AESA radar upgrades,
and an increase of $10.0 million for Advanced Display/Core
Processor II (ADCP II) upgrades to support AESA upgrades. The
total recommended increase for APAF is $262.1 million.
Budget request realignment
At the Air Force's request, the committee recommends
realignments in the following table to correct various errors
in the budget request for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
(APAF), and Other Procurement, Air Force (OPAF).
AIR FORCE REQUESTED REALIGNMENTS
(in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Quantity Account Line Item Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QF-16.......................... APAF 12 -25
F-15........................... APAF 22 -$12.8
F-15........................... RDTEAF 136 +$12.8
C2ISR TDL...................... APAF 59 -$2.2
COMSEC Equip................... OPAF 11 +$2.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-130H Propulsion System Enhancements
The budget request included $7.0 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for C-130 modifications. The Air
National Guard and Air Force Reserve will operate C-130H
aircraft for the next two decades. Enhancements to the C-130H
propulsion system will provide increased performance, improved
fuel efficiency, and greater reliability. Therefore, the
committee recommends increases of $33.2 million for T-56 3.5
Engine Modifications, $1.5 million for In-flight Propeller
Balancing System certification, and $13.5 million for
Electronic Propeller Control System for a total increase in
APAF of $48.2 million.
C-130H avionics modernization program
The budget request included no funding in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF), for the C-130H Avionics
Modernization Program (AMP). The committee believes the term
``avionics modernization program of record for C-130 aircraft''
in section 134 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. `Buck' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) includes C-130H safety modifications and airspace
compliance modifications that will be required to operate in
both Federal Aviation Administration-controlled airspace and
International Civil Aviation Organization-controlled airspace
after January 1, 2020.
The current Air Force plan includes making those airspace
compliance modifications within the C-130H Avionics
Modernization Program (AMP) effort. However, as the Air Force
plan for making airspace compliance modifications (AMP
Increment 1) would not achieve airspace compliance for the
entire C-130H aircraft fleet until well after that deadline,
the committee expects the Air Force to accelerate the AMP
Increment I schedule as rapidly as possible. Additionally, the
committee also expects the Air Force to accelerate the effort
for AMP increment 2 modifications, using previously purchased
components and leveraging research and development efforts to
the maximum extent practical. The committee expects the Air
Force to comply with the spirit and intent of section 134 of
the Carl Levin and Howard P. `Buck' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) for
executing the C-130H AMP program of record.
The committee understands that the Air Force is
restructuring the AMP program of record, but also recognizes
that it has no completed design, cost estimates, or schedule
plan on how it will execute AMP Increment 2. The committee
expects the Air Force to continue to execute AMP and field C-
130H aircraft previously upgraded by the AMP program until the
Air Force provides a concrete plan that describes the final
modification configuration for AMP Increment 2, a service cost
position, and a procurement and installation schedule that
would realistically support a fleet viability requirement.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $75.0
million in APAF for C-130H AMP aircraft modifications.
A-10 Munitions Buyback
The budget request included $1.7 billion for Procurement of
Ammunition, Air Force (PAAF) of which $131.1 million was for LI
352010 Cartridges.
The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the
retirement of the A-10 fleet purely on the basis of the fiscal
environment and not on grounds of the ability of the combat air
forces to effectively meet the requirements of the combatant
commanders and defense strategy. The committee also believes
that with the A-10 fleet currently engaged in operations
against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, providing a
theater security package in Europe to assure our allies and
partners, and continuing rotational deployments operations to
Afghanistan, divesting this capability at this time incurs
unacceptable risk in the capacity and readiness of the combat
air forces without a suitable replacement available.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $38.5
million for LI 352010 Cartridges for munitions for the A-10
buyback.
Battlefield air operations kits
The budget request included $13.1 million in Other
Procurement, Air Force (OPAF), for mobility command and control
equipment. The committee recommends an increase of $19.9
million in OPAF for additional battlefield air operations kits
which decrease the risk of fratricide and lowers by 30 percent
the weight of equipment carried by battlefield airmen.
Additional funding was included on the Chief of Staff of the
Air Force's unfunded priorities list.
Air Force Network Procurements
The budget request included $103.8 million in Other
Procurement, Air Force for Air Force network (AFNet)
procurements. The committee recommends a decrease of $17.0
million for this program. The committee notes that many network
and maintenance functions can be outsourced to reduce costs and
leverage commercial technologies. The committee also notes that
some of the systems being procured will be better delivered
through the Department-wide Joint Information Environment.
Joint terminal attack controller training and rehearsal system
simulators
The budget request included $81.6 million in Other
Procurement, Air Force (OPAF), for tactical communications-
electronics equipment. The committee recommends an increase of
$36.0 million in OPAF for additional Joint Terminal Attack
Controller Training and Rehearsal System Simulators to increase
availability of Joint Terminal Attack Control personnel and
increase unit readiness for combat deployments. Additional
funding was included on the Chief of Staff of the Air Force's
unfunded priorities list.
Defense Wide
MC-12
The budget request included $63.2 million in Procurement,
Defense-Wide (PDW), to modify MC-12 aircraft that were to be
transferred from the Air Force to U.S. Special Operations
Command (SOCOM) to replace the existing U-28 fleet and support
the tactical airborne intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) requirements of deployed special
operations forces. The committee notes that the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) prohibited the
transfer of MC-12 aircraft from the Air Force to SOCOM until an
analysis and justification for the transfer of such aircraft
was submitted to the congressional defense committees.
According to the resulting analysis of alternatives, SOCOM
identified the U-28 as the most cost-effective ISR platform to
meet special operations requirements through 2020. Therefore,
at the request of SOCOM, the committee recommends a transfer of
$63.2 million from PDW for MC-12 modifications (P-1 Line # 41)
to PDW for U-28 modifications (P-1 Line #45).
MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
The budget request included $11.7 million in Procurement,
Defense-Wide (PDW), for the acquisition and support of special
operations-unique mission kits for the MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is
responsible for the rapid development and acquisition of
special operations capabilities to, among other things,
effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks
while avoiding collateral damage.
The committee understands that the budget request only
partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its
fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $10.0 million in PDW for the MQ-9 UAV.
The committee strongly supports SOCOM's efforts to
accelerate fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging
technologies on its fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. The committee has
authorized additional funds above the budget request in each of
the last 3 years to enhance these efforts and understands that
SOCOM has successfully developed and acquired a number of new
capabilities, including improved weapon effectiveness, target
location and tracking, image resolution, and video transmission
during that time.
Items of Special Interest
Armored vehicle transmission industrial base
The committee remains interested in the Army's management
of strategic risk in the armored vehicle industrial base,
including its related transmission industrial base.
Accordingly, last year's Senate report accompanying S. 2410
(S. Rept. 113-176) the Carl Levin National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 required the Secretary
of the Army to conduct a business case analysis of the armored
vehicle transmission industrial base. The required analysis
would assess the costs, benefits, risks, feasibility, and
advisability of strategies to manage risks in the armored
vehicle transmission industrial base including, but not limited
to, increased competition, consolidation, or other industrial
approaches across public depot, private commercial, and public-
private partnership entities and facilities.
The committee was recently notified by the Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology (ASA-ALT) that the analysis required by last year's
committee report has been delayed until June 2015. Included
with this notification the ASA-ALT indicated that the Army is
working with its current transmission suppliers to carefully
manage increasingly constrained resources, maintain combat
vehicle fleet readiness, foster future competition, reset
production facilities, invest as necessary in selected critical
and fragile suppliers to sustain capabilities, and use
investments in science and technology to retain important
engineering capabilities.
The committee agrees that successful management of risk in
this important sector of the industrial base will require the
Army to develop plans and programs, sufficiently funded, to
address each of these areas. Although the current fiscal
environment is challenging, it could be an opportunity to
develop new technologies, implement creative partnerships, and
take advantage of opportunities for competition that may
achieve improved technical performance, cost savings, and
greater value for the warfighter and taxpayers. The committee
expects the Army's final report no later than June 30, 2015.
Army UH-60A to UH-60L conversions for the National Guard
The committee is aware that the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter
is one of the most versatile and heavily used aviation
capabilities in the Army National Guard, as well as by all the
states in which they serve. The UH-60A is the oldest model
Black Hawk in service and currently flown almost exclusively by
the Army National Guard. Although old, these A-model Black
Hawks continue to provide a reliable and critically important
medium-lift capability to the National Guard in support of its
state role in homeland defense and support for civil
authorities in response to emergencies. While the Army National
Guard currently uses UH-60A Black Hawk helicopters for the
range of state and domestic requirements for medium-lift, the
lack of modern on-board capabilities means these helicopters
are not ordinarily available for deployment overseas into
hostile environments without significant upgrades to their
current configuration.
The committee notes that based on the Army's current budget
projections Army National Guard units will not replace their
aging UH-60A Black Hawk helicopters until the end of fiscal
year 2025. This naturally results in higher operational tempo
and increased flight hours for the rest of the Army's rotary
wing aviation in support of overseas contingency operations. To
sustain the readiness and increase the availability of the Army
National Guard's UH-60 fleet, and close the A-model capability
gap, the committee encourages the Army to review the
feasibility of accelerating the replacement of all UH-60A
aircraft through the production of new UH-60M helicopters, the
UH-60V upgrade program, and the conversion of A-model Black
Hawks to UH-60L model aircraft.
Combat logistics fleet
The ability of U.S. naval forces to deter aggression and
rapidly respond to crisis around the world is sustained by
Military Sealift Command ships. U.S. global logistics
capability provides a significant advantage over the regionally
focused fleets of potential adversaries. With challenges to
U.S. allies and interests growing, the committee believes U.S.
naval forces must be able to remain deployed and at sea, even
in the face of enemy anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) threats.
The size and structure of today's logistics force appears
to be based on a longstanding operating concept in which naval
forces operate almost exclusively in strike groups or ready
groups with accompanying logistics ships. While such a model
applied in the years following the end of the Cold War, today a
smaller fleet, new missions, such as ballistic missile defense
and counter-piracy, and improving adversary A2/AD capabilities
cause strike groups and ready groups to disperse over more
expansive areas. Additionally, global shipping systems place
fuel and supplies at depots closer to naval forces, enabling
logistics ships to shuttle them out to the fleet as opposed to
having to carry them for the whole deployment.
As the Navy finalizes the requirements for the new oiler,
T-AO(X), the changes in naval operations and threats since its
predecessor, the Henry J. Kaiser-class, was designed should be
a foremost consideration. Therefore, the Secretary of the Navy,
in coordination with U.S. Pacific Command, is directed to
provide the committee a report no later than February 1, 2016,
describing the requirements for T-AO(X) that addresses the
following elements:
(1) Ship's capacity for fuel, dry stores, and chilled
or frozen stores;
(2) Operational concept for fleet resupply that forms
the basis for the T-AO(X) requirement, including how T-
AO(X) will complement existing T-AKE class logistics
ships and how the concept will evolve over the life of
the T-AO(X) class;
(3) Number of T-AO(X) hulls required, how this
requirement addresses a more dispersed fleet and combat
losses likely in a modern conflict, and how the
requirement may evolve over the next 30 years;
(4) How the T-AO(X) will be protected from missile
and submarine attack as it supports a more widely
distributed fleet; and
(5) An analysis of various fleet resupply force
structures to meet projected mission needs in the 2025
timeframe, including: the current program of record, an
alternative consisting a larger number of smaller ships
with the same overall resupply capacity, and a mixture
of the program of record and smaller ships.
Comptroller General of the United States review of the implementation
of recommendations from the National Commission on the
Structure of the Air Force
Section 1055 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(Public Law 113-291) requires that, not later than 30 days
after the date of the submittal to Congress pursuant to section
1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, of the budget of the
President for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2019, the
Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on the response of the Air Force to
the 42 specific recommendations of the National Commission on
the Structure of the Air Force in the report of the Commission
pursuant to section 363(b) of the National Commission on the
Structure of the Air Force Act of 2012 (subtitle G of title III
of Public Law 112-19 239; 126 Stat. 1704). The committee
received the initial report from the Secretary of the Air Force
in March 2015.
The committee is concerned that although the Air Force was
required by the statute to provide discernible milestones for
review of the recommendations or preliminary implementation
plans, none were included in the initial report. Additionally,
several of the Commission's recommendations concerned the force
mix ratio between the active and reserve components, which the
Air Force elected to review through its High Velocity Analysis
process. None of the analysis from this process was included in
the report.
Additionally, section 138 of the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) required the Secretary of the
Air Force to submit to the congressional defense committees an
assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed transfer
from one facility of the Department of Defense to another of C-
130H or C-130J aircraft. The committee received this report in
April 2015.
The committee is concerned that while the Air Force stated
it would provide a review of the force mix balance between the
active and reserve components through its High Velocity
Analysis process, and in response to specific recommendations
of the National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force,
no reference to observations, conclusions, or recommendations
are found in the C-130 force structure report that refers to
this High Velocity Analysis review process on the C-130 mission
area.
In addition, the report also contains no range or weighting
of criteria, similar to the Air Force's strategic basing
process, that would determine the operational effectiveness of
stationing C-130 units at one location over another.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to review the Air Force's methodology and effectiveness
in its effort to plan for and implement the National Commission
recommendations. The review should include, at a minimum,
assessments of:
(1) the Air Force's plans for review and
implementation of the Commission's recommendations;
(2) the sufficiency of the Air Force's High Velocity
Analysis process to provide decision level information
to senior Air Force leaders on appropriate force mix
balance between the components;
(3) the applicability and appropriateness of the
models used in the High Velocity Analysis process;
(4) the decision process used following data
collection and analysis; and
(5) any other matters the Comptroller General
determines are appropriate during the review.
The Comptroller General shall submit a preliminary review
to the congressional defense committees not later than August
31, 2015, and a final report to follow on February 1, 2016.
Comptroller General review of the CVN-78 class aircraft carrier program
The committee notes the estimated procurement costs for the
first three CVN-78 class aircraft carriers are $12.9 billion,
$11.3 billion, and $13.5 billion, respectively. In fiscal year
2008, the procurement costs for these ships were estimated to
be $10.5 billion, $9.2 billion, and $10.7 billion,
respectively. The committee remains concerned with the current
and potential future cost growth in this program. In light of
the significant cost growth since the original estimates and
substantial costs that continue to be requested for the CVN-78
aircraft carrier program, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to submit a report, not later than
February 1, 2016, that includes analysis and recommendations
for the following:
(1) Cost estimates and cost estimating practices for
the development and acquisition of the first three CVN-
78 class aircraft carriers, including the factors that
contributed to the quality of these estimates and the
extent to which the cost estimates are reliable;
(2) Effectiveness of current cost accounting and cost
surveillance practices in providing reliable
information for budget and program planning and
execution, in light of the cost caps; and
(3) Reporting format for CVN-78 aircraft carrier
program costs, including annual budget requests and
selected acquisition reports.
Enhance cockpit displays to improve safety and mission effectiveness
The committee notes that advancements in cockpit display
technologies have the potential to improve safety and mission
effectiveness for military aircrews operating a wide range of
fixed wing and rotary aircraft. These technologies include but
are not limited to enhanced vision and video overlays,
integration of aircraft data with real world and stored
imagery, ability to display three dimensional information, and
ability to share information both on and off the aircraft. The
committee also understands these technologies may be available
as commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology & Logistics to investigate recently
developed cockpit display technologies to improve flight safety
and enhance mission effectiveness through improved situational
awareness. The committee believes that Department of Defense
may be able to improve flight safety, reduce aircrew workload
and increase combat effectiveness by incorporating new cockpits
display technologies into aircraft cockpits, to include the use
of existing COTS systems.
Expeditionary Health Services Systems
The committee supports the Department of the Navy's
Expeditionary Health Services Systems (EHSS) and notes with
interest the goal of transitioning dated legacy systems to
rapidly erectable Expeditionary Medical Facilities (EMF).
Improving and/or correcting performance and safety issues in
the EMF legacy systems should be a high priority in the Navy's
EHSS Equipment Purchases. Therefore, the committee urges the
Department of the Navy to make the modernization and upgrading
of the EMFs a priority focused on improving the safety of
legacy systems while upgrading their performance. This would
include fast-tracking improved material technology insertion
for immediate impact on legacy equipment.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program
The committee supports, and is committed to, the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter program. The committee notes the progress made
in the System Development and Demonstration phase since the
program was re-baselined following the Nunn-McCurdy breach in
2011, generally achieving program schedule goals and driving
aircraft flyaway costs downward despite ongoing technological
challenges and deficiencies revealed in both hardware and
software testing. The committee desires to increase the annual
procurement quantities for all three variants insofar as
program performance and available funding allow.
The committee is concerned with the growing fighter force
structure capacity shortfalls in the Departments of the Air
Force and Navy due to delays in the F-35 program, noting the
original program delivery plan expected to have 1,013 aircraft
of all three variants delivered by fiscal year 2016, with
actual and currently planned deliveries now only totaling 179.
These program delivery delays occurred while legacy fighter
aircraft continue to reach the end of their designed service
lives, become increasingly less capable due to adversaries'
technological advances, or are being divested in significant
numbers due to shrinking defense budgets.
The committee is also concerned that the Department of
Defense established the requirement for the F-35 program of
record total buy quantity under very different strategic
circumstances nearly 20 years ago. In addition, prospective
adversary technological advances and increased capabilities
with regard to establishing contested combat environments,
combined with updated threat assessments and an evolving
national defense strategy, have significantly changed the
calculus for force sizing constructs.
The committee notes that the rapid pace of new
technological developments in such areas as unmanned systems,
robotics, cyber, directed energy, propulsion, hypersonics,
nanotechnology, and composites, among many others, is pointing
the way to the future. Moreover, with many significant defense
modernization programs scheduled to peak simultaneously in the
middle of the next decade, informed strategic choices must be
made on how the nation's resources will be applied to meet 21st
century challenges.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report, within 180 days following the enactment of
this Act, to either revalidate the current requirement for the
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter total program of record quantity, or
identify a new requirement for the total number of F-35
aircraft the Department would ultimately procure. The report
should include the relevant portions of the defense strategy,
critical assumptions, priorities, and force sizing construct
used to revalidate the current requirement. If a new
requirement is identified, the report should include the
overarching plan for fielding complementary weapons systems to
meet combatant commander objectives and fulfilling warfighting
capability and capacity requirements in the areas of an
optimized force mix of long-range versus medium/short-range
ISR/strike platforms; manned versus unmanned platforms;
observability characteristics; land-based versus sea-based;
advanced fourth-generation platforms of proven design; next
generation air superiority capabilities; and promising, game-
changing, advanced technology innovations.
The required report may be classified, but must include an
unclassified executive summary.
Joint Standoff Weapon
The committee is concerned with the lack of clarity in the
Navy's proposal to terminate the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW).
The Secretary of the Navy is directed to provide to the
congressional defense committees, within 60 days of the
enactment of this act, a detailed analysis of Navy JSOW
inventory, wartime requirements and the impact of termination
on U.S. war plans and JSOW Foreign Military Sales. Should the
Navy's analysis determine the need for more JSOWs, the
committee would be supportive of additional procurement.
Land mobile radio
The committee is aware that some U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR)
installations may be operating with outdated installation
security and public safety communications systems that do not
support multiple-party conversations in the event of an
emergency. A land mobile radio (LMR) study conducted by the
Naval Surface Warfare Center--Crane found that insufficient
radio coverage could occur between installations over large
distances within the Army's Installation Management Command--
Europe (IMCOM-E). In order to improve radio coverage, the study
recommended that the Army join an initiative with the U.S. Air
Force--Europe (USAFE) on its Enterprise Land Mobile Radio
program. The committee also notes that cost savings may be
realized if IMCOM-E and USAFE pursue a joint LMR system rather
than if IMCOM-E upgrades its LMR independently. Additionally,
migrating to a joint USAREUR-USAFE installation security
network could allow for the reuse of system frequencies
throughout the area, resulting in reduced spectrum use.
Accordingly, the committee encourages IMCOM-E and USAFE to
coordinate efforts to find and implement an effective and
affordable system that meets requirements.
Missile and munitions industrial base
The committee is concerned by the fragility of the missile
and munitions industrial base. Unstable and declining budgets
and a lack of new start programs continue to pressure tier two
and tier three suppliers, particularly in the solid rocket
motor, fuse and energetic materials segments. The committee
notes the importance of sustaining design engineering and
systems integration skills and the critical sub-tier supply
chain and is encouraged by Department of Defense efforts to
mitigate some of the most acute risks. The committee looks
forward to working with the Department to ensure a healthy
missile and munitions industrial base.
Modernization for Light Armored Vehicles
The committee finds that the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV)
Family of Vehicles (FoV) has been plagued by inadequate and
unreliable power due to technological increases in
communications, command and control, situational awareness,
modern weapon systems, and an aging electrical infrastructure.
The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to continue
to seek ways to modernize the LAV FoV to meet the existing and
future vehicle power requirements.
Navy maritime security barriers
Given the continued terrorist threat to U.S. military
personnel and installations, the committee believes the
department must seek to continually improve force protection
measures. Security at Navy shipyards and bases depends not only
on land-based security measures, but also on effective maritime
barriers. As we tragically observed in the 2000 attack on the
USS Cole, an attack against a U.S. vessel in port can result in
a significant loss of American life.
The committee understands that the maritime barriers on
many Naval bases and shipyards may utilize dated technology
that may not provide the best available protection.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no
later than March 31, 2016. That report should: (1) assess the
force protection capability of maritime barriers used by the
Navy; (2) assess the force protection capability of maritime
barriers that are currently available on the commercial market;
(3) describe whether additional force protection capability
could be achieved by employing new maritime barriers; (4)
estimate acquisition costs for the alternative maritime
barriers currently available on the commercial market; (5)
compare the operating and support costs of current barriers
with the projected operating and support costs of maritime
barriers available on the commercial market; and (6) evaluate
whether any potential increase in force protection capability,
as well as potential reduced operating and support costs, would
be worth the costs of deploying that capability. In assessing
potential differences in force protection capability, the
Secretary should examine such factors as the estimated stopping
power and stopping distance of the respective maritime
barriers.
Navy training helicopters
The committee is aware that the Navy and Army have used the
TH-57 Sea Ranger and TH-67 Creek helicopters respectively for
initial pilot training for more than 30 years. The TH-57 Sea
Ranger has been a reliable and affordable training aircraft,
however, this fleet of aircraft is becoming increasingly
expensive to maintain and may require significant upgrades to
extend the fleet's service life. The committee also notes that
the Army has started to divest itself of the TH-67 Creek
trainers and is procuring a modern, dual-engine training
helicopter to improve initial pilot training and make pilot
transitions to operational aircraft more effective and
efficient.
Given the challenges associated with the sustainment and
cost to extend the life of the Navy's aging TH-57 fleet, the
committee is interested to know the Navy's near and long-term
plans for training helicopter modernization. Accordingly, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report
on the TH-57 fleet to the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate no later than September 30, 2015. That report should
provide: (1) an assessment of the current and a 5-year
projection of TH-57 fleet reliability, including related
maintenance and sustainment costs; and (2) the Navy's 10-year
plan for training helicopter modernization, including funding
profile and schedule assumed in the future years defense
program, as provided in the fiscal year 2016 budget request.
Night Vision Reset
Night vision systems are an essential capability for
successful conventional military and counterterrorism
operations.
As night vision technologies continue to proliferate around
the world, the committee believes it is crucial that the
Department of Defense maintains and where possible extends its
technological advantage in night vision systems. The committee
notes that the Army has plans and programs in place to address
the technological opportunities, operational requirements, and
industrial base challenges associated with current and future
night vision systems. In this regard, the committee encourages
the Secretary of the Army to develop and implement a
comprehensive night vision systems research, development,
acquisition, reset maintenance, and sustainment strategy that
improves readiness, identifies and delivers promising new or
emerging technologies, and ensures the affordability of night
vision systems by managing cost throughout their life cycle.
Patriot Product Improvement Future Lower Tier Sensor Alternatives
The Congress supports retention of the Integrated Air and
Missile Defense (IAMD) technical superiority in balance with
affordability to protect our forces and our coalition partners.
To that end, the Army is conducting an analysis of alternatives
(AoA) to determine the future path for IAMD Lower Tier
investment and modernization within the overarching IAMD
Strategy.
To achieve this end state, the Army should thoroughly
assess and consider all alternatives for modernizing the Lower
Tier Patriot radar, including system solutions incorporating
Active Electronic Scan Array (AESA) and Gallium Nitride (GaN)
technology insertion into the existing Lower Tier Patriot
radar. The committee believes the Army analysis should also
consider relative risks, affordability and lead times of
alternatives to maintain this capability.
The committee directs the Army to report within 90 days of
completion of the AoA on the overall results of the AoA and on
the relative merits of various technology options to sustain
and modernize the existing Patriot radar.
Route and area clearance mine protected vehicles
The budget request included $131.0 million in Other
Procurement, Army for the modification of in service equipment
that would upgrade a mix of route and area clearance mine
protected vehicles. Route and area clearance mine protected
vehicles, such as the Panther, Husky, Buffalo, and RG31, are
special purpose vehicles with a combination of on board mine
detection and clearing capabilities. All of these vehicles have
been proven effective by U.S. forces and those of other nations
in detecting and countering improvised explosive devices in
combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The committee notes that the Army plans to retain 1,840 of
these route and area clearance mine protected vehicles for
distribution to units, pre-positioned stocks, training, and for
repair cycle spares. Of these, 650 would be Husky and 324 would
be Buffalo vehicles.
The committee understands that the budget request would
complete the Army's acquisition objective for the Buffalo and
Husky, however, the committee is concerned that to date neither
of them has a sustainment or modernization plan. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives, no later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, a report detailing plans to sustain and
modernize the route and area clearance mine protected vehicle
fleet. The report required shall include details regarding the
plan's schedule as well as funding profiles in relevant
research and development and procurement accounts from fiscal
year 2017 to fiscal year 2020.
San Antonio-Class Amphibious Transport Dock program
The committee recognizes final requirements are still under
development for the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock
ship designated LPD-28 and expects the fiscal year 2017 budget
request to fully fund LPD-28 in the future years defense
program.
Single-source providers of critical acquisition program components
The committee notes with concern the February 2015 fire in
the United Kingdom that destroyed the factory of the single-
source provider of propellers for C-130J aircraft.
While the committee received assurances from the Air Force
that actions have been taken to avoid C-130J manufacturing
delays, the committee is concerned there are other single-
source or single-location providers of critical components of
major defense acquisition programs where the loss of which, for
any reason, could undermine the national security interests of
the United States.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a
classified report to the congressional defense committees, not
later than February 1, 2016, that identifies major defense
acquisition programs with operational implications, a list of
critical components of such major defense acquisition programs
provided by single-source and/or single-provider suppliers, the
severity of the operational impact of the loss of such
suppliers, and risk management actions with associated
implementation plans and timelines the Department will take to
prevent negative operational impact in the event of such loss.
Standoff precision guided weapons
As the air and missile defense capabilities of potential
adversaries rapidly advance, the ability of the U.S. Armed
Forces to employ short-range precision guided weapons such as
Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) will be increasingly
challenged. The capability to employ precision guided weapons
at standoff ranges in large numbers will be necessary to ensure
operational success in any high-end engagement. Advanced
weapons such as the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile--
Extended Range (JASSM-ER), the Longe Range Anti-Ship Missile
(LRASM), the Tomahawk missile and others will be key elements
in attack execution, but are cost prohibitive to use in the
numbers that future strike scenarios may require.
The committee is concerned the Navy is not adequately
planning for a future environment in which large scale use of
standoff precision guided munitions is a prerequisite for
victory. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
provide, prior to submission of the fiscal year 2017 budget
request, a report on the Navy's plan for standoff precision
guided munitions in the 2025-2030 timeframe to include ship-,
submarine- and air-launched weapons. The report should include
what actions are being taken to ensure that cost-effective
solutions are part of the planning. The Navy should provide
this information in an unclassified report with an accompanying
classified annex.
Unmanned Undersea Vehicles
The sophistication and endurance of autonomous undersea
vehicles (AUVs) are dramatically improving as they incorporate
new civilian and military technologies. Vehicles in development
will likely be able to take over some missions performed today
by submarines, reducing stress on the force and enabling
greater capacity for undersea warfare. The decision-making
limitations of AUVs, however, will constrain the degree to
which they can replace or augment submarines for the
foreseeable future.
A large number of AUVs are in development. However, the
committee is concerned that the size and capabilities of these
AUVs are not necessarily well suited for the missions they can
perform. For example, AUVs that are small enough to be carried
on submarines are not likely to have space for the redundant
power and control systems needed to support independent long-
endurance operations. They may be best suited for missions
where the AUV is expended or acts as an extension of the host
submarine's sensors or weapons. Conversely, large AUVs that can
carry redundant power and control systems are likely to be
launched from shore or large surface ships, and may be best
suited for long-endurance surveillance or transport missions.
Vehicles in the middle, such as the Large Displacement Unmanned
Undersea Vehicle (LDUUV), are too large and expensive to deploy
in quantity but are likely too small to host the systems needed
for long-endurance independent operations.
As AUVs transition from science and technology projects to
acquisition programs, the Navy should assess the number and
type of AUVs needed so it can most effectively use the
resources allocated to these systems. Therefore, the Secretary
of the Navy is directed to provide the committee a report no
later than February 1, 2016, describing its projected AUV force
structure requirement for 2025 that addresses the following:
(1) The missions expected to be conducted by
different AUV classes and how this mission set relates
to current and future submarine mission sets;
(2) The different AUV classes, as well as other
deployable undersea sensor and communications systems,
anticipated in this timeframe and their host
platform(s), as appropriate; and
(3) The required number of AUVs in each class and the
impact, if any, on submarine force structure
requirements.
In the report on the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(Report 113-176), the committee expressed its belief that the
Navy should, where feasible, take full advantage of existing
expertise and infrastructure at the public shipyards for
unmanned undersea vehicle development and maintenance.
The committee continues to expect the Navy to capitalize,
where feasible, on existing expertise and infrastructure at the
public shipyards for research, development, engineering,
configuration management, acquisition support, technical
problem solving, and operations and logistics support,
including life-cycle maintenance and mission package support.
Vehicle occupant protection technology
The committee has followed with interest the development of
unique technology to detect and autonomously respond to
underbody explosive incidents with an active response to
counter vehicle flight and reduce the physical effects on
occupants. The committee is interested in the testing conducted
under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement between
industry and the Army. The committee directs the Secretary of
the Army to submit a report within 90 days of enactment of this
Act which evaluates the results of the testing on this
technology.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 201)
This provision would authorize the appropriations for
research, development, test, and evaluation activities at the
levels identified in section 4201 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Centers for science, technology, and engineering partnership (sec. 211)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Chapter 139 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a
program that would enhance the Department of Defense
laboratories with innovative academic and industry partners in
research and development activities. The provision would enable
more effective transfer of laboratory-generated innovations to
small businesses and other industry partners to promote their
transition into military systems or for development into
commercial technologies. The provision would also improve the
overall quality of research efforts, while reducing the costs
of ownership and maintenance of world-class research
infrastructure, and enhance the return on taxpayer investment
in facilities and personnel at the laboratories. The provision
is modeled on similar authority that has been provided to
Department of Defense agencies by Congress under the Center of
Industrial and Technical Excellence program. The provision is
also supportive of the Department's ``Better Buying Power''
efforts to ``improve the return on investment in Department of
Defense laboratories.''
The labs have a tradition of partnerships with industry and
academia that has led to significant advances in mission areas
and technologies ranging from robotics to cyber security to
aeronautics. A recent example is the development of the Army
Research Laboratory's (ARL's) ``Open Campus''' initiative, the
goal of which is to develop processes and engagements through
which the academic community, industry, small business, and
other government laboratories can efficiently engage with ARL's
specialized research staff and unique technical facilities in a
broad range of Army technology mission areas. Another is the
Air Force Research Laboratory partnership with the Wright
Brothers Institute on the Tec-Edge Innovation and Collaboration
Center, which promotes public-private research partnerships in
unmanned air systems, advanced sensors, and rapid prototyping
of advanced materials. The committee believes that more can be
done to encourage and strengthen these types of activities.
A recent report by the Institute for Defense Analyses
indicates that mutually beneficial partnerships between
Department of Defense laboratories and academia ``are not as
abundant as those in the intramural research programs at the
Department of Energy.'' The committee believes that this
provision would support the enhancement of beneficial
activities with both academia and the private sector.
Department of Defense technology offset program to build and maintain
the military technological superiority of the United States
(sec. 212)
The committee notes with concern that the United States has
not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the
end of World War II, and that taken together, they constitute
the greatest challenge in a generation to the integrity of the
liberal world order, which has consistently been underwritten
by U.S. military technological superiority. At the same time,
the committee is alarmed by the apparent erosion in recent
years of this technological advantage, which is in danger of
disappearing altogether. To prevent such a scenario and to
maintain the country's global military technological edge, the
committee recommends a provision that would establish a new
$400.0 million initiative.
In doing so, the committee notes that the Defense
Department is facing an emerging innovation gap. Commercial
research and development in the United States now represents 80
percent of the national total, and the top four U.S. defense
contractors combined spend only one-quarter of what the single
biggest internet company does on research and development.
Furthermore, global research and development is now more than
twice that of the United States. The committee also notes that
defense innovation is moving too slowly--in cycles that can
last up to 18 years, whereas commercial innovation can be
measured in cycles of 18 months or less.
The committee understands that accessing sources of
innovation beyond the Defense Department is critical for
national security, particularly in the areas of directed
energy, low-cost high-speed munitions, cyber capabilities,
autonomous systems, undersea warfare, and intelligence data
analytics. However, there are currently too many barriers that
limit cooperation with U.S. allies and global commercial firms,
posing a threat to the country's future military technological
dominance.
For the past several years, U.S. adversaries have been
rapidly improving their own military capabilities to counter
our unique advantages. Structural trends, such as the diffusion
of certain advanced military technologies, pose new operational
challenges to U.S. armed forces. As a result, the dominance of
the United States military can no longer be taken for granted.
Consequently, the Department of Defense must remain focused on
the myriad potential threats of the future and thus maintain
technological superiority against potential adversaries.
The committee notes that since 1960, the department has
invested more than $6.0 billion in directed energy science and
technology initiatives. The committee is concerned that,
despite this significant investment, the department's directed
energy initiatives are not resourced at levels necessary to
transition them to full-scale acquisition programs. The
committee is encouraged by the Navy's demonstration a 100-150
kilowatt prototype laser and by the Air Force's demonstration
of high-powered electromagnetic weapons capabilities. However,
the committee is concerned about the future of directed energy
technologies as a whole. The committee notes that there is no
inter-service entity dedicated to advancing promising directed
energy platforms beyond the development point towards
acquisition.
The committee is encouraged that the department established
a department-wide Defense Innovation Initiative in November
2014 to pursue innovative ways to sustain and advance our
military superiority and to improve business operations
throughout the department. However, the committee is concerned
by the possibility that this initiative is not being
implemented in an appropriate and expeditious manner.
In response to these factors, the committee recommends a
provision that would establish an initiative within the
Department of Defense to maintain and enhance the military
technological superiority of the United States. The provision
would establish a program to accelerate the fielding of offset
technologies, including, but not limited to, directed energy,
low-cost high-speed munitions, autonomous systems, undersea
warfare, cyber technology, and intelligence data analytics,
developed by the department and to accelerate the
commercialization of such technologies. As part of this
program, the committee expects that the Secretary of Defense
would also establish updated policies and new acquisition and
management practices that would speed the delivery of offset
technologies into operational use.
The provision would authorize $400.0 million for fiscal
year 2016 for the initiative, of which $200.0 million would be
authorized specifically for directed energy technology.
Accordingly, the provision would mandate the Secretary to
develop a directed energy strategy to ensure that appropriate
technologies are developed and deployed at an accelerated pace,
and update it every 2 years. The committee expects that this
strategy would include a recommendation on rationalizing the
roles and authorities of the Joint Technology Office for High
Energy Lasers. The provision would further direct the Secretary
to submit this strategy to the Senate Armed Services Committee
and the House Armed Services Committee no later than 90 days
after completing the strategy, and biennially thereafter.
To speed up the development of these vitally needed
national security capabilities, the committee directs that the
Secretary of Defense shall consider all appropriate flexible
acquisition authorities granted in law and in this Act. These
should include the management structure and streamlined
procedures for rapid prototyping outlined in section 803 of
this Act on the middle tier of acquisition for rapid
prototyping and rapid fielding, and the procedures and
authorities to be considered under section 805 of this Act on
use of alternative acquisition paths to acquire critical
national security capabilities to include other transactions,
rapid acquisition, and commercial item authorities.
The committee expects that the Secretary of Defense would
keep the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services regularly updated on progress of
activities under this technology offsets initiative.
Reauthorization of Defense Research and Development Rapid Innovation
Program (sec. 213)
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
has established a Rapid Innovation Program to accelerate the
fielding of innovative technologies, as authorized in the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 111-383). The committee further notes that the DOD
has established a competitive, merit-based process to solicit
proposals from interested contractors, review and select
projects based on military needs and standardized evaluation
criteria, and award contracts to execute program projects. The
committee is encouraged that the military services and the
congressional defense components participating in the program
have practices and tools in place to manage and monitor the
execution of projects.
According to the Government Accountability Office, some
completed projects have already successfully transitioned
technology to acquisition programs and other military users
through the Rapid Innovation Program. In addition, the DOD
estimates that 50 percent of all fiscal year 2011 funding
projects have out-year funding commitments from military users
indicating the likelihood that they will transition
technologies. The Government Accountability Office assessed
projects scheduled to be completed through July 2014 and found
that 50 percent successfully transitioned to acquisition
programs or other users. Although it is too soon to accurately
assess the overall success of the Rapid Innovation Program, the
committee is encouraged by the results achieved thus far. The
committee notes that the Rapid Innovation Program has been
highlighted as a part of the department's Better Buying Power
Acquisition Initiative.
The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize
the Rapid Innovation Program for an additional 5 years. At the
same time, the committee recommends that the DOD takes steps to
ensure that the selection of projects through the Program is
not subject to improper influence outside of the established
selection process.
Reauthorization of Global Research Watch Program (sec. 214)
The committee notes that since its inception in 2003, the
Global Research Watch Program has made significant progress
toward its program goals, as outlined in the original
authorizing legislation. The committee also notes that the
current authorization in section 2365 of title 10, United
States Code, will expire on September 30, 2015.
Consequently, the committee recommends a provision that
would reauthorize the program for an additional 10 years. The
committee further recommends that the program be expanded to
include private sector persons as part of its global focus. The
definition of ``person'' is in section 1 of title 1, United
States Code, and it includes corporations, companies,
associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock
companies.
Science and technology activities to support business systems
information technology acquisition programs (sec. 215)
The committee recommends a provision that would mandate the
establishment of science and technology activities that would
help reduce the technical risk and life cycle costs of major
information technology acquisition programs. The committee
notes that the Government Accountability Office and the
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation have repeatedly
reported to Congress failures in the acquisition of major
information technology business systems programs. Among these
are the Expeditionary Combat Support System and the Defense
Integrated Military Human Resources System, which spent
billions of dollars and delivered no useful capability.
The committee notes that current information technology
programs, including those intended to support efforts at
achieving audit ability, track pay and personnel records, and
manage health care information, are also not performing in a
manner that inspires confidence in the delivery of useful
technologies within current cost and schedule estimates.
The committee believes that failures of these acquisition
programs are the result of myriad causes, one of which is the
weakness of the Department of Defense's acquisition workforce
in developing and deploying these systems. The Department does
not internally employ or have external access to expertise that
can develop and technically manage these programs. The
Department also does not maintain sufficient expertise to
support the modification of antiquated business processes,
thereby precluding department-wide organizational support by
commercially-available modern information technology products
and services. Furthermore, the Department does not have the
testing infrastructure or workforce expertise to adequately
ensure that systems will perform when deployed.
The committee believes another cause of failure is the
expensive and technically complex modification of commercially
available software to support perceived departmental needs. The
business systems covered in this provision support business
functions that are similar to those found in the private
sector, such as accounting, contract management, health
records, and pay systems. The Department lacks the expertise to
modify their antiquated and labor-intensive business processes
so that lower-cost, commercially-available solutions can be
applied to support departmental operations. Instead, the
Department employs contractors to customize commercial software
programs with the expectation that they can support existing
processes, thereby expending minimal effort or rigor to modify
the processes themselves.
Finally, the committee believes these programs are
suffering from the same cybersecurity challenges that all
private and public sector information technology programs are
facing. Given the importance of these systems in supporting
departmental operations and deployed forces, they can be
inviting targets for cyberattack.
The committee's recommended provision is based on the
precepts built into the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act
of 2009 and in the strong tradition of developing technical
expertise to improve acquisition outcomes of conventional
weapons systems. The provision would require the Department to
fund appropriate research, development, and capability-building
activities to make it a ``smarter buyer'' of these programs.
Activities under the program would include using industry,
academic, and government expertise to: develop technologies and
processes that manage the customization of commercial software
in a cost-effective manner; control problems when attempting to
scale commercial solutions to the scope of the defense
enterprise; and secure the networks, computers, and information
associated with these programs. The provision would also
support the development of smaller-scale information technology
prototypes with limited deployments that can then be scaled to
full operational capability.
The provision, if implemented, would also spur the
Department to engage with industry and academia to address the
business process and management issues that currently haunt
these programs. The committee notes that there is significant
business management expertise resident in academia and the
private sector, yet it is rarely engaged to address management
challenges facing department and costing taxpayers billions of
dollars.
The committee believes that successful implementation of
this provision would help build the expertise and tools
necessary to develop information technology business systems in
the future. The committee also believes that these efforts,
when applied to the management of business information
technology systems, would improve cost, schedule, and
performance outcomes.
Expansion of eligibility for financial assistance under Department of
Defense science, mathematics, and research for transformation
program to include citizens of countries participating in the
technical cooperation program (sec. 216)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2192a of title 10, United States Code, to expand the
Department of Defense's Science, Mathematics, and Research for
Transformation (SMART) program, which awards service-based
scholarships to students studying in the fields of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics, to include students
from the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.
The selection of these countries is based on those which are
currently parties to the Technical Cooperation Program
Memorandum of Understanding of October 24, 1995.
Current authority for the program limits scholarship awards
to only U.S. citizens. However, National Science Foundation
data indicate that over 50 percent of engineering doctorates
are granted to foreign graduate students, with the percentage
growing annually. By removing this restriction, the Department
can recruit foreign nationals from these four countries to
participate in the program, with the goal of bringing on the
best and brightest students to defense laboratories. The
limited easing of this restriction would serve as a pilot
project for assessing potential future expansion of this
authority to other friendly countries.
Streamlining the Joint Federated Assurance Center (sec. 217)
The committee recommends a provision that would streamline
the structure of the Joint Federated Assurance Center (JFAC).
Section 937 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) established JFAC to serve
as a joint, department-wide federation of existing capabilities
to ensure security in the software and hardware developed,
acquired, maintained, and used by the Department of Defense.
Section 937 directed the Center for Assured Software of the
National Security Agency to coordinate research and development
to improve software assurance and the Defense Microelectronics
Activity to coordinate research and development to improve
hardware assurance. These designations resulted in an
unnecessary layer of bureaucracy in the JFAC structure and
should be eliminated.
Limitation on availability of funds for development of the Shallow
Water Combat Submersible (sec. 218)
The committee remains concerned about cost and schedule
overruns associated with U.S. Special Operations Command's
(SOCOM) undersea mobility acquisition programs generally and,
specifically, the Shallow Water Combat Submersible (SWCS)
program.
According to the Government Accountability Office,
approximately $677.5 million was expended to develop and
procure the Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) to fill
SOCOM's requirement for a dry combat submersible for special
operations personnel, more than $600.0 million over original
budget projections. The ASDS program suffered from ineffective
contract oversight, technical challenges, and reliability and
performance issues. Unfortunately, the SWCS program has
experienced many of the same deficiencies as its predecessor.
In June 2014, the SWCS program was re-baselined as a result
of significant cost and schedule overruns. Less than a year
after this re-baselining, the SWCS program is again 19 percent
over budget and 21 percent behind schedule (as of January
2015). Overall, the committee understands the engineering and
management development phase of the program is approximately
126 percent over budget and more than a year behind schedule.
The committee has sought to encourage better acquisition
oversight of the SWCS program through various legislative
provisions and report language in past National Defense
Authorization Acts. For example, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239)
directed the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations and Low-intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC) to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees on cost and
schedule overruns associated with the SWCS program and efforts
to correct such deficiencies. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) also
clarified that the SOCOM Acquisition Executive is subordinate
to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics (USD AT&L) for acquisition matters and directed
the USD AT&L and ASD SOLIC to improve oversight of SOCOM
acquisition programs--particularly those special operations-
peculiar platforms, like SWCS, that are at greatest risk of
incurring delays and additional costs. Lastly, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) directed increased oversight of SOCOM undersea acquisition
programs by the USD AT&L, but exempted the SWCS program from
such requirements at the request of SOCOM due to perceived
program stability and low technological risk at the time.
Given the concerns outlined above, the committee recommends
a provision that would prohibit the expenditure of more than 25
percent of the funds available for the SWCS program for fiscal
year 2016 until the USD (AT&L) designates a civilian official
within his office responsible for providing oversight and
assistance to SOCOM for all undersea mobility programs and, in
coordination with the ASD SOLIC, provides the congressional
defense committees a report on the SWCS program outlining:
(1) An analysis of the reasons for cost and schedule
overruns associated with the SWCS program;
(2) The revised timeline for SWCS initial and full
operational capability;
(3) The projected cost to meet the basis of issue
requirement;
(4) A plan to prevent, identify, and mitigate any
additional cost and schedule overruns;
(5) Any opportunities to recover cost or schedule;
(6) Any lessons learned from the SWCS program that
could be applied to future undersea mobility
acquisition programs; and
(7) Any other matters the Under Secretary deems
relevant.
Limitation on availability of funds for distributed common ground
system of the Army (sec. 219)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2016 for
the Department of Defense by section 201 and available for
research, development, test, and evaluation, Army, for the
distributed common ground system of the Army (DCGS-A), not more
than 75 percent may be obligated or expended until the
Secretary of the Army reviews program planning and submits to
congressional defense committees, the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate, and the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence of the House of Representatives a report. The
report is to address segmentation of software components;
identification of commercial software capable of fulfilling
DCGS-A system requirements; cost analysis; determination of
commercial software compliance relative to guidance in
Intelligence Community Technology Enterprise, the Defense
Intelligence Information Enterprise, and the Joint Information
Environment; identification of software which may be acquired
through competitive means; an acquisition plan; and a review of
the time table for the DCGS-A program.
Limitation on availability of funds for Distributed Common Ground
System of the United States Special Operations Command (sec.
220)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
availability of research, development, test, and evaluation
funds for the distributed common ground system of the U.S.
Special Operations Command (SOCOM) until the Commander of SOCOM
submits a report to the committee.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Assessment of air-land mobile tactical communications and data network
requirements and capabilities (sec. 231)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) to
contract with an independent entity to conduct a comprehensive
assessment of current and future requirements and capabilities
to determine the technological feasibility, achievability,
suitability, and survivability of a tactical communications and
data network. Subject to the submission of the independent
entity's report, the provision would prohibit the Secretary of
the Army from obligating more that 50 percent of funds
available in Other Procurement, Army (OPA) for the Warfighter
Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T), Increment 2.
WIN-T, in its current or previous forms, has been in
development for over 10 years with numerous changes in
requirements, technology, architecture, and acquisition
strategy. Most recently, the committee has received notice from
the Secretary of the Army of a Nunn-McCurdy significant breach
for WIN-T.
WIN-T is designed to ensure effective and efficient mission
command both ``at-the-halt'' and while ``on-the-move.'' WIN-T's
currently fielded configuration, called ``Increment 1'', was
assessed as providing suitable and effective enterprise
tactical communications and data networking ``at the halt'' or
while stationary or in fixed sites. Technology improvements
planned for WIN-T's next configuration, called ``Increment 2'',
are intended to achieve communications and data networking for
forces ``on the move.'' Increment 2, however, faces many
challenges.
Given these technical challenges, the committee is
concerned about the feasibility of an effective and affordable
mobile tactical communications and data network. The budget
request included $783.1 million in Other Procurement, Army
(OPA) for WIN-T. The committee recommends a decrease of $200.0
million in OPA only for WIN-T, Increment 2.
Study of field failures involving counterfeit electronic parts (sec.
232)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to task the Joint Federated Assurance
Center (JFAC) to conduct a hardware assurance study to assess
the presence, scope, and effect on Department of Defense
operations of counterfeit electronic parts that have passed
through the Department of Defense supply chain and into fielded
systems.
In recent years, the committee has expressed concern about
counterfeit electronic parts in the Department of Defense
supply chain. To address this threat, the committee established
JFAC to support the trusted defense system needs of the
Department of Defense. At the direction of the committee, both
Department of Defense and the Comptroller General of the United
States have reviewed and analyzed reports relating to
counterfeit or suspect counterfeit electronic parts submitted
to the Government Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP). While
past reports based on GIDEP data have provided insight into
counterfeit parts detected in the supply chain, they have not
addressed those counterfeit parts that have made it through the
supply chain and into fielded systems.
Demonstration of persistent close air support capabilities (sec. 233)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Army, and the
Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) to jointly conduct a demonstration of the Persistent
Close Air Support (PCAS) capability in fiscal year 2016. The
provision would require that the Air Force use in the
demonstration at least two platforms with which the Air Force
intends to employ future CAS missions.
The demonstration would require operations featuring
multiple tactical radio networks representing diverse ground
force user communities; two-way digital exchanges of
situational awareness data, video, and calls for fire between
aircraft and ground users without modification to aircraft
operational flight programs (OFP); real-time sharing of
friendly forces, aircraft, and target location data to reduce
fratricide risks; and lightweight digital tools, such as
tablets and smart phones, based on commercial-off-the-shelf
technology for pilots and joint terminal air controllers
(JTACs). The provision would require operations in both simple
and complex operating environments--the latter to stress the
process of synchronization between pilots and JTACs.
The provision would also require the Secretary of the Air
Force, the Secretary of the Army, and the Director of DARPA to
jointly assess the impact of the demonstrated capabilities on
the time required to conduct CAS operations, on friendly force
effectiveness in achieving tactical objectives, and on the risk
of fratricide and collateral damage; and to estimate the costs
that would be incurred in transitioning this technology to the
Army and the Air Force.
The committee notes that despite advances in networking,
computer processing, and digital displays, close air support
has not materially changed in the decades since the
introduction of precision-guided munitions. In many cases,
pilots and ground controllers still rely on voice
communications and paper maps to try to achieve a common
understanding to exactly identify and locate desired targets.
In complex urban environments, this synchronization process can
take up to an hour and still not adequately reduce the risk of
fratricide or collateral damage.
This situation has persisted because there are dozens of
aircraft that perform close air support (CAS), even more
numbers of different types of sensors employed, and a large
array of different radios, target designation methods,
peripheral equipment, and displays. Additionally, OFPs to
update software embedded in aircraft avionics systems are all
on different and lengthy upgrade cycles.
In response to this problem, the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council, in 2009, in its Close Air Support
Capabilities-Based Assessment, recommended that ``Platforms
should field flexible systems that utilize an improved
architecture which migrates the processing of digital messages
to a Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS) based processor and away
from the [aircraft] operational flight programs.''
DARPA has achieved some level of success in implementing
that recommendation through its PCAS program, shrinking
synchronization time by a factor of five in simple environments
and a factor of 10 in more complex situations. DARPA achieved
this with off-the-shelf commodity products and radios in
lightweight and easily installable form factors, without
affecting individual aircraft OFPs.
The Marine Corps and U.S. Special Operations Command
(SOCOM) are currently transitioning PCAS into fielded
capabilities with over 5,000 and 2,000 users, respectively. The
committee is persuaded that DARPA's approach holds sufficient
promise of rapid and affordable improvements in close air
support--with the potential to save lives and win on the
battlefield--to warrant serious consideration by the Army and
the Air Force, the largest consumer and provider of close air
support in the Department of Defense.
Airborne data link plan (sec. 234)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
jointly develop a plan, in consultation with the Secretary of
the Air Force and the Secretary of the Navy, to enable secure
and survivable communications between and among fifth- and
fourth-generation fighter aircraft, and the aircraft that
support them, in anti-access/area denial environments. The
capabilities to be covered by the plan include gateways and
direct data links for the reception and dissemination of
intelligence from and to low-observable aircraft and fifth-
generation fighters of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.
The provision would require the plan to achieve these
communication capabilities with minimal changes to the outer
surfaces of the aircraft and to the operational flight programs
of these aircraft. The provision would also require that the
plan include non-proprietary and open systems approaches that
are compatible with the Open Missions Systems initiative of the
Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (AFRCO) and the Future
Airborne Capability Environment of the Navy.
Finally, the provision would prohibit the obligation and
expenditure of funds on the Talon Hate and Multi-domain
Adaptable Processing System interim or bridge solutions to
these interoperability problems until the congressional defense
committees are briefed on the plan.
The committee is concerned by the Department's failure to
address a critical shortfall with regard to secure and
survivable communications among and between advanced and legacy
platforms. There is widespread agreement that next-generation
air dominance hinges on highly networked ``systems of
systems,'' and yet the Department lacks an integrated plan to
securely share national-level intelligence information with
combat aircraft, or to receive data from the sophisticated
sensors on board those aircraft. The Nation's premier fifth-
generation fighters, built by the same prime contractor,
utilize unique proprietary data links that cannot securely
communicate with one another, nor with fourth-generation
fighters and other supporting aircraft.
The Air Force is expending substantial funds on interim
solutions in the form of pods or other gateway solutions on a
small fraction of the F-15 fleet, but these are neither robust
nor survivable. The Air Force sponsored a promising
demonstration called Project Missouri, to link the F-22 and the
F-35 via an L-band low-probability of intercept data link using
existing common apertures in conformance with the AFRCO Open
Mission Systems initiative, but is no longer pursuing the
effort. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) mandated
the use of the F-35 Multi-function Advanced Data Link (MADL) on
the F-22 and B-2, but the Air Force has refused to comply due
to cost and complexity barriers. OSD will not rescind its
mandate, thus discouraging innovation and competition.
Report on the technology readiness levels of the technologies and
capabilities critical to the Long Range Strike Bomber aircraft
(sec. 235)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress, not later
than 180 days after enactment of this Act, on the technology
readiness levels of the technologies and capabilities critical
to the Long Range Strike Bomber aircraft. The provision would
also direct the Comptroller General of the United States to
review the report and provide an assessment to the
congressional defense committees of the matters contained in
the report.
Budget Items
Army defense research sciences
The budget request included $239.1 million in PE 61102A for
defense research sciences. The committee notes that the budget
request for Army basic research has been reduced across the
board by almost 8 percent relative to the amount enacted in
fiscal year 2015. Such reductions would likely have a
significant negative impact on the Department of Defense's
ability to advance technology development.
The committee notes that basic research activities focused
in technical areas of interest to Department missions lay the
foundation upon which other technology development and new
defense systems are built. These programs fund efforts at
universities, small businesses, and government laboratories.
These investments also serve to help train the next generation
of scientists and engineers who may work on defense technology
problems in government, industry, and academia.
To help address the significant reduction in basic research
funding, the committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million
in PE 61102A. The committee directs that these funds be awarded
through well-established and competitive processes that already
exist for defense research sciences.
High-performance computing modernization
The budget request included $177.2 million in PE 63461A for
the high-performance computing modernization program. The
committee notes that the budget request in this program has
been reduced by over $40.0 million relative to the amount
enacted in fiscal year 2015. The committee believes, however,
that greater efforts could be made to take advantage of
commercially-available technology, which is often as
sophisticated, if not more sophisticated, than technology
developed by the Department of Defense. The committee believes
that additional savings could be found by engaging more
comprehensively with the private sector and the Department of
Energy national labs. Therefore, the committee recommends a
program decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63461A.
Infantry support weapons
The budget request included $74.1 million in PE 64601A for
infantry support weapons of which $20.3 million would be for
small arms improvement and $3.1 million would be for the common
remotely operated weapons station (CROWS). The committee
recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 64601A of which
$1.5 million would be for small arms improvement and $1.0
million would be for CROWS.
Integrated personnel and pay systems for Army and Air Force
The budget request included $136.0 million in PE 65018A for
Integrated Personnel and Pay System--Army (IPPS-A) and $69.7
million in PE 65018F for AF Integrated Personnel and Pay System
(AFIPPS). These two integrated personnel and pay systems are
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) business system intended to
replace legacy human resource systems used by the Army and Air
Force.
The committee is concerned that the current life-cycle
costs for IPPS-A and AFIPPS are now $2.0 billion and $1.8
billion respectively.
The committee believes the Army and Air Force should each
restructure their versions of integrated pay and personnel
systems to achieve a low-risk, low-cost improvement to human
resource challenges. Doing so would allow the Army and Air
Force greater resources to address its combat readiness and
modernization needs.
The committee directs the Secretaries of the Army and Air
Force, in coordination with the Deputy Chief Management
Officer, to develop alternatives to the current integrated
personnel and pay system strategy of ERP implementation. These
alternative strategies should:
(1) Reduce errors for pay and benefits for
servicemembers, including reserve component
servicemembers;
(2) Provide accurate, timely, and reliable
information about pay and benefits accessible by
servicemembers and auditors (as appropriate);
(3) Reduce costs for the Department in administering
pay and benefits with a significant return on
investment (ROI) of less than 2 years;
(4) Provide accurate financial information with
strong internal controls that is retrievable,
traceable, and reproducible for financial statement
audits; and
(5) Leverage the existing investment and capabilities
of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
for military and civilian pay.
The committee notes that these strategies will not be
limited to the implementation or improvement of a business
system solution only but must also address the business
processes of the Army and the Air Force for their respective
human resource activity.
As a result of this restructuring, the committee recommends
a decrease of $50.0 million for research and development of
IPPS-A and a decrease of $45.4 million for AFIPPS.
Further, the committee directs the Army and Air Force to
provide an interim report on its restructure alternatives by
March 30, 2016 and a final report by September 30, 2016.
Common infrared countermeasures
The budget request included $77.6 million in PE 65035A for
common infrared countermeasures (CIRCM). The committee
recommends an increase of $24.0 million in PE 65035A for CIRCM.
Additional funding for CIRCM system development was included on
the Chief of Staff of the Army's unfunded priorities list.
Aircraft survivability development
The budget request included $18.1 million in PE 65051A for
aircraft survivability development. The committee recommends an
increase of $60.0 million in PE 65051A for common missile
warning system. Additional funding for common missile warning
system development was included on the Chief of Staff of the
Army's unfunded priorities list.
Joint Tactical Radio System
The budget request included $13.0 million in PE 65380A for
the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) of which $6.8 million
would be for the Small Airborne Link 16 Terminal (SALT) radio.
The committee notes that the Army is installing an already
available Link 16 capability onto its attack helicopter fleet
and may reevaluate whether SALT will be the objective
capability for Army aviation. The committee recommends a
decrease of $6.8 million in PE 65380A only for the SALT radio.
The committee directs that not later than 180 days after
the dates of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the
Army shall submit to the congressional defense committees a
report on the Link 16 Terminals, which are currently being
installed onto its attack helicopter fleet and the Army's plan
for communication and data interoperability with ground forces.
The committee directs that not later than 60 days after the
report of the Secretary, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall review the report and submit to the congressional
defense committees an assessment of the matter contained in the
report.
Munitions Standardization, Effectiveness and Safety
The budget request included $32.6 million in PE 65805A for
munitions standardization, effectiveness, and safety. Due to
unexecuted prior years' funds, the committee recommends a
decrease of $8.0 million in PE 65805A for munitions
standardization.
Stryker modification and improvement
The budget request included $257.6 million in PE 23735A for
the combat vehicle improvement program of which $105.8 million
would be for Stryker improvement.
The committee notes that Army deployments in Iraq and
Afghanistan placed a strain on its combat vehicle fleets
prompting a significant investment in the force protection and
survivability of the Stryker family of wheeled combat vehicles
in order to protect soldiers against rocket propelled grenades,
anti-armor grenades, and improvised explosive devices (IED). In
this regard, the committee commends the Army for the success of
the double-V hull modification to the Stryker providing
improved protection from under belly IED blasts.
The committee understands that these high priority often
operationally urgent vehicle modifications for force protection
and survivability resulted in the deferral of lower priority
investments for improved vehicle lethality.
The committee has also learned that the Army has recently
approved an operational needs statement requesting a
significant lethality upgrade for some, but not all Stryker
infantry carrier and reconnaissance vehicles. The committee is
aware that the Army is considering the delivery of such a
Stryker lethality upgrade, when identified and proven feasible
and suitable, to its forward stationed Stryker brigade.
The committee supports the Army's efforts to improve
Stryker lethality and recommends an increase of $40.0 million
in PE 23735A only for development and testing of Stryker
lethality upgrades.
Navy defense research sciences
The budget request included $451.6 million in PE 61153N for
defense research sciences. The committee notes that the budget
request for Navy basic research has been reduced across the
board by almost 10 percent relative to the amount enacted in
fiscal year 2015. Such reductions would likely have a
significant negative impact on the department's ability to
advance technology development.
The committee notes that basic research activities focused
in technical areas of interest to Department of Defense
missions lay the foundation upon which other technology
development and new defense systems are built. These programs
fund efforts at universities, small businesses, and government
laboratories. These investments also serve to help train the
next generation of scientists and engineers who may work on
defense technology problems in government, industry, and
academia.
To help address the significant reduction in basic research
funding, the committee recommends an increase of $55.0 million
in PE 61153N. The committee directs that these funds be awarded
through well-established and competitive processes that already
exist for defense research sciences.
Undersea warfare applied research
The budget request included $123.8 million in PE 62747N for
research, development, test, and evaluation of undersea warfare
applied research. The committee notes the promise of developing
systems in the following areas: remote detection of ocean
acoustic fields using light detection and ranging (LIDAR),
upper ocean acoustic structure, high strain materials for sonar
applications, surface decluttering, and novel anti-submarine
warfare detection methods. As a result, the committee
recommends an increase of $18.6 million to this program.
Capable manpower, enablers, and sea basing
The budget request included $258.9 million in PE 63673N for
future naval capabilities advanced technology developments. The
activities listed under this program element include capable
manpower, enterprise and platform enablers, and sea basing. The
committee believes that the work plans for fiscal year 2016 on
these activities do not warrant the level of funding included
in the budget request, and is concerned about the ability of
the activities to absorb the requested funds. In addition, the
committee notes that many of the technologies being developed
under these programs are also in development by the private
sector and savings could be extracted through increased
external collaboration. Consequently, the committee recommends
an aggregate decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63673N to be
distributed appropriately from capable manpower, enterprise and
platform enablers, and sea basing.
Advanced submarine system development
The budget request included $87.2 million in PE 63561N for
research, development, test, and evaluation of advanced
submarine system development. The committee notes the promise
of the fleet modular autonomous unmanned vehicle (FMAUV) and
submarine launched unmanned aerial system (UAS). The committee
understands additional funding could be used to accelerate
getting both capabilities to the fleet. As a result, the
committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million to this
program.
USS Gerald R. Ford full ship shock trials
The budget request included $48.1 million in PE 64112N for
research, development, test, and evaluation of the USS Gerald
R. Ford-class nuclear aircraft carrier. The committee notes the
Department of Defense is reviewing the Navy decision to delay
full ship shock trials from CVN-78 to CVN-79. The committee
urges the Department of Defense to restore full ship shock
trials to CVN-78. As a result, the committee recommends an
increase of $79.1 million to this program.
LX(R)
The budget request included $46.5 million in PE 64454N for
research, development, test, and evaluation of LX(R), which is
expected to functionally replace LSD-41 and LSD-49 class ships.
The committee notes accelerating the delivery of LX(R) class
ships to the fleet will enable the Navy to meet a greater
amount of combatant commander demand for amphibious warships.
As a result, the committee recommends an increase of $29.0
million for this program.
Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System
The budget request included $134.7 million in PE 64501N for
the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike
(UCLASS) system. The committee notes the directed pause in the
program during the Department of Defense's Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Strategic Portfolio
Review, which will inform the Department's fiscal year 2017
budget submission. Therefore, the committee recommends a
decrease of $134.7 million due to excess fiscal year 2015 funds
that may be used to wholly offset fiscal year 2016 budget
requirements.
The committee looks forward to reviewing the results of the
Department of Defense ISR Strategic Portfolio Review and also
the report directed in section 217 of the Carl Levin and Howard
P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2015.
Submarine tactical warfare systems development
The budget request included $48.2 million in PE 64562N for
research, development, test, and evaluation of submarine
tactical warfare systems development. The committee notes that
additional funding would enable acceleration of the Fleet
requested ``Attack In a Minute'' capability, support Torpedo
Advanced Processor Build (APB) 5+ upgrade, and cybersecurity
and information assurance capability improvements. As a result,
the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million to this
program.
F-35B/C engineering and manufacturing development
The budget request included $537.9 million in PE 64800M for
F-35B engineering and manufacturing development, and $504.7
million in PE 64800N for F-35C engineering and manufacturing
development. The committee recommends a decrease of $12.5
million in each PE, $25.0 million total, due to funding early
to need for Block 4 software development.
Submarine acoustic warfare development
The budget request included $3.9 million in PE 11226N for
research, development, test, and evaluation of submarine
acoustic warfare development. The committee notes the Compact
Rapid Attack Weapon is a rapid development project to address
emerging Fleet capability needs. Additional funding would
provide the Navy with an advanced countermeasure for
submarines. As a result, the committee recommends an increase
of $0.8 million to this program.
Mk-48 ADCAP
The budget request included $42.2 million in PE 25632N for
research, development, test, and evaluation of Mk-48 ADCAP
torpedo. The committee notes that additional funding would
enable hardware and software upgrades to the weapon system and
accelerate implementation, validation, and verification of
advanced weapon performance models. As a result, the committee
recommends an increase of $5.5 million to this program.
Air Force defense research sciences
The budget request included $329.7 million in PE 61102F for
defense research sciences. The committee notes that the budget
request for Air Force basic research has been reduced across
the board by almost 12 percent relative to the amount enacted
in fiscal year 2015. Such reductions would likely have a
significant negative impact on the department's ability to
advance technology development.
The committee notes that basic research activities focused
in technical areas of interest to Department of Defense
missions lay the foundation upon which other technology
development and new defense systems are built. These programs
fund efforts at universities, small businesses, and government
laboratories. These investments also serve to help train the
next generation of scientists and engineers who may work on
defense technology problems in government, industry, and
academia.
To help address the significant reduction in basic research
funding, the committee recommends an increase of $45.0 million
in PE 61102F. The committee directs that these funds be awarded
through well-established and competitive processes that already
exist in defense research sciences.
Nanostructured and biological materials
The budget request included $125.2 million in PE 62102F for
materials, of which $8.7 million was requested for
nanostructured and biological materials, and $16.5 million for
sensing technologies. The committee believes that while such
work is of scientific importance, these are areas in which
significant savings could be gained through closer
collaboration and interaction with the private sector and other
government agencies. Particularly during a time of constrained
budgets and vigilance for overlapping efforts, the committee
believes that such work can be coordinated more fully to reduce
costs. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of
$10.0 million in PE 62102F for nanostructured and biological
materials and for sensing technologies.
Long range strike--bomber
The budget request included $1.2 billion in PE 64015F for
the Long Range Strike Bomber. The committee recommends a
decrease of $460.0 million in PE 64015F due to availability of
unobligated prior year funds.
F-35A engineering and manufacturing development
The budget request included $589.5 million in PE 64800F for
F-35A engineering and manufacturing development. The committee
recommends a decrease of $25.0 million in PE 64800F due to
funding early to need for Block 4 software development.
KC-46 aerial refueling tanker aircraft program
The budget request included $602.4 million in PE 65221F for
KC-46A tanker development and $2.4 billion in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force (APAF) for 12 KC-46A tanker aircraft.
The KC-46 tanker aircraft is being developed and procured to
replace the aging Department of the Air Force KC-135 aerial
refueling tanker fleets.
The committee continues its long-standing support of the
KC-46A tanker aircraft program, and believes that the KC-46A
tanker aircraft is necessary to meet current and future
warfighter requirements for aerial refueling and airlift.
However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) identified
$200.0 million of funds authorized and appropriated for fiscal
year 2015 for KC-46A development that are excess to need
because engineering change orders planned for fiscal year 2015
have not occurred, and these funds could be used to meet fiscal
year 2016 requirements. The GAO has also identified $24.0
million of fiscal year 2015 KC-46A procurement funds that are
excess to need for a similar reason. Department of the Air
Force KC-46A program officials agree with the GAO
determination.
The committee understands that the reduction of funds in
fiscal year 2016 will not impact the program delivery schedule
of the KC-46A tanker aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $200.0
million in PE 65221F and $24.0 million in APAF due to
availability of unobligated prior year funds.
F-15 capability upgrades
The budget request included $186.5 million in PE 27171F for
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force. The
committee recommends an increase of $28.0 million for
nonrecurring engineering in support of Advanced Display/Core
Processor II (ADCP II) upgrades, and an increase of $1.5
million for flight test support. The total recommended increase
in PE 27171F is $29.5 million.
Budget request realignment
At the Air Force's request, the committee recommends the
realignment in the following table to correct an error in the
budget request for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
Air Force (RDTEAF), and Aircraft Procurement, Air Force (APAF).
AIR FORCE REQUESTED REALIGNMENT
(In millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Account Line Item Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATO AGS....................... RDTEAF 216 -$59.1
NATO AWAC...................... SAPAF 79 +$59.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Logistics information technology
The budget request included $112.3 million in PE 78610F for
Logistics Information Technology to develop a software system
as a follow-on to the Expeditionary Combat Support System
(ECSS). The committee recommends a decrease of $31.0 million to
this program. The committee notes that the significant growth
in this program has not been justified given that the program
schedule has been delayed and that the Department has requested
funding be transferred out of this program in a recent
reprogramming action. The committee also notes that the
independent assessment of the program required by the Carl
Levin National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
Senate Report 113-176, has not yet been delivered to the
Congress.
Applied research for the advancement of science and technology
priorities
The budget request included $48.2 million in PE 62251D8Z
for applied research for the advancement of science and
technology priorities. The committee appreciates the need for
this program and the importance of creating communities of
interest to identify gaps in collaborative funding. However,
the committee notes that only 24 percent of the enacted funds
for fiscal year 2014 have thus far been expended, and none of
the enacted funds for fiscal year 2015, calling into question
the efficiency of the activities under this program.
Accordingly, the committee is concerned that the program will
be unable to incorporate the large increase in funds requested
for fiscal year 2016. Consequently, the committee recommends a
general program decrease of $15.0 million for PE 62251D8Z.
Furthermore, the committee recommends that the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering continue to
focus on existing activities to demonstrate the effectiveness
of this program.
Multi-azimuth defense fast intercept round engagement system
The budget request included $314.6 million in PE 62702E for
tactical technology, of which $17.7 million was requested for
the multi-azimuth defense fast intercept round engagement
system. The committee notes that this request for the
engagement system represents an almost 50 percent increase in
funding above the amount enacted in fiscal year 2015, and is
concerned about the ability of this activity to grow at such a
fast rate. In addition, the committee is concerned about
transition potential for this technology, particularly two
years into the program. Accordingly, the committee recommends a
decrease of $5.0 million in PE 62702E for multi-azimuth defense
fast intercept round engagement system.
Materials and biological technology
The budget request included $220.1 million in PE 62715E for
materials and biological technology. The committee notes that
this request represents an almost 50 percent increase in
funding relative to the amount enacted in fiscal year 2015, and
includes several programs which do not show much promise for
transition. While the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
is well-positioned to focus on these activities and drive
technological developments, the committee is concerned about
the Agency's ability to use fully such a large increase in
funds within 1 year, and about transition opportunities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0
million in PE 62715E to decrease program growth.
Science and technology analytic assessments
The budget request included $14.6 million in PE 63288D8Z
for science and technology analytic assessments. The committee
supported the establishment of this program in fiscal year
2015, believing that the need to develop innovative
capabilities to counter emerging threats should be a top
priority for the Department of Defense. At the same time, the
committee believes it is too early to make an assessment on the
impact and success of the activities in this program, and that
providing an increase in funds is thus premature. The committee
is particularly concerned about the slow progress in the area
of anti-access/area denial environments. Consequently, the
committee recommends a general decrease of $5.0 million in PE
63288D8Z. The committee expects the Department to focus on
demonstrating the utility and effectiveness of this program.
Joint capability technology demonstration
The budget request included $141.5 million in PE 63648D8Z
for joint capability technology demonstration. The committee
notes that the request represents an increase of over $20.0
million relative to the amount enacted in fiscal year 2015, and
also notes that the program is supporting several activities
that appear to have limited potential for transitioning into
service programs of records. As a result, the committee
recommends a general decrease of $10.0 million in PE 63648D8Z.
The committee further recommends that the Department use this
program to emphasize and prioritize prototypes that have
greater potential for transition.
Network-centric warfare technology
The budget request included $452.9 million in PE 63766E for
network-centric warfare technology. The committee is encouraged
by the focus that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
is placing on advanced technology development, the umbrella
budget activity for this program element. Addressing high-
payoff opportunities to develop and rapidly mature advanced
technologies, as well as transition them to appropriate
services or the private sector, is of prime importance in
developing and maintaining the technological advantage of the
United States.
At the same time, the committee is concerned that the
Agency appears to be developing this technology independently.
Given the vast expertise on network-centric technology in the
United States and abroad, the committee would expect that
development of network-centric technologies would take
advantage of the significant commercial technologies that may
already be available. The committee is further concerned that
efforts to work with traditional defense industry contractors
to develop system of systems architecture are not likely to
transfer successfully to the military services. The committee
believes that costs in this program can be reduced through more
aggressive interaction and engagement with the private sector.
Consequently, the committee recommends a general decrease of
$20.0 million in PE 63766E.
Quick Reaction Special Projects
The budget request included $90.5 million in PE 63826D8Z
for Quick Reaction Special Projects (QRSP). The committee notes
that QRSP is intended to invest in technology opportunities
that might arise during the execution of the fiscal year 2016
budget. The committee further notes that this program has not
fully executed its appropriated funds for fiscal year 2014 or
2015 to date, and that many other programs in the Department of
Defense are similarly intended to accelerate research program
advances into deployable systems. Therefore, the committee
recommends a reduction of $20.0 million for this program. The
committee recommends the Department fully fund research efforts
to assure the trust of hardware and software systems used in
defense systems, which are supported within this program.
Advanced sensor application program
The budget request included $18.3 billion for Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide, of which $15.9
million was for PE 0603714D8Z for the Advanced Sensor
Application Program (ASAP).
This represents a reduction from the level funded in fiscal
year 2015 of $19.5 million.
The committee believes that this reduction will cause the
program to postpone important testing and experiments. The
committee additionally believes that these efforts are too
important to postpone or cancel.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million for PE 0603714D8Z for the Advanced Sensor Application
Program (ASAP).
Corrosion control and prevention funding increase
The budget request included $6.8 billion in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) for Advanced
Component Development & Prototypes, of which $1.5 million was
for the PE 604016D8Z Department of Defense Corrosion Program.
The committee continues to be concerned that the Department
has consistently underfunded the DOD Corrosion Program since
fiscal year 2011. The Department estimates that the negative
effects of corrosion cost approximately $20.8 billion annually
to prevent and mitigate corrosion of its assets, including
military equipment, weapons, facilities, and other
infrastructure.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in RDT&E, PE 604016D8Z, for the Department of Defense
Corrosion Program.
Global Combat Support System--Joint
The budget request included $15.2 million in PE 65018A for
the Global Combat Support System--Joint (GCSS-J). The committee
believes this funding should be realigned to support high
priority readiness requirements. According, the committee
recommends a decrease of $10.0 million to this program.
Systems engineering
The budget request included $37.7 million in PE 65142D8Z
for Systems Engineering. In the interest of increasing
efficiencies within the Department of Defense, the committee
elsewhere in this Act is recommending the repeal of several
reporting requirements regarding systems engineering. In
addition, the committee believes that further efficiencies can
be found within these activities. Taken together, the committee
recommends a general decrease of $5.0 million in PE 65142D8Z.
MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
The budget request included $18.2 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), for
the development, integration, and testing of special
operations-unique mission kits for the MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV). U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is
responsible for the rapid development and acquisition of
special operations capabilities to, among other things,
effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks
while avoiding collateral damage.
The committee understands that the budget request only
partially addresses technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its
fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. Therefore, the committee recommends an
additional $5.0 million in RDTEDW for the MQ-9 UAV.
The committee strongly supports SOCOM's efforts to
accelerate fielding of advanced weapons, sensors, and emerging
technologies on its fleet of MQ-9 UAVs. The committee has
authorized additional funds above the budget request in each of
the last 3 years to enhance these efforts and understands that
SOCOM has successfully developed and acquired a number of new
capabilities, including improved weapon effectiveness, target
location and tracking, image resolution, and video transmission
during that time.
C-130 terrain following/terrain avoidance radar
The budget request included $35.5 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide (PDW), to field terrain following/terrain
avoidance (TF/TA) radar with associated controls and displays
to fulfill special operations-peculiar requirements for MC-130J
aircraft. During the development phase of the existing program
of record, U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) identified
significant concerns with the TF/TA radar performance and
ability meet defined user requirements. After conducting a
comprehensive programmatic assessment, SOCOM recently decided
to revise its acquisition strategy and adapt an alternative TF/
TA capability to meet operational needs. Therefore, at the
request of SOCOM, the committee recommends a transfer of $15.2
million to Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
Defense-wide (PE 1160403BB) for the development of a TF/TA
radar for its MC-130J fleet. The remaining funds requested for
TF/TA radar procurement have been identified by SOCOM as excess
to requirements and, elsewhere in this bill, the committee
recommends re-purposing such funds for high priority airborne
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.
Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance Payload Technology
Improvements Program
The budget request included $1.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide (RDTEDW), for
the development, integration, and testing of special
operations-unique intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) sensor technologies on tactical unmanned
aerial vehicles. U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is
responsible for the rapid development and acquisition of
special operations capabilities to, among other things,
effectively carry out operations against terrorist networks
while avoiding collateral damage.
The committee understands that the budget request only
partially addresses ISR sensor technology gaps identified by
SOCOM on its fleet of tactical UAVs. Therefore, the committee
recommends an additional $2.0 million in RDTEDW for the ISR
Payload Technology Improvements Program.
Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration and prototyping
The budget request included no funding in PE 64402N for
research, development, test, and evaluation of unmanned combat
air vehicle advanced concept/prototype development. The
committee notes the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System
Demonstration (UCAS-D) successfully demonstrated the first
unmanned aircraft operation in conjunction with manned aircraft
aboard an aircraft carrier in 2014 and the first unmanned
aerial refueling in 2015. The committee believes the two UCAS-D
aircraft, Salty Dog 501 and Salty Dog 502, should continue
development and risk reduction that will benefit the Unmanned
Carrier-Launched Strike and Surveillance (UCLASS) program,
including: carrier launch and recovery operations, carrier
airspace operations, carrier flight deck handling, automated
aerial refueling, and UCLASS mission architecture and common
control station integration. As a result, the committee
recommends an increase of $350.0 million to the Defense-wide
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation account and directs
the Secretary of Defense to accomplish this testing in fiscal
year 2016 to the fullest extent possible. In addition, any
contractual arrangements executed with this funding shall
ensure that the Department has sufficient technical data rights
to support competitive prototyping follow-on development
efforts.
Moreover, using the lessons learned from the UCAS-D
program, including the fiscal year 2016 extension, the
Department of Defense shall conduct such a competitive
prototyping of at least two follow-on air systems that move the
Department toward a UCLASS program capable of long-range strike
in a contested environment. As a result, the committee
recommends an increase of $375.0 million to the Defense-wide
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, account and
directs the Secretary of Defense accomplish this competitive
prototyping in fiscal year 2017 to the fullest extent possible.
To speed up the development of this vitally needed national
security capability, the committee directs that the Secretary
of Defense shall consider all appropriate flexible acquisition
authorities granted in law and in this Act. These should
include the management structure and streamlined procedures for
rapid prototyping outlined in section 803 of this Act on the
middle tier of acquisition for rapid prototyping and rapid
fielding, and the procedures and authorities to be considered
under section 805 of this Act on use of alternative acquisition
paths to acquire critical national security capabilities. In
addition, any contractual arrangements executed with this
funding shall ensure that the Department has sufficient
technical data rights to support a subsequent level of
competitive prototyping follow-on development or future
multiple sourced production efforts.
Overall, the committee recommends an increase of $725.0
million to this program.
Items of Special Interest
Advancement in radar technologies
The committee notes that substantial advances have been
made in the field of radar technologies, allowing for the
design of multi-function phased array radars that will be able
to track both weather patterns and aircraft simultaneously. The
committee considers the development of these new radars a
critical enabler for the Department of Defense. The committee
supports the ongoing efforts by the Air Force and expects to be
kept updated on current radar research and capabilities. This
includes efforts by the Air Force Research Laboratories to
create radar technologies for multi-mission capability.
Advancements in Antenna Research and Capabilities
The committee notes that, over the past several years,
there have been substantive advances in antenna research to
include conformal phased array, which have resulted in dramatic
leaps forward in the aerodynamic capability of aircraft and the
potential for reducing the size and weight of both manned and
unmanned aircraft. The committee also notes that these antenna
advances can provide higher performance for communications and
electronic warfare missions. The committee believes these
capabilities are critical to future air operations in
congested, contested, and aerial denial environments.
The committee expects the Air Force to keep the committee
updated on current antenna research and capabilities to include
advance antenna technologies on manned and unmanned aircraft.
Accordingly, the committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force
to incorporate advancements developed through this research
into legacy and future aircraft, and expects the Secretary to
keep the committee updated on these efforts.
Air Force seismic activity research
The committee notes with concern the continuing threat of
nuclear proliferation. The committee also notes and authorizes
the Air Force's request for $7.5 million for the Air Force
Research Laboratory's seismic technologies program. The
committee supports the the laboratory's efforts to develop
seismic technology to improve the capability of the United
States to monitor nuclear tests. The committee expects the Air
Force to continue to keep the committee updated on the efforts
of the seismic technologies program.
Conditions and Capabilities of the Undersea Warfare Test Capabilities
The committee is concerned about the state of readiness and
modernization of test ranges that support undersea warfare
missions. The committee notes that in September of 2012, the
Commander of the Submarine Force for the U.S. Pacific Fleet
noted that capabilities at one range had deteriorated, stating,
``Materiel conditions at Pacific Missile Range Facility Barking
Sands Tactical Underwater Range have been deteriorating over
several years and risk loss of a critical capability here in
the Pacific.'' The committee notes that the Navy is attempting
to refurbish these facilities as resources permit, but is
concerned that test capabilities in this critical mission area
are still not on a path to meet Navy requirements in the
future.
The committee expects the Secretary of the Navy, in
conjunction with the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, to keep the committee updated on the
current condition of the undersea warfare test range
capabilities. Updates should include data and analyses on the
current use and future needs for underwater test range
capabilities, and plans for updating and maintaining range
equipment and capabilities.
Cost estimate for a land-based electromagnetic railgun program
The committee is aware that the efforts within the Navy to
develop an electromagnetic railgun have been successful in
demonstrating early capabilities for naval applications.
Further, the committee recognizes that the Navy's initial
success has spawned investments within the Strategic
Capabilities Office of the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to pursue
development of a land-based electromagnetic railgun to support
missile defense.
Recognizing that such investments are still in the
demonstration phase, the committee believes it is important to
do as much as possible to plan concurrently for how to proceed
with railgun technology to improve the possibility of
transition into a program of record. Therefore, the committee
directs the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation
(CAPE) to conduct a cost estimate for a land-based
electromagnetic railgun program, and provide the results to the
Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services
Committee by January 1, 2016. As part of the cost estimate
briefing, CAPE should examine the potential costs for the
projected life cycle of the railgun system, as well as
comparison of those costs against current systems and other
systems supporting missile defense missions projected to be
fielded in the next 10 years.
Database on Department of Defense research grants
The committee recognizes the value of transparency and the
ability of publicly available information to drive effective
and accountable government. Further, the committee believes
that increased transparency regarding the Department of
Defense's external grants will improve the coordination of
efforts department-wide. Consistent with the Administration's
Open Government Initiative, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to establish a publicly-available, searchable
database of the Department's active grants. The committee also
directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that currently
active grants remain in the database after the completion of
the grant, and that all future grants are added. The database
shall be searchable by a variety of codes, such as type of
research grant, the research entity managing the grant, the
Department of Defense program, and the area of interest. The
committee notes that the National Science Foundation has
already established an award search database (the ``NSF Funding
Opportunities search page''), and directs the Department to use
that database as a model for its own, including maintaining
accurate data in the same categories of information, at a
minimum. The committee expects that this database would only be
used to aggregate information on grants whose publication would
not violate any procedures for handling sensitive information.
Entrepreneurial sabbatical for Department of Defense laboratory
scientists
The Committee directs the Department of Defense to expand
an authorized program for government scientists, specifically
scientists at defense laboratories, to take an
``entrepreneurial sabbatical'' to work for a private sector
firm. The committee notes that the department's Developmental
Opportunities Program (DOP) currently allows scientists to
pursue further education by attending business school or a war
college, for example, but does not explicitly allow for
pursuing opportunities in the private sector. The committee
also notes that the Air Force Research Laboratory is
implementing guidance for its entrepreneurial leave program,
which may be a good model for an expanded program across the
defense research enterprise.
The committee notes that the guidance by the Air Force
Research Laboratory explicitly defines an approval process for
entrepreneurial sabbatical at the directorate level, and
establishes a multi-phase program for a sabbatical of between
six months and two years. The committee notes that the Air
Force guidance allows for a scientist to be paid by the
directorate for up to one year, with further funding provided
at the discretion of the directorate. The committee expects
that in carrying out this mandate, all conflict-of-interest and
other administrative issues would be addressed by the defense
laboratories in a manner consistent with department guidelines.
In mandating this expansion, the committee notes the
success of entrepreneurial leave programs established by the
Department of Energy. For example, 145 employees have taken
advantage of the Department of Energy's Sandia National Lab
Entrepreneurial Separation to Technology Transfer program since
its enactment in 1994. The committee is encouraged that forty
percent of these participants have started new businesses, and
sixty percent have expanded existing businesses. Overall, the
scientists in the program created 49 new companies and
positively impacted 99 others.
The committee notes that the benefits from an
entrepreneurial sabbatical program to the country, the
Department of Defense, and defense research laboratories could
be significant, and could energize technology transfer from
within the department to the regional and national economy and
ultimately to the warfighter. This committee believes this
would increase the department's ability to competitively
recruit top talent, and both create and grow high-tech startups
and small businesses. The committee also believes that the
resulting direct interaction between Department of Defense
scientists and the private sector would increase the amount of
valuable technologies that are placed into operational systems,
thereby benefiting both national security and economic
prosperity.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report on
the department's progress and success in implementing an
entrepreneurial sabbatical program, including levels of
employee participation, and contributions of Department of
Defense technologies to the formation or growth of private
sector companies. The committee further directs that this
report be submitted to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services no later than 1 year
after the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter.
Expedited approval for attendance at conferences in support of science
and innovation activities of Department of Defense and the
National Nuclear Security Administration
The committee directs the Secretaries of Defense and Energy
to establish respective expedited approval processes for
scientists and engineers to attend science and technology
conferences. The committee notes with concern that since the
two departments implemented updated conference policies, in
response to requirements from the Office of Management and
Budget, attendance at such conferences by department personnel
has reduced dramatically. According to a report from the
Government Accountability Office in March 2015, conference
attendance from the Army Research Laboratory declined from
about 1300 attendees in 2011 to about 100 attendees in 2013. A
similar drop in attendance was reported from Sandia National
Laboratories. The report highlights that such a drop in
attendance risks a decline in the quality of scientific
research, difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified
scientists and engineers, and a diminished leadership role for
the two departments within the global science and technology
community. The report also notes that the new departmental
policies are not meeting the needs of personnel requesting
approval to travel to conferences.
Given the importance of conference attendance for an active
exchange of scientific information and for recruiting and
retaining high-quality technical talent, the committee is
concerned that the conference attendance approval policies are
undermining the science and technology missions of both
departments and undermining the ability of personnel to engage
in cutting-edge research, development, testing, and evaluation.
The committee believes that technical conference participation
is especially important to keep program managers aware of new
trends in technology, so that they may make better informed
decisions on behalf of taxpayers.
To maintain global technology awareness and to support
retention of technical staff, the committee believes that the
Departments should strive to follow the best practices of
innovative private and academic institutions in developing
management and oversight practices for conference
participation. The committee is concerned that in specific
technical fields of interest to defense, such as hypersonics
and cybersecurity, the lack of participation in conferences is
ceding U.S. leadership to competitor nations.
In response to these findings and concerns, the committee
directs the Secretaries of Defense and Energy to establish
processes within the Department of Defense and National Nuclear
Security Administration, respectively, whereby requests for
scientific conference attendance are adjudicated within 1
month, and approvals are granted as appropriate within 1 month.
Further, the committee directs the Secretaries of Defense and
Energy to ensure that any decisions to disapprove conference
attendance through these processes are made if and only if the
appropriate officials determine that the disapproval would have
a net positive impact on research and development and on
program management quality, and not simply default disapprovals
necessitated by a bureaucratic inability to make a timely
decision. In addition, the committee directs that these
approval processes be implemented no later than 90 days after
the enactment of this act.
The committee recommends that, as part of these new
approval processes, laboratory and test center directors be
given the authority to approve conference attendance, provided
that the attendance would meet the mission of the laboratory or
test center and that sufficient laboratory or test center funds
are available.
The committee directs the Secretaries of Defense and Energy
each to report to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the
House Armed Services Committee with an assessment of the
expedited process and its benefits and drawbacks, along with a
recommendation on continuing their use. The committee further
directs that this report be submitted no later than 1 year
after the establishment of the approval process.
High Power Microwave Counter-electronics Capabilities
The committee notes the development of promising new high-
powered microwave technologies that can be used to disable and
destroy the electronics of threat systems. The committee notes
that the Air Force is currently investing in a research program
to develop a counter-electronics, high-power microwave advanced
missile, following from a successful joint capabilities
technology demonstration in October 2012. The committee
supports efforts to develop an operational prototype of a high-
power microwave weapons system, and expects the Air Force to
keep the committee updated on progress towards this goal.
Improved turbine engine program
The budget request included $51.2 million in PE 67139A for
the improved turbine engine program (ITEP). The committee
supports the Army and its plans to competitively develop, test,
qualify, and integrate a next generation turboshaft engine for
the Blackhawk and Apache combat helicopters. The committee
notes that funding continues to support at least two engine
developers over the next few years and through completion of
the technology-development phase. The committee further notes
recent public statements by Army civilian and military
leadership expressing their commitment to reduce risk, achieve
appropriate technology maturity, and set the conditions for
ultimate program success. The committee recommends full funding
as requested for ITEP and encourages the Army to maintain
stability and therefore momentum in the program as resources
and technical progress allow.
Improvised Explosive Device Detection Systems
The committee understands that improved stand-off
hyperspectral imaging (HSI) technologies may offer improved
detection of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and the
explosive constituent chemicals and other materials used in the
manufacture of IEDs, such as nitrates, nitrites, phosphates,
and ammonia.
The committee notes that the goal of these efforts is to
develop technologies that provide the fastest possible
detection, with the longest ranges and sensitivities, as well
as lowest false alarm rate. To achieve this goal, the committee
notes the importance of spectral imaging technologies and real
time detection hardware and software.
The committee expects the Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to keep the committee
updated on current HSI technologies employed by the Department
of Defense to counter IEDs, including HSI technologies that are
commercially-available, and DOD's plan for ensuring DOD is
employing the best technologies available.
Market survey of active protection systems
The committee notes that technologies related to active
protection systems for armored combat and tactical vehicles may
have matured since the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation conducted live fire demonstrations at Aberdeen
Proving Ground, Maryland in 2010. Accordingly, the committee
directs that the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation,
supported by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, and in consultation with the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology, conduct a comprehensive market survey to assess, to
the extent practical, the current state of the art with respect
to active protection systems for armored and tactical vehicles.
The survey should include those U.S. and international active
protection systems that are fielded, in development with
prototypes having completed or undergoing operational tests, or
otherwise demonstrating or showing evidence of technology
readiness levels that the Director deems relevant or
appropriate. The Director shall report the findings of this
market survey to the congressional defense committees not later
than May 1, 2016. The Director's report shall include an
assessment and recommendation as to whether or not there has
been sufficient technological progress in active protection
systems since and related to the live fire demonstration in
2010 to justify another live fire demonstration in the near
future.
Medical evaluation of Anthropomorphic data on vehicle blast testing
The committee remains concerned with serious injuries and
deaths that often result from improvised explosive device (IED)
attacks and the subsequent vehicle flight and rollover events.
The committee supports the Army's future ground vehicle
development and testing initiatives designed to mitigate these
often fatal injuries. As the Army continues evaluating emerging
technologies, the committee recommends that medical research
using anthropomorphic testing be included in ongoing
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement testing between
the commercial sector and the Army on new sensors and active
protective technologies.
National Defense Education Program
The budget request included $49.5 million in PE 61120D8Z
for the National Defense Education Program, of which $3.0
million for the P-12 military child STEM educational pilot
program consistent with section 233 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) and the Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015. The committee notes that
this program supports competitive awards to programs that
improve the effectiveness of educational activities in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics focused primarily on
military children. The committee further notes that military
children face additional challenges relative to their peers due
to frequent relocations, the stress of parental deployments,
and sometimes underperforming schools in the vicinity of
military installations. The committee continues to believe that
the Department of Defense has a distinct obligation for the
education of military children. Moreover, the committee
recognizes the importance of STEM education and its
contribution to the technical workforce on which the defense
industrial base, in particular, depends. As such, the committee
believes the Department has a unique interest in fostering a
robust pipeline of qualified individuals and its promotion of
STEM education programs will provide both short and long term
advantages to military children and the nation.
Training Range Upgrades
Training operational forces is one of the most important
missions for which the military services are directly
responsible. The committee also notes that the military
services have traditionally allocated limited resources to
research and development initiatives, including modeling and
simulation, or to modernizing training range capabilities to
support this mission area. The committee believes that
modernization of training capabilities will both increase
operational effectiveness of military forces and potentially
reduce costs by displacing legacy training techniques and
systems with more advanced approaches enabled by new
technology.
The committee believes that the Central Test and Evaluation
Investment Program, administered by the Director of the
Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center, has
proven to be an effective approach to prioritize and fund the
development and deployment of advanced test capabilities at the
test ranges. Similarly, the Test and Evaluation Science and
Technology program has provided funds to support next
generation test capabilities. The committee believes that these
approaches may also benefit the modernization of training range
capabilities.
The committee directs the Undersecretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness and the Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to develop jointly a
strategic plan to assess and modernize overall training costs,
with the goal of improving overall training range and training
systems effectiveness and efficiency. The plan should also
address policy options that can: enable enhanced leveraging of
science and technology programs, including those of the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency and the services; increase
access to experts and new technologies from industry and
academia, including through the use of Small Business
Innovation Research programs and technology prizes; and revise
management, resourcing, range charge practices, personnel
practices, and acquisition practices.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Authorization of appropriations (sec. 301)
This provision would authorize the appropriations for
operation and maintenance activities at the levels identified
in section 4301 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Energy and the Environment
Modification of energy management reporting requirements (sec. 311)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2925(a) of title 10, United States Code, by striking a
subsection listing renewable energy credits (RECs) and
clarifying and strengthening the reporting requirements on
commercial and non-commercial utility outages. The committee
notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) no longer purchases
RECs. The provision would also clarify electricity outage
reporting requirements to include non-commercial utility
outages and DOD-owned infrastructure.
Report on efforts to reduce high energy costs at military installations
(sec. 312)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, in consultation with the assistant secretaries
responsible for energy installations and environment for the
military services and the Defense Logistics Agency, to conduct
an assessment of the efforts to achieve cost savings at
military installations with high energy costs.
Southern Sea Otter military readiness areas (sec. 313)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to establish areas, to be known as the
Southern Sea Otter Military Readiness Areas, for national
defense purposes. The areas are defined by coordinate
boundaries in the provision. Sections 4 and 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533, 1538) and sections 101 and
102 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
1371, 1372) would not apply with respect to the incidental
takings of any southern sea otter in the Southern Sea Otter
Military Readiness Areas in the course of conducting a military
readiness activity. For purposes of military readiness
activities, the otters within the readiness areas would be
treated, for purposes of section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536), as a member of a species that is
proposed to be listed as an endangered species or threatened
species under section 4 of that Act.
The Secretary of the Interior would be able to revise or
terminate the exceptions to the Endangered Species Act and the
marine Mammal Protection Act if the Secretary were to
determine, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy and
the Marine Mammal Commission, that the military activities
occurring in the readiness areas were impeding southern sea
otter conservation or the return of the sea otters to optimum
sustainable population levels.
The provision would also repeal section 1 of Public Law 99-
625 (16 U.S.C. 1536 note).
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment
Repeal of limitation on authority to enter into a contract for the
sustainment, maintenance, repair, or overhaul of the F117
engine (sec. 321)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
Section 341 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3345).
Subtitle D--Reports
Modification of annual report on prepositioned materiel and equipment
(sec. 331)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2229a(a) of title 10, United States Code, to update the
list of named contingency operations slated for retrograde and
subsequent inclusion in the prepositioned stocks.
Subtitle E--Limitations and Extensions of Authority
Modification of requirements for transferring aircraft within the Air
Force inventory (sec. 341)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 345 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111--383) to ease
administrative burdens and facilitate non-contentious transfers
of aircraft from the Air Reserve Components (ARC) to the
regular component of the Air Force (RegAF).
The provision would remove uncontentious, routine
transfers, and short-term transfers from Section 345 reporting
requirements. The provision also would exempt transfers that
terminate the reserve component's interest in the aircraft (due
to aircraft retirement or mission transfer) when that transfer
has been the subject of prior notification to the defense
committees.
Additionally, the provision would direct administrative
changes, such as requiring a signature from the Chief of the
Air Force Reserve (a staff position) rather than the Commander,
Air Force Reserve Command (a command position) and removing
references to ``ownership'' of the aircraft. Because title
vests in the United States government, aircraft ownership does
not transfer; the components are merely assigned possessory
rights.
The provision would clarify that when a written agreement
is required, only leaders of the affected components need sign
the agreement. For example, an agreement documenting a 180-day
transfer of aircraft from the Air National Guard to the Regular
Air Force would not require signature by the Chief of the Air
Force Reserve.
The provision would not create an oversight vacuum or allow
aircraft transfers to occur without coordination and agreement.
The Air Force would still be required to comply with Department
of Defense Instruction 1225.06, Equipping the Reserve Forces,
May 16, 2012, Enclosure 3, which requires coordination,
approval, and a written agreement signed by a general officer
or civilian equivalent for equipment transfers, including
aircraft.
Limitation on use of funds for Department of Defense sponsorships,
advertising, or marketing associated with sports-related
organizations or sporting events (sec. 342)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Department of Defense (DOD) from using appropriated funds
to procure sponsorships, advertising, or marketing associated
with sports-related organizations or sporting events until the
Director, Accessions Policy within the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness conducts a
review of current departmental activities in this area,
including those by the active duty, reserve, and guard
components to ensure that such activities enable the DOD to
achieve recruiting goals and provide an appropriate return on
investment. The committee is aware that for fiscal year 2016,
DOD has requested $507.5 million to fund its advertising
activities.
While the committee recognizes that sports marketing and
advertising activities can help DOD achieve its recruiting and
retention goals, the committee is also concerned that in a
period of declining budgets, the Department may not be ensuring
that it is maximizing its return on investment of sports
marketing and advertising funds. In particular, the committee
is concerned with the Department's continued use of funds for
sports-related sponsorships, advertising and marketing. The
committee notes that DOD components do not appear to be
utilizing specific metrics, such as leads generated that lead
to recruit accessions, in a uniform and consistent way to
measure the return on investment associated with these
activities. The committee further notes that the approach to
managing contracts used to procure these activities differs
across DOD components, and in the case of the Army National
Guard, is highly decentralized and managed at the individual
state level. The committee is concerned that such differences
and decentralization hinder the ability to apply best
practices, minimize potential duplication, and ensure that
appropriate oversight into these activities occurs.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to assess DOD sponsorship, sports
marketing and advertising activities, including the active
duty, and reserve, and guard components. The assessment shall
include, but not be limited to: (1) Whether DOD marketing and
advertising activities are achieving their stated goals; (2)
How DOD determines whether its marketing and advertising
activities are effective and providing an appropriate return on
investment; (3) The extent to which the effectiveness of DOD
marketing and advertising activities are consistent with best
commercial practices; (4) DOD actions to reduce unnecessary
redundancies in its marketing and advertising activities; and
(5) an assessment of the activities required under section
(a)(1) and (a)(2) in this provision.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to deliver a
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 2016.
Temporary authority to extend contracts and leases under ARMS
Initiative (sec. 343)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 4554(a)(3)(A) of title 10, United States Code, to
temporarily extend the authority to extend contracts and leases
under the Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support (ARMS)
Initiative.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Streamlining of Department of Defense management and operational
headquarters (sec. 351)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the
management, headquarters, and organization of the Department of
Defense (DOD) for purposes of consolidating and streamlining
headquarters functions. The provision would require the
Secretary, to the extent practicable, to consult with subject
matter experts outside of DOD and to submit the required report
no later than March 1, 2016. To implement this comprehensive
plan, the Secretary of Defense shall make required personnel
and budget reductions. Section 904 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66)
required the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for
streamlining DOD management headquarters, including the Office
of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Joint Staff, the
military services, and others that was to be provided to the
congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after
passage. The Secretary has yet to provide the required plan.
Therefore, the committee initiates the streamlining with a 7.5
percent reduction to these organizations (except Special
Operations Command, classified programs, Department of Defense
Educational Activities, and programs related to sexual assault
prevention and response) in fiscal year 2016 and increasing the
reductions 7.5 percent each year for 4 years. Furthermore, the
funding reductions should be matched by personnel reductions
(military, civilian, and contractor) across the defense
agencies, OSD, Service Secretariats, service military staffs,
combatant commands, and service subordinate commands with
military personnel transferred to operating forces. In
executing the plan to reduce the overhead costs, the Secretary
is directed to provide details of any personnel or functions
that are transferred to any other organization in DOD.
Elsewhere in this bill the committee recommends four provisions
that would provide the Secretary with the force shaping tools
necessary to retain the highest performing workforce when
determining which employees should be retained. These
provisions will: (1) make performance the key factor when the
DOD conducts reductions in force to its civilian and contractor
workforce; (2) require employees receiving a less than
satisfactory performance evaluation to be held at their current
step-level for within-grade increases until they achieve
satisfactory job performance; (3) extend the probationary
period for new employees of DOD to 2 years; and (4) direct DOD
to conduct a study, to be reviewed by the Comptroller General
of the United States for sufficiency, of the fully-burdened
costs to DOD for civilian and contractor employees at clerical,
mid-level manager, and senior management levels. In executing
this plan, the committee directs that operating forces and
organizations such as depots, shipyards and similar functions
not be cut in order to retain headquarter staffing levels.
To monitor the implementation of this plan, the provision
would require the Comptroller General, through the end of
fiscal year 2019, to conduct an annual review of DOD's
implementation efforts. Finally, to ensure compliance, the
provision would limit the availability of funds for contract
personnel in OSD should the Secretary fail to achieve the
underlying reductions of the provision. In addition, the
committee would defer two military construction projects for
headquarters-related functions pending the outcome of this
review and plan.
The committee remains concerned with the growth in
headquarters, administration, and overhead costs of DOD at a
time of fiscal austerity and reductions in force structure.
According to the Comptroller General, the Army Staff has
increased by 60 percent, from 2,272 in 2001 to 3,639 in 2013.
This increase in Army staff largely remains intact despite a
reduction of the Army's Active-Duty, Reserve, and National
Guard end strengths. The Air Force appears to have avoided OSD
requirements to reduce unnecessary and duplicative headquarters
functions and overhead activity. Instead, the Air Force grew
subordinate units by shifting individuals from higher
headquarters to two newly created subordinate headquarters
(e.g., the Twenty-Fifth Air Force and the Installation and
Mission Support Center). The Air Force appears to have made no
significant reductions to its overall civilian personnel or
obtained any savings to the Air Force wide budget. The budget
for DOD Washington Headquarters Service (WHS), whose job it is
to support all the growing headquarters and bureaucracy in the
National Capital Region, has grown over 40 percent in the last
8 years from $443.0 million to $621.0 million. Budget growth in
WHS is a clear sign the headquarters and overhead at DOD are
getting larger, not smaller. The Joint Staff has also nearly
doubled in size in the last five years to over 2,500 military
and civilian employees. This growth is primarily attributable
to the transfer of personnel from the supposed closure of
United States Joint Forces Command. The committee is also
concerned that significant duplicative activities may exist
between OSD, the Joint Staff, the military services, defense
agencies, and other temporary organizations within DOD.
The Defense Business Board estimates DOD could save $25.0
billion per year if it better managed its civilian and
contractor workforce through targeted reductions and contract
elimination and other efficiency initiatives. The National
Defense Panel (NDP) noted that ``additional changes are
required to right size the civilian Defense Department and
federal contracting workforces. Pentagon civilians have
continued to grow even after the active duty forces have been
shrinking for some time. From 2001 to 2012, the active duty
military grew by 3.4 percent while at the same time the size of
the USG civilian workforce in the Department has grown by 15%
to over 800,000. CBO calculates that the rising costs of
civilian pay accounts for two-thirds of projected growth in
operations and maintenance spending in the next decade.
Clearly, controlling or reducing civilian pay costs is
essential to ensuring that the operations and maintenance
accounts can be effectively leveraged to provide for the
readiness of the Joint Force.'' The NDP further stated: ``The
defense contracting workforce is also in need of review. By
2012, the number of civilian contractors working inside the
Department of Defense had grown to approximately 670,000. While
some of these contractors are performing critical functions in
support of the U.S. military, others are a legacy of the
tremendous growth in the use of civilian contractors that
attended the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. We urge the Department
to undertake a detailed examination of both the size of it
civilian workforce and its reliance on civilian contractors in
an effort to identify and eliminate excess overhead and right-
size the civilian workforce.''
Adoption of retired military working dogs (sec. 352)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2583 of title 10, United States Code, to give
preference in the adoption of retired military working dogs
(MWDs) to their former handlers, consistent with the best
interests of the MWDs.
The committee recognizes the value MWDs in support of the
various training missions and combat operations of the U.S.
Armed Forces. The committee also recognizes the efforts of the
341st Training Squadron at Lackland Air Force Base in their
role of training and handling MWDs across the Department of
Defense.
Modification of required review of projects relating to potential
obstructions to aviation (sec. 353)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 to expand the coverage of the
Department of Defense (DOD) Siting Clearinghouse to requests
for informal reviews from Indian tribes and landowners. The
Siting Clearinghouse is an office in the Office of the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense (Energy Installations and
Environment) that serves as the DOD's point of contact under
which the DOD evaluates projects for military mission
compatibility and attempts to develop mitigations with
developers.
This provision would clarify that information received from
private entities, which is frequently confidential business
information, is not required to be publicly released, as this
reduces the willingness of private developers to seek early
consultation with the DOD.
Further, the provision would eliminate an arbitrary and
undesirable manner of distinguishing categories of adverse risk
impact.
Pilot program on intensive instruction in certain Asian languages (sec.
354)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the National
Security Education Board, to carry out a pilot program to
assess the feasibility and advisability of providing
scholarships in accordance with the David L. Boren National
Security Education Act of 1991 (50 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) to
individuals for intensive language instruction in a covered
Asian language where deficiencies exist.
Budget Items
Transfer to overseas contingency operations
The budget request included $210.0 billion in service,
component, and defense-wide operation and maintenance accounts.
The committee recommends a decrease of $39.0 billion in
operation and maintenance in this title and as specified in the
table in section 4301 and a corresponding increase in operation
and maintenance accounts in title XV (Overseas Contingency
Operations) and as specified in the table in section 4302.
Recommended decreases and increases are summarized in the below
table.
The Budget Control Act limits national defense
discretionary spending to $523.0 billion for fiscal year 2016.
In order to meet the defense funding levels requested by the
President and avoid triggering automatic cuts, known as
sequestration, the committee recommends transferring funding
authority from base budget operation and maintenance in this
title to Overseas Contingency Operations in title XV.
The committee believes that the transfer of these funds to
title XV should seek to limit any complications for the
Department of Defense in the obligations of these funds. The
committee notes the Armed Forces has been for the past 13
years, and continues to be today, engaged in overseas
operations. Currently, the Armed Forces is expanding their
presence abroad. As such, the budget request included
significant overseas contingency operation funding in the
operation and maintenance account, specifically for the
operating forces activities. Therefore, the committee
recommends the transfer of title III to title XV funds for the
activities itemized below. The Department of Defense has
executed both base and overseas contingency operations funding
for the activities listed below in the past. In addition, in
previous years the President has deemed the operation and
maintenance account eligible for overseas contingency operation
funding.
TRANSFER OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (OM) FUNDS FROM SECTION 4301 TO
SECTION 4302
($ millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase Sec.
Activity ($M) Decrease Sec.4301 4302
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OM, Army, Maneuver Units, 10...... 1,094.4 .................
OM, Army, Theater Level Assets, 40 ................. 763.3
OM, Army, Land Forces Operations 1,054.3 .................
Support, 50......................
OM, Army, Aviation Assets, 60..... 1,546.1 .................
OM, Army, Force Readiness 3,158.6 .................
Operations Support, 70...........
OM, Navy, Mission and Other Flight 4,940.4 .................
Operations, 10...................
OM, Navy, Aircraft Depot ................. 897.5
Maintenance, 60..................
OM, Navy, Mission and Other Ship 4,287.7 .................
Operations, 90...................
OM, Navy, Ship Depot Maintenance, 5,961.0 .................
110..............................
OM, Marine Corps, Operational ................. 931.1
Forces, 10.......................
OM, Marine Corps, Field Logistics, ................. 931.8
20...............................
OM, Air Force, Primary Combat 3,336.9 .................
Forces, 10.......................
OM, Air Force, Combat Enhancement 1,897.3 .................
Forces, 20.......................
OM, Air Force, Depot Maintenance, 6,537.1 .................
40...............................
OM, Air Force, Depot Maintenance, 1,617.6 1,617.6
160..............................
-------------------------------------
Total Transfer............ 38,955.0 38,955.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army and Army Reserve readiness unfunded priorities increases
The budget request included $31.7 billion in Operation and
Maintenance (OMA), of which $1.2 billion was for SAG 123 Land
Forces Depot Maintenance, $2.6 billion was for SAG 132
Facilities Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization (FSRM) and
$981.0 million was for SAG 321 Specialized Skill Training. The
budget request also included $2.6 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), of which $59.5 million was
for SAG 123 Land Forces Depot Maintenance.
The Army has identified specific amounts in these readiness
accounts that could help accelerate readiness recovery. The
committee notes that these recommended increases will restore
critical depot maintenance as well as increase both cyber and
unmanned aircraft systems training capabilities. Additionally,
the committee understands these funds will maintain the
operations of strategic missile defense test sites.
Accordingly, the committee recommends the following
increases in OMA: $77.2 million for SAG 123 Land Forces Depot
Maintenance, $34.0 million for SAG 132 FSRM, and $33.2 million
for SAG 321 Specialized Skill Training. The committee also
recommends an increase of $32.4 million in OMAR for SAG 123
Land Forces Depot Maintenance.
Insider threat unfunded priorities increases
The budget request included $31.7 billion in Operation and
Maintenance (OMA), of which $7.6 billion was for SAG 131 Base
Operations Support and $1.1 billion was for SAG 411 Security
Programs.
The Army has identified specific amounts in these readiness
accounts that could help reduce the risk of insider threat
attacks. The committee notes that these recommended increases
will improve physical security and information management.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of OMA in
SAG 131 Base Operations Support for $10.5 million and $5.5
million in SAG 411 Security Programs to help reduce the risk of
insider threat attacks.
Streamlining Combatant Commands
The budget request included $35.1 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $448.6 million was for SAG
138 Combatant Commands Direct Mission Support, $42.2 billion
for Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $73.1
million was for SAG 1CCM Combatant Commands Direct Mission
Support, $38.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
(OMAF), of which $900.6 million was for SAG 015A Combatant
Commands Direct Mission Support.
The committee is concerned that duplicative activities may
exist between the staff of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Joint Staff, the military services, and many
defense agencies. In addition, new regulations and procedures
have been implemented over the years that drive many of these
costs. The committee recommends a reduction of 7.5 percent to
operation and maintenance accounts for Combatant Commands
Direct Mission Support.
Accordingly, the committee recommends undistributed
decreases to the following: $12.3 million in OMA to SAG 138
Combatant Commands Direct Mission Support, $5.4 million in OMN
to SAG 1CCM Combatant Commands Direct Mission Support, and
$15.3 million in OMAF to SAG 015A Combatant Commands Direct
Mission Support.
Army outreach reduction
The budget request included $31.7 billion in Operation and
Maintenance (OMA), of which $1.1 billion was for SAG 435 Other
Service Support.
The committee understands that within the Other Service
Support request was an increase of $4.5 million to fund two
additional cities for the Army's Spirit of America outreach
program. The committee believes these funds should be realigned
to support higher priority readiness requirements.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.5
million in OMA to SAG 435 Other Service Support.
United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase
The budget request included $35.1 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $1.1 billion was for Security
Programs.
United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) has identified
specific amounts in this readiness account that could help
offset the negative impacts from sequestration and resource
critical mission shortfalls. The committee notes that in
written testimony submitted to the committee on March 12, 2015,
General John Kelly, Commander of SOUTHCOM, stated that in his
area of responsibility the ``limited tactical ISR allocation
and national technical focus is impairing virtually every one
of our assigned missions and exposing the southern approaches
to the United States to significant risk''.'' General John
Kelly further stated that ``we could be talking not high risk
anymore, or severe risk, to our plans, but really we could be
talking defeat if sequestration happens.''
Accordingly, the committee recommends increases in OMA of
$20.0 million for Security Programs for SOUTHCOM, including
airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and
other intelligence and counter-intelligence support.
Streamlining Management Headquarters
The budget request included $35.1 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), of which $7.4 billion was for
Administration and Servicewide Activities, $2.6 billion in
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), of which $105.8
million was for Administration and Servicewide Activities, $6.7
billion in Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
(OMARNG), of which $430.1 million was for Administration and
Servicewide Activities, $42.2 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), of which $4.3 billion was for
Administration and Servicewide Activities, $6.2 billion for
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of which $471.8
million was for Administration and Servicewide Activities, $1.0
billion for Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve (OMNR), of
which $1.0 billion was for Administration and Servicewide
Activities, $277.0 million for Operation and Maintenance,
Marine Corps Reserve (OMMCR), of which $20.5 million was for
Administration and Servicewide Activities, $38.1 billion for
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $5.6
billion was for Administration and Servicewide Activities, $3.0
billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
(OMAFR), of which $88.5 million was for Administration and
Servicewide Activities, $6.9 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG), of which $54.2 million
was for Administration and Servicewide Activities, and $32.4
billion for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of
which $7.1 billion was for was for Administration and
Servicewide Activities.
The committee is concerned that duplicative activities may
exist between the staff of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Joint Staff, the military services, and many
defense agencies. In addition, new regulations and procedures
have been implemented over the years that drive many of these
costs. The committee recommends a reduction of 7.5 percent to
the Defense-wide and military service operations and
maintenance accounts for Administration and Servicewide
Activities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends undistributed
decreases to the following Administration and Servicewide
Activities accounts: $238.4 million to OMA, $6.0 million to
OMAR, $26.6 million to OMARNG, $209.8 million to OMN, $32.5
million to OMMC, $1.3 million to OMNR, $1.4 to OMMCR, $276.2
million to OMAF, $4.6 million to OMAFR, $3.0 million to OMANG,
and $897.5 million to OMDW for streamlining of headquarters
management.
Foreign currency fluctuation deductions
The budget request included $35.1 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), $42.2 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.2 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $38.1 billion for Operation
and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), and $32.4 billion for
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW).
The committee believes that when foreign currency
fluctuation (FCF) rates are determined by the Department of
Defense, the balance of the FCF funds should be considered,
particularly if the balance is close to the cap of $970.0
million. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
informed the committee that as of March 2015, the Department
has not transferred in any prior year unobligated balances to
replenish the account for fiscal year 2015 from a beginning
balance of $970.0 million. GAO analysis projects that the
Department will experience a net gain of $739.8 million in
fiscal year 2015 due to favorable foreign exchange rates, of
which $456.1 million is attributed to Operation and Maintenance
(O&M). Additionally, GAO analysis projects the Department will
experience a net gain of $891.4 million in fiscal year 2016 in
FCF, of which $587.4 million is attributed to O&M.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of: $281.5
million to OMA, $59.9 million to OMN, $19.8 million to OMMC,
$137.8 million to OMAF, and $51.9 million to OMDW for FCF.
Bulk fuel savings
The budget request included $35.1 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Army (OMA), $2.6 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army Reserve (OMAR), $6.7 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), $42.2 billion for
Operation and Maintenance, Navy (OMN), $6.2 billion for
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), $1.0 billion
for Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve (OMNR), $277
million for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
(OMMCR), $38.1 billion for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
(OMAF), $3.0 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
Reserve (OMAFR), $6.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air
National Guard (OMANG), and $32.4 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW).
The committee understands that as of March 2015, the
Department has overstated its projected bulk fuel costs for
fiscal year 2016 by $1.7 billion.
Accordingly, the committee recommends the following
decreases: $260.1 million to OMA, $7.6 million to OMAR, $25.3
to OMARNG, $482.3 million to OMN, $17.0 million to OMMC, $39.7
to OMNR, $1.0 million to OMMCR, $618.3 million to OMAF, $101.1
to OMAFR, $162.6 million to OMANG, and $36.0 million to OMDW
for bulk fuel savings.
Army and Air National Guard Operation Phalanx increase
The budget request included $6.7 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $88.7
million was for SAG 114 Theater Level Assets and $943.6 million
was for SAG 116 Aviation Assets. The budget request also
included $6.9 billion in Operation and Maintenance, Air
National Guard (OMANG), of which $740.7 million was for SAG 11G
Mission Support Operations.
The committee remains concerned that the southern border of
the United States remains unsecure. The committee notes that in
testimony on March 12, 2015, Admiral William Gortney, Commander
of U.S. Northern Command stated that ``the southern border can
be more secure.'' At the same hearing General John Kelly,
Commander of U.S. Southern Command testified that ``with the
amount of drugs and people that move across our southwest
border, it doesn't seem all that secure to me.''
The committee notes that the Army National Guard has been
providing support to the Department of Homeland Security along
the southwest border under a program entitled Operation Phalanx
since 2010. Since its inception, Operation Phalanx has
consisted of ground-based Entry Identification Teams, criminal
analyst support, and aerial surveillance support to civil
authorities along the southwest border. According to the Army
National Guard, since Operation Phalanx began in July of 2010,
operations have contributed to the apprehension of over 122,000
individuals and the seizure of over 377,000 pounds of
marijuana.
Accordingly, the committee recommends the following
increases in OMARNG: $7.7 million for SAG 114 Theater Level
Assets, and $13.0 million for SAG 116 Aviation Assets.
Additionally, the committee recommends an increase of $2.6
million in OMANG for SAG 11G Mission Support Operations.
Army National Guard portrait cuts
The budget request included $6.7 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $59.6
million was for SAG 431 Administration.
The committee understands that a portion of the requested
increase is for the Chief National Guard Bureau (CNBG) Heritage
Paintings, which the CNGB commissions each year. The committee
also understands that this increase would be to pay for a
backlog of four other paintings at a cost of $62,500 thousand
per painting, which includes personnel and framing associated
costs. The committee believes these funds should be realigned
to support higher priority readiness requirements.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of
$250,000 in OMARNG for SAG 431 Administration.
Army National Guard marketing program reduction
The budget request included $283.6 million in Other
Personnel Support within Operation and Maintenance, Army
National Guard (OMARNG), of which $283.0 million was for SAG
434 Other Personnel Support.
The committee understands that $11.5 million is an increase
to the Army Marketing Program. The committee believes that
these funds should be realigned to support higher priority
readiness requirements.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $11.5
million for SAG 434 Other Personnel Support.
Army National Guard readiness funding increase
The budget request included $6.7 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard (OMARNG), of which $166.8
million was for $943.6 million in SAG 116 Aviation Assets and
SAG 123 Land Forces Depot Maintenance.
The committee understands that the Army National Guard has
identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that
could accelerate readiness recovery while also increasing both
actual and simulated flying hour programs increasing aviator
readiness.
Accordingly, the committee recommends the following
increases in OMARNG: $39.6 million in Aviation Assets and $22.5
million for SAG 123 Land Forces Depot Maintenance.
Marine Corps readiness unfunded priorities increases
The budget request included $42.2 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy (OMN) of which $4.9 billion was for SAG 1A1A
Mission and Other Flight Operations, $376.8 million was for SAG
1A4N Air System Support, $897.5 million for SAG 1A5A Aircraft
Depot Maintenance, $544.0 million was for SAG 1A9A Aviation
Logistics, $4.4 billion was for BSS1 Base Operating Support,
and $6.4 million for SAG 2B1G Aircraft Activations/
Inactivations.
The committee understands that the Marine Corps has
identified specific amounts in these readiness accounts that
could accelerate readiness recovery. Specifically, the
committee understands the Marine Corps has identified aviation
readiness gaps in the CH-53E, MV-22, F/A-18, and AV-8B. The
committee notes that this recommended increase will improve the
Marine Corps' Ready Basic Aircraft goal to meet internal goals
for the AV-8B Harrier and improve readiness and availability of
the MV-22 aircraft. The committee also notes this recommended
increase will reduce expected maintenance time for the AV-8B
Harrier, making additional aircraft available to the fleet.
Finally, the committee notes that this recommended increase
will increase support and counseling services for Marines and
their family members.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase in OMN of
$3.3 million to SAG 1A1A Mission and Other Flight Operations,
$13.9 million to SAG 1A4N Air System Support, $17.0 million to
SAG 1A5A Aircraft Depot Maintenance, $5.3 million to SAG 1A9A
Aviation Logistics, $14.0 million to SAG BSS1 Base Operating
Support, and $0.5 million for SAG 2B1G Aircraft Activations/
Inactivations.
Criminal Investigative Equipment
The budget request included $6.2 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps (OMMC), of which $2.0 billion was for
SAG BSS1 Base Operating Support.
The committee is aware the Marine Corps has identified an
unfunded requirement that would improve its criminal
investigative capabilities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.2
million for SAG BSS1 Base Operating Support for criminal
investigative equipment.
A-10 to F-15E training transition
The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.7 billion was for
SAG 011D Air Operations Training.
The committee understands that within this budget request
is $79.6 million to be used to transition training resources
from the A-10 to the F-15E.
The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the
retirement of the A-10 fleet purely on the basis of the fiscal
environment and not on grounds of the ability of the combat air
forces to effectively meet the requirements of the combatant
commanders and defense strategy. The committee also believes
that with the A-10 fleet currently engaged in operations
against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, providing a
theater security package in Europe to assure our allies and
partners, and continuing rotational deployments operations to
Afghanistan, divesting this capability at this time incurs
unacceptable risk in the capacity and readiness of the combat
air forces without a suitable replacement available.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in OMAF of
$78.0 million in SAG 011D Air Operations Training.
Air Force readiness unfunded priorities increases
The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $1.8 billion was for
SAG 011C Combat Enhancement Forces and $1.7 billion was for SAG
011D Air Operations Training.
The Air Force has identified specific amounts in this
readiness account that could help accelerate readiness
recovery. The committee notes that this recommended increase
will improve training capabilities at 18 ranges as well as
improve cyber incident reporting.
Accordingly, the committee recommends the following
increases in OMAF: $4.3 million to SAG 011C Combat Enhancement
Forces and $37.7 million in OMAF for SAG 011D Air Operations
Training.
Joint Enabling Capabilities Command
The budget request included $205.1 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for Combatant Commanders Core
Operations, of which $41.0 million was for Joint Enabling
Capabilities Command (JECC).
The committee notes that JECC provides deployable units for
planning, communications, and public affairs as a subordinate
command to the U.S. Transportation Command. However, since the
creation and establishment of JECC, combatant commands are now
organized with planning, communications, and public affairs
assets or can obtain these planning, communications, and public
affairs forces through the military services.
The committee believes this funding should be realigned to
support high priority readiness requirements.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $41.0
million in OMAF for JECC.
Air Force Headquarters reductions
The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation
and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $3.3 billion was
for SAG 011A Primary Combat Forces, $1.8 billion was for SAG
011C Combat Enhancement Forces, $907.4 million was for SAG 012F
Tactical Intel and Other Special Activities, and $1.1 billion
was for SAG 043A Security Programs.
The committee is aware of the Air Force's request for
increasing civilian end strength within OMAF by 215 full-time
employees (FTEs). The committee believes the Air Force has not
adequately justified these 215 additional FTEs, and that any
unjustified growth in headquarters funding is inconsistent with
the 2013 headquarter reductions mandated by then-Secretary of
Defense Chuck Hagel and communicated to the military
departments and agencies through a July 31, 2013 memorandum
(OSD008519-13) sent by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton
Carter.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in OMAF to
the following: $2.1 million to SAG 011A Primary Combat Forces,
$14.0 million to SAG 011C Combat Enhancement Forces, $3.2
million to SAG 012F Tactical Intel and Other Special
Activities, and $4.9 million to SAG 043A Security Programs.
Remotely piloted aircraft
The budget request included $35.4 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $359.3 million was for
SAG 032A Specialized Skill Training.
The committee is aware that the remotely piloted aircraft
(RPA) career field has been under stress due to the high demand
of combat operations.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $43.1
million in OMAF to SAG 032A Specialized Skill Training to
increase RPA training and schoolhouse throughput for pilots.
Air Force acquisition tools reduction
The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $862 million was for
SAG 041B Technical Support Activities.
The committee understands that the Air Force is requesting
a $32.4 million increase for ``Acquisition Tools, Services, and
Training'' within Technical Support Activities. The committee
understands that the Air Force intends to use a portion of
these funds for skills training and officer development within
the acquisition workforce. The committee believes these efforts
are duplicative of the work done by the Defense Acquisition
Workforce Development Fund.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease in OMAF of
$10.0 million for SAG 041B Technical Support Activities.
Air Force enterprise information technology systems
The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $3.5 billion was for
SAG 3400F Logistics Operations, of which $1.1 billion is for
Base Support. The committee recommends a decrease of $12.0
million to this account to reduce support for redundant
enterprise information systems. The committee notes that the
Department of Defense and Air Force is working to continue to
reduce its computing infrastructure, including data centers and
legacy networks, through shutting down of legacy systems,
consolidation of redundant systems, and adoption of advanced
commercial technologies, such as cloud computing.
Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System reduction
The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $689.7 million was for
SAG 042A Administration.
The committee understands that within SAG 042A
Administration is a $65.0 million increase request for Defense
Enterprise Accounting and Management System (DEAMS). The
committee is aware of $12.6 million allocated to ``Funds
required to develop and deploy DEAMS'' and $8.1 million is for
``DEAMS sustainment.'' The committee is aware that within the
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funding for DEAMS,
separate funds are identified for a similar purpose. The
committee also understands that, according to the Office of the
Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, DEAMS has
experienced significant software problems and that the program
is not currently mature enough to transition to sustainment.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $20.7
million in OMAF to SAG 042A Administration for DEAMS.
EC-130H Buyback
The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation
and Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF).
The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the
retirement of EC-130H Compass Call aircraft purely on the basis
of the fiscal environment and not on grounds of the ability of
the Air Force to meet effectively the requirements of the
combatant commanders and the national defense strategy.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $27.3
million in OMAF for EC-130H buyback.
A-10 Operation and Maintenance Buyback
The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), $3.0 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force Reserve (OMAFR), and $6.9 billion in
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard (OMANG).
The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the
retirement of the A-10 fleet purely on the basis of the fiscal
environment and not on grounds of the ability of the combat air
forces to effectively meet the requirements of the combatant
commanders and defense strategy. The committee also believes
that with the A-10 fleet currently engaged in operations
against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, providing a
theater security package in Europe to assure our allies and
partners, and continuing rotational deployments operations to
Afghanistan, divesting this capability at this time incurs
unacceptable risk in the capacity and readiness of the combat
air forces without a suitable replacement available.
Accordingly, the committee recommends the following
increases for A-10 buyback: $235.3 million in OMAF, $2.5
million in OMAFR, and $42.2 million in OMANG.
Middle East Assurance Initiative
The budget request included $495.7 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
of which $9.7 million was for the Combatant Commander Exercise
Engagement and Training Transformation (CE2T2) program.
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in
OMDW for the CE2T2 program for bilateral and multilateral
exercises and activities to build the capability, capacity, and
interoperability of allies and partner nations in the Middle
East to conduct multilateral contingency operations.
The committee notes the need for enhancements in a region
of increasing unrest and the importance of the commitment of
the United States to provide leadership in order to continue to
develop critical multilateral partner capacity and capability
as well as the interoperability of those partners with United
States forces.
The committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, in coordination with the Commander of United States
Central Command, to provide a briefing to the Committees on
Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate,
not later than December 31, 2017, with a summary of the
activities conducted with the additional funding.
Department of Defense Rewards Program reduction
The budget request included $1.9 billion in the Operation
and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (SAG 4GTN), of which $12.3 million was for
the Department of Defense (DOD) rewards program.
The committee continues to be concerned that the DOD
Rewards Program has been hampered by historical under-
execution.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0
million in OMDW for the DOD Rewards Program (SAG 4GTN).
Additionally, the committee is encouraged by the DOD Rewards
Program as an effective tool against counterterrorism
worldwide. The committee is also encouraged by the prospect of
DOD developing a budgeting forecasting tool to help improve the
use of future resources.
Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program
The budget request included $32.4 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide (OMDW), of which $32.6 million is for
the Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program (CFTP). While the
committee remains supportive of the CTFP, the committee is
concerned about the expanding activities and increased
operating costs of the CTFP at a time of fiscal challenges. The
committee encourages the CTFP to focus its activities on its
core counterterrorism training and education mission and a
limited number of regions where the threat posed by terrorism
is most significant.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.0
million in OMDW for the CTFP.
Funding for impact aid
The amount authorized to be appropriated for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide, includes the following changes from
the budget request. The provisions underlying these changes in
funding levels are discussed in greater detail in title V of
this committee report.
[Changes in millions of dollars]
Impact aid for schools with military dependent +25.0
students.............................................
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities...... +5.0
Total............................................. +30.0
Defense-wide funding decreases for Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA)
The budget request included $110.6 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Office of Economic
Adjustment (OEA), of which $33.1 million was for the Defense
Industry Adjustment (DIA) program and $20.0 million was for
water and civilian water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements.
The committee believes this funding should be realigned to
support high priority readiness and modernization requirements.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $53.1
million in OMDW for the OEA.
Defense-wide funding decrease for base realignment and closure planning
and support
The budget request included $32.4 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW), of which $1.3 billion was for
SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of Defense.
The committee understands that $10.5 million was to be used
for base realignment and closure (BRAC) planning and support.
The bill recommended by the committee would prohibit the
expenditure of funds for a new BRAC round.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.5
million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN Office of the Secretary of
Defense.
Studies of fleet platform architectures for the Navy
The budget request included $1.4 million for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for SAG 4GTN Admin Service-
wide Activities.
This Act includes a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to commission three studies to be
submitted to the congressional defense committees on potential
future fleet architectures no later than May 1, 2016. These
studies would provide competing visions and alternatives for
future fleet architectures. One study would be performed by the
Department of the Navy, with input from the Naval Surface
Warfare Center Dahlgren Division. The second study would be
performed by a federally funded research and development
center. The third study would be conducted by a qualified
independent, non-governmental institute, as selected by the
Secretary of Defense.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0
million in OMDW for SAG 4GTN Admin Service-wide Activities for
the performance of these studies.
A-10 retirement manpower transfer
The budget request included $38.1 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF), of which $3.3 billion was for
SAG 011A Primary Combat Forces (PCF).
The committee believes that the Air Force is proposing the
retirement of the A-10 fleet purely on the basis of the fiscal
environment, despite concerns that the retirement of the A-10
fleet could adversely impact the ability of the combat air
forces to effectively meet the requirements of the combatant
commanders and defense strategy. The committee also believes
that with the A-10 fleet currently engaged in operations
against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL),
providing a theater security package in Europe to assure our
allies and partners, and continuing rotational deployments
operations to Afghanistan, divesting this capability at this
time incurs unacceptable risk in the capacity and readiness of
the combat air forces without a suitable replacement available.
Additionally, in fiscal year 2015 the Air Force implemented the
move of 18 primary mission aircraft inventory A-10s to backup
aircraft inventory status, reducing all but 2 of the A-10
fleet's combat squadrons to 18 primary assigned aircraft each.
The committee understands that a portion of the requested
increase for PCF was for the transfer of manpower towards
retirement of the A-10.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.4
million for SAG 011A PCF.
Items of Special Interest
Army and Air Force full spectrum training requirements
The committee notes that for more than a decade, the Army
and Air Force have focused the training of their forces in
support of counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The Department of Defense established a range of
resource-intensive training requirements deemed necessary to
conduct missions in these locations while deprioritizing
training in other areas. The committee notes that in the coming
years, both the Army and the Air Force will confront an
increasingly complex security environment that will demand a
full spectrum of missions, ranging from additional
counterinsurgency operations to humanitarian assistance and
disaster relief. To accomplish a broader set of missions, the
committee is encouraged by both services having established
plans to refocus their training to conduct the full spectrum of
military operations.
However, the committee notes that under the Budget Control
Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), the Department faces an
environment of constrained budgetary resources until at least
2021. For example, in fiscal year 2013, the Department's
operation and maintenance accounts--which fund the military
services' training programs--were reduced by approximately
$20.0 billion. Due to these sequestration-level budget caps,
the Army curtailed training for all units except those
deployed, preparing to deploy, or stationed overseas.
Meanwhile, the Air Force ceased flight operations from April
through June 2013 for about one third of its active duty combat
units and reduced the number of its larger training exercises.
Unless the Budget Control Act of 2011 is amended, the
Department faces another adverse impact to training and
readiness in fiscal year 2016. The committee remains concerned
that under sequestration, the Department will be unable to
balance necessary training investments with available
resources. Additionally, if sequestration persists until 2021,
the committee notes that the Department may have to
fundamentally reexamine the requirements for training its
forces. Finally, the committee notes that the Department should
continue to explore how to best achieve additional efficiencies
and cost savings during training, while preparing for mission
requirements.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to provide the committee with an
assessment of the Army and Air Force training plans and
requirements. This assessment shall include, but not be limited
to: the extent to which the Army and Air Force have established
full-spectrum readiness goals, plans, and timeframes to train
their forces; have adjusted training plans and identified
resource requirements in light of prepare ready units for
counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; have
considered options for increasing the use of simulated training
and other technologies to achieve efficiencies or other cost
savings, while meeting training requirements; and any other
issues the Comptroller General determines relevant and
appropriate with respect to Army and Air Force training.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives no later than March 15, 2016.
Body armor modernization
The committee continues to monitor the Department of
Defense's plans and actions to ensure the continued
availability and improvement of the best possible body armor
and other protective equipment for our troops serving in harm's
way. The committee has received the interim technical study and
business case analysis of body armor plates required by the
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
The committee looks forward to receiving the final report
no later than March 1, 2016 which will evaluate the full range
of options for body armor modernization and sustainment. The
committee directs that the final report shall include a
strategy to address body armor demand and sustainment in light
of the current industry consolidation and potential
restructuring, to ensure that the Department can respond to
future warfighter requirements.
The committee expects the Department to continue to ensure
that those who fight to protect our nation have the best
available equipment and protection to meet mission
requirements, including body armor specifically designed for
women. Additionally, the Department is strongly encouraged to
apply appropriate resources to ensure the modernization of body
armor occurs through the appropriate research, development,
test, and evaluation.
Care of stock in storage
The committee notes that the military services have
established several locations of pre-positioned stock and
equipment around the globe in support of combatant commanders'
requirements for operational plans, training, and
contingencies. The committee is concerned such military
equipment suffers varying degrees of degradation and corrosion
while being stored outdoors for extended periods of time. Such
degradation and corrosion is caused by weatherization and
equipment being stored in a stagnant state without minimal
levels of care of stock in storage (COSIS). The Government
Accountability Office has estimated that the Department of
Defense incurs over $20.0 billion every year in corrosion costs
for its weapon systems and infrastructure.
The committee is concerned that minimal funding has been
allocated to COSIS, historically, and instead has gone to other
priorities, which ultimately leads to higher costs in the long-
term. Furthermore, the committee believes that moving equipment
under basic COSIS and cover--even indoor facilities that are
not necessarily climate-controlled or using equipment covers--
could generate significant cost avoidance for pre-positioned
stock and military equipment.
The committee is aware of a recent effort by the Army in
Kuwait to move some pre-positioned equipment to indoor storage,
but the committee is concerned that such a move was merely a
target of opportunity and not part of a broad strategy backed
by effective planning and resources.
Accordingly, the committee strongly urges the Department
and the military services to identify and implement
opportunities to improve the COSIS and covered storage of its
pre-positioned stock, and to notify the committee of potential
opportunities where additional resources could be applied to
improve COSIS.
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than
March 1, 2016 on specific locations and opportunities where
COSIS could improve for outdoor pre-positioned stock to ensure
equipment is stored in a way that minimizes weatherization and
weapon system degradation. The report shall include an estimate
of the return on investment of storing pre-positioned equipment
indoors.
Category I ammunition items in OCONUS environments
The committee continues to note that Category I ammunition
items, including certain man-portable missiles and rockets, are
highly explosive, extremely lethal, and a potential threat if
they were to be used by unauthorized individuals or groups. To
help protect these items and minimize the risk of loss or
theft, it is critical that the Department of Defense (DOD),
among other security measures, have sound inventory controls
and accountability while transferring custody of Category I
ammunition items in outside the contiguous United States
(OCONUS) environments. The committee notes that recent
Government Accountability Office reports on inventory
management have found that DOD information systems used to
facilitate inventory management have some limitations that
prevent DOD's ability to have Department-wide visibility of its
inventory, including Category I ammunition items in OCONUS
environments.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to evaluate the extent to which the
military Services, in accordance with policies and procedures,
have: (1) Have conducted physical inventories of Category I
ammunition items in OCONUS locations and compared the results
to records and adjusted the records as needed; (2) Are able to
maintain accountability and track Category I ammunition items
while they are being shipped to OCONUS locations and between
OCONUS locations, as well as shipments back to the continental
United States; and (3) Adhere to policies and procedures for
maintaining accountability over the process for how Category I
ammunition items are distributed, expended, and turned-in in
OCONUS locations.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to deliver a
report to the committee no later than March 15, 2016.
Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF)
The committee notes the vital national security
contribution of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) to Operation
Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New
Dawn as well as its essential role for the military in quickly
responding to crisis situations such as humanitarian and
disaster relief operations.
The National Airlift Policy of 1987 established clear
policy regarding the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF). The
committee directs the Department to continue to comply with the
National Airlift Policy to maintain the effectiveness of the
Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) through appropriate peacetime
cargo airlift augmentation and training within the military
airlift system.
The committee encourages the Department to continue
coordination with the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) on matters
of long-range planning, capability, training, and readiness.
Commercial innovation in energy technologies
The committee notes that innovation in advanced energy
technologies by the commercial sector is frequently generating
both significant revenues for industry, as well as enhancing
the energy efficiency of organizations that are adopting novel
technical solutions. Similarly, technologies ranging from more
energy efficient engines to micro-grids to information
technology-based intelligent management of energy and power
systems can have significant impacts on defense missions, both
improving combat capability and reducing costs.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
has had limited success in engaging innovative small businesses
and university researchers in the development and maturation of
these types of technologies to meet DOD needs. One example of a
successful endeavor to identify, develop, and potentially adopt
innovative energy technology solutions, especially those being
developed in the commercial sector is the Marine Corps'
Experimental Forward Operating Base, currently run by the
Expeditionary Energy Office. The committee believes that this
type of effort should be replicated by other DOD organizations
that have a mission to develop and adopt advanced energy
technologies to support military missions.
The committee further notes that DOD has a wide range of
authorities that can be used to engage with and potentially
invest in commercial technologies and non-traditional industry
partners to develop next generation, game-changing
technologies. Specifically, the committee notes that DOD makes
limited use of the authorities to award advanced technology
prizes (as codified in section 2374 of title 10, United States
Code, and in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010,
Public Law 111-358), funding under Small Business Innovation
Research program, transition activities supported by the Rapid
Innovation Program, and other flexible and agile acquisition
processes.
Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the
Department to consider using these types of authorities to
identify and engage innovation companies.
Defense Logistics Agency and military services' integrated demand
planning for spare parts
The committee recognizes that the Defense Logistics Agency
(DLA) and the military services have jointly worked to
integrate demand planning for consumable items to enhance
materiel support at shipyards, depots and industrial operation
sites. The committee continues to be concerned about DLA's
ability to ensure the timely delivery and availability of spare
parts to the depots and industrial sites, such as the Navy's
Shipyards and Fleet Readiness Centers, Air Force's Air
Logistics Centers (ALC), and the Army and Marine Corps' depots.
While DLA has provided shipyards and depots with 80 percent of
required parts in a timely and effective manner, our military
services need 100 percent of the parts delivered on time to
have combat/mission ready equipment.
Reports by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and
the Department of Defense have identified shortages of spare
parts at depots and shipyards, which affected maintenance
operations and weapon system availability and overall
readiness. In one report, the GAO analysis of Air Force data
showed that the average monthly backorders and part shortages
at the ALCs had grown significantly in recent years. The GAO
also identified issues between DLA and the Air Force and Navy
in support of their depot operations. Specifically, efforts to
improve demand forecast accuracy for items needed to support
the workload at the depots were not managed through a
comprehensive framework and were not producing the intended
outcomes.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to evaluate the extent to which: (1) DLA
and the military services have established a framework for
monitoring DLA's supply support depots and industrial
operations while meeting performance targets for improving
materiel availability, reducing backorders, and minimizing the
accumulation of excess inventory; (2) backorders for DLA-
managed items at the depots and industrial operation sites have
affected the availability and readiness of weapon systems; (3)
DLA and the military services implemented and measured
collaborative forecasting efforts--like demand data exchange or
gross demand planning--to integrate demand planning and improve
materiel availability in support of efficient operations at the
depots and industrial sites; and (4) DLA and the military
services identified and applied leading best practices for
integrating demand planning that could be used to enhance the
availability of DLA-managed consumable items, decrease the
likelihood of excess inventory, and improve depot and
industrial operations.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a
report to the committee no later than March 15, 2016.
Department of Defense airfield reflective pavement markings
The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) for
its continued safe execution of airfield operations to include
maintaining and sustaining the airfield environment. The
committee understands the Air Force has been assessing its
airfield markings to include reflective airfield, runway, and
taxiway markings. The assessment includes factors such as
reflectivity, friction coefficient, durability, and life cycle
costs. This committee encourages all DOD services to assess the
different types of reflective materials to maximize safety and
ensure Unified Facilities Guide Specifications for pavement
markings (UFGS 32 17 23.00 20 Pavement Markings, UFGS 32 17
24.00 10 Pavement Markings) are adequate for minimum reflective
marking requirements for continued safe nighttime and low
visibility conditions.
Department of Defense energy security and efficiency technologies
The committee is aware that new energy security and
efficiency technology is being tested by the military services
at Department of Defense (DOD) installations and is supported
by the Department. The committee applauds DOD's efforts to find
efficiencies in its energy programs. The committee encourages
the types of technology that can provide energy infrastructure
protections, maintain vital energy supplies during man-made and
natural disasters and achieve energy efficiencies and cost
savings. As such, the committee also encourages DOD's continued
testing and evaluation of energy security and efficiency
technologies and recommends all military services and DOD
continue to look for additional evaluation and testing
opportunities. Lastly, the committee notes that microgrid
demonstrations that specifically target highest reliability of
critical infrastructure at low implementation costs will be
imperative in today's fiscally constrained environment.
Department of Defense fuel consumption estimates
The committee remains concerned that the Department of
Defense (DOD) actual fuel costs have differed considerably from
budget estimates. For example, the Department underestimated
its fuel costs by about $3.0 billion for fiscal years 2010
through 2012. The committee notes the inherent challenge the
DOD faces in having to plan real-time fuel prices well in
advance of execution, and the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) found in 2014 that fluctuations in global fuel prices
accounted for a large portion of the differences between
estimated and actual fuel costs. However, the GAO also found
that differences between the military services' estimated and
actual fuel consumption levels accounted for, on average, 26
percent of the difference between the DOD's estimated and
actual fuel costs for fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
The committee notes that when developing annual operation
and maintenance budget requests, the military services develop
fuel funding requirements based on their estimated activity
levels, such as flying hours, steaming days, tank miles, and
base operations, along with the standard price of fuel provided
to them by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller).
The committee believes that as the DOD transitions from
large-scale contingency operations in Afghanistan, the
services' consumption estimates should be more consistent as
full spectrum training resumes. The committee also believes
that given recent fuel price fluctuations due to changes in the
global oil market, accurate fuel consumption estimates become
even more important in trying to adequately determine budget
requests, particularly in times of fiscal constraints.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to provide the committee with an
assessment of the military services' approaches to estimating
fuel consumption in annual budget requests. This assessment
shall include, but not be limited to: the processes the
military services use to estimate their fuel consumption
requirements each fiscal year, the factors that contribute to
any differences between actual and estimated fuel consumption,
and the extent to which DOD and the services have considered
options for adjusting the approach to estimating fuel
consumption in light of any differences in recent years between
estimated and actual fuel use.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives no later than March 15, 2016.
Department of Defense investment in community relations activities
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
engages in a variety of community relations activities and
programs, such as aircraft flyovers and musical performances,
which have a goal of increasing the understanding and mission
of the DOD. The committee understands that some of these
activities are also intended to support recruiting and
retention programs. According to the DOD Directive 5410.18, the
planning and execution of community relation programs are
decentralized because of the variety of local conditions and
environments in which they are used. However, because of their
decentralized nature, it is difficult to determine the cost or
effectiveness of these activities across the Department.
For instance, the committee understands the budget request
included $37.0 million in Military Construction, Army for an
instruction building for the U.S. Army band, which does not
include the costs of sustainment and operation of the facility.
While the committee recognizes that community relations are
needed and important, it also is interested in understanding
the extent of investment in these activities and their
benefits.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to identify the personnel, facilities, and
other support costs associated with community relations
activities in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and
evaluate the extent to which the military services determine
requirements for these activities.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than
March 15, 2016.
Depot maintenance core workload capability
The committee recognizes that the Department of Defense
(DOD) maintains many complex weapon systems and equipment that
require regular and emergency maintenance in order to be
available for DOD to meet the National Military Strategy. To
sustain these weapon systems and equipment, at the depot level,
DOD uses both organic depots and contractors. The committee
notes that the military services are constantly in the process
of assessing the critical skills and competencies necessary by
the depot maintenance civilian workforce to support current and
future national security requirements, along with projecting
trends in the workforce based on expected losses due to
retirement and other attrition.
The committee continues to recognize the key role the
depots, arsenals, and ammunition plants serve, along with
industry. Section 2464 of title 10 United States Code, required
DOD to maintain a core maintenance capability--a combination of
personnel, facilities, equipment, processes, data, and
technology that is government-owned and government-operated--
needed to meet mobilization, contingency, and emergency
requirements. The committee notes that as DOD continues to
operate in a fiscally-constrained environment, DOD will need to
prioritize available funds to support the depots to ensure core
capabilities are sustained.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to evaluate the extent to which DOD: uses
core capability requirements to manage the current and future
depot maintenance workloads, is able to provide information
that identifies trends in core capability workloads at selected
military depots, and the effects, if any, they are having on
capability; and agreements such as public private partnerships
with industry and the impact they have on DOD meeting core
capability requirements.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives no later than March 15, 2016.
Effects of operation and maintenance funding levels
The committee notes that the operation and maintenance
(O&M) accounts provide the resources for military readiness and
fund programs and activities such as training, maintenance, and
base operations. The committee also notes that as a result of
sequestration-level budget caps in fiscal year 2013, the
Department of Defense's O&M accounts were reduced by
approximately $20.0 billion. Due to these sequestration
reductions, the military services took a variety of actions,
such as curtailing training, reducing the number of large
training exercises, and ceasing flight operations for many
combat units. As a result of these actions, and given the time
required to retrain personnel and perform deferred maintenance,
the military services have faced challenges in restoring their
units to pre-sequestration levels of readiness. While the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Public Law 113-67) provided some
relief to the Department by increasing discretionary spending
caps, established under the Budget Control Act of 2011, for
fiscal years 2014 and 2015, the committee is concerned that the
readiness and cost impacts associated with lower levels of O&M
funding over time could lead to a high level of risk in the
near future, with significant shortfalls in both present and
future capabilities.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to evaluate the effects of budgetary
constraints on the O&M accounts, including an assessment of,
but not limited to the following: the trends in funding
provided for the Department's O&M accounts since fiscal year
2009 and a comparison of how O&M resources compared with
funding plans; how the Department has identified immediate and
long-term readiness and cost impacts resulting from any
reductions in O&M resources; and how the Department assessed
any degradation, if any, on core mission readiness and
identified plans to mitigate such degradation.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives no later than March 15, 2016.
Encouraging the Use of the Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) Program
The committee is aware of the readiness challenges facing
the Armed Forces due to the constraints put forth by
sequestration. Additionally, the committee is aware of the
Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) program, which contributes
to military readiness and provides realistic training in a
joint environment for National Guard, Reserve, and Active-Duty
members, preparing them to serve during a national crisis at
home or abroad.
The committee understands the IRT program offers complex
and challenging training opportunities for domestic and
international crises, opportunities which can seldom be
replicated outside of these crises. The committee is also aware
that states that utilize the IRT program include, Alabama,
Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, New York, North
Dakota, Ohio, and South Dakota.
The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
continue to utilize the IRT programs as well as the other
training opportunities that also provide hands-on and mission-
essential training and are available to Active, Reserve, and
National Guard forces.
Enhanced Performance Round and Special Operations Science and
Technology review
The committee believes that the Army and Marine Corps have
taken duplicative courses of action to improve its 5.56mm small
arms ammunition. While the committee recognizes and supports
the requirement for an improved small arms round against both
hard and soft targets, the committee also believes that the
Department may be incurring unnecessary costs to procure,
store, and field almost identically-capable small arms
ammunition. The committee is also concerned regarding a recent
court case alleging that the Army infringed upon a patent in
developing the enhanced performance round (EPR).
Additionally, the committee is concerned that an
independent comparison of the EPR, or M855A1, and Special
Operations Science and Technology (SOST), round has not been
completed, leaving both the Army and Marine Corps to develop
separate ammunition procurement strategies.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Director, Operational Test
and Evaluation, to submit a report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no
later than March 1, 2016. The report shall include a comparison
and analysis of the EPR and SOST rounds to include but not
limited to: (1) cost; (2) performance including range,
accuracy, and lethality; and (3) effects on the weapon. The
report may include a classified annex, as appropriate.
Fabric-based respiratory protective equipment
The committee is aware of emerging technologies in fabrics
and respiratory protection that are designed to minimize
service member exposure to inhalation of sand, dust, smoke, and
pollutants. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the relevant military departments and their
research, development, test, and evaluation directorates, to
submit a report to the committee no later than March 1, 2016 on
fabric-based respiratory protective equipment. The report shall
evaluate the technology, and document any efforts underway to
develop, design, and test wearable fabric-based respiratory
protection solutions, and any potential applications for
service members and military civilians. The report shall also
include an assessment of the commercial availability of any
fabric-based respiratory protection.
Foreign language training
The committee believes that foreign language proficiency,
particularly for slang and other colloquialisms in target
languages, is an essential component of military readiness.
Additionally, the committee understands that foreign language
proficiency education materials are utilized by numerous
agencies and services, to include but not limited to the
Defense Language Institute, Office of the Secretary of Defense,
Defense Intelligence Agency, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air
Force, members of the intelligence community as well as the
Department of State and other non-defense customers. The
committee is concerned that reductions to such capabilities may
have a far reaching impact on the ability of civilian and
military personnel of the Department of Defense, and possibly
also the cryptanalytic personnel of other agencies, to support
combatant commanders and major commands of the military
services.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act that identifies
capability gaps in advanced foreign language proficiency within
the military services and other relevant U.S. federal
government agencies that support Department of Defense and
military operations. The committee further directs the
Secretary of Defense to consult with such agencies, including
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, in the
preparation of this report, providing these agencies with an
opportunity to submit additional views to the congressional
defense committees as they deem necessary. The committee
directs that this report should propose a plan for eliminating
shortfalls in advanced foreign language proficiency and include
a recommendation as to the most appropriate budget function,
such as within a military service, other government agencies
that support military operations, or the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, for advanced foreign language training.
The committee further directs that this report should propose a
plan for the aforementioned agencies to identify and reduce
duplicative services that could reduce costs while increasing
information and skill sharing.
Installation access programs and systems
The committee continues to be concerned about the lack of
coordination among the efforts of the military services and
defense agencies to support credentialing at defense
installations. The Senate report accompanying S. 2410 (S. Rept.
113-176) of the Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 directed the Department of Defense (DOD)
to provide a report concurrent with the budget submission for
fiscal year 2016 that identified DOD credentialing and physical
access control programs and systems, including commercially
contracted services and other commercially provided services.
While DOD delivered an interim report, the final report on
physical access control systems has not been received.
The committee directs Secretary of Defense to immediately
provide the required report on its efforts to deploy physical
access control systems. As directed by the committee, this
report should cover all programs and systems intended to
provide credentials and/or manage installation access, include
all programs and systems the services and DOD have
operationally deployed, are in research and development, or in
pilot or prototype demonstration, and include both direct and
indirect costs.
Major test range and test facility bases reimbursement
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
established the major range and test facility bases (MRTFBs)
management concept to provide effective coordination among
military installations, promote multi-service use, and reduce
unnecessary duplication of assets.
The committee is aware that MRTFBs in the United States
currently are reimbursed for training activities by the
training units upon completion of a training event. The
committee understands that some training units do not routinely
encounter this type of reimbursement process, which may create
unnecessary difficulty and confusion for reimbursement at
MRTFBs.
Accordingly, the committee urges DOD to examine the current
reimbursement process for MRTFBs and, where appropriate,
simplify the reimbursement process in order to maximize
effectiveness and efficiency for training units.
Medical textile apparel for healthcare workers and patients
The committee is aware of emerging technologies in textiles
and medical apparel that are designed to minimize unanticipated
exposures to blood and bodily fluids, by reducing the amount of
pathogens on garments and decreasing the risk of infectious
disease transmission in healthcare settings. Accordingly, the
committee encourages the Department of Defense to incorporate
the effective use of such emerging technologies, including
innovative textile products designed to reduce the chances of
spreading infections in healthcare settings, where appropriate.
Mentor Protege program
The congressionally-mandated Mentor Protege program is
intended to support efforts of small and disadvantaged
businesses to partner with established defense suppliers in
order to improve their ability to deliver needed technologies
and services to the Department of Defense. The committee is
concerned that the program may not always be currently executed
to most efficiently achieve mandated goals. For example, the
committee's analysis of this program indicates that in some
cases, protege firms participating in this program had received
millions of dollars in federal prime contract awards prior to
the establishment of their Mentor-Protege agreements. This
raises questions as to whether appropriate criteria are in
place to ensure that the companies participating as proteges
truly require the developmental assistance that is being
provided under this program. In addition, the committee is
concerned that in some cases the developmental assistance
provided by mentors and reimbursed by the Department under this
program may not be targeted to those activities most critical
to enhancing the capabilities of the supplier base that the
Department needs.
The committee will continue to work with the Department to
ensure that the program meets the policy goals of enhancing the
defense supplier base, in the most effective and efficient
manner, and to determine if there are better ways to
incentivize participation in the program other than direct
reimbursement as well as program metrics that would better
convey the actual impact of the development assistance on the
protege's business.
Obstructions on or near military installations
The committee is concerned that the installation of
renewable energy projects on or near military bases may cause
unacceptable interference with military operations or safety.
The committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense to
ensure the Siting Clearinghouse process appropriately takes
into account the views of senior military officers of the
uniformed services for the military compatibility of renewable
energy projects. The committee believes senior military
officials can best assess potential impacts to the safety or
readiness of military servicemembers as well as the
effectiveness of mitigation strategies proposed for renewable
energy projects.
Operational Energy
The committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense
(DOD)'s fiscal year 2016 commitment to improving military
capability, decrease tactical risk, and reduce cost through
efforts to improve energy security and to better manage both
operational and installation energy.
The committee understands that generators used by the
military services consume a large percentage of the fuel used
in overseas contingency operations and the Department should
continue to examine ways to increase fuel efficiency, improve
combat capability, decrease tactical risk, and reduce cost of
generators.
Additionally, the committee understands that the Army's
planned Abrams tank auxiliary power unit will use 92 percent
less fuel idling and 9 percent less fuel during maneuvers.
Similarly, the improved turbine engine program for Army
Blackhawk and Apache helicopters is expected to extend combat
range by 85 percent.
The committee is also encouraged by the Navy's focus on
enhancing combat capability, increasing endurance and range,
and using energy investments to increase readiness. The
committee understands that planned technologies such as
improved ship hull coatings, stern flaps, lighting, and bow
bulbs may create an additional week of steaming days on the
same amount of fuel. Hybrid electric drives, currently
installed in amphibious assault ships, can add 10 steaming days
which would allow the Navy and Marine Corps more presence on
station and to spend less time refueling and replenishing at
sea.
Consequently, the committee encourages DOD to continue the
progress made towards improving combat capabilities through
appropriate investments in operational and installation energy.
Personal protection equipment
The committee notes that section 141 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (P.L. 113-66)
required the Secretary of Defense to submit, as part of the
defense budget materials for each fiscal year, a consolidated
budget justification display that covers all programs and
activities associated with the procurement of personal
protection equipment (PPE).
While the Department of Defense's fiscal year 2016 budget
display for PPE is a positive step, the submission did not
provide many of the required details regarding body armor
components, combat helmets, and combat protective eyewear. The
committee expects the Department to comply with section 141 of
the fiscal year 2014 NDAA and strongly encourages the
Department to consider including similar budget displays for
environmental and fire resistant clothing, footwear, and
organizational clothing and individual equipment as well.
Red Hill underground fuel storage facility
The committee is aware that the Commander, U.S. Pacific
Command (PACOM) has stated that the Red Hill Underground Fuel
Storage Facility ``serves as a critical asset supporting United
States Pacific Command operations in peacetime and
contingency'' and will ``remain vitally important to our
security interests for the next thirty years.'' The committee
is also aware that PACOM, the Department of the Navy, and the
Defense Logistics Agency have determined the storage
requirement at the Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility
to remain between 13 and 15 operational storage tanks to
support the most demanding scenario within the Pacific theater,
with the ability to bring additional tanks online at the end of
the repair and modernization cycle should future requirements
warrant. Additionally, the committee is aware that the Naval
Facilities Engineering Command is currently conducting an
engineering assessment to determine the best available
practicable technological (BAPT) solutions for the
recapitalization of the storage tanks to ensure long-term
integrity and environmental compliance in a cost effective
manner. The committee is further aware that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has drafted a proposed rule to amend
Title 40 Code of Federal Regulation (Parts 280 and 281) to
regulate field-constructed underground storage tanks, such as
those at the facility, and directs the Naval Facilities
Engineering Command to factor in these potential regulations in
their BAPT solutions.
Report on those at-risk of exposure to perflourochemicals from the
Haven Well in Portsmouth, New Hampshire
The committee notes that in April 2014, the Air Force in
coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, and the
City of Portsmouth--discovered the presence of
perflourochemicals (PFCs) in the Haven Well in Portsmouth, New
Hampshire. The presence of the chemicals in the well in
Portsmouth is likely due to the Air Force's use of fire-
fighting foam at Pease Air National Guard Base.
Research has associated exposure to these chemicals with
certain types of cancer. Portsmouth residents who believe they
were at risk of exposure have requested tests to check their
blood serum levels of PFCs. The committee is unaware of any
affirmative steps by the Air Force to identify and notify
everyone at risk of contamination from the Haven Well--
including the service members and civilians who may have been
exposed while stationed at the Pease Air Base.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
submit a report to the defense committees no later than
September 30, 2015, detailing the Air Force's efforts to
identify and notify the servicemembers and Department of
Defense civilian employees who may have been exposed while
stationed at Pease. If such notification is not complete by the
completion of the report, the Secretary shall include the Air
Force's plan to complete the notification within 90 days of
submission of the report.
Resilience of Department of Defense-owned utility infrastructure
The committee notes that Department of Defense (DOD)
installations serve as platforms from which the Department
deploys forces across the full spectrum of military operations.
To accomplish their missions, DOD installations, inside and
outside the continental United States, must have assurance that
they can continue to operate in the face of man-made and
weather-induced utility disruptions that affect electricity,
potable water, wastewater, and natural gas utility service. The
committee notes that threats--such as cyberattacks--and
hazards--such as severe weather events--pose significant risks
to the utility infrastructure that provides military
installations with utility services. The committee also notes
that DOD installations rely upon utility infrastructure owned
by non-DOD entities, such as commercial utility companies, and
on-installation infrastructure owned by the Department.
The committee believes that the condition of the utility
infrastructure can play a significant role in a military
installation's resilience to utility disruptions, either by
threat or hazard. For example, aging infrastructure is more
likely to fail when subjected to extreme weather conditions.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to evaluate, (1) from fiscal years 2009 to
2015, utility disruptions on DOD installations that have been
caused by the failure of DOD-owned infrastructure and what have
been the operational and fiscal impacts of such disruptions,
(2) how DOD has assessed the condition of its utility
infrastructure on military installations and invested in the
sustainment of its utility infrastructure, (3) to what extent,
if any, is information on the condition of DOD-owned utility
infrastructure used by the Department when it makes utility
resilience or other resources decisions; and (4) any other
issues identified by the Comptroller General.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a
briefing or deliver a report to the committee no later than
March 15, 2016.
Tubular light-emitting diode technology
The committee recognizes that the Department of the Navy is
replacing fluorescent light bulbs aboard U.S. Navy vessels with
tubular light-emitting diodes (T-LEDs). The committee notes
that these fixtures may consume less energy, realize life-cycle
cost savings, and provide a return on investment. Should the
Secretary of the Navy determine that further investment in this
technology will lead to consistent return on investments across
the fleet and ashore, the committee encourages the Secretary to
fully develop an approved products list for T-LEDs that is
broadly available for use in vessels and facilities. In
addition, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to
request updates to the Unified Facilities Criteria and other
related Department of Defense regulations, to include new
lighting technologies as an option for vessels and facilities.
Utah Test and Training Range
The committee recognizes the important role Air Force test
and training ranges play in maintaining and improving the
readiness, proficiency, safety, and cost effectiveness of
Department of Defense personnel and equipment. The committee
further recognizes the need for the Air Force to enhance and
modernize their ranges to test and train units on fifth-
generation weapons systems to maintain the United States Armed
Forces' technological advantage over prospective adversaries.
Fifth-generation weapons such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
and F-22 Raptor are approaching or already attained benchmarks
in operational capacity and use. The Long Range Strike Bomber
and other advanced weapons continue into planning and
development stages. The Department must retain and sustain the
capability to test and train appropriately on these
technologically advanced weapons systems.
The Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) provides the
largest overland safety footprint available in the Department
for aircrew training and weapons testing, to include fifth-
generation and future weapons systems. The UTTR provides a
realistic and similar terrain to actual combat locations. Each
year, the Department submits a Sustainable Ranges Report to
Congress, outlining the Department's position on military
training range needs, resources, and constraints. Identified in
these reports are three needed areas of improvement for UTTR:
inability to accommodate fifth-generation aircraft and weapons
testing, encroachment through natural community expansion and
environmental constraints, and congestion with increased
unmanned aerial vehicle testing at U.S. Army Dugway Proving
Grounds.
To maintain current UTTR mission capability and meet future
mission requirements, the committee recommends the Air Force,
Bureau of Land Management, Congress, the State of Utah, local
governments, and community leaders continue efforts to create
buffer areas surrounding the range to prevent against
encroachment, and provide the Department with the necessary
capabilities needed to fulfill future mission requirements.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
active-duty end strengths for fiscal year 2016, as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Change from
FY 2015 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2016 FY 2015
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army.......................................... 490,000 475,000 475,000 0 -15,000
Navy.......................................... 323,600 329,200 329,200 0 +5,600
Marine Corps.................................. 184,100 184,000 184,000 0 -100
Air Force..................................... 312,980 317,000 317,000 0 +4,020
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 1,310,680 1,305,200 1,305,200 0 -5,480
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enhancement of authority for management of end strengths for military
personnel (sec. 402)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 691 of title 10, United States Code. The provision
would also amend section 115 of title 10, United States Code,
to provide the Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries
authority to vary military personnel end strengths below those
authorized in title IV of this Act.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2016, as shown
below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Change from
FY 2015 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2016 FY 2015
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 350,200 342,000 342,000 0 -8,200
Army Reserve.................................. 202,000 198,000 198,000 0 -4,000
Navy Reserve.................................. 57,300 57,400 57,400 0 +100
Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 39,200 38,900 38,900 0 -300
Air National Guard............................ 105,000 105,500 105,500 0 +500
Air Force Reserve............................. 67,100 69,200 69,200 0 +2,100
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 820,800 811,000 811,000 0 -9,800
Coast Guard Reserve........................... 9,000 7,000 7,000 0 -2,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves
(sec. 412)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2016, as shown
below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Change from
FY 2015 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2016 FY 2015
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 31,385 30,770 30,770 0 -615
Army Reserve.................................. 16,261 16,261 16,261 0 0
Navy Reserve.................................. 9,973 9,934 9,934 0 -39
Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 2,261 2,260 2,260 0 -1
Air National Guard............................ 14,704 14,748 14,748 0 +44
Air Force Reserve............................. 2,830 3,032 3,032 0 +202
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 77,414 77,005 77,005 0 -409
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provision also expresses the sense of Senate that the
National Guard Bureau should account for States that routinely
recruit and retain members of the National Guard in excess of
State authorizations when allocating full-time duty personnel.
The committee further recommends that the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau shall take into account the actual number of
members of the Army National Guard of the United States serving
in each State as of September 20 each year when allocating
full-time duty personnel in the Army National Guard of the
United States.
End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the minimum number of military technicians (dual status) for
the reserve components of the Army and Air Force as of the last
day of fiscal year 2016, as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Change from
FY 2015 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2016 FY 2015
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 27,210 26,099 26,099 0 -1,111
Army Reserve.................................. 7,895 7,395 7,395 0 -500
Air National Guard............................ 21,792 22,104 22,104 0 +312
Air Force Reserve............................. 9,789 9,814 9,814 0 +25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 66,686 65,412 65,412 0 -1,274
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2016 limitation on number of non-dual status technicians
(sec. 414)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who may be
employed in the Department of Defense as of September 30, 2016,
as shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Change from
FY 2015 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2016 FY 2015
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 0
Air National Guard............................ 350 350 350 0 0
Army Reserve.................................. 595 595 595 0 0
Air Force Reserve............................. 90 90 90 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 2,635 2,635 2,635 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum number of reserve personnel authorized to be on active duty for
operational support (sec. 415)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
limits on the number of reserve personnel authorized to be on
active duty for operational support under section 115(b) of
title 10, United States Code, as of September 30, 2016, as
shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Change from
FY 2015 -----------------------------------------------------
Service authorized FY 2016 FY 2015
Request Recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard........................... 17,000 17,000 17,000 0 0
Army Reserve.................................. 13,000 13,000 13,000 0 0
Navy Reserve.................................. 6,200 6,200 6,200 0 0
Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 0 0
Air National Guard............................ 16,000 16,000 16,000 0 0
Air Force Reserve............................. 14,000 14,000 14,000 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total................................. 69,200 69,200 69,200 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief of the National Guard Bureau authority in increase certain end
strengths applicable to the Army National Guard (sec. 416)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau with the authority to
increase the fiscal year 2016 end strength of the Selected
Reserve personnel of the Army National Guard as specified in
section 411(a)(1) by up to 3,000 members, the end strength of
the Reserves serving on full-time duty for the Army National
Guard as specified in section 412(1) by 615 Reserves, and
military technicians (dual status) for the Army National Guard
as specified in section 413(1) by 1,111. The provision contains
a limitation stating that the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau may only increase an end strength using the authority
contained in this section if such increase is paid for entirely
out of the readiness funds appropriated for fiscal year 2016
for Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard.
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
Military personnel (sec. 421)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for military personnel at the levels identified
in section 4401 of division D of this Act.
Budget Items
Military personnel funding changes
The amount authorized to be appropriated for military
personnel programs include the following changes from the
budget request:
[Changes in millions of dollars]
Military Personnel Underexecution..................... -987.2
Additional support for the National Guard's Operation +21.7
Phalanx..............................................
Reduction for anticipated cost of TRICARE -85.0
consolidation........................................
TRICARE program improvement initiatives............... +15.0
Financial literacy improvement........................ +85.0
Foreign currency fluctuation adjustment............... -304.0
-----------------
Total............................................. -1,254.5
The committee recommends a total reduction in the Military
Personnel (MILPERS) appropriation of $1,254.5 million. This
amount includes: (1) A reduction of $987.2 million to reflect
the Government Accountability Office's most recent assessment
of the average annual MILPERS underexecution; (2) An increase
of $21.7 million to fund increased support for the National
Guard's Operation Phalanx mission in support of the United
States-Mexico border; (3) A reduction of $85.0 million to
reflect costs avoided by the Department of Defense relative to
its proposal to consolidate the TRICARE program; (4) An
increase of $15 million to improve access to care, quality of
care, health outcomes, and the experience of care for military
beneficiaries under the TRICARE program; (5) An increase of
$85.0 million to reflect the additional financial literacy
training recommended by the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission; and (6) An adjustment of
$304 million to reflect the foreign currency fluctuation.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy
Authority of promotion boards to recommend officers of particular merit
be placed at the top of the promotion list (sec. 501)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 616 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize an
officer promotion board to recommend officers of particular
merit to be placed at the top of the promotion list.
Minimum grades for certain corps and related positions in the Army,
Navy, and Air Force (sec. 502)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
various provisions of title 10, United States Code, to revise
general or flag officer grades in the Army, Navy and Air Force.
The provision would amend section 3023(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to require that the Army Chief of
Legislative Affairs be an officer in a grade above the grade of
colonel.
The provision would amend section 3039(b) of title 10,
United States Code, to require that the Army Assistant Surgeon
General be an officer in a grade above the grade of colonel.
The provision would amend section 3069(b) of title 10,
United States Code, to require that the Army Chief of the Nurse
Corps be an officer in a grade above the grade of colonel.
The provision would amend section 3084 of title 10, United
States Code, to require that the Army Chief of the Veterinary
Corps be an officer in a grade above the grade of lieutenant
colonel.
The provision would amend section 5027(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to require that the Navy Chief of
Legislative Affairs be an officer in a grade above the grade of
captain.
The provision would amend section 5138 of title 10, United
States Code, to require that the Navy Chief of the Dental Corps
be an officer in a grade above the grade of captain. The
provision would also remove the authority in section 5138(b)
that entitles the Navy Chief of the Dental Corps to the same
privileges of retirement as provided for chiefs of bureaus in
section 5133 of title 10, United States Code.
The provision would amend section 5150(c) of title 10,
United States Code, to require that the Navy Directors of
Medical Corps be officers in a grade above the grade of
captain.
The provision would amend section 8023(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to require that the Air Force Chief of
Legislative Liaison be an officer in a grade above the grade of
colonel.
The provision would amend section 8069(b) of title 10,
United States Code, to require that the Air Force Chief of the
Nurse Corps be an officer in a grade above the grade of
colonel.
The provision would amend section 8081 of title 10, United
States Code, to require that the Air Force Assistant Surgeon
General for Dental Services be an officer in a grade above the
grade of colonel.
The provision would provide that in the case of an officer
who on the date of enactment of the Act is serving in a
position that is covered by this provision, the continued
service of that officer in such position after the date of
enactment of the Act shall not be affected by the provision.
Enhancement of military personnel authorities in connection with the
defense acquisition workforce (sec. 503)
The committee recommends a provision that would improve the
management of the military acquisition workforce and enhance
the quality and effectiveness of military acquisition
personnel. The committee is concerned that in the years since
the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-433) the Department
of Defense senior leadership's focus on the importance of the
military acquisition workforce has declined. This provision is
designed to increase the attractiveness of acquisition
functions to skilled military officers and enlisted personnel
and would: (1) provide for credit for joint duty assignments
for acquisition related assignments in order to broaden the
promotion preference and career opportunities of military
acquisition professionals; (2) provide for an enhanced dual
track career path in combat arms and a functional secondary
career in acquisition to more closely align military
operational requirements and acquisition; (3) include business
and commercial training as joint professional military
education; and (4) require an annual report to Congress on
promotion rates for officers in acquisition positions.
Enhanced flexibility for determination of officers to continue on
active duty and for selective early retirement and early
discharge (sec. 504)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 638(a) of title 10, United States Code, relating to the
authority for selective early retirement and early discharges.
The provision would eliminate the restriction that the number
of officers recommended for discharge by a selection board may
not be more than 30 percent of the number of officers in each
grade, year group, or specialty (or combination thereof) in
each competitive category. The provision would impose the same
restriction that applies to boards to select officers for early
retirement, which provides that the number of officers
recommended for retirement may not be more than 30 percent of
the number of officers considered.
Authority to defer until age 68 mandatory retirement for age of a
general or flag officer serving as Chief or Deputy Chief of
Chaplains of the Army, Navy or Air Force (sec. 505)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1253 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
service secretaries to defer the retirement of general and flag
officers serving as the Chief or Deputy Chief of Chaplains in
their respective Services to age 68. Section 1251 of title 10,
United States Code, allows for the deferred retirement of
regular officers serving as chaplains in grades below general
and flag officer grades to age 68. However, no provision is
contained in section 1253 of title 10, United States Code, to
authorize regular officers serving as chaplains in flag or
general officer grades, the grades associated with service as
the Chief or Deputy Chief of Chaplains, to serve beyond age 64.
Reinstatement of enhanced authority for selective early discharge of
warrant officers (sec. 506)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 508a of title 10, United States Code, to reinstate
authority for the service secretaries to convene, if necessary,
selection boards to consider regular warrant officers on the
Active-Duty list for involuntary discharge. The authority to
selectively discharge regular warrant officers pursuant to
section 580a expired on October 1, 1999. The proposal would
authorize such boards during the period October 1, 2015,
through September 30, 2019.
Authority to conduct warrant officer retired grade determinations (sec.
507)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1371 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a
service secretary to retire warrant officers in the highest
grade in which they served satisfactorily before retirement.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management
Authority to designate certain Reserve officers as not to be considered
for selection for promotion (sec. 511)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
secretaries of the military departments to defer promotion
consideration for reserve component officers in a non-
participatory (membership points only) status. Currently,
section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, requires
servicemembers identified on the Reserve Active Status List to
be considered for promotion to the next higher grade. This
includes certain categories of reservists on the Reserve Active
Status List who, by Department of Defense guidance, are in the
Individual Ready Reserve and the Standby Reserve and who remain
eligible for promotion consideration, but are not actively
participating in Reserve duty because they are in a status in
which they are receiving membership only points for Reserve
credit. Under current law, some individuals assigned to the
Individual Ready Reserve may be discharged from the reserve
component upon their second deferral for promotion because they
are considered to have twice failed for promotion. This
provision would provide the reserve component flexibility to
remove individuals from promotion consideration during a period
when they are least competitive for promotion, and would allow
the services to retain servicemembers with significant military
training as well as civilian technical and professional skills
that could contribute to their desirability for selection to be
promoted should the individual elect to return to military
service.
Clarification of purpose of reserve component special selection boards
as limited to correction of error at a mandatory promotion
board (sec. 512)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 14502(b) of title 10, United States Code, to conform
the authority for convening special selection boards for
Reserve officers with the authority for Active-Duty officers in
cases in which an officer is considered by a mandatory
promotion board, but is not selected due to a material error of
fact, material administrative error, or the board did not have
before it material information for its consideration.
Reconciliation of contradictory provisions relating to citizenship
qualifications for enlistment in the reserve components of the
Armed Forces (sec. 513)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 12102(b) of title 10, United States Code, to align the
citizenship or residency requirements for enlistment in the
reserve components of the Armed Forces with the citizenship
requirements for the active components.
Authority for certain Air Force reserve component personnel to provide
training and instruction regarding pilot instructor training
(sec. 514)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to utilize, during fiscal year
2016, up to 50 Active, Guard, and Reserve (AGR) members and
dual status military technicians to provide training and
instruction to active duty and foreign military personnel in
excess of what is currently authorized by the AGR and military
technician statutes. The provision would also require the
Secretary, by no later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, to provide the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report
setting forth a plan to eliminate pilot instructor shortages
within the Air Force using authorities available to the
Secretary under current law.
Subtitle C--General Service Authorities
Duty required for eligibility for preseparation counseling for members
being discharged or released from active duty (sec. 521)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1142 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
Secretary concerned to provide pre-separation counseling to all
Active-Duty servicemembers and all reserve component
servicemembers called or ordered to Active Duty or full-time
operational support after completion of their first 180
continuous days of service whose discharge or release from
Active Duty is anticipated as of a specific date.
Expansion of pilot programs on career flexibility to enhance retention
of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 522)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 533 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) to remove the
prohibition for participation by members of the Armed Forces
serving under an agreement upon entry, or members receiving a
critical military skill retention bonus under section 355 of
title 37, United States Code, from participating in pilot
programs on career flexibility to enhance retention. The
provision would also remove the restriction that limits the
number of participants in the program to 20 officers and 20
enlisted members who may be selected to participate in the
pilot program during a calendar year.
Sense of Senate on development of gender-neutral occupational standards
for occupational assignments in the Armed Forces (sec. 523)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that: (1) the development of gender-neutral
occupational standards is vital in determining the occupational
assignments of all members of the Armed Forces; (2) studies
being conducted by the Armed Forces are important to the
development of these standards and should incorporate the best
scientific practices available; and (3) the Armed Forces should
consider these studies carefully to ensure they do not result
in unnecessary barriers to service and that decisions on
occupational assignments be based on objective analysis and not
negatively impact combat effectiveness, including units whose
primary mission is to engage in direct ground combat at the
tactical level.
Subtitle D--Member Education and Training
Part I--Educational Assistance Reform
Limitation on tuition assistance for off-duty training or education
(sec. 531)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary concerned to determine that off-duty training or
education through the tuition assistance program is likely to
contribute to the professional development of a servicemember.
The committee notes that this provision was recommended in the
final report of the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission. The committee strongly recommends
good stewardship of the tuition assistance program.
Termination of program of educational assistance for reserve component
members supporting contingency operations and other operations
(sec. 532)
The committee recommends a provision that would sunset the
program of educational assistance for reserve component members
supporting contingency operations and other operations in 4
years after the date of enactment of this Act. The committee
agrees with the finding of the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission that this program is
duplicative with the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which provides a more
robust benefit for service members.
Reports on educational levels attained by certain members of the Armed
Forces at time of separation from the Armed Forces (sec. 533)
The committee recommends a provision that would require an
annual report by each Secretary concerned on the educational
levels attained by members of the Armed Forces who transferred
unused education benefits to family members pursuant to section
3319 of title 38, United States Code, while serving as members
of the Armed Forces and separated from the Armed Forces during
the preceding year. The provision was recommended by the
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission.
Sense of Congress on transferability of unused education benefits to
family members (sec. 534)
The committee recommends a provision that would express a
sense of Congress that each Secretary concerned should exercise
the authority to be more selective in permitting the
transferability of unused education benefits to family members
in a manner that encourages the retention of individuals in the
Armed Forces.
No entitlement to unemployment insurance while receiving Post-9/11
Education Assistance (sec. 535)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
that individuals receiving Post-9/11 Education Assistance may
not also receive unemployment insurance while receiving the
post-9/11 education benefit.
Part II--Other Matters
Repeal of statutory specification of minimum duration of in-resident
instruction for courses of instruction offered as part of Phase
II Joint Professional Military Education (sec. 536)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2154 of title 10, United States Code to remove the
statutory minimum residency requirements for Joint Professional
Military Education Phase II courses taught at the Joint Forces
Staff College. The provision would also repeal section 2156 of
title 10, United States Code, to repeal the requirement that
the duration of the principal course of instruction offered at
the Joint Forces Staff College may not be less than 10 weeks of
resident instruction, and allow the Secretary of Defense or the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to designate and certify
various curricula and delivery methods that adhere to joint
curricula content, student acculturation, and faculty
requirements.
Quality assurance of certification programs and standards for
professional credentials obtained by members of the Armed
Forces (sec. 537)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2015 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by
section 551 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) to require the Secretaries of the military
departments to ensure the accreditation provided for
servicemembers meet recognized national and international
standards.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense must
ensure that accrediting bodies meet certain recognized
standards in order to allow service members to receive
credentials that will have credibility as they seek employment
in the private sector. The committee believes the Secretary is
in the best position to determine these standards, but urges
the Secretary to first review applicable national and
international standards, such as the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO/IEC) Standard 17024:2012, pertaining
to general requirements for bodies operating certification
programs.
Support for athletic programs of the United States Military Academy
(sec. 538)
The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
section 4362 to title 10, United States Code, that would
authorize the Secretary of the Army to:
(1) Enter into contracts and cooperative agreements
with the Army West Point Athletic Association
(Association) for the purpose of supporting the
athletic and physical fitness programs of the United
Stated Military Academy (Academy);
(2) Establish financial controls to account for
resources of the Academy and the Association, in
accordance with accepted accounting principles;
(3) Enter into leases or licenses for the purpose of
supporting the athletic and physical fitness programs
of the Academy;
(4) Provide support services to the Association;
(5) Accept from the Association funds, supplies, and
services to support the athletic and physical fitness
programs of the Academy;
(6) Enter into contracts and cooperative agreements
with the Association. This provision would also
authorize the Association to enter into licensing,
marketing, and sponsorship agreements relating to
trademark and service marks identifying the Academy,
subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Army.
Online access to the higher education component of the transition
assistance program (sec. 539)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to notify service members,
veterans, or dependents of the availability of the higher
education component of the Transition Assistance Program on the
Transition GPS Standalone Training Internet web site of the
Department of Defense. The provision would also direct the
Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, to assess the feasibility of providing access
for veterans and dependents to the higher education component
of the Transition Assistance Program on the eBenefits Internet
website of the Department of Veterans Affairs and tracking the
completion of that component through that Internet web site.
The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
setting forth a description of the cost and length of time
required to provide access and begin tracking completion of the
higher education component of the Transition Assistance
Program.
Subtitle E--Military Justice
Modification of Rule 304 of the Military Rules of Evidence relating to
the corroboration of a confession or admission (sec. 546)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend Rule
304(c) of the Military Rules of Evidence to provide that a
confession by an accused may be considered as evidence against
the accused only if independent evidence, direct or
circumstantial, has been admitted into evidence that would tend
to establish the trustworthiness of the confession.
Modification of Rule 104 of the Rules for Courts-Martial to establish
certain prohibitions concerning evaluations of Special Victims'
Counsel (sec. 547)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
Rule 104(b) of the Rules for Courts-Martial be modified within
180 days after the date of enactment to prohibit giving a less
favorable rating to any member of the Armed Forces serving as a
Special Victims' Counsel because of the zeal with which such
Counsel represented a victim.
Right of victims of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
to timely disclosure of certain materials and information in
connection with prosecution of offenses (sec. 548)
The provision would amend section section 806b(a) of title
10, United States Code, (Article 6b(a), UCMJ) to require timely
disclosure by the trial counsel to a Special Victims' Counsel,
if the victim is so represented, to charges and specifications
related to any offenses, motions filed by trial or defense
counsel, statements of the accused, statements of the victim in
connection with the offense, portions of the government
investigation relating to the victim, and the advice, if any,
by a staff judge advocate recommending any charge or
specification not be referred to trial.
Enforcement of certain crime victims' rights by the Court of Criminal
Appeals (sec. 549)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 806b of title 10, United States Code, (Article 6b,
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), to allow an
interlocutory appeal by a victim based on assertion that the
victim's rights at an Article 32, UCMJ investigation were
violated.
Release to victims upon request of complete record of proceedings and
testimony of courts-martial in cases in which sentences
adjudged could include punitive discharge (sec. 550)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 854(e) of title 10, United States Code (article 54(e),
UCMJ, to expand the circumstances under which an alleged victim
must be provided a copy of all prepared records of the
proceedings of a court-martial.
Representation and assistance of victims by Special Victims' Counsel in
questioning by military criminal investigators (sec. 551)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1044e(f) of title 10, United States Code, to require a
military criminal investigator seeking to question an
individual eligible for assistance of Special Victims' Counsel
(SVC) to inform the victim of the right to be represented by a
SVC in connection with such questioning. If a victim invokes
the right then the SVC shall assist the victim during
questioning, the investigator shall only contact the victim
through the SVC, and the military criminal investigations may
not question the victim without consent of the SVC.
Authority of Special Victims' Counsel to provide legal consultation and
assistance in connection with various government proceedings
(sec. 552)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 1044e(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
Special Victims' Counsel to provide legal consultation and
assistance to victims of an alleged sex-related offense, in
connection with inspector general and equal opportunity
complaints, requests for information under the Freedom of
Information Act, and communications with Congress.
Enhancement of confidentiality of restricted reporting of sexual
assault in the military (sec. 553)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subsection (b) of section 1565b of title 10, United States
Code, to provide that federal law protecting the privacy of
victims who are servicemembers or adult military dependents and
who file restricted reports of sexual assault would preempt any
State laws that require mandatory reporting made to a sexual
assault response coordinator, a sexual assault victim advocate,
or healthcare personnel providing assistance to a military
sexual assault victim under section 1525b of title 10, United
States Code, except when reporting is necessary to prevent or
mitigate a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety
of an individual.
Establishment of Office of Complex Investigations within the National
Guard Bureau (sec. 554)
The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
section to Chapter 1101 of title 10, United States Code, that
would establish an Office of Complex Investigations within the
National Guard Bureau (NGB), with authority to assist the
States in administrative investigations of sexual assault
involving members of the National Guard, and circumstances
involving members of the Guard where States have limited
jurisdiction or authority and such other circumstances as the
Chief of the NGB directs. It also allows individual
investigators established under this provision to request
information from any Federal, State or local government.
Modification of deadline for establishment of Defense Advisory
Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual
Assault in the Armed Forces (sec. 555)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 546(a)(2) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(Public Law 113-291) to require the Secretary of Defense to
establish the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation,
Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces
not later than 90 days after enactment of this Act.
Comptroller General of the United States reports on prevention and
response to sexual assault by the Army National Guard and the
Army Reserve (sec. 556)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report of
the extent to which the Army National Guard and Army Reserve
have in place policies and programs to prevent and respond to
incidents of sexual assault involving members of the Army
National Guard and Army Reserve, and provide medical and mental
health services to members of the Army National Guard and Army
Reserve following a sexual assault, and to identify whether
service in the Army National Guard or Army Reserve pose
challenges to the prevention of or response to sexual assault.
The Comptroller General will provide the initial report
Congress not later than April 1, 2016.
Sense of Congress on the service of military families and on sentencing
retirement eligible members of the Armed Forces (sec. 557)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that military juries should not face the
difficult choice between imposing a fair sentence or protecting
the benefits of a member of the Armed Forces for the sake of
family members, that family members of retirement-eligible
members should not be adversely affected by the loss of the
member's military benefits as a result of a court-martial
conviction, and welcoming the opportunity to work with the
Department of Defense to develop authorities to improve the
military justice system and protect benefits that military
families have helped earn.
Subtitle F--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family Readiness
Matters
Continuation of authority to assist local educational agencies that
benefit dependents of members of the armed forces and
Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 561)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$25.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for
continuation of the Department of Defense (DOD) assistance
program to local educational agencies that are impacted by
enrollment of dependent children of military members and DOD
civilian employees.
Impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec. 562)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$5.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, for
impact aid payments for children with disabilities under
section 8003(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(d)), using the formula set forth in
section 363 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398),
for continuation of Department of Defense assistance to local
educational agencies that benefit eligible dependents with
severe disabilities.
Authority to use appropriated funds to support Department of Defense
student meal programs in domestic dependent elementary and
secondary schools located outside the United States (sec. 563)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2243 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
use of appropriated funds to support student meal programs in
domestic defense dependents' schools located outside of the
United States.
Biennial surveys of military dependents on military family readiness
matters (sec. 564)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of the Office of Family Policy of the Department of
Defense to conduct biennial surveys of adult dependents of
members of the Armed Forces on matters of military family
readiness.
Subtitle G--Miscellaneous Reporting Requirements
Extension of semiannual reports on the involuntary separation of
members of the Armed Forces (sec. 571)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 525(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to extend the requirement
for semiannual reports on involuntary separation of members of
the Armed Forces through calendar year 2017.
Remotely piloted aircraft career field manning shortfalls (sec. 572)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
availability of more than 85 percent of fiscal year 2016
operation and maintenance funds for the Office of the Secretary
of the Air Force until the Secretary submits a report, not
later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, on remotely
piloted aircraft career field manning policies and actions the
Air Force will take to rectify personnel shortfalls. Such
actions should include a description and associated timeline of
actions the Air Force will take to increase remotely piloted
aircraft career field manpower authorizations and manning
levels to at least the equal of the normative levels of manning
and readiness of all other combat aircraft career fields, and
also recruitment/retention bonuses, incentive pay, use of
enlisted personnel, and increased weighting to remotely piloted
aircraft personnel on promotion boards as well as ensuring the
school house for remotely piloted aircraft personnel is
sufficient to meet increased manning demands.
The committee is concerned that the remotely piloted
aircraft career field is under severe strain because of
increased combatant commander requirements, consistently
insufficient Air Force personnel policy actions to improve
manning levels, and is compounded by the Air Force losing more
remotely piloted aircraft pilots than it is training. The
increased demand has resulted in lower crew ratios, longer duty
days, and longer time-on-station assignments for affected
personnel, and ultimately less capability than required by the
combatant commanders.
The Air Force has been playing catch-up in fielding
sufficient crews to support the number of medium altitude
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) combat air
patrols (CAPs) required to support combatant commander
requirements. In 2009, the Air Force was tasked to support 50
CAPs. Air Force plans in 2009 showed that the Air Force would
be able to support 50 CAPs with sufficient crews by 2011, and
have sufficient crews to support 65 CAPs by fiscal year 2016.
Subsequently, the Department increased the demand to 65 CAPs.
Last year, the 65-CAP goal was reduced to 55 CAPs, but, even
with the reduction, Air Force capabilities have not lived up to
the demand or achieved its own projections.
The Air Force still faces a projected annual shortfall in
fiscal year 2016 of nearly 400 MQ-1/9 aircraft pilots to
sustain the regular Air Force requirement of 1,200 pilots. The
Air Force's fiscal year 2016 budget request would increase the
number of MQ-9 combat air patrols from 55 to 60, and maintain
five combat air patrols for MQ-1. The Air Force indicated in
its budget submission that it intends to add 434 personnel
authorizations to the MQ-9 force structure, but increased
authorizations do not necessarily equate to additional
personnel and sufficient manning levels in squadrons. Had the
Air Force realized its own proposed manpower authorization
increases to the RPA community planned in 2009, we would not be
experiencing the current manning shortfalls still plaguing the
career field.
Subtitle H--Other Matters
Part I--Financial Literacy and Preparedness of Members of the Armed
Forces
Improvement of financial literacy and preparedness of members of the
Armed Forces (sec. 581)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
servicemember financial literacy training upon arrival at the
first duty station and upon arrival at each subsequent duty
station for servicemembers below the pay grade of E-5 in the
case of enlisted personnel and below the pay grade of O-4 in
the case of officers. The provision would further require
financial literacy training for each servicemember at various
career and life milestones. The provision would also direct the
Department of Defense to include a financial literacy and
preparedness survey in the status of forces survey. This
provision was recommended by the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission.
Financial literacy training with respect to certain financial services
for members of the uniformed services (sec. 582)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary concerned to provide financial literacy training to
members of the uniformed services under the jurisdiction of
such Secretary commencing not later than 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act. The provision is based on
the final report of the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission.
Sense of Congress on financial literacy and preparedness of members of
the Armed Forces (sec. 583)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Congress that the Secretary of Defense should work
with other departments, agencies, and nonprofit organizations
to improve financial literacy and preparedness with support
from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and service secretaries.
Part II--Other Matters
Authority for applications for correction of military records to be
initiated by the Secretary concerned (sec. 586)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1552(b) of title 10, United States Code, to authorize
the service secretaries to apply for a correction to military
records on behalf of an individual.
Recordation of obligations for installment payments of incentive pays,
allowances, and similar benefits when payment is due (sec. 587)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
statutory authority for the long-established practice of the
Department of Defense (DOD) of obligating bonus and special and
incentive pay installment payments at the time payment is due
and payable. This provision is in response to a recent U.S.
Government Accountability Office opinion, Comp. Gen. B-325526--
``Obligation of Bonuses under Military Service Agreements,''
July 16, 2014, which concluded that DOD cedes fiscal exposure
to servicemembers when it enters into such agreements and
should change its obligational practices to obligate the entire
bonus amount when the agreement is signed.
Enhancements to Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (sec. 588)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 582 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to enhance and improve
the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program for National Guard and
Reserve members and their families. The provision would provide
flexibility to deliver events and activities through alternate
methods, and would eliminate redundancy by reducing the number
of required events and activities to a minimum of four during a
servicemember's deployment cycle. The provision would continue
strong support for suicide prevention efforts and outreach
programs led by the states.
Priority processing of applications for Transportation Worker
Identification Credentials for members undergoing discharge or
release from the Armed Forces (sec. 589)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to consult with the Secretary of Homeland
Security to afford a priority in the processing of applications
for a Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)
submitted by members of the Armed Forces who are undergoing
separation, discharge, or release from the Armed Forces under
honorable conditions. The provision would also require the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to
jointly submit a report on the implementation requirements of
this provision not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Issuance of Recognition of Service ID cards to certain members
separating from the Armed Forces (sec. 590)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
Secretary of Defense to issue an identification card that
identifies individuals as veterans, personalized with name and
photo of the individual. The Secretary of Defense would be
authorized to work with retailers for reduced prices on
services, consumer products, and pharmaceuticals. Cards would
be issued prospectively from 1 year after effective date of the
Act.
Revised policy on network services for military services (sec. 591)
The committee recommends a provision that would generally
prohibit the use of uniformed military personnel in the
provision of network services for military installations in the
United States.
The committee notes that the current budget environment has
forced the Services to significantly reduce end strength.
However, the Services now have increasing requirements and
demands which require additional people. The committee believes
that the Services must transfer responsibility for certain
missions, such as network services, away from military
personnel and instead acquire these services as a commodity.
The provision would generally prohibit the use of military
personnel to provide network services such as email, voice,
file sharing, and directory and Internet services in the United
States 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. The
committee believes this will give the Department of Defense
(DOD) time to begin a transition plan.
The provision includes both an exception and a waiver to
this policy for network services in support of combatant
commands, special operations, the intelligence community, or
Cyber Command. Further, the Secretary of Defense or Chief
Information Officer may waive this provision for safety reasons
or combat operations.
The bill provision further requires a report from DOD,
which also requires validation from the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) on the potential
savings in both resources and military personnel that could be
achieved with this section.
Increase in number of days of Active Duty required to be performed by
reserve component members for duty to be considered federal
service for purposes of unemployment compensation for ex-
servicemembers (sec. 592)
The committee recommends a provision that would increase
from 90 to 180 days the number of continuous days of Active
Duty required to be performed by reserve component members for
that duty to be considered satisfactory federal service for
purposes of unemployment compensation for ex-servicemembers.
Items of Special Interest
Assessment on Servicemembers lacking post-transition housing
The committee commends the Departments of Defense and
Veterans Affairs in coordinating efforts to combat veteran
homelessness. The committee supports the collaboration between
the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans
Affairs to assist servicemembers during the transition process,
particularly the program that identifies servicemembers during
the Transition Assistance Program who may lack post-transition
housing, and who may therefore be at greater risk for becoming
homeless.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to submit
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives, by no later than December 1, 2015, a report on
the number of servicemembers who have indicated a lack of post-
transition housing during the Transition Assistance process,
broken down by fiscal year, gender, location, and who were
therefore referred to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The
report required shall include an analysis of what steps may be
taken to lessen the number of servicemembers with no post-
transition housing.
Availability of Special Victims' Counsel as Individual Military Counsel
In section 1716 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), Congress required
each military department to provide Special Victims' Counsel to
provide legal representation to survivors of alleged sex-
related offenses.
Special Victims' Counsel form an attorney-client
relationship when representing these survivors throughout the
military justice process, where they actively advise the
survivors, protect their legal rights, and help them to
navigate the military's criminal justice system.
In some cases, survivors also face criminal charges or
disciplinary action. Some survivors have expressed a desire to
be represented in criminal and adverse administrative actions
by their Special Victims Counsel with whom they already have an
attorney-client relationship and who understands their personal
situation. The committee believes that when survivors become
the accused they should, to the maximum extent possible, have a
choice over which attorney will represent and advise them.
Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)(10
U.S.C. 838), authorizes an accused to be represented by
military counsel of his or her own selection if that counsel is
determined to be reasonably available under applicable
regulations. It is the committee's intent that nothing should
preclude a survivor from requesting his or her Special Victims'
Counsel as individual military counsel, and that the Special
Victims' Counsel should be authorized to represent the survivor
in trials by courts-martial, at non-judicial punishment
proceedings under Article 15 of the UCMJ (10 U.S.C. 815), and
in connection with adverse administrative actions when the
counsel is reasonably available. It is the committee's
expectation that survivors be provided with a choice of counsel
to the maximum extent possible.
Changes to the Joint Travel Regulation
On November 1, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD)
revised Joint Travel Regulations were implemented resulting in
a flat rate per diem for travelers performing temporary duty
travel (TDY) for more than 30 days in one location. Depending
on the duration of the travel, the authorized flat rate was
adjusted to reflect 75 percent and 55 percent of the locality
rate for long-term TDY with the DOD reimbursing travelers for
actual lodging and government meal rates if suitable lodging at
the reduced rate is not available.
The committee wants to ensure that the current policy does
not discourage some DOD personnel--including civilian workers
at shipyards and depots--from volunteering for important TDY
assignments.
The committee supports the DOD's initiatives to achieve
efficiencies, including in the area of temporary duty travel
costs. However, the committee expects the DOD to monitor
closely the effect of this new policy to avoid unintended
disincentives and ensure that those who volunteer for mission
essential travel are fully supported and encouraged.
Comptroller General of the United States assessment of Department of
Defense personnel strategies for unmanned aerial systems
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting forth
the results of a study, conducted by the Comptroller General
for the purposes of the report, due no later than March 1,
2016, to examine the Department of Defense's personnel
strategies for unmanned aerial systems (UAS). The report shall
include an examination of how the services have done the
following: (1) Analyzed the personnel requirements for
positions required to fly UAS including the existing and future
critical skills and competencies needed; (2) examined
alternative populations, such as civilians and contractors,
that could be assigned to UAS units; (3) coordinated their
strategies to recruit and retain personnel to operate UAS; and
(4) conducted a cost benefit analysis to determine the risks
and advantages of the varying personnel assignment strategies
they are pursuing for UAS operators.
Comptroller General report on Department of Defense credentialing and
licensing programs
In section 551 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(Public Law 113-291), the committee directed the Secretary of
Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to
the Coast Guard, to carry out a credentialing program that
would allow servicemembers to obtain professional credentials
related to their military training that were acquired during
service in the Armed Forces. The purpose of this program is to
ensure that servicemembers receive professional recognition of
skills acquired during military service that translate into
civilian life. The committee expects that successful
implementation of this program will reduce veteran unemployment
and related unemployment costs borne by the military services.
The committee is concerned that this program is implemented in
a timely fashion, and meets the needs of servicemembers as
veteran unemployment and attendant costs remain high.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to review DOD's credentialing and licensing
programs, and to provide a briefing on preliminary results by
no later than May 1, 2016, to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and House of Representatives with a report to
follow on a date agreed to at the time of the briefing. The
review should address, at a minimum, the following: (1) The
extent to which DOD has successfully implemented the
credentialing program required by section 551 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015; (2) the
challenges that still exist with respect to full
implementation; (3) the steps the Department has taken to
ensure quality control over the credentialing process with
respect to third-party credentialing entities; (4) challenges
DOD is encountering regarding compatibility between their
credentialing programs with federal, state, and local
credentialing requirements; and (5) existing gaps in law and
policy with respect to meeting the program's goal of providing
professional credentials to servicemembers, on the basis of
their military education and training, before they transition
to civilian life.
Cyber security training, testing and certification
The committee continues to encourage the Department of
Defense (DOD) to enhance its ongoing efforts related to
providing certifications to personnel pursuant to Department of
Defense Directive (DODD) 8570.01. While DODD 8570.01 is highly
effective, this program is limited to coverage to only DOD
personnel with information assurance (IA) job responsibilities.
The committee believes in addition to these IA functions,
technical support and network infrastructure oversight remain
critical areas for network defense. Ensuring these positions
receive training, testing, and industry-recognized
certification would enhance the security of DOD networks and
ensure members of the Armed Forces receive the same credentials
recognized in the civilian workforce. By instituting testing
after training, DOD can ensure that cyber security and IT
skills are retained. Therefore, the committee urges DOD to
include them in DODD 8570.01 and any successor directives.
Disability pilot program feasibility report
Department of Defense (DOD) civilians with disabilities and
servicemembers who have been wounded or injured in the line of
duty serve honorably, meet certain standards required for their
positions, and contribute to the national security of the
United States.
In recognition of the dedicated service of the DOD's
disabled civilian employees and servicemembers, and in order to
evaluate opportunities to employ the full range of abilities
that they may contribute to certain military specialties, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report assessing the feasibility of a pilot
program to determine whether civilians with certain medical
conditions that are currently grounds for rejection for
military service under Department of Defense Instruction
6130.03 may be appointed, enlisted or inducted in the military
services.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to prepare
the report through the Accession Medical Standards Working
Group (AWSWG) that convened in February 2015.
The report should specifically describe a plan to conduct a
pilot program that would evaluate conditions necessary to
appoint, enlist, or induct, at a minimum, persons with deafness
or hearing impairment, amblyopia or partial visual impairment,
a lost or missing limb or limbs, paraplegia, a history of
surgical procedures, or a history of asthma. The feasibility
report should consider whether individuals with certain medical
conditions might be more suited to certain jobs than able-
bodied individuals, as could be the case with a deaf individual
working in high-noise environments.
The report should address validity of assumptions contained
in Department of Defense Instruction 6130.03 that result in
individuals with designated medical conditions being rejected
for military service while currently serving military members
with the same or a similar disability may be allowed to
continue to serve. The report should assess the feasibility of
including currently-serving military members of DOD and
civilians with similar disabilities who are not DOD military
members or civilians as participants in a pilot program. The
report should identify, at a minimum, the potential size of the
cohort (by specific disability); the disabilities that are
amenable to objective evaluation through a pilot program; the
optimal duration of the potential pilot program; applicability
of human subject research requirements to a pilot program;
considerations for determining the status of individuals
selected to participate in the pilot program when the pilot
program is completed; and the likely cost.
The committee notes that Senate Report 113-211, which
accompanied H.R. 4870, directed the Department of the Air Force
to study the feasibility and advisability of permitting
individuals with auditory impairment, including deafness, to
access as officers in the Armed Forces.
While this reporting requirement is broader in scope than
the report required in Senate Report 113-211, the committee
expects the department to coordinate with the Air Force to
benefit from their analysis and to avoid duplicative work.
The committee directs that the feasibility report be
submitted to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives no later than March 1, 2016.
Extending Special Victims' Counsel eligibility for civilian sexual
assault survivors
The statute requiring the military services to provide
Special Victims' Counsel (SVC) to certain victims of alleged
sex-related offenses identifies the following individuals as
eligible for this assistance: (1) Active duty servicemembers
and their dependents; (2) Reserve and National Guard members
when on active duty or inactive duty and their dependents; (3)
retired servicemembers and their dependents; and (4) certain
civilians overseas. Initial reports indicate this novel program
that provides victims with their own attorney to represent them
during the investigation and prosecution of sexual offenses is
well-received by survivors of sexual assaults.
In its initial report, the Judicial Proceedings Panel
(JPP), established by section 576 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to
conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial
proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, expressed the following initial observation: ``The JPP
is concerned that the statutory basis creating eligibility for
SVC services is tied to eligibility for legal assistance
services. This requirement precludes the program from
supporting all victims of sexual assault perpetrated by
Servicemembers, because many such individuals are not eligible
for legal assistance under the statute.'' The committee agrees
with this observation. Many civilian survivors of a sexual
assault perpetrated by a servicemember are not familiar with
the military. Navigating the military justice system is
especially confusing for civilians unaccustomed to military
culture and procedure. Further, this lack of familiarity is
compounded by fact that many survivors are young and
financially disadvantaged.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess
the feasibility of providing Special Victims' Counsel to
civilian survivors of sexual assaults by a servicemember who
are not otherwise eligible for legal assistance services from
the military and to submit a report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not
later than August 31, 2015. The assessment should address the
impact on the current SVC program of extending SVC eligibility
to civilian survivors; views of civilian bar associations on
providing legal representation to civilians not entitled to
legal assistance; and the feasibility of a pilot program in
which National Guard and Reserve judge advocates provide
military justice and victim advocacy training to civilian
attorneys serving military communities.
Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview
The U.S. Army Military Police School is training the next
generation of Army criminal investigators and judge advocates
in the Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview (FETI), a
technique that utilizes the latest information about the parts
of the brain that experience trauma, including sexual assault
trauma. Because stress and trauma routinely interrupt the
memory process, FETI techniques are an important investigatory
tool that reduces the inaccuracy of the information obtained
from trauma victims, increases the confidence of assault
survivors to participate in the criminal justice system, and
increases the likelihood of successful criminal convictions
without revictimizing survivors in the way that traditional
interviews can. The FETI technique also enhances the
questioning of suspects, who frequently provide more useful
information than would be obtained using traditional
interrogation techniques. Bringing the latest science to the
fight against sexual assault provides criminal investigators a
better way to relate to the survivors' experience, to identify
sex offenders, and to hold them accountable.
In light of the demonstrated value of FETI, the committee
directs the service secretaries to submit a report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than August 31, 2015, that describes
how widely FETI training has been provided to criminal
investigators and judge advocates of that Service and plans for
future training. If any service is not utilizing FETI training,
the report should include an explanation of the Service's
decision to not employ FETI and a description of the
alternative training and techniques used by that Service.
The committee believes that the U.S. Army is a leader in
effective interviewing techniques of sexual assault survivors
and recommends that the U.S. Army Military Police School, upon
the request of other federal agencies, facilitate FETI training
of members of that agency whenever possible.
Finally, the Department of Defense's Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) has demonstrated
sustained effort to eliminate sexual assault in the Armed
Forces. The committee encourages SAPRO to incorporate FETI best
practices on how to deal appropriately with sexual assault
survivors into all levels of SAPRO's sexual assault prevention
and response training.
Increase in number of persons from U.S. Pacific Command area of
operations who receive instruction at military academies
Each service secretary is authorized to permit up to 60
persons from foreign countries to receive instruction at the
military academy of that Service. The committee encourages
service secretaries to promote the Asia-Pacific rebalance by
increasing, among the 60-persons authorized, the percentage of
persons from countries in the U.S. Pacific Command area of
operations who receive instruction at the military academies.
Increasing the transparency of the military justice system
Making the results of courts-martial public is important to
instill public confidence in the administration of justice in
the military.
The committee is aware of the current practices of the
military services to make the results of general and special
courts-martial available to the general public. The Air Force
publishes sexual assault courts-martial convictions
periodically on the Air Force Judge Advocate General's Corps
website. The Marine Corps posts information on courts-martial
actions monthly on the Marine Corps homepage. The Army and Navy
both publicly release service-wide summaries of courts-martial
actions, the results of which are routinely published in
military magazines.
The committee believes that transparency of the military
justice system would be improved by a more consistent practice
by all services to make the results of court-martial available
to the public. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to examine the various reporting methods being used
and to prescribe a consistent and regular method of making
public the results of general and special courts-martial by all
the services. The committee believes that the public has an
interest in knowing, at a minimum, the date, location, level of
courts-martial, name of the accused if convicted, charges,
verdict and, if applicable, the sentence adjudged.
Leadership reorganization of the United States Air Force Judge Advocate
General's Corps
The committee is concerned that the organizational
leadership of the United States Air Force Judge Advocate
General's Corps has become adversely impacted by the loss of
three general officer billets. Former Secretary of Defense
Gates directed, in 2011, reductions in flag and general officer
billets in the Armed Forces in an initiative to streamline
headquarters. That reduction resulted in the loss of several
senior officer billets in the Air Force Judge Advocate
General's Corps. None of the other military services' judge
advocates general corps were similarly affected. The committee
commends the intent of the Gates' initiative to make needed and
long overdue reductions in the number of flag and general
officers in the Armed Forces and is not directing nor does it
support an increase in the number of general or flag officers
authorized. The impact of the Gates' initiative to the Air
Force Judge Advocate General's Corps, however, was to eliminate
important professional and career development opportunities for
senior judge advocates who form the body of qualified officers
from which the Air Force would select the Judge Advocate
General. The loss of these billets occurred during a period of
unprecedented growth in the important role of judge advocates
in key mission support areas while our Nation is at war. At the
same time, senior judge advocates are the key advisers to the
Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force
to implement congressionally-mandated military justice reforms
and new initiatives to combat sexual assault and sexual
harassment in the Armed Forces. The essential role for senior
judge advocates is expected to continue. Elsewhere in this Act,
the committee has directed significant acquisition reforms
which would increase the responsibilities of the service chiefs
for execution of acquisition of major defense acquisition
programs. The Air Force is unique among the military
departments in the use of judge advocates in acquisition
programs while, as a result of the Gates' initiative, it was
required to give up the senior judge advocate general officer
billet responsible to lead and supervise the Air Force Judge
Advocate General's uniformed acquisition attorneys.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, with advice from the Judge Advocate General of the Air
Force, to determine the impact of the elimination of those
three general officer positions on the legal leadership for the
Department of the Air Force and to report any actions that will
be implemented by the Air Force to address this leadership
shortfall, and to provide recommendations of any legislative
relief necessary to address such impact, to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
no later than September 1, 2015.
National Guard and Reserve headquarters
The committee notes that the reserve component, both the
National Guard and Reserves, are key components of the
Department of Defense's (DOD) organizational structure and
strategic capability. Reserve components compromise
approximately 50 percent of the Army's total end strength,
while reserve components compromise about 30 percent of the Air
Force's total end strength. The committee notes that the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) found in 2013 that amid
the DOD's efforts to trim budgets by finding efficiencies and
reducing overhead, some reserve component headquarters have
grown. In its report, the GAO found the processes intended to
efficiently size and oversee reserve component headquarters
have not been consistently applied.
The committee is interested in determining whether DOD has
taken steps to eliminate overlapping, fragmented, or
duplicative functions within the National Guard and Reserve
headquarters could lead to greater efficiencies and cost
reductions within the reserve components.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to evaluate the extent to which the
National Guard and Reserves have taken steps to eliminate or
consolidate overlapping, fragmented, or duplicative functions,
and whether the National Guard reviewed its Joint Force
Headquarters for greater efficiencies by consolidating roles
that are filled by both Army and Air National Guard members.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to submit a
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives no later than March 15, 2016.
Public Schools on Department of Defense Installations
The committee is aware that there are more than 150 public
schools located on Department of Defense installations, serving
a significant number of military dependent children. Although
these schools are on-base, these schools are run by the local
public school districts, but do not receive DODEA funds.
Recognizing that many of these schools have severe overcrowding
or are in deteriorating physical condition, in fiscal year
2011, the Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment
was provided authority to evaluate the condition and capacity
of such schools, and approved a Priority List in July 2011. The
committee recognizes that the Department of Defense has since
provided grants to renovate, repair, or expand such public
schools on military installations, focusing on the schools with
the most severe overcrowding or facilities needs in priority
order. Since 2011, many schools on the list may have had
changes in enrollment due to military activity, and may have
experienced changes in physical condition. Therefore, the
committee directs the Department of Defense to provide the
congressional defense committees, by September 1, 2016, with an
updated assessment and priority list on the condition and
capacity of public schools on military installations not
already included in bands 1-6 of the July 2011 Priority List.
Punishment for collateral misconduct revealed by reports of sexual
misconduct
The committee agrees with military leaders that a culture
of prevention, accountability, dignity, and respect must exist
throughout the ranks. Toward that end, any barriers that deter
servicemembers from reporting sexual misconduct must be
eliminated, and all who courageously report these crimes must
be encouraged and staunchly supported.
Surveys indicate that the fear of being punished for minor
misconduct serves as a deterrent to the reporting of sexual
assault. The larger goal of ensuring that the Armed Forces are
cohesive and effective, and that the honor and trust that
sustains our Armed Forces is preserved, dictates that the
elimination of sexual assault is more important than the
punishment of minor misconduct.
The committee encourages military leaders to refrain from
punishing servicemembers who report sexual misconduct for minor
collateral misconduct, such as underage drinking,
fraternization, and adultery when the underlying minor crimes
would not have come to the chain of command's attention but for
the servicemember's report of sexual misconduct.
Religious freedom and role of military chaplains
The committee continues to encourage the Department of
Defense and Armed Forces to support servicemembers' right to
express their sincerely held religious and moral beliefs.
Individual expressions of religious and moral beliefs in the
military will be accommodated unless it is determined that such
individual actions could have an adverse impact on military
readiness, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline. The
committee recognizes the vital role of religious beliefs and
the expression of faith for many servicemembers and their
families. Preserving a military culture that protects the
freedom of expression, including the freedom not to believe, is
important to the morale and to recruiting and retention in the
Armed Forces.
The committee further recognizes that a military chaplain
is a certified religious military professional of a qualified
religious organization who has satisfied the professional
religious education and ecclesiastical qualifications of his or
her endorsing agency and is appointed a commissioned officer in
an Armed Service's chaplain corps. The chaplain remains a
representative of and accountable to the endorsing faith group
for the religious ministry he or she provides to members of the
Armed Services and to their families. The committee expects
that commanders will ensure a chaplain's right to religious
expression and to provide religious exercise and guidance that
accurately represent the chaplain's faith are protected,
respected, and unencumbered by any means contrary to section
533 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013 (Public Law 112-239) as amended by section 532 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66).
The committee recognizes the role of the military chaplain
in the Armed Forces to care for the spiritual well-being of
servicemembers and their families. As part of their service,
many chaplains play a critical function in providing for the
mental health and emotional needs of servicemembers and their
families by helping them to deal with the unique pressures and
stresses associated with military service. This includes, but
is not limited to, suicide prevention, coping with post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, sexual assault,
providing marriage and family counseling, and providing
religious and moral guidance. The committee encourages the
Department of Defense to continue efforts to integrate military
chaplains into the programing for mental health and well-being
and to provide clear guidance for addressing formations and
groups where attendance by service members is required.
The committee also notes the results of a RAND Corporation
survey of Army chaplains published on April 7, 2015 which
concluded that 44 percent of chaplains and 57 percent of
chaplain assistants believe they need more training in suicide
prevention treatment. No later than 180 days after the
enactment of this Act, the Department of Defense shall provide
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives a report on shortfalls in suicide prevention
training for the chaplain corps in each service branch and a
strategy to address these shortfalls.
Report on review of petitions for review of discharge or dismissal from
the Armed Forces of veterans with mental health issues
connected with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic
brain injury
Section 521 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) requires that any medical advisory opinion issued
to a board for correction of military records regarding a
servicemember or former servicemember who was diagnosed while
serving in the military as experiencing a mental health
disorder include the opinion of a clinical psychologist or
psychiatrist if the individual's request for correction of
records relates to a mental health disorder. This section also
requires that boards for review of discharge or dismissal
include, as a member of the board, a clinical psychologist or
psychiatrist, or a physician with training on mental health
issues connected with post-traumatic stress disorder or
traumatic brain injury, when the board considers a request for
review of a discharge or dismissal by a former servicemember
(1) who was diagnosed as experiencing post-traumatic stress
disorder or traumatic brain injury as a consequence of a
deployment in support of a contingency operation, or (2) who
was diagnosed while serving in the military as experiencing a
mental health disorder.
In addition, on September 3, 2014, the Secretary of Defense
issued supplemental guidance to Military Boards for Correction
of Military/Naval Records considering discharge upgrade
requests by veterans claiming post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD). The Secretary directed the boards to give liberal
consideration to documentation of one or more symptoms which
meet the diagnostic criteria of PTSD or related conditions,
giving special consideration to Department of Veterans Affairs'
determinations which document PTSD or PTSD-related conditions
connected to military service.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives not later than August 31, 2015, on
the implementation of these authorities. In addition to
describing the implementation of these authorities, the report
should include the number of applications submitted to which
these authorities apply, and the number of cases in which
relief was granted as a result of these new authorities.
Report on Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff decisions on combat integration
The committee remains interested in the process and results
of the military services' and United State Special Operations
Command's (SOCOM) implementation of the January 24, 2013,
letter from the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff rescinding the direct ground combat exclusion
and assignment rule and directing the services and SOCOM to
open all closed positions to service by women by January 1,
2016, or to request an exception to policy prior to that date
to keep occupations closed. According to the letter,
``exceptions must be narrowly tailored, and based on a rigorous
analysis of factual data regarding the knowledge, skills, and
abilities needed for the position.''
The committee directs the Secretary and Chairman to provide
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives by no later than March 1, 2016, a report
describing the conclusions reached by the Secretary and
Chairman with respect to decisions to open closed occupations
to service by women, and the reasons behind such conclusions,
with particular reference to the ``rigorous analysis of factual
data'' used in reaching these conclusions.
Social Security Number Use Reduction Plan
The committee recognizes that service members are
increasingly vulnerable to identify theft, in part because of
overly frequent use of Social Security numbers (SSN) in the
military for identification purposes. The committee commends
the Department of Defense for establishing the SSN Use
Reduction Plan in Department of Defense Instruction 1000.30,
dated August 1, 2012. The SSN Use Reduction Plan directs that
the collection and use of SSNs be reduced or eliminated where
possible and requires justification for any continued
collection and use of SSNs. The plan identifies the Department
of Defense Identification Number as a suitable replacement for
SSNs in most processes and business needs and directs that
Department of Defense Identification Numbers replace the SSN as
the Geneva Conventions Serial Number on Department of Defense
identification cards. The committee remains concerned that the
collection and use of SSNs remains prolific in Department of
Defense systems and forms, including record of service forms,
travel and permanent change of station orders, evaluations, and
others. The Department of Defense's continued widespread,
unnecessary use of SSNs for identification purposes exposes
service members to heightened and unacceptable risk of identity
theft. Therefore, the committee strongly encourages the
Department of Defense to eliminate the use of SSNs as a method
of identifying service members.
Support for military families impacted by grief, behavioral health
disorders, or substance abuse
The committee applauds the Services for their recognition
of military family readiness and resilience as vital elements
of maintaining an effective fighting force. Ready families
require knowledge, skills, and support necessary to respond
with resilience to the challenges of military life, including
chronic stressors and traumatic events.
Children of members of the Armed Forces experience unique
stressors, such as prolonged separation, permanent changes of
station, and higher rates of parental alcohol and prescription
drug abuse. The committee is aware that childhood and
adolescence are particularly important periods for investing in
resilience, and research shows the single most influential
factor in promoting resilience in children is the presence of
supportive relationships, especially parents, but also with
adults outside the home. Evidence suggests that providing
children and adolescents with opportunities to develop
supportive relationships and coping strategies outside the home
in environments that provide both warmth and structure
contribute positively to resilience building. Accordingly, the
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to review and evaluate
materials, resources, and programs available to children of
members of the Armed Forces dealing with bereavement or a
parent, guardian, or sibling who suffers from a behavioral
health disorder or substance abuse and to continue to support
partnerships with non-governmental organizations to address any
identified gaps in support.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Fiscal year 2016 increase in military basic pay (sec. 601)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
pay raise of 1.3 percent for all members of the uniformed
services in pay grades O-6 and below effective January 1, 2016.
Modification of percentage of national average monthly cost of housing
usable in computation of basic allowance for housing inside the
United States (sec. 602)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 403(b) of title 37, United States Code, to authorize
the Secretary of Defense to reduce the monthly amount of the
basic allowance for housing (BAH) by up to 5 percent of the
national average for housing for a given pay grade and
dependency status. Servicemembers will not see this
modification of their BAH until they change duty stations.
Extension of authority to provide temporary increase in rates of basic
allowance for housing (sec. 603)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority of the Secretary of Defense to temporarily
increase the rate of basic allowance for housing in areas
impacted by natural disasters or experiencing a sudden influx
of personnel.
Basic allowance for housing for married members of the uniformed
services assigned for duty within normal commuting distance and
for other members living together (sec. 604)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 403 of title 37, United States Code, to limit the basic
allowance for housing (BAH) for dual military married couples
who are assigned within normal commuting distance from each
other to one allowance at the with dependent rate, for the
member with the higher pay grade. The provision would also
limit BAH for uniformed service members above E-3 residing with
other uniformed service members to 75 percent of their
otherwise prevailing rate, or the E-4 without dependents rate,
whichever is greater. Affected members would see no reduction
in their BAH as a result of this provision so long as they
maintain uninterrupted eligibility to receive BAH within a
particular housing area.
Repeal of inapplicability of modification of basic allowance for
housing to benefits under the laws administered by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs (sec. 605)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
subsection (b) of section 604 of the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) effective January 1, 2016.
Limitation on eligibility for supplemental subsistence allowances to
members serving outside the United States and associated
territory (sec. 606)
The committee recommends a provision that would sunset on
September 30, 2016, the supplemental subsistence allowance for
servicemembers serving inside the United States. Servicemembers
serving outside the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or Guam would still be
eligible to receive the supplemental subsistence allowance from
the Department of Defense. The provision is based on the final
report of the Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission.
Availability of information (sec. 607)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow for
the Secretary of Defense to obtain from the Secretary of
Agriculture information for the purposes of determining the
number of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program applicant
households that contain one or more members of a regular or
reserve component of the Armed Forces.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for
reserve forces (sec. 611)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the Selected Reserve reenlistment
bonus, the Selected Reserve affiliation or enlistment bonus,
special pay for enlisted members assigned to certain high-
priority units, the Ready Reserve enlistment bonus for persons
without prior service, the Ready Reserve enlistment and
reenlistment bonus for persons with prior service, the Selected
Reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus for persons with
prior service, travel expenses for certain inactive-duty
training, and income replacement for reserve component members
experiencing extended and frequent mobilization for Active-Duty
service.
One-year extension of certain bonus and special pay authorities for
health care professionals (sec. 612)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the nurse officer candidate
accession bonus, education loan repayment for certain health
professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve, accession and
retention bonuses for psychologists, the accession bonus for
registered nurses, incentive special pay for nurse
anesthetists, special pay for Selected Reserve health
professionals in critically short wartime specialties, the
accession bonus for dental officers, the accession bonus for
pharmacy officers, the accession bonus for medical officers in
critically short wartime specialties, and the accession bonus
for dental specialist officers in critically short wartime
specialties.
One-year extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear
officers (sec. 613)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the special pay for nuclear-
qualified officers extending period of active service, the
nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual
incentive bonus.
One-year extension of authorities relating to title 37 consolidated
special pay, incentive pay, and bonus authorities (sec. 614)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the general bonus authority for enlisted members, the
general bonus authority for officers, special bonus and
incentive pay authorities for nuclear officers, special
aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities for officers, and
special bonus and incentive pay authorities for officers in
health professions, and contracting bonus for cadets and
midshipmen enrolled in the Senior Officers' Training Corps. The
provision would also extend for 1 year the authority to pay
hazardous duty pay, assignment or special duty pay, skill
incentive pay or proficiency bonus, and retention incentives
for members qualified in critical military skills or assigned
to high priority units.
One-year extension of authorities relating to payment of other title 37
bonuses and special pays (sec. 615)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the authority to pay the aviation officer retention
bonus, assignment incentive pay, the reenlistment bonus for
active members, the enlistment bonus, precommissioning
incentive pay for foreign language proficiency, the accession
bonus for new officers in critical skills, the incentive bonus
for conversion to military occupational specialty to ease
personnel shortage, the incentive bonus for transfer between
Armed Forces, and the accession bonus for officer candidates.
Increase in maximum annual amount of nuclear officer bonus pay (sec.
616)
The committee recommends a provision that would increase
the maximum annual amount of nuclear officer bonus pay to
$50,000 for retention purposes. This provision would take
effect January 1, 2016.
Repeal of obsolete authority to pay bonus to encourage Army personnel
to refer persons for enlistment in the Army (sec. 617)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 3252 of title 10, United States Code. This section
authorized the Secretary of the Army to pay bonuses to
encourage Army personnel to refer persons for enlistment in the
Army. The committee notes that the recent nationwide Army
National Guard Recruiting Assistance Program scandal, which
defrauded the American taxpayers of millions of dollars, has
given the committee serious doubts as to the wisdom of
authorizing such incentive programs.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
Repeal of obsolete special travel and transportation allowance for
survivors of deceased members from the Vietnam conflict (sec.
621)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
section 481f(d) of title 37, United States Code.
Subtitle D--Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits
Part I--Retired Pay Reform
Thrift Savings Plan participation for members of the uniformed services
(sec. 631)
The committee recommends a series of provisions that would
implement recommendations of the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission concerning reform and
modernization of the military retirement benefit for new
entrants into service. This provision would provide a
government-matching Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) element for those
who would enter uniformed service on or after January 1, 2018,
or a member serving before that date who makes a voluntary
election to opt-in to the new plan. The TSP element would
provide a 1 percent automatic agency contribution to all
uniformed service members who would reach 60 days of service
and continue until they would reach their second year of
service. Once a servicemember passes the 2 years of service
point, that member's TSP account would vest and the Secretary
concerned would begin matching TSP contributions up to 5
percent of that servicemember's base pay at 2 years and 1 day
of service. Uniformed service members would be automatically
enrolled at 3 percent matching contributions with the option to
raise or lower their contribution level. TSP government-funded
matching contributions would continue until a uniformed service
member reaches 20 years of service.
The committee notes that all uniformed service members who
would enter and serve prior to the date of implementation of
the modernized retirement system would be grandfathered into
the old retirement system.
Modernized retirement system for members of the uniformed services
(sec. 632)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
new military retirement defined benefit that, when combined
with the government-matching Thrift Savings Plan, as described
elsewhere in this Act, would comprise a new hybrid retirement
system. This new system would apply to new entrants after
January 1, 2018, and to those already serving members who
choose to opt-in to the new system. The new defined benefit
would continue to apply only to those members who reach 20
years of service, with a multiplier rate of 2.0 times years of
service rather than the current rate of 2.5 times years of
service.
Lump sum payments of certain retired pay (sec. 633)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
voluntary election of lump sum payments of retired pay for
those serving 20 or more years of service. Members who elect to
take the lump sum may choose to take 100 percent or 50 percent
of the discounted present value of their defined retirement
benefit that would be due to them prior to becoming fully
eligible for Social Security.
The committee strongly urges the Secretaries concerned to
coordinate with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on
counseling, or otherwise informing, new retirees on the impact
this election may have on their eligibility for certain
benefits administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Continuation pay after 12 years of service for members of the uniformed
services participating in the modernized retirement systems
(sec. 634)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary concerned to provide continuation pay to
servicemembers, serving under the new military retirement
system described above, who reach 12 years of service
contingent upon such members agreeing to serve another 4 years
of service. A member receiving continuation pay may elect to
take the continuation pay in a lump sum or in installments of
not more than four payments. A member who receives continuation
pay and fails to complete the obligated service requirement
shall be subject to repayment.
The rate for active duty continuation pay would be 2.5
times a member's monthly basic pay with the Secretary concerned
having discretionary authority to increase that amount to up to
13 times monthly basic pay for retention and force shaping
purposes. The rate for members of the reserve components would
be 0.5 times a reserve member's monthly basic pay with the
Secretary concerned having discretionary authority to increase
that amount to up to 6 months of monthly basic pay as needed
for retention and force shaping purposes. The committee notes
that the secretaries concerned would manage continuation pay
through their special and incentive pay accounts and should
take into consideration any other incentive pay a member may be
receiving with any concurrent service obligations owed.
Authority for retirement flexibility for members of the uniformed
services (sec. 635)
The committee recommends a provision that would give the
Secretary concerned the flexibility to modify the years of
service required for non-disability retirement under the new
military retirement system for particular occupational
specialties or other groupings in order to facilitate force
shaping or to correct manpower shortages within an occupational
specialty. The Secretary concerned shall be required to provide
notice to Congress 1 year in advance of making such a change.
Treatment of Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund as a
qualified trust (sec. 636)
The committee recommends a provision that would treat the
Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund as a qualified
trust under title 26, United States Code, section 401(a) for
purposes of title 26, United States Code, section 1 et seq.
Part II--Other Matters
Death of former spouse beneficiaries and subsequent remarriages under
Survivor Benefit Plan (sec. 641)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1448(b) of title 10, United States Code, to allow for
the election of a new spouse beneficiary after the death of a
former spouse beneficiary.
Transitional compensation and other benefits for dependents of members
of the Armed Forces ineligible to receive retired pay as a
result of court-martial sentence (sec. 642)
The committee recommends a provision that would add a new
section 1059a to title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to
carry out a program that would authorize monthly transitional
compensation, including commissary and exchange store access,
to dependents or former dependents of a member of the Armed
Forces who is ineligible to receive retired pay as a result of
court-martial sentence. The provision would allow the secretary
concerned to determine that a dependent or former dependent
would not be eligible for transitional compensation if that
person was an active participant in the conduct constituting
the offense under chapter 47 of title 10.
Subtitle E--Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality
Benefits and Operations
Commissary system matters (sec. 651)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 2483, 2484, and 2643 of title 10, United States Code,
to authorize the Department of Defense to treat second
destination transportation costs for commissary goods and
supplies overseas like transportation costs within the United
States by transferring those costs to the commissary patron in
the price of goods. Those costs would be evenly spread across
commissary products worldwide, rather than solely in
commissaries overseas, to standardize the value of the
commissary benefit to all customers. This provision would also
authorize the Department to transfer the cost of obtaining
supplies required for the daily operations of commissaries and
store-level offices dedicated to supporting commissary
operations from the defense working capital fund to the
surcharge fund.
Plan on privatization of the Defense Commissary System (sec. 652)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report, not later than March
1, 2016, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, setting forth a plan to privatize
the Defense Commissary System, in whole or in part. The plan
should ensure the provision of high quality grocery goods and
products, savings discounts to patrons, and high levels of
customer satisfaction. The Secretary should include with the
plan any recommendations for legislative action required by the
Department of Defense to implement the plan.
The provision would also require the Comptroller General of
the United States to provide a report that assesses the plan of
the Department to privatize the Defense Commissary System to
the committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives within 120 days following submission of the
report by the Secretary of Defense.
Following submission of the Comptroller General's
assessment of the Department's commissary privatization plan,
the Department would be required to carry out a 2-year pilot
program at no fewer than five commissaries in the largest
markets of the commissary system to assess the feasibility and
advisability of the plan. The Secretary of Defense may include,
as part of the pilot program, an online component to permit
eligible beneficiaries, in catchment areas of the commissaries
selected for the pilot, to order and purchase grocery goods and
products through the Internet and to receive those items
through home delivery. Within 180 days after completion of the
pilot program, the Secretary of Defense would submit a report
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives that provides an assessment of the
commissary privatization plan.
Comptroller General of the United States report on the Commissary
Surcharge, Non-appropriated Fund, and Privately-financed Major
Construction Program (sec. 653)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to examine the
policies and procedures of the Secretary of Defense to ensure
timely notification of construction projects proposed to be
funded through the Commissary Surcharge, Non-appropriated Fund,
and Privately-financed Major Construction Program of the
Department of Defense and to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report containing an assessment of this program no later than
180 days after enactment of this Act. The committee is aware
that the Department of Defense has recently completed certain
privately-financed major construction projects without prior
notification to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, contrary to established,
long-standing practice and contrary to the committee's
constitutional oversight responsibility and authority.
Items of Special Interest
Comptroller General of the United States assessment of potential costs
and benefits from privatizing Department of Defense
commissaries
Through the Defense Commissary Agency, the Department of
Defense (DOD) operates over 240 military commissaries, in the
United States and overseas, to sell grocery merchandise and
other goods at cost plus a 5 percent surcharge primarily to
Active-Duty, National Guard, Reserve, and retired
servicemembers and their family members. The Defense Commissary
Agency reports that patrons receive an average of 30 percent
savings on commissary purchases compared to commercial grocery
prices. Military servicemembers consider the commissaries an
important benefit because savings derived from commissary
purchases increase the overall purchasing power of their annual
pay.
Defense appropriations subsidize commissary operations, and
to a large degree, contribute to patron savings. In an effort
to reduce taxpayer costs of military commissaries, the budget
request proposed a reduction in appropriated subsidies to the
Defense Commissary Agency over several years. This change in
commissary funding would ultimately result in reduced patron
savings because commissary prices would likely increase to
compensate for lower government subsidies. With the budget
request, overseas commissaries and certain commissaries in
remote locations in the United States would continue to receive
subsidies.
To help Congress better understand the potential impact of
operational changes to the commissary system on commissary
patrons, section 634 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(Public Law 113-291) required the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a review of the management, food, and pricing options
for the commissary system utilizing an independent organization
experienced in grocery retail analysis. The committee expects
to receive a report in September 2015. The statute, however,
did not require an analysis to determine whether privatization
would be a viable option for reform of commissary operations.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to review opportunities for DOD to privatize
the commissary system, in whole or in part, and to provide a
report on the results of the study to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by
February 1, 2016. At a minimum, the review should:
(1) Determine DOD's requirements and evaluate its
methodology for defining the total number and locations
of commissaries;
(2) Determine and evaluate DOD's costs for commissary
operations from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year
2014;
(3) Determine and evaluate DOD's strategy for pricing
products sold at commissaries;
(4) Determine and validate how the Defense Commissary
Agency calculates savings to its customers as a result
of its pricing strategy;
(5) Determine to what extent DOD has evaluated the
costs or savings and potential benefits to patrons and
the government of privatizing the commissary system;
(6) Determine whether any barriers exist to
privatization of the commissary system; and
(7) Determine and quantify the extent to which patron
savings would remain under a commissary privatization
model.
Comptroller General of the United States review of the Department of
Defense special and incentive pay program
Since 2010, the Department of Defense (DOD) has conducted
ongoing reviews to determine the effectiveness and efficiency
of its special and incentive pay programs. The committee also
understands that, in addition to these reviews, DOD continues
to implement the consolidation of these pays in accordance with
subtitle F of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181). Many factors such as emerging
technologies and new missions impact on the types of skills and
competencies that the DOD needs to meet mission requirements.
The committee is concerned that changes may be needed now to
ensure the efficacy of the special and incentive pay program.
The committee believes that these pays are not an entitlement.
The DOD must continue to carefully scrutinize special and
incentive pays, ensuring they are used where needed,
particularly in a fiscal environment where every dollar counts,
to ensure these pays are used effectively, but not
superfluously, to ensure successful recruitment, retention, and
assignments in the All-Volunteer Force.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to review the effectiveness of the DOD's special and
incentive pays program and provide preliminary observations no
later than February 5, 2016, and a report to follow on a date
agreed to at the time of the preliminary briefing. The review
should include: (1) an examination of both active and reserve
component special and incentive pay programs, particularly
those programs used to recruit and retain individuals for
service in high skill occupations such as nuclear maintenance
and engineering, pilots, critical language skills, information
technology, cyber warfare, and special operations; (2) an
analysis of a market-based program that would incentivize top,
difficult to replace talent and consider civilian contractor
alternatives for skill sets that can be obtained elsewhere and
utilized by DOD; and (3) the effect of eliminating or limiting
authorizations for special and incentive pay for targeted use
at critical career points for skills the DOD cannot replace.
Comptroller General of the United States review of the Gold Star
Advocate Program
Section 633 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) required each service
secretary to designate a servicemember or a civilian employee
of their military department to assist spouses and other
dependents of members (including reserve component members) who
die on active duty through services of the Gold Star Advocate
Program. These services include addressing complaints by
spouses and other dependents of deceased members regarding
casualty assistance or receipt of benefits, providing support
to spouses and dependents regarding casualty assistance or
receipt of benefits, and making reports to appropriate
officials in the Department of Defense or the military
department concerned regarding resolution of complaints,
including recommendations regarding the settlement of claims
with respect to benefits, as appropriate.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to review the Gold Star Advocate Program and to provide
a briefing on preliminary results by March 31, 2016, and a
report to follow on a date agreed to at the time of the
briefing. The review should address the following:
(1) The extent that each military department has
designated a member of the Armed Forces or a civilian
employee as a Gold Star Advocate for each of the Armed
Forces under their jurisdiction;
(2) The extent that each military department has
effectively publicized the Gold Star Advocate Program
to surviving spouses and dependents;
(3) The extent and frequency that Gold Star Advocates
have addressed complaints regarding casualty assistance
or receipt of benefits by spouses or other dependents;
(4) The extent that Gold Star Advocates have
developed a process to provide reports to appropriate
officials regarding the resolution of complaints or to
make recommendations regarding the settlement of claims
with respect to benefits; and
(5) The extent that the Department of Defense has
developed a standardized comprehensive training program
on casualty assistance.
Report on wait-times at child development centers
The committee understands that it can be difficult for
servicemembers and Department of Defense (DOD) civilians to
focus on their duties if they are concerned about the well-
being of their family members. For this reason, the committee
believes it is in the best interest of the Department to ensure
that children of servicemembers and DOD civilians have access
to safe, quality, and convenient childcare. The committee has
learned that at some military bases, the wait-times for
enrolling a child in child development centers exceed 9 months.
The committee expects the Department to monitor wait-times
closely at DOD child development centers and to develop
policies to shorten the wait-times of those facilities
significantly.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives a report, not later than March 31, 2016,
listing all DOD child development centers experiencing wait-
times greater than 3 months. The report should be organized by
state or country (for overseas child development centers) and
provide the wait-time at each location as of the date of the
report. The report should describe the Department's goal for
wait-times and provide an assessment of the steps necessary to
meet wait-time goals at child development centers throughout
the Department. Finally, the report should include a
description of any legislative action required to assist the
Department in reducing wait-times at child development centers
at military bases.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--TRICARE and Other Health Care Benefits
Urgent care authorization under the TRICARE program (sec. 701)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
covered beneficiary under the TRICARE program to access up to
four urgent care visits per year without the need to obtain
pre-authorization for such visits.
The committee understands that the average cost to TRICARE
for an emergency department visit is $531 while the average
cost for urgent care is $131 per visit. The committee is also
aware that TRICARE Prime beneficiaries utilize emergency
departments at significantly higher rates than civilians in the
private sector. The committee notes that current TRICARE policy
requires TRICARE Prime beneficiaries to obtain pre-
authorization for urgent care visits. The committee concludes
this administrative burden encourages beneficiaries to utilize
emergency departments inappropriately for urgent care needs.
The committee believes this provision would help beneficiaries
choose the most appropriate source for the health care they
need and would lower health care costs for the Department of
Defense.
The committee recognizes the intent of TRICARE's recently
introduced Nurse Advice Line is to direct beneficiaries to the
most appropriate level of health care. The committee encourages
the Defense Health Agency and the Services to adopt a policy
directing military medical treatment facility appointment
clerks to refer beneficiaries to the Nurse Advice Line when the
appointment clerk cannot provide an acute care appointment
within access standards.
Modifications of cost-sharing requirements for the TRICARE pharmacy
benefits program (sec. 702)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
modifications of prescription drug co-pays for the TRICARE
pharmacy benefits program for years 2016 through 2025. After
2025, the Department of Defense would establish co-pay amounts
equal to the co-pay amounts for the previous year adjusted by
an amount, if any, to reflect increases in costs of
pharmaceutical agents and prescription dispensing fees. With
this provision, beneficiaries would continue to receive
prescription drugs at no cost in military medical treatment
facilities, and there would be no changes to co-pays for
survivors of members who died on Active Duty or for a disabled
member retired under chapter 61 of title 10, United States
Code, and their family members.
Section 702 of the the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(Public Law 113-291) authorized modest co-pay increases for
certain pharmaceuticals obtained through the TRICARE retail
pharmacy network or the mail order pharmacy in fiscal year
2015, but it did not include the Administration's proposal to
increase co-pays in subsequent years through 2024. In
deliberations with the House of Representatives last year,
there was agreement to reconsider any proposed co-pay changes
submitted in the fiscal year 2016 budget request if inadequate
defense budget levels continue to threaten military readiness
and overall national security. In the committee's view, the
defense budget situation is no better this year, and it may be
no better in future years. Therefore, the committee feels
compelled to recommend pharmacy co-pay increases again this
year.
Expansion of continued health benefits coverage to include discharged
and released members of the Selected Reserve (sec. 703)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1078a of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a
member of the Selected Reserve, who is discharged or released
under other than adverse conditions from service in the
Selected Reserve, to be eligible to enroll, for a period of 18
months, in the Department of Defense program of continued
health benefits coverage.
Expansion of reimbursement for smoking cessation services for certain
TRICARE beneficiaries (sec. 704)
The committee recommends a provision that would expand
reimbursement for smoking cessation services for certain
TRICARE beneficiaries.
Pilot program on treatment of members of the Armed Forces for post-
traumatic stress disorder related to military sexual trauma
(sec. 705)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program to award
grants to community partners to provide intensive outpatient
programs to treat members of the Armed Forces suffering from
post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from military sexual
trauma, including treatment for substance abuse, depression,
and other issues related to those conditions.
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration
Access to health care under the TRICARE program (sec. 711)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that covered TRICARE
beneficiaries obtain health care appointments within access
standards and wait-time goals established by the Department of
Defense for primary care and specialty care or, if the
beneficiary is unable to obtain an appointment within the wait-
time goals, to offer the beneficiary an appointment with a
contracted health care provider. The provision would also
require the Secretary to publish health care access standards
in the Federal Register and on a publicly accessible Internet
web site of the Department of Defense and to publish
appointment wait-times for primary and specialty care on the
publicly accessible Internet web site of each military medical
treatment facility.
Portability of health plans under the TRICARE program (sec. 712)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that beneficiaries who are
covered under a TRICARE health plan can seamlessly access
health care under that health plan in each TRICARE program
region.
Improvement of mental health care provided by health care providers of
the Department of Defense (sec. 713)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that all primary care and mental
health care providers of the Department of Defense receive, or
have already received, initial evidence-based training on the
recognition, assessment, and management of individuals at risk
for suicide and any additional training that may be required
based on evidence-based changes in mental health practice.
Within 1 year of the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary would be required to provide a report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives that assesses the mental health workforce of
the Department and the long-term mental health care needs of
servicemembers and their dependents. The provision would also
require the Secretary to develop procedures to measure mental
health data relating to outcomes, variations in outcomes among
military medical treatment facilities, and barriers to
implementation of clinical practice guidelines and other
evidence-based treatments by mental health providers of the
Department of Defense.
Comprehensive standards and access to contraception counseling for
members of the Armed Forces (sec. 714)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense to provide, through clinical practice
guidelines, current and evidence-based standards of care
regarding contraception methods and counseling to all health
care providers employed by the Department and to ensure service
women have access to comprehensive contraception counseling
prior to deployment and throughout their military careers. The
provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a uniform, standard curriculum to be used in family
planning education programs for all members of the Armed
Forces.
Waiver of recoupment of erroneous payments due to administrative error
under the TRICARE Program (sec. 715)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize the
Secretary of Defense to waive recoupment of payment from a
covered TRICARE beneficiary who has benefitted from an
erroneous TRICARE payment in which all of the following apply:
(1) the payment was made due to an administrative error by an
employee of the Department of Defense or a TRICARE program
contractor; (2) the covered beneficiary, or in the case of a
minor, the parent or guardian of the covered beneficiary,
reasonably believed the covered beneficiary was entitled to the
benefit of such payment; (3) the covered beneficiary relied on
the expectation of benefit entitlement; and (4) the Secretary
determines that a waiver of recoupment of such payment is
necessary to prevent an injustice. In the case of
administrative error on the part of a TRICARE contractor, the
provision would require the Secretary to impose financial
responsibility on the contractor for the erroneous payment.
Designation of certain non-Department mental health care providers with
knowledge relating to treatment of members of the Armed Forces
(sec. 716)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense, not later than 1 year after enactment of
this Act, to develop a system by which any non-Department
mental health care provider that meets eligibility criteria
relating to knowledge and understanding of military culture and
knowledge of evidence-based mental health treatments approved
by the Secretary, would receive a mental health provider
readiness designation from the Department. The provision would
also require the Secretary to establish and update a provider
list and maintain a publicly available registry of mental
health providers receiving such designation.
Limitation on conversion of military medical and dental positions to
civilian medical and dental positions (sec. 717)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 49 of title 10, United States Code, to provide that a
medical or dental position within the Department of Defense may
not be converted to a civilian medical or dental position
unless the Secretary of Defense determines that: (1) the
position is not a military essential position; (2) conversion
of the position would not result in the degradation of medical
or dental care or the medical or dental readiness of the Armed
Forces; and (3) conversion of the position to a civilian
medical or dental position is more cost effective than
retaining the position as a military medical or dental
position, consistent with Department of Defense Instruction
7041.04. The committee believes this provision would give the
Services more flexibility to achieve the most efficient medical
and dental force mix aligned with their operational missions
and to correct skill and specialty imbalances within the
medical and dental forces.
Extension of authority for joint Department of Defense-Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund (sec. 718)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1704(e) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to extend the authority
for the joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans
Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund from September 30,
2016, to September 30, 2017.
Extension of authority for DOD-VA Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund
(sec. 719)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 8111 of title 38, United States Code, to extend the
authority for the DOD-VA Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund
through September 30, 2020.
Pilot program on incentive programs to improve health care provided
under the TRICARE program (sec. 720)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program to assess
value-based incentive programs to encourage institutional and
individual health care providers under the TRICARE program to
improve quality of care, experience of care, and health of
beneficiaries. Under this provision, the Department of Defense
would be required to submit a report, not later than March 15,
2019, to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the
House of Representatives that provides an assessment of each
incentive program implemented under this provision along with
any recommendations for legislative action to expand provider
incentive programs throughout the TRICARE program.
The committee remains concerned that the TRICARE program
continues to use a fee-for-service health care delivery model
even as more modern health plans now use a variety of value-
based delivery models. These value-based models more
effectively promote preventive care and improve health outcomes
as they foster integrated, coordinated health care delivery
while controlling health care costs.
Subtitle C--Reports and Other Matters
Publication of certain information on health care provided by the
Department of Defense through the Hospital Compare web site of
the Department of Health and Human Services (sec. 731)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to enter into a memorandum of
understanding with the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to report, and make publicly available through the Hospital
Compare Internet web site of the Department of Health and Human
Services, information on quality of care and health outcomes
regarding patients treated at military medical treatment
facilities.
Publication of data on patient safety, quality of care, satisfaction,
and health outcome measures under the TRICARE program (sec.
732)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to publish public data on measures used to
assess patient safety, quality of care, patient satisfaction,
and health outcomes on the primary Internet web site of the
Department of Defense. The provision would also require data
for health care provided by a military medical treatment
facility to be accessible on the primary Internet web site of
that facility.
Annual report on patient safety, quality of care, and access to care at
military medical treatment facilities (sec. 733)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not
later than March 1, 2016, and each year thereafter, a
comprehensive report on patient safety, quality of care, and
access to care at military medical treatment facilities.
In May 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed a 90-day
internal review of the military health system to evaluate
patient safety, quality of care, and access to care. The review
team completed its work in August 2014, and six civilian
subject matter experts in health data, health care quality, and
patient safety validated the methodology of the review. The
Department of Defense's review team concluded that the military
health system provides timely, safe, and quality care. However,
reviewers found that the military health system demonstrates
performance variability when compared to civilian counterparts
and national benchmarks.
As a result of the findings in the report, the Secretary of
Defense ordered numerous actions to provide more accountability
in the military health system and to improve quality of care
and patient safety. The committee commends the Department of
Defense for conducting this review of the military health
system. The committee intends to conduct rigorous oversight to
ensure actions taken by the Department of Defense significantly
improve patient safety, quality of care, and access to care in
both the direct and purchased care components of the military
health system.
Report on plans to improve experience with and eliminate performance
variability of health care provided by the Department of
Defense (sec. 734)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a
comprehensive report describing the current and future plans,
with estimated completion dates, of the Department of Defense
to improve the experience of care of beneficiaries and to
eliminate performance variability for health care provided in
military medical treatment facilities and in the TRICARE
purchased care network. This provision would also require the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit, not later
than 180 days after the Secretary submits the comprehensive
report, a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives that assesses the
report of the Secretary of Defense.
Report on plan to improve pediatric care and related services for
children of members of the Armed Forces (sec. 735)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, not
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a
report setting forth the plan of the Department to improve
pediatric care and related services for children of members of
the Armed Forces.
Section 735 of the the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) required the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review and
analysis of health care provided to dependent children of
members of the Armed Forces. The Department of Defense
submitted the report in July 2014. Although the report
concluded that the military health system meets the health care
needs of children, including children with special health care
needs, it acknowledged significant gaps and deficiencies in
data collection, data utilization, and analysis. The report
deeply concerns the committee because data gaps and
deficiencies in this area fail to substantiate the conclusion
that the military health system meets the health care needs of
children, especially those children with special needs.
Report on preliminary mental health screenings for individuals becoming
members of the Armed Forces (sec. 736)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report, not later than 180
days after enactment of this Act, to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives on
mental health screenings of individuals before enlistment or
accession into the Armed Forces.
Comptroller General report on use of quality of care metrics at
military treatment facilities (sec. 737)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report,
not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act,
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives on the Department of Defense's use of
quality of care metrics in military treatment facilities.
Items of Special Interest
Annual report on autism care demonstration program
The joint explanatory statement accompanying section 732 of
the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) required a semi-annual report,
without end date, on the status of implementation of the
TRICARE autism demonstration project then in progress. That
project ended in 2014, and the expanded TRICARE Comprehensive
Autism Care Demonstration, which incorporates Applied Behavior
Analysis (ABA) policies into a single program for all TRICARE
beneficiaries with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), succeeded
it. This demonstration program concludes on December 31, 2018.
The committee remains keenly interested in the Department
of Defense's response to the needs of children with ASD and
directs the Secretary of Defense to report no later than April
1, 2016, and annually thereafter for the duration of the
program, on the results of the program. No additional semi-
annual reports on the initial TRICARE autism demonstration
project are required. The newly required annual report should
include a discussion of the evidence regarding clinical
improvement of children with ASD receiving ABA therapy and a
description of lessons learned to improve administration of the
demonstration program. In the report, the Department should
also identify any new legislative authorities required to
improve the provision of autism services to beneficiaries with
ASD.
Antimicrobial coatings
The committee notes with concern that hospital-acquired
infections (HAIs) are a major, yet preventable, threat to
patient safety in both civilian and military healthcare
settings. HAIs are responsible for billions of dollars each
year in potentially preventable health care expenditures.
Research shows that when healthcare facilities and providers
are aware of the risks of transmission of infections and take
steps to prevent them, rates of some targeted HAIs decrease by
more than 70 percent. A key element of HAI prevention is the
development and use of antimicrobial materials and coatings.
The committee is aware that antimicrobial coatings for medical
devices and other touchable surfaces in the hospital and health
environment are effective but often costly. Accordingly, the
committee encourages the Department of Defense to investigate
advanced antimicrobial coating technologies that may enhance
durability and lower costs.
Continued support for diagnosis and treatment for traumatic brain
injury
Over the past two decades, our service men and women have
been injured in combat areas by Improvised Explosive Devices
(IEDs), other military explosive devices and by head impacts
leading to mild and moderate concussions which have led to both
physical and mental brain injuries. These injuries are
disabling, as they may induce short-term memory loss, severe
headaches, depression, loss of cognitive function, loss of
impulse control, anger and, in extreme cases, suicide. The
committee remains committed to continuing support and funding
for diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injury to
include potential alternative, evidence-based methods of
treatments.
Intensive behavioral counseling
The committee is aware that cardiovascular disease is a
leading cause of death in the United States, and obesity is
associated with increased mortality from cardiovascular
disease. In August 2014, the U.S. Preventive Services Task
Force (USPSTF) reported evidence that intensive behavioral
counseling for overweight or obese adults with increased risk
of cardiovascular disease can lead to decreases in blood
pressure, blood glucose levels, and body mass index. As a
result, the USPSTF recommended that overweight or obese adults
with additional cardiovascular disease risk be offered
intensive behavioral counseling interventions to promote
healthy diets and physical activity to help prevent
cardiovascular disease. The committee encourages the Department
of Defense to incorporate intensive behavioral counseling in
treatment protocols for overweight or obese adults with
increased risk for cardiovascular disease.
Mild traumatic brain injury research
Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), including mild traumatic
brain injury (mTBI), is a signature wound of the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan and a subject of growing public health concerns
for civilians, particularly in the field of sports medicine.
Through funding for TBI and psychological health research in
the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs,
Congress has annually supported Department of Defense (DOD)
research aimed to prevent, mitigate, and treat the effects of
combat-related TBI on function, wellness, and overall quality
of life, including interventions across the deployment life
cycle for warriors, veterans, family members, caregivers, and
communities.
The committee recognizes the Department's efforts in recent
years to leverage partnerships with academia and the private
sector to address health issues of serious concern for military
personnel. The committee encourages DOD to maintain its
engagement in large-scale studies of mTBI in order to build a
deeper understanding of concussion injuries; how they impact
the brain; how and to what extent the brain recovers; and how
treatment and prevention can be improved. The committee also
encourages DOD to leverage private sector and academic
partnerships to the greatest extent practicable and to ensure
data sets generated through such partnerships contain no
personally identifiable information, are protected from
disclosure or misuse in accordance with the laws on privacy
applicable to such information, and are available as
appropriate for further research and to inform concussion care
and policy.
Molecular diagnostics
The committee understands that early disease detection and
intervention can lead to better health outcomes and lower
health care costs for patients. The committee is aware of
emerging, new technologies that use small sample molecular
diagnostic techniques to diagnose and monitor disease, detect
disease risk, and allow for development of therapies
specifically designed for individual patients. The committee
believes that early detection and subsequent management of
chronic diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease
could present an enormous opportunity for the Department of
Defense to reduce its health care costs significantly and to
improve the health of military service men and women. The
committee encourages the Department of Defense to study how
these emerging molecular diagnostic technologies may improve
the health and quality of life of military beneficiaries and
lower health care costs for the Department.
Newborn infant screening evaluation and treatment
The direct and purchased care components of the military
health system averaged over 127,000 childbirths annually during
the last 3 fiscal years. The committee is aware that current
screening tests in the military newborn infant population would
yield a minimum of 70 children with treatable rare genetic
conditions and a minimum of 200-300 false positive tests that
would require further evaluation. Historically, newborn infant
screening test requirements for treatable rare genetic
conditions have conformed to local state guidelines. Frequent
relocations of military families within the continental United
States and overseas have often led to a fragmented system of
care for military children with rare genetic diseases.
The committee understands that inadequate specialized
treatment and management of infants with positive newborn
infant screening tests can lead to poor or devastating outcomes
for military families. The committee, therefore, directs the
Department of Defense to review its newborn infant screening
program to ensure military families have access to specialized
follow-up treatment and management of newborn infants with rare
genetic conditions.
Preseparation counseling on opioid therapy for chronic pain management
The committee recognizes the persistently high rate of
long-term opioid therapy for servicemembers and veterans with
chronic pain. While pain is the most frequent presenting
complaint of returning Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation
Iraqi Freedom soldiers, comorbidities and other factors often
mean that long-term opioid therapy is an inappropriate
treatment option for many individuals with chronic pain while
separating from military service. The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) is experiencing a high number of veterans who were
prescribed opioids while serving on Active Duty, making it more
difficult to transition those veterans to alternative
therapies, including those therapies offered as part of the
VA's Opioid Safety Initiative designed to reduce the use of
opioids by veterans.
The committee recommends, not later than 180 days from the
date of this report, that the Department of Defense (DOD)
establish a policy to require face-to-face counseling prior to
discharge for all servicemembers with prescribed opioids. This
counseling should include: 1) disclosure of the risks of long-
term opioid use; 2) recognition of relevant co-occurring
diagnoses of the individual; and 3) discussion of alternatives
to opioid therapy. During counseling, the servicemember should
receive a referral for pain management after discharge if
required. This policy should include a requirement that DOD
include in the data that is provided to the VA a description of
the alternative therapies that were discussed with the
servicemember during preseparation counseling.
Prosthetic socket manufacturing cells
The committee notes that the extensive use of improvised
explosive devices against U.S. forces has dramatically
increased the number of military amputees in the health care
systems of the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.
Prosthetic socket fabrication methods vary greatly in
technique, quality, and cost, and they are highly reliant upon
the skill of the individual prosthetist. Emerging technologies
and manufacturing processes have demonstrated potential
improvements in socket customization, performance, weight, and
standardization at reduced costs.
The committee understands it is now possible to establish a
manufacturing framework to digitize and record patient
dimensions, preserve and update this information within a
patient's electronic health record, and fabricate new or
replacement sockets immediately, regardless of patient
location. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
modernize its prosthetic socket manufacturing framework to
improve the quality of care for military amputees.
Reform of the TRICARE program
Congress established the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission in section 671 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
Law 112-239) to conduct a review of the military compensation
and retirement systems and to make recommendations to modernize
those systems. The Commission released its report in January
2015. The Commission's health care recommendations included a
reform plan to improve access to care and expand beneficiaries'
choices of health plans by allowing beneficiaries, other than
Active-Duty servicemembers, to obtain health care coverage from
a selection of military-unique commercial health insurance
plans offered through a new DOD health benefit program
administered by the Office of Personnel Management.
Following release of the Commission's report, the Personnel
Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
held a hearing to explore the health care recommendations in
detail after which staff members met with various stakeholders
to ensure full consideration of their views on the
recommendations. Throughout those meetings, stakeholders
encouraged the committee to take more time to study the
healthcare recommendations before enacting comprehensive
legislation to reform TRICARE.
Although the committee believes that the Commission's
healthcare recommendations may address lingering problems
within the military health system, the committee feels it is
prudent to take a very deliberate approach to enacting TRICARE
reform legislation. The committee must better understand the
implications and unintended consequences of any plan to
transform a large, complex health program like TRICARE. The
committee has recommended provisions in this Act, however, that
would ensure the Department of Defense improves access to care,
delivers better health outcomes, enhances the experience of
care for beneficiaries, and controls health care costs. These
provisions help lay the foundation for comprehensive TRICARE
modernization and reform legislation in the near future.
Training for physician assistants specializing in psychiatric care
The committee is concerned about the effect of nationwide
mental health provider shortages impacting access to quality
care for members of the Armed Forces and their families. Demand
for mental health services among servicemembers and military
families has increased significantly in the past decade. In
response to the Senate report accompanying S. 1197 (S. Rept.
113-44), the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans
Affairs submitted a joint report in April 2015 indicating near
100 percent staffing for Department of Defense mental health
providers, but the number of billets authorized may lag actual
requirements.
The committee notes that the most recent report by the
National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants
found the number of physician assistants working in psychiatric
care increased by more than 17 percent from 2013 to 2014. The
physician assistant profession is growing rapidly with a 36
percent increase in the number of certified physician
assistants over the past 5 years and an expected 40 percent
increase in the number of physician assistant education
programs between 2013 and 2018.
The committee is aware that the physician assistant
profession has a strong historical relationship with the
military and that the Services rely broadly on physician
assistants as primary care providers for both the operational
forces and their families. With physician assistant manning
levels exceeding 100 percent across the Services, the
Department of Defense has established fellowship programs to
provide physician assistants with specialty training in
emergency medicine, orthopedic surgery and general surgery.
The committee applauds the Department of Defense for its
support of cost-effective solutions to mental health provider
shortages, including established pathways to credential
psychologists and nurse practitioners as prescribing providers.
The committee further encourages the Department of Defense to
consider cost-effective methods of training physician
assistants to specialize in psychiatric care.
TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care Demonstration
The committee is pleased with the initial favorable reports
on the success of the TRICARE Comprehensive Autism Care
Demonstration. This demonstration, which began on July 25,
2014, combines into one program all TRICARE-covered Applied
Behavior Analysis services from the TRICARE Basic Program, the
Enhanced Access to Autism Services Demonstration, and the
Applied Behavior Analysis Pilot for TRICARE beneficiaries
diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Beneficiaries
report that this new program is easier to navigate, that
beneficiaries diagnosed with ASD receive the care they need,
and that the Department of Defense is addressing challenges as
they arise in an effective manner. Although this demonstration
is relatively new and is scheduled to run until December 31,
2018, initial reports are sufficiently encouraging that the
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to make it a
permanent program to ensure that qualified beneficiaries do not
face barriers to the care that they need.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
Acquisition policy reform overview
With this Act, the committee is embarking on a multi-year
effort to improve the underlying structure and process that
delivers warfighting capability to the nation. The acquisition
system's ``rules of the game'' provide the incentive structure
for how the underlying industrial base is organized, who
decides to bid on defense contracts, and who does not. The
rules and the resulting structure of the industrial base that
supports the Department of Defense are currently not aligned to
the emerging national security needs of the coming decades.
The acquisition system is not a stand-alone system. It is
comprised of budget, requirements, contracting, engineering,
test, audit, oversight, financial, information management,
science and technology, and personnel components. Each of these
component parts must be aligned and properly incentivized to
meet national security goals. One goal of this committee's
effort will be to work to align these components and achieve a
necessary balance.
On one level the committee's reform efforts are driven by
economic efficiency concerns. Current budget constraints argue
for significant changes to a woefully inefficient system.
Overarching business reform and overhead reductions as outlined
in this bill are a necessary first step to free up resources to
modernize military capability, and the acquisition process
needs to be more efficient to get the best return on those
resources.
Still, the committee's primary concern with the acquisition
system is that reform is now needed for national security
reasons to maintain technological and military dominance. An
inadequate acquisition system is leading to the erosion of
America's defense technological advantage, which the United
States will lose altogether if the Department continues with
business as usual. The Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics stated recently: ``We've
been complacent. Our technological superiority is very much at
risk, there are people designing systems [specifically] to
defeat us in a very thoughtful and strategic way, and we've got
to wake up, frankly.'' A failing defense acquisition system
will not only have budgetary implications, but could set the
stage for a future national security crisis.
The reasons for this concern are founded in science and
technology research trends. The Department is facing an
emerging innovation gap. Commercial research and development
(R&D) in the United States overtook government R&D in 1980 and
this threshold was one of the key triggers that led to the
commercial acquisition reforms of the 1990s. Today, as the
Department makes it even more difficult to access commercial
companies and innovation, commercial R&D now represents 75
percent of the national total. A recent financial analysis
found that the top four U.S. defense contractors combined spend
only 27 percent of what a leading commercial information
technology firm spends annually on R&D.
The problem grows worse beyond our borders. Global R&D is
now more than twice that of the United States. Chinese R&D
levels are projected to surpass the United States in 2022. Even
when the Department is innovating, it is moving too slowly.
Innovation is measured in 18-month cycles in the commercial
market while the Department acquisition cycles are measured in
decades. At a recent speech at Stanford University, Secretary
Carter stated: ``The same Internet that enables Wikipedia also
allows terrorists to learn how to build a bomb. And the same
technologies we use to target cruise missiles and jam enemy air
defenses can be used against our own forces--and they're now
available to the highest bidder. Whether it's the cloud,
infrared cameras, or the GPS signals that provide navigation
for ride-sharing apps, but also for aircraft carriers and our
smart bombs--our reliance on technology has led to real
vulnerabilities that our adversaries are eager to exploit.''
Accessing sources of innovation beyond the Department is
critical for national security in the future, especially in
areas such as cyber security, robotics, data analytics,
miniaturization, and autonomy. However, the defense acquisition
system is leading many commercial firms to choose not to do
business with the Defense Department, or to limit their
engagement in ways that prevent the Department from accessing
the critical technologies that these companies have to offer.
Export controls, security mandates, and Buy America barriers
also limit cooperation with our allies and global commercial
firms. In short, the defense acquisition system itself
increasingly poses a threat to our future military
technological dominance.
For this reason, the United States must create better
incentives for innovation by removing unnecessary legislative,
regulatory, and cultural barriers to new commercial
competition. The Department must also establish alternative
acquisition paths to get innovative capabilities to our
warfighters in a matter of months, not decades. Ultimately, the
defense acquisition system must enable the Department to take
advantage of the best minds, firms, and technologies that
America, and the world, have to offer.
The provisions of this Act would begin to embark on
alternative acquisition pathways to create more efficient and
effective results and expand the industrial base that supports
the nation's national security needs. They have been developed
based on the committee's review of acquisition reform,
including the implementation of the Weapon System Acquisition
Reform Act of 2009 (WSARA) (Public Law 111-23), and using
inputs from the Administration, industry, the Government
Accountability Office, and others. The acquisition provisions
of this Act reflect four themes to support the establishment
and use of these alternative pathways.
The first theme is to establish effective accountability
for results. The Act would enhance the role of the service
chiefs in acquisition, decentralizing to the maximum extent
practicable decision-making authority to the services. The
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) should be providing
more insight and identification of best practices to the
services rather than duplicative oversight and micromanagement.
The method for maintaining accountability within the services
is to establish performance contracts (to meet cost, schedule
and performance goals) with service chiefs, service
secretaries, service acquisition executives and program
managers signing up to binding management, requirements, and
resource commitments. If programs fail, as measured by a Nunn-
McCurdy threshold breach, these programs should then become
centrally managed by OSD. The Act also establishes a financial
penalty for cost overruns that OSD can use to fund
developmental prototypes.
Ultimately, the way for the services to meet their cost,
schedule and performance goals and continue to manage their
programs is to reform the requirements and budget process for
acquisition programs. A time-based requirements process looking
at capabilities to be deployed rapidly (within 2 years), in the
medium term (within 5 years), or longer than 5 years should be
developed that relies on extensive market research and be based
in technological reality. The Department should also begin to
look at the experience of our allies in how they budget for
capital assets and begin a dialogue with the Congress on best
practices in capital budgeting that can serve as a basis of
future reforms.
The second theme of this effort is to increase access to
commercial innovation and competition. The barriers and costs
of defense contracting are so great that advanced technology
companies and others on the leading edge of innovation choose
not to partner with the Department of Defense. Commercial item
reforms in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994
(Public Law 103-355) and the Clinger Cohen Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-106) were designed to remove many of these barriers
such as requirements for government unique accounting systems,
cost data, and restrictions on technical data but many of these
mandates have returned in law, regulation, and practice. Other
transactions authority was another method to entice non-
traditional firms into the defense market, but use of this
authority has atrophied over the years to an exception basis.
Competitive rapid prototyping, open systems and incremental
development methods used in the commercial sector have not
taken hold at the Department, which continues to rely on an
antiquated multi-decade process with ``winner take all''
competitions that result in single-source contractors.
To address these concerns, the Act's provisions would
incentivize commercial innovation by removing barriers to new
entrants into the defense market by reforming commercial item,
other transactions authority, and technical data (protection of
intellectual property rights) authorities. Rapid acquisition
authorities would be expanded to better support contingency
operations and to address cyber security concerns. A new
approach and funding mechanism would be established for a
``Middle Tier of Acquisition'' to conduct rapid prototyping and
rapid fielding that can be deployed within 5 years. Finally,
the Act would ensure that the Secretary of Defense has the
authority to waive unnecessary acquisition laws to acquire
vital national security capabilities and require the
development of a series of alternative acquisition pathways
using flexible acquisition authorities to maintain U.S.
technological superiority.
The third acquisition theme in this Act is to deregulate
and streamline to reduce costs and gain efficiencies. This Act
includes a number of provisions that would streamline the
process for buying weapon systems, services, and information
technology by reducing unnecessary requirements and
certifications. The committees notes that the implementation of
WSARA has so far resulted in reductions in the number of
programs reporting unit cost growth. The committee believes
that WSARA's knowledge-based acquisition approach, including
improved cost estimation, systems engineering, and
developmental testing, have helped improve the outcomes of
programs. The committee bill retains the positive aspects of
these reforms, but attempts to streamline processes to support
more rapid and efficient development and delivery of new
capabilities. The Act would also establish a review panel
similar to the ``section 800 expert review panel'' of the early
1990's, to identify unneeded acquisition regulations. The Act
would also require a study of the regulatory cost premium of
the defense-unique acquisition oversight process versus the
commercial item acquisition oversight process.
Finally, the Act takes up the challenge to reinvigorate the
acquisition workforce. The Act would reauthorize the Defense
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund; authorize the
continuation of the civilian acquisition workforce personnel
demonstration project; establish several direct hire
authorities for engineering and Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) employees to join the
acquisition workforce; and enhance military personnel
authorities as they apply to the military acquisition workforce
giving the service chiefs the ability to manage this workforce
more effectively.
The committee believes this is only the beginning of
necessary changes to transition what is, in essence, a Cold War
management system into one that is more agile and nimble to
meet the challenges of a globalized information age. This
process will be maintained in future legislation as the
committee continues to explore how to change the acquisition
system to be more open to next generation technologies that can
enable the United States to outpace its adversaries.
Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management
Role of service chiefs in the acquisition process (sec. 801)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2547 of title 10, United States Code, to enhance the
role of the service chiefs in the defense acquisition process.
This provision would reinforce the roles of the services chiefs
in decisions regarding the balancing of resources and
priorities, and associated trade-offs among cost, schedule,
technical feasibility, and performance on major defense
acquisition programs. The provision further defines the role of
the principal military deputies to the service acquisition
executive to inform the service chief concerned of acquisition
issues related to cost, schedule, technical feasibility and
performance of acquisition programs. The committee believes
that the customer of the defense acquisition system is the
military service that will have primary responsibility for
fielding the system or systems acquired. This provision
reinforces this concept and also outlines the responsibilities
of the customer to ensure that acquisition systems are acquired
and managed efficiently and effectively.
Expansion of rapid acquisition authority (sec. 802)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 806(c) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (10 U.S.C. 2302 note), as amended by
section 811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375).
This provision would enhance the rapid acquisition authority
currently provided to the Secretary of Defense by allowing the
Secretary to use this authority for two new categories of
supplies and associated support services that the Secretary
determines: (1) are urgently needed and impact an ongoing or
anticipated contingency operation that, if left unfulfilled,
could potentially result in loss of life or critical mission
failure; or (2) are urgently needed to eliminate a deficiency
that as the result of a cyber attack has resulted in critical
mission failure, the loss of life, property destruction, or
economic effects, or is likely to result in critical mission
failure, the significant loss of life, property destruction, or
economic effects.
This provision would also increase the amount of rapid
acquisition authority for contingency operations available to
the Department from $200.0 million to $400.0 million and
authorize $200.0 million for cyber security rapid acquisition
authority.
Middle tier of acquisition for rapid prototyping and rapid fielding
(sec. 803)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics to issue guidance for an expedited and streamlined
``middle tier'' of acquisition programs that are intended to be
completed within 5 years. These programs would be distinctive
from ``rapid acquisitions'' that are generally completed within
6 months to 2 years and ``traditional'' acquisitions that last
much longer than 5 years.
The provision would establish two acquisition pathways. The
first would be a rapid prototyping pathway that can demonstrate
new capabilities to meet emerging military needs which could
result in a residual operational capability. The second would
be a rapid fielding pathway for proven technologies to field
production quantities of new or upgraded systems with minimal
development required. The provision authorizes the use of
expedited and streamlined procedures for both of these
pathways. The provision would also authorize the establishment
of a Rapid Prototyping Fund to provide funds in addition to
other funds that may be available for each rapid prototyping
pathway program. This fund would consist of funds appropriated
to the account and amounts credited to the account from any
penalties levied under section 849 of this Act.
Amendments to other transaction authority (sec. 804)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
new section in title 10, United States Code, to codify section
845 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1994 (Public Law 103-160), which authorizes the use of ``other
transactions'' to carry out prototype projects that should lead
to more effective and broader usage of this authority. The
amendments would: (1) make section 845 authority permanent; (2)
clarify the authority to use section 845 authority to acquire
prototypes or follow-on production items to be provided to
contractors as government-furnished equipment; (3) clarify that
a contractor who has not been required to provide certified
cost or pricing data under the Truth in Negotiations Act
(Public Law 87-653; 10 U.S.C. section 2306a) in the previous
year may qualify as a ``non-traditional contractor'' under the
statute; (4) ensure that innovative small business firms are
authorized to participate in other transactions under section
845 without the requirement for a cost-share (except where the
small business is partnered with a large business in a
transaction); and (5) clarify the use of follow-on production
contracts or other transactions authority.
The committee believes that other transactions continue to
serve as an important mechanism to provide the Department of
Defense with access to innovative, cutting-edge technologies
developed by companies that might otherwise be unwilling to do
business with the government. The committee supports the use of
other transaction authority by the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) for this purpose, and urges the
military departments to make similar use of the authority.
The committee supports the rapid regulatory implementation
of the definitional change in section 812(a) of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291). The committee is
also aware of many interpretive and cultural barriers that have
been put in place to impede the use of other transactions.
The committee believes that the authorities of section 3871
of title 10, United States Code, and the related and dependent
authorities of Section 845 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160), as
modified by this provision, should be used to their maximum
extent by the Department of Defense and other federal agencies
in order to streamline acquisition of innovative research and
technology from the private sector.
Use of alternative acquisition paths to acquire critical national
security capabilities (sec. 805)
The committee recommends a provision to require the
Secretary of Defense to establish procedures and guidelines for
alternative acquisition pathways to acquire capital assets and
services that meet critical national security needs. These
procedures shall: (1) be separate from existing acquisition
procedures; (2) be supported by streamlined contracting,
budgeting, and requirements processes; (3) establish
alternative acquisition paths based on the capabilities being
bought and the time needed to deploy these capabilities; and
(4) maximize the use of flexible authorities and programs in
existing law and regulation. Time-based acquisition pathways
should be linked to any time-based approach for requirements
required to be developed under this Title. As the Department of
Defense (DOD) considers how to maintain its technological
advantage in the future through strategies such as a ``third
offset'' it should ensure where appropriate that the pathways
developed under this provision can deliver needed capabilities
in a manner similar to developments during World War II and the
two previous offset strategy periods in the 1950s and 1970s.
The committee is concerned that DOD is in danger of losing
its technological advantage in many technology areas critical
to the national defense and is no longer accessing the most
innovative parts of the industrial base. While Congress in the
past has granted DOD a number of flexible acquisition
authorities and created a number of programs to capture this
innovation, many of these authorities or programs have seen
little or reduced usage. The provisions included in this Act
would strengthen or create a number of new authorities that the
Department could use to acquire critical national security
capabilities faster.
When reviewing existing authorities the Secretary should
consider the following authorities and programs at a minimum:
(1) Secretary of Defense waiver of acquisition laws to acquire
vital national security capabilities as added by this Act; (2)
middle tier acquisition for rapid prototyping and rapid
fielding for capabilities to be deployed in 2 to 5 years as
added by this Act; (3) rapid acquisition authorities as
modified by this Act for capabilities to be deployed in less
than 2 years; (4) other transaction authorities as modified by
the Act; (5) procurement for experimental purposes authority
(section 2373 of title 10, United States Code) as modified by
this Act; (6) commercial item acquisition authorities (FAR Part
12) as modified by this Act; (7) exceptional circumstances
Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) (section 2306a of title 10,
United States Code and chapter 35 of title 41, United States
Code) waivers; (8) procedures under section 2304(c) of the
Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (section 2304 of title
10, United States Code); (9) grants and cooperative research
and development agreements; and (10) such programs as the
Foreign Comparative Test Program, DOD Challenge Program, and
the Small Business Innovation Research program.
This provision would require the Secretary to identify any
new authorities required to meet the objectives of this
provision and report to Congress on a summary of the guidelines
and any recommendations for new legislation necessary to meet
the objectives in the guidelines.
Secretary of Defense waiver of acquisition laws to acquire vital
national security capabilities (sec. 806)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of Defense to waive acquisition law or regulation for
the purpose of acquiring a capability that is in the vital
interest of the United States and is not otherwise available to
the Armed Forces of the United States. The Secretary shall
notify the congressional defense committees at least 30 days
before excercising the waiver authority and designate a senior
official who shall be personally responsible and accountable
for the rapid and effective acquisition and deployment of the
needed capability.
Acquisition authority of the Commander of United States Cyber Command
(sec. 807)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
limited acquisition authority for the Commander of United
States Cyber Command (CYBERCOM). The provision is modeled on
the authority provided to the Commander of U.S. Special
Operations Command, but is limited to the acquisition of non-
major systems.
The provision would authorize the development and
acquisition of cyber operations-peculiar equipment and
capabilities and the acquisition of cyber capability-peculiar
equipment, capabilities, and services. The provision would
direct that the staff of the Commander include a command
acquisition executive who would be responsible for the overall
supervision of CYBERCOM acquisition matters. The command
acquisition executive would also be responsible for negotiating
memoranda of agreement with the military departments,
supervising the acquisition of equipment, capabilities, and
services, regardless of whether such acquisitions are carried
out by the Command or a military department. The command
acquisition executive would also be responsible for
representing the Command in discussions with the military
departments regarding acquisition programs for which the
Command is a customer, and working with the military
departments to ensure the Command is appropriately represented
in discussions with the military departments and joint working
groups or integrated product teams.
To support CYBERCOM in fulfilling its acquisition
responsibilities, the provision would direct the Secretary of
Defense to provide CYBERCOM with the personnel or funding
equivalent to ten full-time equivalent personnel to CYBERCOM
with experience in program acquisition, the Joint Capabilities
Integration and Development System process, program management,
system engineering, and costing. The personnel or funding
equivalent provided would come from existing department
resources. The provision would require the Department of
Defense Office of Inspector General conduct internal audits and
inspections of purchasing and contract actions. The provision
would also establish a $75.0 million cyber operations
procurement fund for each fiscal year from fiscal year 2016
through 2021 out of the funds made available in each fiscal
year for defense-wide procurement. The provision would sunset
on September 30, 2021.
The committee is concerned there is an urgent need for
cyber capabilities that is not being fulfilled by the military
services. Major investments to date have been heavily weighted
towards network defense and network consolidation. For a
variety of reasons, the services have failed to adequately
prioritize funding in their budget requests for the development
of cyber warfighting capabilities. According to the Commander
of CYBERCOM in testimony before the committee on March 17,
2015, the Department of Defense is ``at a tipping point where
we not only need to continue to build on the defensive
capability, but we have got to broaden our capabilities to
provide policy makers and operational commanders with a broader
range of options.''
The committee is also concerned that traditional service-
led acquisitions and existing acquisition statutes and
regulations lack the flexibility, agility, and speed necessary
to deliver cyber capabilities responsively enough to stay ahead
of the rapidly evolving threat. According to the Commanding
General of Marine Forces Cyberspace Command in testimony before
the committee on April 14, 2015, ``current acquisition
processes do not adequately support the delivery tempo required
for emerging cyber solutions. The tempo at which emerging
technologies must be acquired to meet cyberspace operational
mandates is occurring at a much greater pace, which creates
tension within the acquisition process.'' This provision would
address these shortfalls by providing the Commander of CYBERCOM
the limited ability to rapidly procure capabilities to meet the
requirements the military services have been unable to meet
thus far and are incapable of meeting in operationally relevant
ways in the future.
The committee recognizes that CYBERCOM is a new
organization that is still maturing and has little experience
or expertise in systems acquisition. However, the committee
also recognizes that few acquisition models across the DOD have
demonstrated successes in acquiring cyber capabilities. The
committee believes that if structured appropriately CYBERCOM
has the unique opportunity to demonstrate and validate new
acquisition approaches. The burden is on CYBERCOM and the
Department as a whole to demonstrate that CYBERCOM can
effectively exercise these acquisition authorities over the
next five years.
There are a number of additional authorities in this title
that would also improve the ability of the department to more
rapidly acquire cyber capabilities. These include enhancements
to commercial item, other transactions, and rapid acquisition
authorities. Elsewhere in title XVI of this Act, the committee
also recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of
Defense to designate within 90 days of the date of enactment an
entity of the Department of Defense to be responsible for the
acquisition of critical cyber capabilities to include: (1) The
unified platform; (2) a persistent cyber training environment;
and (3) a cyber situational awareness and battle management
system. The committee believes that today department entities
with existing acquisition experience are best suited for the
development of larger foundational programs such as the unified
platform. However, in the future the committee envisions the
possibility of a shared acquisition approach where the
traditional acquisition entities, in partnership with CYBERCOM,
fund and develop foundational systems and service specific
capabilities. CYBERCOM's acquisition role would be focused
primarily on meeting joint cyber operations-peculiar and cyber
capability-peculiar requirements the services are unable to
meet.
Advisory panel on streamlining and codifying acquisition regulations
(sec. 808)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics to establish an advisory panel on streamlining
acquisition regulations. This panel would be under the
sponsorship of the Defense Acquisition University and the
National Defense University.
25 years ago, the committee proposed the establishment of
an advisory panel to streamline acquisition laws. This panel,
referred to as the Section 800 Panel, was mandated in the
National Defense Authorization Act of 1991 (Public Law 101-510)
and resulted in many of the reform recommendations that were
enacted in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994
(Public Law 103-355) and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-106). The Committee believes that in the intervening
quarter of a century the acquisition system is again burdened
by unnecessary laws and regulations that are creating
incentives to slow down acquisition and not obtain the best
value when purchasing goods and services for the warfighter and
the taxpayer. The committee plans to continue to review and
propose streamlining measures to eliminate unnecessary laws
that hamper the Department of Defense and its contractors. The
committee believes that a parallel effort should be conducted
by the Department of Defense with regards to the current
regulatory environment.
The provision would create a panel that would be composed
of at least nine individuals who are recognized experts in
acquisition laws, regulations, and policy. The committee
intends that persons appointed to the Advisory Panel be able to
devote a substantial amount of time to this drafting effort.
The Advisory Panel should not operate as a board that directs
the work of a staff. Rather, the primary work should be done by
the members of the Panel, with staff serving to provide
administrative support and routine research assistance.
The purpose of this Advisory Panel would be to prepare a
pragmatic, workable set of recommended changes to current
acquisition regulations. The committee recommends that the
first set of regulations to review be those that are
independent of any statutory mandate. For those regulations
based in law, the committee expects that the Advisory Panel
would review whether those regulations have evolved over time
and may differ from the original intent. The Advisory Panel's
mandate should be to trace this evolution and recommend changes
where regulatory trends have resulted in actions that have
limited necessary discretion or flexibility that exists in
current law. The Advisory Panel should seek to limit regulatory
provisions to those necessary to structure buyer-seller
relations in the context of government procurement, ensure the
financial and ethical integrity of government programs, and
protect other fundamental governmental policies.
There are several significant industrial base evolutions
that did not exist at the time of the section 800 panel report
that the Advisory Panel should be cognizant of when it conducts
its evaluation. The first is the increasing consolidation of
the defense unique industrial base both at the prime and sub-
tier levels. The second is the growing dominance of commercial
technologies in many areas that are important to the Department
of Defense. The third trend is the globalization of the defense
and commercial industrial bases and proliferation of advanced
commercial and defense technologies.
While the final report of the Advisory Panel would be
delivered to the congressional defense committees not later
than 2 years after the Panel's establishment, interim reports
would be required 6 months and 18 months after the enactment of
this Act.
Review of time-based requirements process and budgeting and acquisition
systems (sec. 809)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to review the requirements process to provide for a time-
based or phased distinction between capabilities needed to be
deployed urgently, within 2 years, within 5 years, and longer
than 5 years. While the use of rapid acquisition techniques has
led to the establishment of a rapid requirements process, there
is no such process that could lead to capabilities being
pursued in less than 5 years. This 5-year time is significant
in that this was the average time to achieve Initial
Operational Capability for many defense programs until the
1970s and is the time it takes for equivalent commercial
programs to be deployed today. A recent Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency study found that the current
requirements process may be a significant hurdle to the
Department being able to conduct short, iterative development
and fielding cycles and innovate like the more agile sectors of
the commercial market. The committee intends this provision to
be linked to others in the Act concerning the use of
alternative paths to acquire critical national security
capabilities and the middle tier of acquisition for rapid
prototyping and rapid fielding. The committee's intent is that
these reviews and authorities will offer an opportunity to
change the paradigm of defense acquisition from a focus on
decade's long development cycles to agile improvement with
multiple iterations of capabilities within that same timeframe.
Improvement of program and project management by the Department of
Defense (sec. 810)
The committee recommends a provision to outline Department
of Defense (DOD) responsibilities under chapter 87 of title 10,
United States Code for improving program and project
management. This provision would require that not later than 1
year after the enactment of this Act that the Secretary of
Defense develop Department-wide standards, policies and
guidelines for program and project management.
The committee continues to be concerned over the
Department's ability to manage service contracts. The committee
directs the Department to provide a briefing describing
training activities that improve the quality of program
management for service contracts. The briefing should include a
description of how private sector best practices are evaluated
and adopted as part of DOD training and education programs, as
well as comparison of current DOD practices with commercial
best practices in training and education related to contract
services management. The committee expects DOD to provide this
briefing no later than 6 months after the date of enactment of
this Act.
Subtitle B--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures,
and Limitations
Preference for fixed-price contracts in determining contract type for
development programs (sec. 821)
The committee recommends a provision to require the Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to be revised to
establish a preference for fixed-price contracts, including
fixed-price incentive contracts, in the determination of
contract type for development programs.
Applicability of cost and pricing data and certification requirements
(sec. 822)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
applicability of the Truth in Negotiations Act (Public Law 87-
653; 10 U.S.C. section 2306a) to offset agreements. The
committee is also concerned that the use of contract types
other than firm-fixed price are unnecessarily extending the
period of performance of these contracts to address the
completion of offset agreements.
The committee is aware that Department of Defense (DOD)
contracting officials are being put in an untenable situation
of overseeing offset agreements by a broad application of the
Truth in Negotiations Act. The committee believes this appears
to be a violation of the intent of the 1990 Presidential policy
on offsets codified in the Defense Production Act Amendments of
1992 (Public Law 102-558, Title 1, Part C, section 123) by
putting DOD in the position of negotiating, implementing, and
being responsible for U.S. firms' offset agreements by applying
fair and reasonable price criteria to these agreements. The
committee reiterates that it is the policy of the U.S.
government as codified in the Defense Production Act (Public
Law 8109774) that offsets for military exports are economically
inefficient and distort markets. The committee believes it
should not be the policy of the U.S. government to enforce
these agreements through contracts. These agreements are
strictly between the foreign government and private sector and
the law states that ``the responsibility for negotiating and
implementing offset arrangements, reside with the company
involved.'' Thus, it is up to the foreign government to
determine whether it is getting value from the offset agreement
and the reasonableness of price paid by a foreign government
for a U.S. company to execute an offset agreement should not be
of concern to the DOD unless there are believed to be potential
violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (section 78dd-1
of title 15, United States Code) or other criminal violations.
Risk-based contracting for smaller contract actions under the Truth In
Negotiations Act (sec. 823)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Truth in Negotiations Act (Public Law 87-653; 10 U.S.C. section
2306a) to raise the threshold for the requirement to provide
certified cost or pricing data in non-price competitive
procurements on non-commercial items from the current $750,000
($500,000 adjusted for inflation since 1994) to $5.0 million.
For non-price competitive procurements valued at less than the
new threshold of $5.0 million but more than the current
threshold of $750,000, the Department of Defense (DOD) would be
required to establish a risk-based contracting approach, under
which certified cost or pricing data would be required for a
risk-based sample of contracts, to ensure that DOD is getting
fair and reasonable prices for such contracts.
The committee believes that a 100 percent review of
certified cost or pricing data on thousands of small contracts
is not the best use of DOD's limited acquisition and auditing
resources, particularly for those contracts that have been
awarded based on a technical competition. By enabling DOD to
adopt a risk-based contracting approach, this provision should
free up significant resources to be applied in areas where they
are likely to achieve a better return. In addition, the
provision will enable non-traditional contractors to
participate in innovative DOD research projects valued at less
than $5.0 million without triggering government-unique
contracting procedures, enhancing DOD's access to cutting-edge
technologies developed by companies that might otherwise be
unwilling to do business with the government.
Limitation of the use of reverse auctions and lowest priced technically
acceptable contracting methods (sec. 824)
The committee recommends a provision that would: (1)
Prohibit the use of reverse auctions and lowest priced
technically acceptable (LPTA) contracting methods for the
procurement of personal protective equipment where the level of
quality needed or the failure of the item could result in
combat casualties; and (2) establish a preference for best
value contracting methods when procuring such equipment. The
committee is concerned that an overarching bias towards
reducing prices paid by the Department of Defense (DOD) to the
exclusion of other factors could result in DOD buying low cost
products that have the potential to negatively impact the
safety of U.S. troops. This could be a particular problem with
the quality of personal protective equipment such as helmets,
body armor, eye protection, and other similar individual
equipment issued to U.S. military personnel. While LPTA and
reverse auction contracting techniques are appropriate for some
type of purchases, the committee believes that lowest price is
not always the best strategy when quality and innovation are
needed. In these cases, the committee believes a best value
acquisition approach is more appropriate.
Rights in technical data (sec. 825)
The committee recommends a provision that: (1) Would
clarify procedures for the validation of rights in technical
data for subsystems and components of major weapon systems; and
(2) establish a government-industry advisory panel on rights in
technical data.
The provision would amend section 2321 of title 10, United
States Code, that establishes procedures for the validation of
rights in technical data. Subsection (f) of this section, added
by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law
103-355), endeavored to protect intellectual property rights in
commercial items by adding a presumption that commercial items
are developed exclusively at private expense. Because almost
all major weapon systems are developed at government expense,
section 802 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) added an
exception to the presumption in subsection (f) in the case of
items other than commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS)
items that are included in major weapon systems.
The exception for major weapon systems in subsection
2321(f) has created two potential problem areas. First,
although almost all major weapon systems are developed at
government expense, a few major weapon systems and subsystems
of major weapon systems are purchased as commercial items--for
example, modified civilian aircraft that are purchased for
military uses. Section 2321(f) requires the contractor to
demonstrate that components of weapon systems were developed at
private expense even in the case of commercial-derivative
aircraft, commercial-derivative engines, and other weapon
systems and subsystems that are purchased as commercial items.
Second, although subsection 2321(f) includes an exception
for COTS items that are included in major weapon systems, this
exception does not apply if the COTS item is modified in any
way for government use. Consequently, it the government insists
on a minor modification of a COTS item for the purpose of
including it in a weapon system, the burden will fall on the
contractor to demonstrate that the item was developed
exclusively at private expense.
The provision recommended by the committee would address
these problems by clarifying that the presumption that a
commercial item was developed exclusively at private expense
applies in the case of: (1) A component of a weapon system or
subsystem that was acquired as a commercial item; and (2) any
other component that is a COTS item or a COTS item with
modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial
market place or minor modifications made to meet government
requirements.
Procurement of supplies for experimental purposes (sec. 826)
The committee recommends a provision that would update the
experimental acquisition authority in section 2373 of title 10,
United States Code, to apply to transportation, energy,
medical, and space flight and to clarify when provisions of
Chapter 137 of title 10 apply to such procurements. The
committee believes that the authorities of section 2373 (in
addition to other transaction authority in section 2371 and
section 845 other transaction prototype authority) offer an
alternative acquisition path for the Department of Defense to
pursue technologies and solutions from non-traditional
contractors to maintain technological superiority in the
future.
Extension of authority to acquire products and services produced in
countries along a major route of supply to Afghanistan (sec.
827)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1
year the authority in section 801(f) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).
Reporting related to failure of contractors to meet goals under
negotiated comprehensive small business subcontracting plans
(sec. 828)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 834(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101-189) to require the
Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on any negotiated
comprehensive subcontracting plan that the Secretary determines
did not meet the subcontracting goals negotiated in the plan
for the prior fiscal year.
Competition for religious services contracts (sec. 829)
The committee recommends a provision to ensure that non-
profit organizations can compete for contracts for religious
related services on a United States military installation. It
has come to the committee's attention that the Department of
Defense has at times restricted competition for religious
services contracts on U.S. military installations to for-profit
firms. The committee believes certain non-profit entities such
as religious organizations can provide valuable competition and
are well-qualified to participate in this particular category
of services and should not be precluded from competing for
these types of contracts.
Treatment of interagency and state and local purchases when the
Department of Defense acts as contract intermediary for the
General Services Administration (sec. 830)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
that the requirements under chapter 148 of title 10, United
States Code would not apply to a contract executed by the
Department of Defense where the Department is acting as an
intermediary for the General Services Administration (GSA) for
purchase of products by other federal agencies or state and
local governments. This could be as a result of a transfer of
contract responsibility from GSA or where the Department serves
as an item manager for these products on behalf of GSA.
Pilot program for streamlining awards for innovative technology
projects (sec. 831)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
pilot program to provide an exception from the requirements
under sections 2306a(1) and 2313 of title 10, United States
Code, for contracts or subcontracts valued at less than $7.5
million that are awarded based on a technical merit based
selection procedure. Currently, only contract awards based on
price competition are exempted from government unique auditing
and certified cost and pricing data requirements. Research and
development contract awards such those conducted under a broad
agency announcement or the Small Business Innovation Research
Program that are based on technical merit based selection
procedures are often delayed or competition is limited due to
the application of these requirements. This provision would
test whether treating a technical based merit competition in
the same way as a price competition will lead to better
innovative solutions and expanded competition at lower contract
award levels. The authority would terminate on October 1, 2020.
Subtitle C--Provisions Relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs
Acquisition strategy required for each major defense acquisition
program (sec. 841)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
chapter 144 of title 10, United States Code to add a new
section that would require the development of an acquisition
strategy for each Department of Defense major defense
acquisition program. The program's acquisition strategy is
already a core document developed and updated in advance of key
program reviews within the Department. This provision would
consolidate various related statutory provisions and outline
conforming changes to existing statute and establish the
importance of the acquisition strategy as the key management
document for a major weapon systems acquisition. Currently, a
number of sections of law require content to be placed in an
acquisition strategy undefined in statute. By codifying the
existence of the acquisition strategy and consolidating the
various content requirements, this proposal eliminates
uncertainty regarding the open-ended range of requirements that
can be imposed on an acquisition program's published strategy.
Risk reduction in major defense acquisition programs (sec. 842)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that the acquisition strategy
developed pursuant to section 2431a of title 10, United States
Code as amended by this Act shall include a comprehensive
approach to continuously identifying and addressing risk and
appropriately minimize concurrency.
The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that the acquisition strategy for a major defense
acquisition program identifies and documents the major sources
of risk for the program (including technical, cost, and
schedule risk) and includes a comprehensive approach to
retiring that risk. The proposal would require that the
comprehensive approach to retiring risk use some combination of
12 different elements, including prototyping and competitive
prototyping, design reviews, program phasing, allocating
schedule and funding margins to specific risks, multiple design
approaches, and others measures. This provision would establish
a preference for competitive prototyping and repeal the
requirement for mandatory competitive prototyping in section
203 of the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-23).
Designation of milestone decision authority (sec. 843)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2430 of title 10, United States Code, to designate the
service acquisition executives as the milestone decision
authority for major acquisition programs managed by the
military services. The Secretary of Defense may designate an
alternative milestone decision authority for joint programs,
programs managed by defense agencies and other specific cases.
The committee is concerned about the amount of time it takes to
conduct multiple, duplicative reviews within the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and the services.
This provision would decentralize decision making authority
for milestone decisions to the services for service-unique
programs and would limit the documentation and approvals that
would be required for these programs outside of the services to
a minimum. The provision would authorize that if a program
managed by the services breaches thresholds in the Nunn-McCurdy
Act, section 2433 of title 10, United States Code, or has
failed to develop an acquisition program baseline within 2
years of program initiation, the Secretary of Defense revoke
service milestone decision authority for the program. The
Secretary should then consider either terminating the program
or managing the program centrally from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense.
The provision would clarify that for service programs where
the service acquisition executive is the milestone decision
authority the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Logistics and Technology would only exercise advisory
authority. The provision would also require that the service
secretaries and service chiefs certify in each Selected
Acquisition Report that program requirements are stable and
funding is adequate to meet cost, schedule and performance
objectives for each major defense acquisition program. It is
the committee's expectation that the service chiefs and the
service secretaries will take all necessary action to ensure
that service programs are managed in a way that limits cost,
schedule and performance issues and are fully budgeted and have
stable requirements.
The transfer of milestone decision authority to the
services for applicable defense programs would become effective
on October 1, 2016. Prior to the effective date, the Deputy
Chief Management Officer shall issue guidance to ensure that
acquisition policy, guidance and practices would support a
streamlined decision making and approval process that minimizes
information requests as required by this provision. Not later
than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a
plan to implement the Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics advisory authority for
service acquisition programs.
Revision of Milestone A decision authority responsibilities for major
defense acquisition programs (sec. 844)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2366a of title 10, United States Code to require the
Department official serving as the milestone decision authority
in the defense acquisition process to ensure that specific
actions are met before granting a Milestone A approval. This
requirement would replace current certification requirements
that have added unnecessary time and duplicative documentation.
This provision would establish the milestone decision
authority's responsibility to ensure that an acquisition
program has demonstrated sufficient knowledge to enter into a
risk reduction phase following Milestone A and has sound plans
to progress to the development phase before granting milestone
approval.
Revision of Milestone B decision authority responsibilities for major
defense acquisition programs (sec. 845)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2366b of title 10, United States Code, to streamline
and simplify legislative requirements for Milestone B approval
of major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs). This provision
would retain the requirements to make key findings related to
program risk, but would require the milestone decision
authority to make a determination that appropriate steps had
been taken to address such risks, rather than the string of
specific certifications required by current law. Under the
provision, the only certification that would be required would
be a certification of the maturity of key technologies, which
has been identified by the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) as the key to successful acquisition programs.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
proposed legislation that would have gone further and
eliminated key findings in their entirety, substituting a
general requirement for the milestone decision authority to
ensure that risks have been reduced and appropriate plans are
in place. The committee rejects this approach. Milestone B
findings were instituted to instill discipline into a process
under which too many MDAPs failed because of unrealistic cost
estimates, immature technologies, excessive concurrency, and a
failure to perform appropriate system engineering and
developmental testing before entering production. The GAO has
reported that improved discipline in the acquisition system
since the enactment of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform
Act of 2009 has resulted in improved performance of MDAPs
initiated since that time. The committee concludes that we
should not now remove this much-needed discipline from the
system.
At the same time, the committee acknowledges that the
milestone approval process has become too bureaucratic and
takes too long. The changes made in the provision recommended
by the committee should provide some relief, but more must be
done by DOD and the services in implementation and execution of
this provision. In February 2015, the GAO reported that it
takes over 2 years, on average, to complete the entire set of
documents needed for a Milestone B decision. According to GAO:
``A primary reason it takes over 2 years to complete the
information required for a milestone decision is the large
number of stakeholders that review the documents at the many
organizational levels above the program office[. . .] The
information and documentation required at milestones can be
reviewed by as many as eight different organizational levels
before a decision is reached on whether a program is ready for
the next acquisition phase. In general, the information is
reviewed at each level to gain approval before the program
provides the information to the next level. This is done
serially, which takes more time.''
The GAO reviewed decision-making practices of commercial
companies and found that these companies avoided this kind of
layered, sequential decision-making process by using frequent,
direct interaction between program officials and senior
functional managers to ensure that program documents are sound
from the outset. These documents are then subject to one or two
levels of review and approval, rather than the multiple levels
required by DOD.
The committee concludes that DOD could improve the
efficiency of the milestone approval process by first
delayering and decentralizing milestone decision authorities as
outlined in sections of this Title. In addition, the milestone
decision authority should ensure that functional offices in the
military services and where appropriate in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) are regularly consulted as key
documents are developed. With the functional offices having
informed the development of these documents, they could then be
removed as independent approval authorities, except where
specifically required by statute. This would enable DOD to
institute a streamlined, two- or three-level approval process,
including only the Program Executive Officer, the Service
Acquisition Executive, and for those programs designated by the
Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The committee notes
that this is the chain of command envisioned by the Packard
Commission 40 years ago.
The committee directs the Deputy Chief Management Officer,
in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology and the service
acquisition executives, to develop a streamlined process flow
for milestone decisions, under which functional offices in the
military services and at OSD are regularly consulted on the
development of acquisition documents, but no longer serve as
independent approval authorities, except where specifically
required by statute. The committee expects senior acquisition
officials to begin implementation of the new process flow
within 1 year of the date of the enactment of this Act.
Tenure and accountability of program managers for program development
periods (sec. 846)
The committee recommends a provision that requires the
Secretary of Defense to revise Department of Defense guidance
for defense acquisition programs to address the tenure and
accountability of program managers for the program development
period of defense acquisition programs. The committee believes
that program managers in this phase should be assigned to a
program long enough to prepare for a decision on milestone B
approval.
Tenure and accountability of program managers for program execution
periods (sec. 847)
The committee recommends a provision that would address the
tenure and accountability of program managers for the program
execution period of defense acquisition programs. The provision
would require each such program manager to enter into a
performance agreement with the milestone decision authority
(MDA) that establishes the expected parameters of performance,
including the commitment of the MDA that adequate funding and
resources are available and will be provided, and assurance of
the program manager that the parameters are achievable. The
provision would also require that program managers be given
authority comparable to the authority given to private sector
program managers and that they be assigned to a program until
the delivery of the first production units, with a narrow
waiver authority. Past concerns that military program managers'
careers would be limited by longer program manager tenures is
addressed by provisions that would modify military personnel
authorities in this Act.
Repeal of requirement for stand-alone manpower estimates for major
defense acquisition programs (sec. 848)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2343 of title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the
requirement for a stand-alone manpower estimate for a program
prior to the approval of the system development and
demonstration or the production of a major defense acquisition
program. A stand-alone requirement is unnecessary and
duplicative and this provision would embed an estimate for
total required manpower for a program in the requirements for
an independent estimate of a program's full life cycle costs.
Penalty for cost overruns (sec. 849)
The committee recommends a provision under which each
military department would pay an annual penalty in the amount
of 3 percent of the cumulative cost overrun on all of its major
defense acquisition programs (MDAPs). To avoid ``breaking'' any
individual acquisition program, the annual penalty would be
assessed as an across-the-board reduction to the research,
development, test, and evaluation account of the military
department.
Despite the enactment of the Nunn-McCurdy Act (10 U.S.C.
section 2433), which requires a reexamination and revalidation
of MDAPs which experience critical cost overruns, the military
departments continue to incur huge cost overruns on virtually
every program. The cumulative total of these cost overruns is
hundreds of billions of dollars.
This Act would give greater responsibility to the services
to manage acquisition programs. With this responsibility there
is a need for greater accountability. The committee concludes
that one way to incentivize the military departments to
establish realistic baseline cost estimates for their MDAPs and
to stick to these estimates is to assess a significant penalty
for cost overruns. To avoid penalizing the military departments
for past mistakes, the penalty recommended by the committee
would apply only to overruns on MDAPs that received an initial
baseline estimate after the enactment of the Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23). The funds
decremented under this authority would be transferred to the
Rapid Prototyping Fund established under section 803 of this
Act. The Committee is willing to consider greater budgetary
flexibility when MDAPs underrun their estimated costs and
requests that the Department develop any necessary legislative
proposal for congressional consideration that would be
applicable in those cases.
Streamlining of reporting requirements applicable to Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering regarding
major defense acquisition programs (sec. 850)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 138(b) of title 10, United States Code, to change the
scope of periodic reports the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Research and Engineering is required to deliver to the
congressional defense committees, the Secretary of Defense, and
the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics.
Configuration steering boards for cost control under major defense
acquisition programs (sec. 851)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 814 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417) to require each
Configuration Steering Board to track any changes in program
requirements for a major defense acquisition program and that
all such changes must receive approval by the service chief in
consultation with the service secretary.
Subtitle D--Provisions Related to Commercial Items
Inapplicability of certain laws and regulations to the acquisition of
commercial items and commercially available off-the-shelf items
(sec. 861)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2375 of title 10, United States Code, to require the
establishment of a list in the Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement of inapplicable defense-unique statues to
contracts for commercial items and commercial available off-
the-shelf items. These would be in addition to those
inapplicable government-wide statutes currently listed in the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) pursuant to section
1906(b) of title 41, United States Code.
The committee is concerned by the growing number of
government-unique contract clauses that are now required for
FAR Part 12 commercial contracts. By industry estimates these
clauses have grown since the mid-1990s from 13 to 63, and in
some cases over 80, government-unique contract clauses today.
With these requirements come additional costs and regulatory
burden ultimately paid by the taxpayer while each added new
clause limits the pool of potential commercial companies
willing to act as defense suppliers. The committee intends that
this provision be used by the Department of Defense to reduce
unnecessary requirements on contractors providing commercial
items.
Market research and preference for commercial items (sec. 862)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics to issue guidance to ensure that defense acquisition
officials fully comply with the requirements of section 2377 of
title 10, United States Code. The committee is concerned that
the market research being conducted under 2377 is perfunctory
and that the preference for the use of commercial items is
being ignored throughout the Department. Guidance issued
pursuant to this provision would ensure that commercial
information technology products and services are first
determined to be unsuitable to the government's needs before
purchasing a non-commercial item and that conducted market
research be used to inform price reasonableness determinations.
The provision would also require that the Chairman and the
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in consultation
with the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics ensure that the requirements process is in
compliance with section 2377(c) of title 10, United States
Code, and section 10.001 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
The committee is aware of an effort known as Technology
Domain Awareness being considered by the Department of Defense
(DOD). Technology proliferation driven by the commercial
marketplace and foreign investments threatens the United
States' historical military-technology edge. To mitigate this
threat, the committee believes DOD must pursue multiple defense
innovation efforts that focus on increasing investments in
game-changing military capabilities. Given the scale of
commercial research and development, it is unlikely that the
DOD will regain a leadership position in every technology area
relevant to defense. As part of its commercial market research,
the committee recommends that DOD consider options to
accelerate efforts to deliver Technology Domain Awareness to
DOD decision makers. These efforts should consist of
information, infrastructure, services, and education designed
to increase the DOD's ability to rapidly identify and
capitalize on commercial technology innovations and practices
relevant to military applications. The committee expects the
Department to keep it informed as to the progress of the
Technology Domain Awareness initiative.
Continuing validity of commercial item determinations (sec. 863)
The committee recommends a provision to require the
modification of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement to address the continuing validity of commercial
item determinations for multiple procurements. This provision
would streamline the commercial item determination process and
provide certainty to the government and contractors by
presuming that a previous commerciality determination made by
an authorized agency official is valid, unless such
determination is found to be made in error or based on
inadequate information.
Treatment of commercial items purchased as major weapon systems (sec.
864)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2379 of title 10, United States Code, regarding the
purchase of commercial items as major weapon systems. This
provision would clarify section 2379 by: (1) separating
commercial item determinations from price reasonableness
determinations; and (2) spelling out with more specificity the
types of information that are required to make price
reasonableness determinations.
Section 2379 was enacted in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) to
ensure that the Department of Defense purchases major weapon
systems as commercial items only when it is in the Department's
interest to do so. It was amended two years later in an effort
to ensure that when the Department purchases subsystems or
components of major weapon systems as commercial items, it
obtains sufficient information to determine the reasonableness
of price. Under the 2008 amendment, a subsystem or component of
a major weapon system may be purchased as a commercial item
only if the offeror provides sufficient information to evaluate
price reasonableness.
The 2008 amendment created two problems. First, it blurred
the lines between price reasonableness determinations and
commercial item determinations. Second, the provision provided
minimal detail on the types of information that should be
required to determine price reasonableness, leading the Office
of the Inspector General and others to conclude that in the
absence of definitive price information for a particular item,
the disclosure of detailed cost data is required. This is a
cumbersome process that is inconsistent with standard
commercial practices, and adds limited value to improving
acquisition outcomes.
The provision recommended by the committee would address
the first problem by clarifying that commercial item status is
not contingent on the offeror's disclosure of price
information. Contracting officers would still require offerors
to disclose information necessary to determine price
reasonableness, but commercial item determinations would no
longer hinge on that disclosure.
The provision would address the second problem by
reaffirming the statutory preference for commercial item price
reasonableness determinations based on price information and
price analysis, rather than cost information and cost analysis,
and spelling out the types of price information that a
contracting officer must seek from an offeror before requiring
the production of cost information.
The amended provision would not authorize contracting
officers to require the submission of cost information with
regard to the components of a commercial system or subsystem,
with regard to commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS)
items, or with regard to any other items that are developed
exclusively at private expense. The committee concludes that
the amended provision would enable contracting officers to
require the submission of information needed to make price
reasonableness determinations, while protecting offerors from
unnecessary and unreasonable demands for cost information.
Limitation on conversion of procurements from commercial acquisition
procedures (sec. 865)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit the
conversion of the procurement of a commercial item or
commercial service to a non-commercial acquisition procedure
unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional
defense committees that the Department of Defense will realize
a significant cost savings as compared to the cost of procuring
a similar quantity of such item or level of service using
commercial acquisition procedures. The committee is concerned
that a number of parts, components, services and systems have
been converted from Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part
12 procurements to FAR Part 15 with no assessment of the costs
of these conversions. The Air Force is currently in
negotiations to change the contract for the Joint Direct Attack
Munition (JDAM) from one governed by FAR Part 12 to one
governed by FAR Part 15. The JDAM was one of the most
successful acquisition reform pilots authorized under the
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-
355). Under this authority, the price of JDAMs has consistently
dropped over the years while contractors have been incentivized
to use their own research and development dollars to continue
to increase quality and performance of the munition. The
committee is concerned that the cost of this program may
increase and that the Department will be forced to fund
directly any new quality or performance enhancement.
This provision would ensure that under any such future
conversion the Secretary shall, in addition to price changes,
factor in forgone commercial research and development costs,
transaction costs and increased regulatory costs in converting
existing FAR Part 12 contracts. This provision would also
require the Department to conduct an inventory (which the
Comptroller General will review for accuracy) of all contracts
and subcontracts that have been converted from FAR Part 12 to
FAR Part 15 over the last 5 years and determine the prices paid
before and after the conversion.
Treatment of goods and services provided by a non-traditional
contractors as commercial items (sec. 866)
The committee recommends a new provision in chapter 140 of
title 10, United States Code that authorizes the Department of
Defense (DOD) to treat goods and services provided by a non-
traditional contractor as defined in section 2302(9) of title
10, United States Code, as a commercial item. The committee
believes that it is critical for the Department of Defense to
access non-traditional commercial contractors to address future
technology challenges where commercial technology is rapidly
advancing beyond military technology. There are significant
barriers to the participation of these contractors in the DOD
marketplace. To overcome those barriers Congress has put in
place a patchwork of authorities to allow these firms to
participate on a transaction by transaction basis either
through the use of other transactions authority or through
defining the product or service to be acquired as a commercial
item under the commercial item definition in chapter 1 of title
41, United States Code.
This committee recognizes that the defense market is not
large enough for some commercial firms to go to the trouble and
expense of changing their business processes to comply with a
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 type contract
traditionally used for most defense purchases. This provision
would allow the Department to access a greater share of the
innovative potential of these commercial, non-traditional firms
under FAR Part 12 terms and conditions by treating the entire
business unit and what is produced and provided by these units
as commercial. Government buyers if they wish to access non-
traditional commercial entities will need to conduct extensive
market research to first understand the Department of Defense's
standing in the relevant commercial sector and market. The
Department will also likely need to develop and use price and
value based techniques to be used over the course of the
relationship with these contractors that will be significantly
different than the transactions based approach used to ensure
price reasonableness on a contract by contract basis.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Streamlining of requirements relating to defense business systems (sec.
871)
The committee recommends a provision to streamline
requirements relative to the acquisition of defense business
systems. The provision would clarify the lines of
responsibility and oversight roles for these types of programs.
Further, it would reduce the oversight burden on the Department
of Defense (DOD) with respect to lower cost systems. It would
also mandate that DOD establish guidance for these types of
programs, which would help to improve their cost and schedule
outcomes through the emphasis of robust business process re-
engineering and requirements refinement, prior to any expensive
customization of commercial software.
Acquisition workforce (sec. 872)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1705 of title 10, United States Code, to extend the
defense acquisition workforce development fund for 5 additional
years and modify the requirements of the biennial strategic
workforce plan to assess any new or expanded critical skills or
competencies needed by the acquisition workforce. The committee
expects that the fund be used to improve the capabilities of
the current acquisition workforce in the use of Federal
Acquisition Regulation Part 12 commercial contracting and other
transactions authority.
Unified information technology services (sec. 873)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO), the Chief Information
Officer (CIO), and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to jointly conduct a
business case analysis, with assistance from the Director of
Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation, as appropriate, to
determine the most effective and efficient way to acquire
common services across Department of Defense (DOD) networks.
The provision also would require the Secretary of Defense,
within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, in consultation
with the DCMO and CIO, to establish a governance mechanism and
process to ensure essential interoperability across DOD
networks.
The provision would require that the business case analysis
include an assessment of whether DOD should (1) acquire a
single set of commercially provided enterprise services for
DOD, or allow the military departments and other components to
acquire their own; (2) acquire such services as an integrated
set from a single provider, or require that each service can be
separately acquired; and (3) acquire multiple versions of each
type of service, for services where there is no commercial
standard that ensures interoperability across vendor products,
to enable interoperability while supporting choice and
competition.
The committee is aware that the CIO, the Defense
Information Systems Agency, and the military services are
monitoring the rapidly advancing commercial technology and
offerings for enterprise services, and, in many instances are
already capitalizing on these commercial offerings. The
committee is also aware that the CIO is now focusing on
developing a path forward. The committee is concerned that the
scope of the ongoing review is too narrow and that the CIO
lacks the tools and authority to implement solutions that are
necessary to achieve efficiencies and interoperability.
Cloud strategy for Department of Defense (sec. 874)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Chief Information Officer (CIO), in consultation with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the Chief
Information Officers of the military departments, to develop a
cloud strategy for the secret level of classified data and the
Secret Internet Protocol network (SIPRnet). The strategy would
be required to address security requirements, the ability to
shift current applications to a cloud computing environment,
competitive acquisition, and interoperability with Intelligence
Community cloud systems operating at higher classification
levels.
The provision would also require the CIO, in coordination
with the Director of National Intelligence and in consultation
with the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to develop
a consistent pricing and cost recovery process for the use by
Department of Defense components of the Intelligence
Community's cloud services.
Finally, the provision would require the CIO to assess the
feasibility and advisability of imposing a minimum set of open
standards for cloud infrastructure, middle-ware, metadata, and
application programming interfaces to promote interoperability,
information sharing, access to data, and competition.
Development period for Department of Defense information technology
systems (sec. 875)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2445b of title 10, United States Code, to modify
requirements applicable to a major automated information system
program that fails to achieve a full deployment decision within
5 years after the initiation of the program. These systems are
intended to primarily use commercially available software and
computer systems and the Department of Defense (DOD) has
policies in place to change business practices so that
commercial solutions can meet the needs for DOD business
systems. As such, the committee believes that in most cases,
these programs should have very limited developmental risk and
as such can be managed as ``time-certain'' development efforts.
The provision would require that any failure to achieve a full
deployment decision within five years would trigger a written
determination from the Department of Defense that a longer
period of time is needed for the effort.
Revisions to pilot program on acquisition of military purpose non-
developmental items (sec. 876)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 866 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to expand the
applicability of the pilot program on the acquisition of
military purpose non-developmental items to additional classes
of contractors and apply the standards of the Competition in
Contracting Act of 1984 (10 U.S.C. 2304) to these contracts. In
January 2015, the Government Accountability Office reported on
the progress of the pilot and found that it was difficult for
the Department of Defense (DOD) to test this authority given
the legislative constraints of the program. These changes would
allow for DOD to effectively test the usefulness of the
authority.
Extension of the Department of Defense Mentor-Protege pilot program
(sec. 877)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend by 1
year the authority in section 831(j) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 101-510).
Improved auditing of contracts (sec. 878)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) to provide outside
audit support to non-Defense Agencies upon certification that
the backlog for incurred cost audits is less than 12 months of
incurred cost inventory. The committee understands that DCAA
has made progress in reducing its incurred cost audit backlog
but this has come at the expense of a reduction in the number
of audits and increased backlogs in other areas of its
responsibilities. The committee believes that DCAA management
should not be distracted by directing and managing the audit
responsibilities of other agencies until its own house is
completely in order. The provision would require the Secretary
of Defense to use up to 5 percent of the auditing staff of the
Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense
and the service audit agencies and, if necessary, augmented by
private audit firms to help address DCAA's audit backlog. The
provision would also require the Secretary to review the
oversight and audit structure of the Department of Defense with
the goal of improving productivity, avoiding duplicative
program and contract audits, and streamlining oversight
reviews.
Survey on the costs of regulatory compliance (sec. 879)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to survey the top ten contractors with the
highest level of reimbursements for cost-type contracts and
identify the cost to industry of regulatory compliance with
government unique acquisition regulations and requirements that
are not imposed on commercial item contracts. The last such
survey, known as the Coopers and Lybrand study, was completed
for Secretary of Defense William Perry in December 1994. This
study, using an activity based costing methodology, found that
average acquisition process regulatory compliance costs for
defense firms were around 18 percent. The Coopers and Lybrand
study was not a comprehensive estimate of all acquisition
regulatory costs that industry must comply with, nor did it
estimate the costs imposed upon the government to oversee this
compliance. Other studies at the time estimated regulatory
compliance costs as high as 40 percent of the price paid for a
defense contract.
No significant study on the costs of regulatory compliance
has been conducted since 1994, while in the last two decades
new acquisition regulatory requirements, such as the business
system rule, have been imposed on industry to the process of
acquiring defense unique products. While many of these
requirements are designed to protect the taxpayer, the layering
of these requirements upon one another may actually be wasting
taxpayer dollars rather than achieving their original
objectives. In one example where a contractor for a defense
program (the Wideband Global satellite) was allowed to adopt
more commercial-like practices to lessen the regulatory
compliance burden, the government was able to achieve a
significant cost reduction of over $150.0 million while
achieving the same mission capability. The committee believes
that it will be more difficult to make decisions about
achieving the right balance in oversight requirements on large
defense programs without adequate data on the costs of
oversight compliance.
Government Accountability Office report on bid protests (sec. 880)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that the Comptroller General of the United States submit a
report to the congressional defense committees no later than
270 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the
prevalence and impact of bid protests over the previous 10
years. While the general level of bid protests appears to have
remained relatively constant in recent years the committee is
concerned about the level of protests for large contracts and
for follow on contracts that would potentially replace an
incumbent contractor. The Comptroller General should also
assess the ramifications of the protest process on the actions
of the defense acquisition workforce and the feasibility of
instituting a system whereby a losing protester would be liable
for legal fees and protest costs.
Steps to identify and address potential unfair competitive advantage of
technical advisors to acquisition officials (sec. 881)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics to issue guidance on identifying and addressing
potential unfair competitive advantage of technical advisors to
acquisition officials. Organizational conflict of interest and
personal conflict of interest issues have been addressed for
contractors in previous legislation. While it would be expected
that the Undersecretary would review the implementation of
these efforts, there has been a neglected aspect of potential
conflicts raised when the Department of Defense uses federally
funded research and development centers, other non-profit
entities, or federal laboratories that provide technical advice
on defense programs and subsequent work has been directed to
these entities or their clients. The committee believes that
the Department needs to ensure that the engineering and
technical advice it is given is free from unmitigated potential
conflicts of interest.
HUBZone qualified disaster areas (sec. 882)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Small Business Act, title 15, United States Code to authorize
the inclusion of qualified disaster areas to the Historically
Underutilized Business Zone program administered by the Small
Business Administration.
Base closure HUBZones (sec. 883)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
Small Business Act, title 15, United States Code to authorize
the inclusion of base closure areas to the Historically
Underutilized Business Zone program administered by the Small
Business Administration.
Items of Special Interest
AbilityOne Program
The committee notes that AbilityOne Program is the largest
source of employment, on Federal contracts, for individuals who
are blind or have significant disabilities in the United
States. The program has supported the employment of tens of
thousands of people across the United States who are blind or
have significant disabilities, including veterans and wounded
warriors. The Department of Defense (DOD), through the use of
the AbilityOne program, has been able to secure key mission-
support services to maintain and improve military readiness, at
competitive market prices.
The Committee encourages DOD to continue to cultivate and
increase business opportunities through the use of AbilityOne
programs. The committee notes that the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics issued a
memorandum in 2013 challenging acquisition officials to further
increase support by procuring more goods and services provided
by the AbilityOne Program. The committee also commends
AbilityOne's employment of disabled veterans, and encourages
AbilityOne to continue its emphasis on hiring disabled veterans
in providing essential products and services to support the
warfighter and defense missions.
Acquisition of Commercial Test, Research, and Measurement Capability
It is the committee's understanding that current Department
of Defense (DOD) acquisition practices rely heavily on buying
commercially-available off the shelf (COTS) research, test, and
measurement equipment for Research Development Test and
Evaluation (RDT&E) programs and activities. When this equipment
is needed, the committee believes that both DOD and its
contractors should assess the best way to acquire such
research, test, and measurement capability, particularly when
this equipment, once purchased, is often used for only limited
periods of times with a low utilization in an environment where
research, testing, and measurement technologies can become
obsolete relatively quickly.
The committee believes that as a demonstration of DOD
progress toward the use of commercial best practices in support
of DOD's Better Buying Power initiative, DOD should assess the
value of leasing/rental services for COTS research, test, and
measurement equipment capabilities for DOD requirements in
support of RD&TE programs and activities rather than purchasing
equipment to acquire the capabilities.
The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology
and Logistics should conduct such a review of the acquisition
practices for acquiring COTS research, test, and measurement
equipment and capabilities and report to the congressional
defense committees not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Barriers to innovation from non-traditional and commercial contractors
The Department of Defense (DOD) has relied on its research
and development enterprise to produce new and advanced
technologies that improve military capabilities and ensure
technological superiority over adversaries. Traditionally, the
Department has succeeded in maintaining a technology advantage
on the battlefield by being a primary driver of technology
innovation and making substantial investments in basic and
applied research and technology development in the defense
industrial base. In the past few decades, however, the focus
and pace of scientific and technological innovation has changed
dramatically, and the innovation environment in many leading
technology areas, such as robotics, cyber, and communications,
has shifted away from the government to the commercial sector.
Innovation fueled by commercial market forces has largely taken
over the government's role in pushing technology advancements.
DOD's ability to leverage and exploit technology innovations
developed and funded by the commercial sector is critical to
its ability to preserve superior warfighting capabilities.
Although DOD has taken some steps in recent years to
identify and pursue innovative technologies and products from
commercial companies outside the defense industrial base, the
committee is concerned that DOD continues to fall behind in
leveraging innovation from the commercial sector. Even when the
DOD has incorporated commercial components, it is often not
nimble enough to refresh this technology and is left relying on
obsolete commercial solutions for its major systems. The
committee is concerned that a key reason for this situation is
that policies, regulations, and processes within DOD may make
it difficult for many high-tech companies to collaborate and do
business with the Department. The committee has heard from
several companies, for example, that government acquisition and
contracting regulations, cost accounting standards and audits,
and intellectual property policies can be a major deterrent to
working with DOD.
This Act proposes many changes to remove the barriers to
the participation of commercial contractors in the DOD
acquisition process. To gain a better understanding of what
impediments would still exist after the passage of this Act and
how to address them, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to conduct a review examining
DOD's efforts to leverage innovative technologies from non-
traditional companies. The review should at a minimum, include
meetings with selected companies and discussion of potential
impediments they perceive or face in conducting business with
the Department. Not later than 1 year after enactment of this
Act, the results of this review shall be provided to the
committee.
Competition in the procurement of collaboration services
The committee notes that the Defense Information Systems
Agency (DISA) internally developed and is fielding an interim
collaboration services tool called Defense Collaboration
Services. While DISA has stated that their collaboration
services tool will reduce costs and use an open system
architecture, the manner in which DISA developed this tool
internally raises concerns that cost savings estimates may be
overly optimistic and that significant reconfiguration will be
required to use this tool within the Department of Defense. The
degree of user satisfaction with existing and interim
collaboration services tools is also unclear.
Further, the committee believes that adequate consideration
was not given to competition for this interim service which
potentially could improve performance and lower costs. The
committee believes that competition from a wide range of
alternatives could have a beneficial impact in the area of
collaboration services in the Department. The committee urges
the DISA to use competition to improve performance and drive
down costs for collaboration services.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) to evaluate the
Department's use of competition in acquiring collaboration
services tools to include the development of its interim
collaboration services tools, the comparative costs and
capabilities of these tools, and user feedback on both the
existing and interim collaboration services, and report to the
committee no later than November 30, 2015 with findings and
recommendations.
Inspector General report on pricing of engine sustainment contract
On December 22, 2014, the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense issued a report concluding that the Air
Force may be paying too much for the sustainment of F117
aircraft engine, the defense version of a commercial aircraft
engine that powers hundreds of commercial aircraft currently in
service. The report raises concerns about a lack of
understanding of the applicable requirements by the Inspector
General, the Air Force, and the contractor.
The Inspector General report concluded that the Air Force
improperly determined that the sustainment services for the
F117 engine were commercial ``without assessing whether a
commercial market existed.'' The Inspector General report
indicates that this determination should be made on the basis
of an assessment of a ``current market for any comparable F117
engine fleet management program'' by the contractor in the
private sector.
The Inspector General's narrowly-constrained view of
commercial services is mistaken. Services provided in support
of commercial items are considered commercial services if the
source of the item provides ``similar services''--not
necessarily the same services to the general public (section
103(5) of title 41, United States Code). The committee
concludes that this test would be met if, as the Air Force
concluded, the contractor provides similar sustainment services
for commercial aircraft engines (even if not the same engines)
under dozens of fleet management programs valued in the
billions of dollars.
On the other hand, the Air Force appears to deserve the
Inspector General's criticism for its failure to perform market
research to fully understand the potential marketplace for F117
engine sustainment. Close to a thousand of similar engines
remain in service on commercial aircraft. The committee
concludes that market research should, at a minimum, identify
other potential competitors who might enable the Air Force to
avoid a sole source contract for this work.
The contractor, too, has failed to comply with its
obligations under the law if, as the Inspector General reports,
it has ``repeatedly refused'' to provide commercial sales data
to support the price for F117 sustainment services. Contractors
providing commercial items and services are required by law to
submit ``at a minimum, appropriate information on the prices at
which the same item or similar items have previously been sold
that is adequate for evaluating the reasonableness of the price
for the procurement'' (10 United States Code Section
2306a(d)(1)). The committee believes that a company seeking a
government contract worth billions of dollars should not have
to be subpoenaed to meet this legal requirement.
However, both the Inspector General and the Air Force are
mistaken in insisting that the contractor provide detailed
information on labor hours and costs, material costs, overhead
expenses, subcontractor costs, and profits at this time. Under
section 2379(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code, contracting
officers may require the submission of cost information, such
as information on labor costs, material costs, and overhead
rates, only upon a determination that commercial price
information alone is not sufficient to determine the
reasonableness of price. It is difficult to understand how
either the Inspector General or the Air Force could conclude
that commercial price information alone is insufficient, when
this information has not yet been received from the contractor.
The committee concludes that the interests of the
Department of Defense and the taxpayers would be better served
if the Inspector General, the Air Force, and the contractor
were to better understand and carry out their duties under the
statute.
Mitigation strategy to prevent fraud and abuse in the Service-Disabled
Veteran-Owned Small Business Program
The Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)
program was established to ensure veterans with service-
connected disabilities have access to opportunities to contract
with the federal government. The Department of Defense's Office
of Small Business Programs reported in 2013, the Department
awarded over $6.0 billion in SDVOSB contracts. However, the
Department's reliance on self-certification of veteran status
to determine eligibility for SDVOSB contracts has allowed
significant fraud and abuse to persist within the program. The
Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) estimated in
2012 that in DOD's SDVOSB program alone, more than $340.0
million was awarded to firms that potentially misstated their
SDVOSB status. Each contract awarded to an ineligible firm
under SDVOSB program takes an opportunity away from a deserving
service-disabled veteran.
To address these concerns, the Committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to develop a mitigation strategy to
prevent fraud and abuse, and to update the committee not later
than 180 days after enactment of this Act. The committee notes
that the strategy should incorporate the best practices used by
the Department of Veterans Affairs' Service-Disabled Veteran
Owned Small Business Program to prevent fraud and abuse.
Obtaining technical data for operations, maintenance, installation, and
training purposes
The committee understands the importance of obtaining
technical data for operations, maintenance, installation, and
training purposes as outlined in section 2320(C)(iii) of title
10, United States Code. The use of computer-based simulator
technology for training purposes has significantly evolved in
the last decade. The committee is aware that in some cases it
has been difficult to obtain the necessary underlying technical
data on a defense system to support competition in the
development of training simulators. A similar issue has been
identified for the maintenance support of commercial derivative
aircraft and engines. The committee believes that the
government industry panel that would be created elsewhere in
this Act would, at a minimum, review the impact of sections
2320 and 2331 of title 10, United States Code, on the
competitiveness of the marketplace for training simulators and
the sustainment of commercial derivative aircraft and engines.
Review of should-cost process
Since 2010, the Department of Defense has correctly
promoted so-called ``should-cost'' management, which relies on
government and contractor teams to identify errors that can be
avoided and process efficiencies that can be gained as well to
make technical trade-offs for saving money without compromising
requirements. By eliminating inefficient processes and
embracing cost savings opportunities, the Department can
achieve more affordable programs. Should-cost savings should
not be arbitrary, but rather tied to a specific engineering or
business change that can be quantified and tracked. To ensure
should-cost management achieves its effectiveness potential as
an acquisition tool, the process must be transparent and well
understood by all parties. The contractor and industry team
must participate in the process together.
The committee requests that the Secretary of Defense review
the policies, procedures, and regulations governing the proper
use of should-cost management to ensure the process is
transparent, objective and efficient and, after requisite
public comment, to make any necessary changes to these
policies, rules and procedures. As a part of this review the
Secretary of Defense should also ensure that acquisition
professionals are adequately educated and trained on the proper
use of should-cost management.
The committee believes that the elements of a transparent
should-cost management process should at a minimum: (1)
distinguish between should cost review and analysis of program
direct and indirect costs; (2) establish a process for
communicating with the contractor the elements of a proposed
should-cost evaluation; (3) ensure that every identified
should-cost savings opportunity is accurate, complete, and
current and is tied to a specific engineering or business
change that can be quantified and tracked; (4) identify skills
and capabilities for those participating in should-cost
management teams to ensure that such teams include sufficient
members with broad cross functional experience; (5) ensure
appropriate collaboration with the contractor throughout the
process; (6) require a process that provides for sufficient
analysis that minimizes impact on program schedule; and (7)
require a separate audit to be provided to the contractor.
The committee requests that the Secretary of Defense report
to the committee on the Department's review within 180 days of
enactment of this Act.
Security and facility clearances
The cost to investigate, certify, and maintain security
clearances and facility clearances is a tremendous burden on
the Department of Defense in labor and resources. It also
creates barriers that prevent the sharing of solutions,
technology and information, within the government. The
clearance processes are a legacy of Cold War requirements and
will need to be re-engineered to address the multitude of new
threats that now face the nation, but also address industrial
base concerns regarding the globalization of technology and
ubiquity of commercial information technology.
The committee notes that progress has been made in
implementing section 906 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) on personnel
security and section 1628 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) on personnel
security and insider threat, but is disappointed by the pace of
the reform effort. The committee believes that the Department
of Defense must continue the process of personnel security
clearance reform and as part of this effort review: (1) the
value and cost benefits of the current investigative process
used in security clearance investigations versus other
alternatives; and (2) the productivity and additional value
provided by using entities outside of the Department of Defense
to perform these investigations.
The committee also believes that the Department should
begin the process of reengineering the facility clearance
system process. As with the acquisition process as a whole, the
security and facility clearance processes need to become more
agile, efficient, and timely. This should be done in a way that
enhances security but removes unnecessary costs and barriers to
the participation of commercial global firms whose business and
technical solutions are urgently needed by the Department.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Subtitle A--Department of Defense Management
Update of statutory specification of functions of Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff relating to advice on requirements, programs,
and budget (sec. 901)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 153 of title 10, United States Code, relating to
functions of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
update that section to reflect additional joint force
integration functions performed by the Chairman. An update is
necessary as a result of the disestablishment of United States
Joint Forces Command on August 31, 2011, and the subsequent
deletion of that command from the Unified Command Plan.
Reorganization and redesignation of Office of Family Policy and Office
of Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs
(sec. 902)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
sections 1781, 1781(a), 1781(c), and 131 of title 10, United
States Code, to reorganize and redesignate the Office of
Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs and
the Office of Family Policy/Children and Youth into the Office
of Military Family Readiness Policy. The provision would also
require the director of the Office of Military Family Readiness
Policy to be a member of the Senior Executive Service or a
general or flag officer.
Repeal of requirement for annual Department of Defense funding for
Ocean Research Advisory Panel (sec. 903)
The committee recommends a provision that would strike
subsection (c) of section 7903 of title 10, United States Code.
In support of the Secretary of Defense's Efficiency
Initiatives, the committee's recommendation would eliminate the
requirement that the Department of the Navy provide funding to
support the functioning of the Ocean Research Advisory Panel.
The committee believes that this change is consistent with the
function of the panel and that the support responsibilities are
more appropriately aligned outside of the Department of
Defense.
The committee notes that, as the result of several
reorganizations by the administration, the panel now reports to
the Executive Office of the President, yet the Department of
the Navy maintains responsibility for providing funding and
selecting nominees to serve on the panel. The committee is also
concerned that the process of selecting nominees has become so
slow that the panel currently does not have a quorum of members
and thus has not met in over a year.
The committee believes that the panel can still provide
valuable advice to the administration, but may be of limited
value to the Department of Defense. Consequently, the
Department of the Navy is not well placed to support the panel.
The committee recommends that the Executive Office of the
President determine by which entity the management and
oversight of the panel would be most appropriate.
Items of Special Interest
Special Operations Policy and Oversight Council
The committee notes that the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC)
provides ``service secretary-like'' civilian oversight of U.S.
Special Operations Command (SOCOM) within the Department of
Defense. These responsibilities include serving as the
principal civilian advisor to the Secretary of Defense on all
operational, policy, resourcing, and acquisition matters
impacting special operations forces (SOF). Given SOCOM's
responsibilities for the readiness of SOF and its unique role
as the only combatant command with acquisition authorities, the
committee believes the civilian oversight function of the ASD
SOLIC is critical to ensuring optimal use of SOF and efficient
use of taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, the committee believes
that the ASD SOLIC has not been able to devote sufficient
attention and resources to adequately fulfill these ``service
secretary-like'' responsibilities along with other
responsibilities related to current military operations,
building partner capacity, counternarcotics, stability
operations, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and
other issues.
As such, the committee strongly supports the creation of
the Special Operations Policy and Oversight Council (SOPOC) by
the ASD SOLIC to help fulfill assigned oversight
responsibilities and leverage expertise elsewhere within the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, including through the
participation of the Under Secretaries of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Personnel and Readiness,
Intelligence, and Comptroller. The committee understands that
the SOPOC has already considered and resolved a number of
issues impacting the operational control of SOF and the
delineation of funding responsibilities between SOCOM and the
military services. The committee strongly encourages further
institutionalization of the SOPOC through continued regular
meetings and requests that ASD SOLIC keep the committee
currently informed of any significant policy or programmatic
decisions impacting SOF.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
General transfer authority (sec. 1001)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the transfer up to $4.5 billion of fiscal year 2016 funds
authorized in division A of this Act to unforeseen higher
priority needs in accordance with normal reprogramming
procedures. Transfers of funds between military personnel
authorizations would not be counted toward the dollar
limitation in this provision.
Annual audit of financial statements of Department of Defense
components by independent external auditors (sec. 1002)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense Inspector General to fulfill its
statutory audit responsibilities to perform financial statement
audits for the military departments and other designated
components of the Department by contracting with independent
external auditors. The committee notes that some organizations
in DOD are already making use of independent audit services.
The committee expects that this provision will allow DOD to
complete its audit requirements in a more cost effective
manner, by leveraging private sector expertise, and in a manner
consistent with auditing in other government agencies. The
committee expects that for each audit, the Inspector General
will evaluate the qualifications of the independent external
auditor's staff and their independence, review the scope of the
audit work, monitor audit progress, and review, if appropriate,
audit documentation. Upon completion of the audit, the
Inspector General shall issue a report to Congress that
includes the independent external auditor's opinion on the
entity's financial statements, as well as any accompanying
management letters and any observations on the audit or on the
financial statements.
Treatment as part of the base budget of certain amounts authorized for
overseas contingency operations upon enactment of an act
revising the Budget Control Act discretionary spending limits
for fiscal year 2016 (sec. 1003)
If an act is enacted at a later date that would revise the
defense and non-defense discretionary spending limits in
proportionally equal amounts, than amounts authorized in title
XV above $50.9 billion and equal to the amount of the increase
to the defense discretionary cap for fiscal year 2016, will be
deemed to be authorized in title III.
Sense of Senate on sequestration (sec. 1004)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate on the negative impact that the statutory
budget caps are having on the Department of Defense and United
States national security, as well as the need for legislation
to adjust those caps.
The committee acknowledges that the Budget Control Act of
2011 (BCA) represented a step forward in tackling the fiscal
imbalances of our country. It took steps to bring down deficits
and stabilize debt growth. It included statutory budget caps to
ensure Congress appropriated within its means. This was an
important improvement to address the national debt, which the
former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike
Mullen, once called the biggest threat to our national
security.
However, the BCA also included an enforcement mechanism
known as sequestration--shortsighted, non-strategic, and
across-the-board cuts to discretionary spending to achieve the
BCA's budget caps. Under sequestration, the size of those
spending reductions was designed to be so unacceptable that
sequestration would never occur. In its place, Congress was to
enact targeted measures to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2
trillion over 10 years. Ultimately, Congress was unable to
fulfill this requirement and the revised budget caps went into
effect in March 2013 with enforcement of sequestration.
The committee understands the harmful impacts that these
non-strategic cuts to defense spending have had on our national
security. The readiness of our military forces have been
degraded, equipment maintenance has been postponed, and
employees have been furloughed. Furthermore, these
sequestration-level budget caps are forcing the Department of
Defense to manage the challenges today based on a spend plan
set 4 years ago--before the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL), the Ebola crisis, and Russia's
aggression in Ukraine.
Additionally, the committee recognizes that there are
important non-defense agencies tasked with protecting our
security. From the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to the
Department of Homeland Security, and even the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of
Health, our nation's security and well-being are at risk of
harm. The impacts of the BCA caps and sequestration have been
felt across the country.
There was success in 2013 to enact targeted cuts and adjust
some of statutory budget caps. The Murray-Ryan Bipartisan
Budget Act of 2013 showed there is bipartisan agreement on
addressing the budget caps in a balanced, equal way between
defense and non-defense accounts. The committee acknowledges
the negative impact of the budget caps and the need to adjust
them.
Subtitle B--Counter-Drug Activities
Extension of authority to support unified counter-drug and
counterterrorism campaign in Colombia (sec. 1011)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
2 fiscal years the authority of the Secretary of Defense to
provide assistance to support the unified counterdrug and
counterterrorism campaign of the Government of Colombia
(Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375), as most recently amended
by section 1011 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291).
The committee notes that the Government of Colombia has
made and continues to make progress against transnational
criminal organizations and designated foreign terrorist
organizations. Further, the committee notes that the Government
of Colombia is playing an increasing role in regional security
efforts and encourages a continuation of the security
partnership between the United States and Colombia.
Extension and expansion of authority to provide additional support for
counter-drug activities of certain foreign governments (sec.
1012)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85), as most recently amended
by section 1013 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291). Specifically, the provision would extend the
Department of Defense's (DOD) authority to provide additional
support for counter-drug activities of certain foreign
governments through fiscal year 2017, as well as adds Kenya,
Tanzania, and Somalia as countries eligible to receive
assistance under this authority.
The committee notes the growing presence of transnational
criminal organizations operating across many parts of Africa--a
region the committee continues to believe is of increasing
importance to the security interests of the United States. As
such, the committee encourages the DOD to initiate additional
programs in the U.S. Africa Command area of responsibility.
Subtitle C--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
Studies of fleet platform architectures for the Navy (sec. 1021)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to commission three studies to be
submitted to the congressional defense committees in
unclassified, and to the extent necessary, in classified
versions to recommend potential future fleet architectures no
later than May 1, 2016. These studies would provide competing
visions and alternatives for future fleet architectures. One
study would be performed by the Department of the Navy, with
input from the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division.
The second study would be performed by a federally funded
research and development center. The third study would be
conducted by a qualified independent, non-governmental
institute, as selected by the Secretary of Defense.
The Navy will continue to be built around ships of various
kinds and sizes, along with its supporting aircraft. The Navy
force structure requirement set forth in the ``Annual Long-
Range Plan for Construction of Naval Vessels for Fiscal Year
2016'' included 11 large-deck aircraft carriers, 88 large
surface combatants, 52 small surface combatants, 34 amphibious
ships, 48 attack submarines, and 4 guided missile submarines.
Together with associated combat logistics and support ships,
the Navy's force structure objective totals 308 ships.
Additionally, this force structure includes 10 carrier air
wings, additional surface combatant-based helicopters, and
land-based maritime patrol aircraft.
This basic combination of ships and aircraft represent the
Navy's platform architecture. Since the end of the Cold War,
this architecture has remained relatively static, while
decreasing in total size. Given the long lead times needed to
design and build ships and aircraft, their decades-long
operational life, and the relatively low annual rates at which
new ships and aircraft are procured, the Navy's overall
platform architecture evolves gradually over time.
Due to the confluence of three trends, the committee
believes now is the time to identify the naval force structure
the Nation will need to plan to meet the operational
requirements of the 2030s.
First, 11 U.S. Navy combatant ship classes begin to retire
in large numbers between 2020 and 2035, including: Ticonderoga-
class guided missile cruisers (2020), improved Los Angeles-
class submarines (2021), Nimitz-class aircraft carriers (2025),
Flight I Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers (2026),
Ohio-class guided missile submarines (2026), Whidbey Island-
class amphibious ships (2027), Seawolf-class submarines (2030),
Wasp-class amphibious ship (2029), Flight II Arleigh Burke-
class guided missile destroyers (2033), Littoral Combat Ships
(2033), and Harpers Ferry-class amphibious ships (2035). The
Navy should urgently develop capability based assessments and
analyses of alternatives to identify the best solutions to fill
the capability gaps left by these retirements.
Second, as competitor states raise their own modern navies,
the maritime domain appears to be shifting in ways that will
again challenge the Navy's ability to conduct sea control and
project power. It will therefore be vital that the Navy not
just invest in more robust naval force, but a fleet adaptable
to the challenges of tomorrow's warfighting regimes.
Third, as the Ohio-class replacement program proceeds, it
is projected to consume the equivalent of one-third to one-half
of the historical shipbuilding budget, which is already
stretched to maintain the Navy's objective force levels.
Given these fiscal challenges, it is vital for the Navy to
review thoroughly its planned architecture and position itself
to invest carefully in the future fleet. As a result, the
specified studies are directed and $1.0 million is added to the
Office of the Secretary of Defense for the performance of these
studies.
Amendment to National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (sec. 1022)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1022(b)(1) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(Public Law 113-291), which established the National Sea-Based
Deterrence Fund, to clarify what appropriations may be utilized
as a source of transfer funds. The committee's intent is for
amounts not to exceed $3.5 billion from unobligated funds
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2014, 2015, or
2016 in any Department of Defense appropriation to be available
for transfer to the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund. As
stated in the existing provision, the transfer authority
provided under this provision is in addition to any other
transfer authority provided to the Secretary of Defense by law.
Extension of authority for reimbursement of expenses for certain Navy
mess operations afloat (sec. 1023)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority for reimbursement of expenses for certain Navy mess
operations afloat authorized in section 1014 of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Public Law 110-417; 122 Stat. 4585), as amended by section
1021 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383, 124 Stat. 4348), from
September 30, 2015 to September 30, 2020, and certain technical
and clarifying amendments.
Subtitle D--Counterterrorism
Prohibition on use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the
United States to house detainees transferred from United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1031)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the
United States to house detainees transferred from Guantanamo.
The prohibition would only be lifted if the Secretary of
Defense submits a plan for the disposition of all detainees, as
provided in a subsequent section, and the plan is approved by
Congress.
Limitation on the transfer or release of individuals detained at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo (sec. 1032)
The stated policy of the United States remains to close the
detention facilities at Guantanamo as soon as possible. The
committee has long requested a detailed plan for the
disposition of all individuals held there. Thus far, the
Secretary of Defense has failed to provide such a plan. Prior
to authorizing the transfer of detainees into the United States
the committee seeks a comprehensive plan that will describe the
disposition of all detainees, including where each detainee
will be held or transferred, the costs associated with
continued detention, the legal risks of any transfer, and what
additional authorities are needed.
Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would
prohibit the transfer to the United States of detainees in
Guantanamo except for detention, trial, or incarceration. Such
domestic transfers could only occur, however, after the
Secretary of Defense determines that the transfer is in the
national security interests of the United States, determines
that appropriate actions have been taken or will be taken to
address any risk to public safety; and notifies appropriate
committees of Congress.
The limited authority to transfer detainees to the United
States under this provision would only become effective after
the Secretary of Defense submits a report detailing a plan for
all individuals held at Guantanamo and Congress approves the
plan. The provision would provide expedited procedures for
congressional consideration of the submitted plan.
Reenactment and modification of certain prior requirements for
certifications relating to transfer of detainees at Untied
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to foreign
countries and other foreign entities (sec. 1033)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of any amounts authorized to be appropriated or
otherwise made available to the Department of Defense to be
used to transfer or release any individual detained at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the individual's
country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other
foreign entity. This prohibition would apply unless the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State and the Director of National Intelligence, provides a
written certification to Congress addressing several
requirements at least 30 days prior to the transfer of any such
individual. This section would also prohibit the Secretary of
Defense from using any funds for the transfer of any such
individual to the custody or effective control of the
individual's country of origin, any other foreign country, or
any other foreign entity if there is a confirmed case of any
individual transferred from United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the same country or entity who engaged
in terrorist activity subsequent to their transfer. This
section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive certain
certification requirements if the Secretary determines that
alternative actions will be taken, that actions taken will
substantially mitigate risks posed by the individual to be
transferred, and that the transfer is in the national security
interests of the United States. Whenever the Secretary uses the
waiver, the Secretary must provide a report that includes a
copy of the waiver and determination, a statement of the basis
for the determination, and a summary of the alternative actions
to be taken. The section would also require the certification
to include a description for the cooperation for which
favorable consideration was so given and a description of
operational outcomes, if any, affected by such cooperation.
Finally, this section would repeal current law, as contained in
section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).
This provision would expire once a plan for the disposition
of all detainees is submitted to Congress and that plan is
approved by Congress, as provided for in a subsequent section.
The notification requirements of section 1035 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) would, at that point, govern foreign transfers.
Authority to temporarily transfer individuals detained at United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States for
emergency or critical medical treatment (sec. 1034)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow for
the temporary transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, to a Department of Defense medical facility in the United
States for the sole purpose of providing the individual medical
treatment if the Secretary determines that: the medical
treatment is necessary to prevent death or imminent significant
injury or harm to the health of the individual; the medical
treatment is not available to be provided at United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without incurring
excessive and unreasonable costs; the estimated costs of the
treatment would be cheaper in the United States; and the
Department of Defense has provided for appropriate security
measures for the custody and control of the individual during
any period in which the individual is temporarily in the United
States. The provision also requires notice to Congress and
limitations on the exercise of the authority to provide that
the individual will be returned to United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Prohibition on use of funds for transfer or release to Yemen of
individuals detained at United States Naval Facility,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1035)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the use of funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise
made available to the Department of Defense to transfer,
release, or assist in the transfer or release of any individual
detained in the custody or under the control of the Department
of Defense at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, to the custody or control of the Republic of Yemen or any
entity within Yemen.
Report on current detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, determined or assessed to be high risk or medium
risk (sec. 1036).
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to provide a report to Congress, in
unclassified form, listing the names of all individuals
detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
who have been assessed by the Joint Task Force Guantanamo to be
a high or medium risk to the United States, its interests, or
allies.
Report to Congress on memoranda of understanding with foreign countries
regarding transfer of detainees at United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (sec. 1037).
The committee recommends a provision that would require a
report of the Secretary of Defense setting forth the written
memorandum of understanding between the United States
Government and the government of the foreign country concerned
regarding each individual detained at Guantanamo transferred to
a foreign country during the 18-month period ending on the date
of the enactment of this Act or, if there was no written
memorandum of understanding, the report shall contain an
unclassified statement of that fact.
Semiannual Reports on use of United States Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, and any other Department of Defense or Bureau of
Prisons prison or other detention or disciplinary facility in
recruitment and other propaganda of terrorist organizations
(sec. 1038).
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to report to Congress every 6 months on
the use of Department of Defense and Bureau of Prisons
detention facilities for recruitment and as propaganda by
terrorist organizations.
Extension and modification of authority to make rewards for combating
terrorism (sec. 1039)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify and
extend section 127b of title 10, United States Code. This
section authorizes the payment of a monetary amount, or
provision of a payment-in-kind, to a person as a reward for
providing U.S. Government personnel, or government personnel of
allied forces participating in a combined operation with the
U.S. armed forces, with information or nonlethal assistance
that is beneficial to an operation or activity against
international terrorism or beneficial to force protection.
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations
Assistance to secure the southern land border of the United States
(sec. 1041)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, with concurrence of the Secretary of
Homeland Security, to provide assistance to U.S. Customs and
Border Protection for the purpose of increasing the ongoing
efforts to secure the southern land border of the United
States.
The committee is concerned about the security of the U.S.
southern land border and notes that in testimony on March 12,
2015, Admiral William Gortney, Commander of U.S. Northern
Command (NORTHCOM) stated that ``the southern border can be
more secure.'' At the same hearing General John Kelly,
Commander of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) testified that
``with the amount of drugs and people that move across our
southwest border, it doesn't seem all that secure to me.''
The committee supports ongoing efforts by the Department of
Defense (DOD) to provide additional assistance to secure the
southern land border of the United States and urges DOD to
continue these efforts and coordinate with the Secretary of
Homeland Security to identify opportunities to provide
additional support.
Protection of Department of Defense installations (sec. 1042)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to protect the buildings, grounds, and
property that are under the jurisdiction, custody, or control
of the Department of Defense (DOD) and persons on that
property. The provision provides that the Secretary may
designate personnel to: (1) Enforce federal laws and
regulations for the protection of persons and property; (2)
Carry firearms; (3) Make arrests; and (4) Conduct
investigations of offenses against the property of the DOD.
This new authority would not apply in those locations currently
under the protection of the Federal Protective Service, for
example, office buildings provided by the General Services
Administration in which DOD organizations are tenants.
Strategy to protect United States national security interests in the
Arctic region (sec. 1043)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to submit not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act a report that sets forth an
updated military strategy for the protection of United States
national security interests in the Arctic region.
Extension of limitations on the transfer to the regular Army of AH-64
Apache helicopters assigned to the Army National Guard (sec.
1044)
The committee recommends a provision that would strike
``March 31, 2016'' each place it appears and inserting
``September 30, 2016'' in Section 1712 of the Carl Levin
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. The
provision would also strike ``fiscal year 2015'' and insert
``fiscal years 2015 and 2016.''
Treatment of certain previously transferred Army National Guard
helicopters as counting against number transferrable under
exception to limitation on transfer of Army National Guard
helicopters (sec. 1045)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Army not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees the number of AH-64 Apaches that have been
transferred from the Army National Guard (ARNG) to the original
equipment manufacturer for remanufacture. The Secretary of the
Army shall treat the number of helicopters specified in the
report as counting against the total number of AH-64s that may
be transferred from the ARNG to the regular Army pursuant to
the Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015.
Management of military technicians (sec. 1046)
The committee recommends a provision that would convert not
less than 20 percent of the general administration, clerical,
and office service occupation positions identified in the
report of the Secretary of Defense under section 519 of the Ike
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
(Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1397) from military technician
(dual status) positions to positions filled by individuals who
are employed under section 3103 of title 5, United States Code,
by no later than January 1, 2017. The committee also recommends
the phased-in termination of military technicians (non-dual
status) to begin on January 1, 2017.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit by
February 1, 2016, to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives, and to the Comptroller
General of the United States, a report setting forth the
Department of Defense's plan for converting military technician
(dual status) positions to positions filled by individuals who
are employed under section 3103 of title 5, United States Code,
to include: (1) An analysis of placing such individuals under
the control and authority of the State Adjutants General; (2)
an analysis of the employment rights that will now be granted
to such individuals; (3) an analysis of any statutory change
the Secretary believes is necessary to execute this provision;
and (4) such other mechanisms for implementation that the
Secretary shall recommend, as appropriate.
Sense of Congress on consideration of the full range of Department of
Defense manpower worldwide in decisions on the proper mix of
military, civilian, and contractor personnel to accomplish the
national defense strategy (sec. 1047)
The committee recommends a provision that would express a
sense of the Congress that as the Department of Defense makes
decisions on military end strength requests, proper sizing of
the civilian workforce, and the proper mix of these sources of
manpower with contractor personnel to accomplish the National
Defense Strategy, the Secretary of Defense should consider the
full range of manpower available to the Secretary in all
locations worldwide without arbitrarily or exempting any
particular group of location of manpower.
Sense of the Senate on the United States Marine Corps (sec. 1048)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the United States Marine Corps, within
the Department of the Navy, should remain the Nation's
expeditionary crisis response force and that the Marine Corps
should be organized, trained, and equipped in the manner and
for such purposes specified in section 5063 of title 10, United
States Code.
Subtitle F--Studies and Reports
Repeal of reporting requirements (sec. 1061)
The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate
certain required reports. Specifically, the provision would
repeal the following report requirements:
(1) Annual reports on gifts made for the benefit of
military musical units required by Section 974(d) of
title 10, United States Code;
(2) Biennial report on space, science, and technology
strategy required by Section 2272(a) of title 10,
United States Code;
(3) Annual reports on prizes for advanced technology
achievements required by Section 2374(a) of title 10,
United States Code;
(4) Reports on use of temporary authorities for
certain positions at DoD research and engineering
facilities required by Section 1107 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public
Law 113-66);
(5) Annual reports on advancing small business growth
required by Section 1611 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law
Public Law 113-66);
(6) Annual reports on quality assurance programs for
medical evaluation boards and related personnel
required by Section 524 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239);
(7) Annual impact statement on number of members in
integrated disability evaluation system on readiness
requirements required by Section 528 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
Law 112-239);
(8) Sense of Congress on notice of unfunded
priorities required by Section 1003 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
Law 112-239);
(9) Annual updates on implementation plan for whole-
of-government vision prescribed in the national
security strategy required by Section 1072 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81);
(10) Reports on Defense Research and Development
Rapid Innovation Program required by Section 1073 of
the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383);
(11) Reports on Task Force for Business and Stability
Operations in Afghanistan required by Section 1535(a)
of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383);
(12) Annual report on the electronic warfare strategy
of the Department of Defense required by Section 1053
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84);
(13) Reports on Mitigation of power outage risks for
Department of Defense facilities and activities
required by Section 335 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417);
(14) Updates of increases in number of units of
Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) required
by Section 548 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417);
(15) Annual reports on Center of Excellence on
traumatic extremity injuries and amputations required
by Section 723 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417);
(16) Semi-annual reports on status of Navy Next
Generation Enterprise Networks Program required by
Section 1034 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-
417);
(17) Biennial requirement to update Strategic
Management Plan required by Section 904(d) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181);
(18) Reports on access of recovering servicemembers
to adequate outpatient residential facilities required
by Section 1662 of the Wounded Warrior Act (title XVI
of Public Law 110-181);
(19) Reports on hypersonics development required by
Section 218 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364);
(20) Updates of assistance to local educational
agencies experiencing growth in enrollment due to force
structure change and other circumstance required by
Section 574 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364);
(21) Annual reports on overhaul, repair, and
maintenance of vessels under acquisition policy on
obtaining carriage by vessel required by Section 1017
of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364);
(22) Reports on annual review of roles and missions
of the reserve components required by Section 513(h) of
the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375);
(23) Annual requirement to submit information
regarding information technology capital assets
required by Section 351 of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public
Law 107-314);
(24) Reports on Experimental Personnel Management
Program for scientific and technical personnel required
by Section 1101 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-
261).
Termination of requirement for submittal to Congress of reports
required of the Department of Defense by statute (sec. 1062)
The committee recommends a provision that would, 2 years
after the date of enactment of the Act, repeal requirements for
recurring reports due to Congress. This would include only
report requirements in effect on April 1, 2015.
The committee notes the repeated statements by Department
of Defense (DOD) officials on the high number and low utility
of some of the recurring reports due to Congress and how the
information contained in the reports are often included in
other DOD publications.
Annual submittal to Congress of munitions assessments (sec. 1063)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to provide to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives, not later
than March 1, 2016, and each year thereafter, the most current
Department of Defense Munitions and Munitions Sufficiency
Assessments, as defined in Department of Defense Instruction
3000.04. The provision would also require the Department of
Defense to provide the committees the most recently approved
Joint Requirements Oversight Council memo resulting from the
annual Munitions Requirements Process.
The committee is concerned by the current lack of insight
into the requirements driving munitions budgetary decisions and
intends to conduct rigorous oversight to ensure actions taken
by the Department of Defense adequately address the munitions
needs of the Armed Forces. Additionally, the committee intends
to focus on the status and planning for munitions stateside
infrastructure, transport capability, in-theater storage
capacity, and their influence on requirements and combat
capability.
Potential role for United States ground forces in the Pacific theater
(sec. 1064)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to conduct a comprehensive operational assessment of a
potential future role for U.S. ground forces in the island
chains of the western Pacific in creating anti-access/area
denial (A2/AD) capabilities in cooperation with host nations to
deter and defeat aggression in the region.
The provision would require the assessment of the
effectiveness of ground-force deployment of a series of systems
and capabilities, including anti-ship mines and missiles,
mobile air defense systems, electronic warfare capabilities,
communications networks, and maneuver forces to deny access to
adversaries, enhance host-nation defenses, and protect U.S. air
and naval forces.
The provision would also require an assessment of the
geopolitical impact of a long-term U.S. engagement with the
island nations of the region to implement a ground forces-based
A2/AD strategy. The provision stipulates that the assessment
utilize (1) rigorous operations research techniques, war games,
and historical analyses of World War II operations; and (2) the
resources of Joint Requirements and Analysis Division and the
Warfighting Analysis Division of the Force Structure,
Resources, and Assessment Directorate of the Joint Staff, the
war colleges of the military services, the Office of Net
Assessment, United States Pacific Command, and appropriate
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers.
Finally, the provision would require the Secretary and the
Chairman to complete the assessment within 1 year of the date
of enactment, and to brief the results to the appropriate
committees of Congress.
The committee is aware that the Office of Net Assessment,
the RAND Arroyo center, and the Center for Naval Analyses have
already sponsored and conducted multiple studies of potential
roles for ground forces in the Pacific theater. These studies
suggest the possibility that ground forces could become a
pivotal factor in building a viable security posture in the
region. The committee also notes that former Secretary of
Defense Hagel discussed elements of this concept in a speech to
the Association of the United States Army in late 2014. The
committee believes that these initial studies justify a
significantly more serious examination of the merits of this
proposal.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Technical and clerical amendments (sec. 1081)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
technical and clerical corrections to title 10, United States
Code, and various National Defense Authorization Acts.
Authority to provide training and support to personnel of foreign
ministries of defense (sec. 1082)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to provide training to personnel of
foreign ministries of defense (or ministries with security
force oversight), or regional organizations with security
missions for the purpose of: (1) enhancing civilian oversight
of foreign security forces; (2) establishing responsible
defense governance and internal controls in order to help build
effective, transparent, and accountable defense institutions;
(3) assessing organizational weaknesses and establishing a
roadmap for addressing shortfalls; and (4) enhancing
ministerial, general or joint staff, service level core
competencies such as personnel and readiness, acquisition and
logistics, strategy and policy, and financial management.
Expansion of outreach for veterans transitioning from serving on Active
Duty (sec. 1083)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
subsection (c)(2) of section 5 of the Clay Hunt Suicide
Prevention for American Veterans Act (Public Law 114-2) to
expand outreach for veterans transitioning from Active Duty to
inform those individuals of community oriented veteran peer
support networks and other support programs available to them.
Modification of certain requirements applicable to major medical
facility lease for a Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient
clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma (sec. 1084)
The committee recommends a provision that would make
modifications to the requirements associated with the amount of
usable space, and the length of the lease, for a major
veteran's medical facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma before entering
into such a lease.
Items of Special Interest
Air and Missile Defense Radar backfit
The Navy designed the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR)
to be fully scalable and modular to support a variety of
shipboard radar applications on a variety of platforms. The
first AMDR will be on the second DDG-51 destroyer in the fiscal
year 2016 shipbuilding program. As can be seen with the Aegis
Ashore program, ship-based radars such as AMDR also provide the
foundation for land-based applications.
The committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Navy
for Research, Development, and Acquisition (ASN (RDA)) to
provide a report to congressional defense committees on the
Navy's plan to employ AMDR technology in existing and future
platforms across the fleet. Additionally, the committee directs
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to report to the congressional defense committees on
whether and to what extent the Department of Defense could
exploit the AMDR scalability across radar acquisitions by the
Army, Air Force, and Missile Defense Agency to realize greater
affordability through economies of scale. These reports shall
be provided with the fiscal year 2017 budget submission.
Analysis of domestic Department of Defense installations' gas and oil
reserves
The committee notes that several domestic military
installations are located on proven reserves of natural gas and
oil. In some cases, such installations may benefit from energy
developmental projects that provide energy resiliency while
also reducing energy costs. Recognizing that tapping into an
installation's gas and oil reserves for military purposes has
only recently become economically feasible, the Committee needs
to understand the possible costs and benefits, as well as the
statutory and regulatory issues associated with such a
development effort.
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment, not later
than March 1, 2016, to provide an analysis of major Department
of Defense installations with likely gas and oil reserves, the
expected quality of the gas and oil reserves, the estimated
costs and savings of producing gas and oil at such
installations, the statutory and regulatory challenges to
implementing such energy development projects, potential
mission and environmental impacts from such energy development
projects, and recommendations for which installations, if any,
may benefit from such development.
Comptroller General of the United States study on options for the
Department of Defense close air support mission
The committee is concerned that the Air Force does not
appear to be devoting appropriate attention to the close air
support (CAS) mission and capabilities for which it is largely
responsible. As such, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to conduct a review of the close
air support mission with emphasis on:
(1) Review of historical proposals for distributing
close air support responsibilities and force structure
among the services;
(2) The extent to which the Department of Defense has
defined CAS requirements and allocated responsibilities
and force structure among the services to meet those
requirements; and
(3) The extent to which the Department has evaluated
options for distributing CAS responsibilities and
capabilities across the services and whether those need
to be redistributed, including whether the Air Force's
A-10 aircraft fleet and supporting infrastructure could
feasibly be transferred to the Army and/or the Marine
Corps.
The committee is aware the Comptroller General is
conducting a study directed by section 133 of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 11309291) to specifically
assess platforms used to conduct the close air support mission
in light of the recommendation by the Air Force to retire the
A-10 fleet. While related, the committee recommends the study
in this provision take a broader perspective across the
Department with regard to the close air support mission.
The Comptroller General shall brief the committee on his
preliminary results by September 30, 2015, with a formal report
to be provided, as appropriate, at a later date as agreed to
with the committee.
Congressional Defense Review to Prepare for Future Strategic Challenges
For the past 14 years, the United States has been engaged
in a long war against terrorist and violent extremist groups.
The committee believes that this conflict will persist, at one
level or another, across multiple theaters of operation, for
some time to come, and that winning this war must be a top
priority of the U.S. military and the Department of Defense
(DOD).
At the same time, the committee is deeply concerned by the
growth of more traditional security threats posed by powerful
states, such as China and Russia, and rogue regimes such as
Iran and North Korea. States such as these are modernizing
their military capabilities, developing advanced technologies
that could undermine U.S. military advantages--from precision-
guided munitions and advanced sensors, to undersea-warfare and
unmanned systems, to offensive cyber and space capabilities--
and pursuing strategies that seek to deter the United States
from achieving its national security interests and meeting its
commitments to allies and partners.
Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter captured this new
military challenge well when he said ``for decades, U.S. global
power projection has relied on the ships, planes, bases,
aircraft carriers, satellite networks, and other advanced
capabilities that comprise our military's unrivaled
technological edge. But today that superiority is being
challenged in unprecedented ways.'' In short, for the first
time in three decades, the United States faces a potential
turning point where our nation's long-standing military
advantages threaten to be eroded by new shifts in the balance
of military power.
Accordingly, over the coming 18 months, the committee plans
to conduct a comprehensive review of the roles, capabilities/
size of the U.S. Armed Forces and DOD in meeting, and
succeeding against, these new security challenges, especially
those posed by the growing anti-access/area denial capabilities
of U.S. adversaries. This review will utilize open hearings,
classified briefings, the Government Accountability Office, the
Congressional Research Service, Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers, and consultation with former senior
defense and military leaders and other national security
experts. Building on the series of strategy-focused hearings
that the committee has already conducted, the committee will
deepen its oversight of military strategy while also delving
deeper into intelligence and threat assessments, contingency
planning, force structure and posture, joint concept
development, domestic and overseas basing and infrastructure,
theater and strategic lift requirements, munition quality and
quantity, and institutional and personnel reforms. The
committee will also review civilian personnel policy, DOD
infrastructure, and acquisition policies and practices to bring
them more into line with the needs of the future.
Ultimately, the committee intends to review each of the
major defense acquisition programs and its related industrial
base to determine whether they are sufficient and appropriate
to meet developing national security challenges. This review
will take nothing for granted and will evaluate each program,
both qualitatively and quantitatively, in the broader context
of the roles, missions, requirements, and other capabilities of
the armed services, as well as emerging technologies that could
significantly alter previous assumptions underpinning the
current programs of record. The committee's future budgetary
decisions will be based on the outcome of this strategic
review.
The committee acknowledges that for this review to be
successful it will require a sustained commitment of many years
and potentially multiple chairmen. The much-heralded ``offset
strategy'' of the 1970s required a tremendous amount of
intellectual capital and research and development dollars
invested over the course of a decade before capabilities like
stealth, precision-guided-munitions, and advanced sensors could
be effectively deployed. Nevertheless, it is possible to embark
upon a new period of sustained military innovation today if
DOD, the military services, and industry can be aligned towards
this goal. The committee intends to use all of the resources at
its disposal to this end.
Cruiser and dock landing ship phased modernization
The committee is concerned by the partial funding of the
Navy cruiser and dock landing ship phased modernization plan.
Section 1026 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) and section 8110 of the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Public Law 113-235)
expressed the intent of the congressional defense committees.
While the Navy is inducting two guided missile cruisers per
year into phased modernization status in fiscal years 2015 and
2016 consistent with that plan, the committee understands the
manpower and operations funding for the remaining seven
cruisers in the Navy's fiscal year 2015 phased modernization
plan are not funded in the future years defense program (FYDP)
beyond fiscal year 2016. The committee also understands the
Navy is employing a similar partial funding scheme with the
three dock landing ships identified for phased modernization.
The committee is concerned by the Navy's failure to program
the funds required to continue the phased modernization program
approved in section 1026. The committee recommends that the
Navy continue to use resources from the Ship Modernization,
Operations and Sustainment Fund until they are exhausted.
However, beginning with the budget request for fiscal year
2017, the committee directs the Navy to request full funding in
fiscal year 2017 and throughout the FYDP for the phased
modernization program for cruisers and dock landing ships in
the regular appropriations accounts. The committee expects the
Navy to fully program across the FYDP for all manpower,
readiness, and modernization associated with its phased
modernization plan.
Human industrial operations augmentation technology
The committee is aware of the Department of the Navy's
interest in human industrial operations augmentation technology
that improves the health and safety of the workforce and
reduces the high total ownership cost (TOC) of assets,
including U.S. Navy aircraft carriers, surface ships, and
submarines. Technological advances are needed to help reduce
the labor component of TOC by increasing productivity,
improving quality, and reducing costs associated with workplace
injuries, including injuries related to repetitive motions.
Exoskeleton-based human augmentation has the potential to
remove much of the physical strain from workers who use hand-
held tools during the construction, maintenance, repair, and
disposal of Navy assets. The application of exoskeleton-based
human augmentation technology has the potential to increase
productivity and quality while decreasing injury rates, thus
significantly improving workforce welfare and reducing TOC.
The committee encourages the Navy to continue to identify
commercially-available human industrial operations augmentation
technologies that could improve the health and safety of the
workforce and reduce the TOC of assets.
National Guard Counterdrug Program
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)
requests funding annually to support the National Guard
Counterdrug Program (CDP). The committees believes that the CDP
plays an important role in providing military-specific
capabilities and expertise resident within the National Guard
to support the counterdrug activities of federal, state, and
local authorities. The committee notes that budgetary pressures
have led DOD to decrease the annual budget request for the CDP
in recent years, which the committee understands may have
caused some disruption or curtailment of CDP operations and
activities. The committee encourages DOD to continue its
support, to the extent practicable, for the CDP and to provide
sufficient funding to ensure the effectiveness and
sustainability of the program. The committee understands that
the National Guard Bureau has expressed concerns about its
ability to execute funding for the CDP in a timely manner. The
committee encourages DOD to work with the National Guard Bureau
to improve fiscal management and execution rates for the CDP
and expects to receive periodic updates on the CDP, to include
ongoing and planned CDP programs, budget execution rates, and
lessons learned.
Shipbuilding industrial base and workload allocation
The committee understands the Navy is reviewing a 2002
agreement, commonly referred to as the DDG/LPD SWAP 1
agreement, and the subsequent SWAP 2 agreement. Prior to award
of the LPD-28 detail design and construction contract and any
final decision relating to the SWAP agreements, the Secretary
of the Navy is directed to provide the congressional defense
committees with a report of the options considered and the
rationale used to arrive at the determination.
Unmanned Carrier-Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) Program
The committee believes that survivable, air-refuelable,
unmanned combat aircraft are critical for countering emerging
anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) challenges to U.S. power
projection. In this context, the committee views sea-based
unmanned combat aircraft as particularly important for giving
aircraft carrier air wings an enduring role in the joint family
of airborne, long-range, surveillance-strike systems--and thus,
maintaining the operational effectiveness and strategic utility
of the U.S. carrier fleet. Based on the progress to date in the
ongoing Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration program, the
committee is confident that, while additional risk-reduction
and experimentation appears necessary, low- to medium-risk
acquisition of advanced carrier-based, unmanned combat aircraft
could be feasible in the 2020-2025 timeframe.
The committee remains concerned, however, that the Navy's
current requirements for the UCLASS program place
disproportionate emphasis on unrefueled endurance to support
organic ISR support to the carrier strike group.
The committee sees great promise in the integration of
unmanned combat aircraft into future carrier air wings. The
committee notes with concern that absent a restructuring of the
planned carrier air wing that incorporates unmanned combat
aircraft in operationally significant numbers, the relevance of
the aircraft carrier--the centerpiece of American global power
projection capability--may increasingly be called into question
by friends and prospective adversaries alike.
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS
Legislative Provisions
Required probationary period for new employees of the Department of
Defense (sec. 1101)
The committee recommends a provision that would set the
required probationary period for new employees of the
Department of Defense at 2 years. The provision would also give
discretionary authority to the service secretary concerned to
extend a probationary period of a new employee of the
Department of Defense.
Delay of periodic step increase for civilian employees of the
Department of Defense based upon unacceptable performance (sec.
1102)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Secretary of Defense with the authority to encourage employee
performance by requiring satisfactory performance for purposes
of completion of service required for periodic step increases.
The committee notes that this provision is based on a
recommendation of the New Beginnings Design Team, which was
composed of management-labor personnel who came from across the
country and represented all ranks and a wide range of
professional backgrounds to examine the Department of Defense
performance management system and to review the statutes and
regulations that govern federal hiring.
Procedures for reduction in force of Department of Defense civilian
personnel (sec. 1103)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide the
Secretary of Defense with the authority to establish procedures
to provide that, in implementing any reduction in force for
civilian positions in the Department of Defense in the
competitive service or the excepted service, the determination
of which employees shall be separated from employment in the
Department of Defense shall be made primarily on the basis of
performance.
United States Cyber Command workforce (sec. 1104)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
enhanced hiring and retention authorities to the Secretary of
Defense for civilians on the staff of the United States Cyber
Command (CYBERCOM) and the elements of the CYBERCOM components
of the armed services. These enhanced authorities are modeled
after the personnel authorities in title 10 provided for the
staff of the intelligence components of the Department of
Defense. These authorities are also similar to those that
Congress provided in 2014 for the cyber workforce at the
Department of Homeland Security. The committee believes that
these authorities are a very important factor in attracting and
retaining the high caliber of personnel that are critical to
the execution of the cyber warfare mission of the Department.
The provision also would require the Secretary of Defense
to provide a plan to Congress on implementation of these
authorities, and an annual report from the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management on how the authorities are being
used.
One-year extension of authority to waive annual limitation on premium
pay and aggregate limitation on pay for federal civilian
employees working overseas (sec. 1105)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1101 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as
most recently amended by section 1101 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), to extend through
2016 the authority of heads of executive agencies to waive
limitation on the aggregate of basic and premium pay of
employees who perform work in an overseas location that is in
the area of responsibility of the commander, U.S. Central
Command (CENTCOM), or a location that was formerly in CENTCOM
but has been moved to an area of responsibility for the
Commander, U.S. Africa Command, in support of a military
operation or an operation in response to a declared emergency.
Five-year extension of expedited hiring authority for designated
defense acquisition workforce positions (sec. 1106)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
expedited hiring authority for designated defense acquisition
workforce positions for 5 years.
One-year extension of discretionary authority to grant allowances,
benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel on official duty
in a combat zone (sec. 1107)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1603(a) of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane
Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234; 122 Stat. 443), to extend
for 1 year the discretionary authority of the head of a federal
agency to provide allowances, benefits and gratuities
comparable to those provided by the Secretary of State to
members of the Foreign Service under section 413 and chapter 9
of title I of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-
465), if such individual is on official duty in Pakistan or a
combat zone as defined by section 112(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
Extension of rate of overtime pay for Department of the Navy employees
performing work aboard or dockside in support of the nuclear
aircraft carrier forward deployed in Japan (sec. 1108)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 5542(a)(6)(B) of title 5, United States Code, to extend
for 1 year the authority for a civilian employee of the
Department of the Navy who is assigned to temporary duty to
perform work aboard, or dockside in direct support of, the
nuclear aircraft carrier that is forward deployed in Japan to
receive overtime pay.
Expansion of temporary authority to make direct appointments of
candidates possessing bachelor's degrees to scientific and
engineering positions at science and technology reinvention
laboratories (sec. 1109)
The committee notes that the rapid hiring authorities,
originally authorized by section 1107(c)(1) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66), have enabled Defense laboratories to better compete with
the private sector for the best technical talent emerging from
our Nation's science and engineering universities. However, the
committee also notes these authorities are still limiting the
number of talented individuals that can be brought on board.
Consequently, the committee recommends enhancing the
ability of Defense laboratories to rapidly hire world-class
technical talent by increasing the limit on the number of
bachelor's degree holders hired under these streamlined
procedures from 3 percent to 5 percent of total scientific
personnel. This provision would bring the limit on bachelor's
degree candidates in line with current limits on master's and
doctoral level candidates.
Extension of authority for the civilian acquisition workforce personnel
demonstration project (sec. 1110)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1762, title 10, United States Code, to extend the
Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project
under that section through December 31, 2020.
Pilot program on dynamic shaping of the workforce to improve the
technical skills and expertise at certain Department of Defense
laboratories (sec. 1111)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Department of Defense (DOD) laboratories to more dynamically
shape their technical workforces to maintain consistency with
the accelerating pace of technological change and to meet DOD
science and technology mission needs as effectively and
efficiently as possible. The committee notes that the
workforces of the defense laboratories provide technical
support to deployed operational forces, support acquisition
programs with technical and engineering expertise to control
costs and improve performance, manage complex research and
development programs on behalf of taxpayers, and perform world-
class, cutting edge research. As technology evolves and
accelerates, the laboratories need to build and shape
continuously the technical skills in their workforces and
effectively move into new technical mission areas, including
laser weapons, cyber security, cognitive science,
biotechnology, and other cutting-edge fields of research.
The committee notes that current personnel policies and
practices present barriers to the ability of the laboratories
to reshape their workforces and to meet technical needs. As a
result, the provision would authorize a pilot program that
would enable laboratory directors to hire technical experts
into flexible length and renewable term appointments. A recent
Institute for Defense Analyses study, ``Federal Term
Appointment Hiring Authorities for Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Personnel,'' indicated that
the use of these term appointments for science and technology
missions had a number of benefits, including increased agency
control in shaping its STEM workforce to meet current and
anticipated needs, improved management of research portfolios
through use of expertise from industry and academia, and
enhanced ability to recruit high-quality term applicants to
work and manage high priority research efforts. The committee
believes that these types of appointments are also more
consistent with the career ambitions of younger scientists and
engineers, who are in general less attracted by the
``employment-for-life'' model historically favored by federal
research institutions.
The provision would also authorize flexibility in applying
existing authorities for accessing the expertise of recently
retired technical personnel and in offering voluntary early
retirement and voluntary separation incentives. The provision
would make these workforce shaping tools more readily available
to laboratory directors, enabling them to better shape the
technical skill mix of the laboratories.
Pilot program on temporary exchange of financial management and
acquisition personnel (sec. 1112)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of the
temporary assignment of financial management and acquisition
personnel to nontraditional defense contractors as defined by
section 2303(9) of title 10, United States Code, and of covered
employees of such contractors to the Department of Defense.
Nontraditional defense contractors are commercial companies who
either do not do business with the Department of Defense or do
so exclusively through commercial terms and conditions. The
committee believes that any exchange of government personnel
with industry designed to improve skills and knowledge of
finance and acquisition should be with those types of firms
that do not traditionally do business with the Department of
Defense and as such may offer different business management
approaches to address similar problems. These firms also do not
pose the same potential conflict of interest concerns that any
exchange with a traditional defense contractor would pose. This
authority would expire on September 30, 2019.
Pilot program on enhanced pay authorities for certain acquisition and
technology positions in the Department of Defense (sec. 1113)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of
using a higher level pay authority to attract and retain high
quality acquisition and technology experts in positions
responsible for management and developing complex, high cost,
technological acquisition efforts of the Department of Defense.
The committee is concerned that in some cases the Department of
Defense cannot competitively compensate the senior level
government program managers and engineers required for the
government to oversee major defense acquisition programs. This
provision would allow in select cases for the Department of
Defense to pay a higher rate of compensation to recruit and
retain senior acquisition officials who are exceptionally well
qualified. These officials would be limited to a 5 year term
that should correspond to a major weapons systems program
development or execution period as defined elsewhere in this
Act. This authority would expire on October 1, 2020.
Pilot program on direct hire authority for veteran technical experts
into the defense acquisition workforce (sec. 1114)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
5-year pilot program for the service acquisition executives of
each military department to directly appoint qualified veteran
candidates for scientific, technical, engineering, and
mathematics positions in the defense acquisition activities.
This direct hire authority would be limited to no more than 1
percent of the total number of positions in the acquisition
workforce in each military department that are filled as of the
close of the previous fiscal year.
Direct hire authority for technical experts into the defense
acquisition workforce (sec. 1115)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the service secretaries of each military department to directly
appoint qualified candidates possessing a scientific or
engineering degree to positions in the defense acquisition
activities. This direct hire authority would be limited to no
more than 5 percent of the total number of scientific and
engineering positions in the acquisition workforce in each
military department that are filled as of the close of the
previous fiscal year. This authority would expire December 31,
2020.
Items of Special Interest
Report on comparison of cost performance of functions by Department of
Defense civilian personnel with cost of performance of
functions by Department contractors
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, and to the Comptroller General of the United
States, a report setting forth the results of a study,
conducted by the Secretary for the purposes of the report, of a
comparison of the fully-burdened cost of performance of
functions by Department of Defense (DOD) civilian personnel
with the fully-burdened cost of the performance of functions by
DOD contractors by no later than February 1, 2016. The study
shall include:
(1) an assessment of performance of such functions at
six DOD installations selected by the Secretary for
purposes of the study from among DOD installations at
which functions are performed by an appropriate mix of
civilian personnel and contractors, with four such
installations to be located in the continental United
States and two such installations to be located outside
the continental United States;
(2) an accounting of the fully-burdened cost of DOD
civilian personnel and contractors performing functions
for DOD (including costs associated with training,
benefits, reimbursable costs under chapter 43 of title
41, United States Code, and facility overhead) in order
to permit a direct comparison between the cost of
performance of functions by DOD civilian personnel and
the cost of the performance of functions by
contractors;
(3) a comparison of the cost of performance of the
full range of functions, required expertise, and
managerial qualities required to adequately perform the
function to be compared, including:
(a) secretarial, clerical, or administrative
duties, including data entry;
(b) mid-level managers and other personnel
possessing special expertise or professional
qualifications;
(c) managers and other leadership; and
(d) personnel responsible for producing
congressionally-directed reports.
The committee recommends that, in conducting the study, the
Secretary should take into account the policy that inherently
governmental functions vital to the national security of the
United States may not be performed by contractor personnel. The
report required shall include an assessment of the flexible
employment authorities available to the Secretary for the
employment and retention of civilian employees of the DOD,
including an identification of such additional flexible
employment authorities as the Secretary considers appropriate
to shape the civilian personnel workforce of the DOD. Not later
than 120 days after receipt of such report, the Comptroller
General shall submit to Congress a report that includes an
assessment of the adequacy and sufficiency of the report
submitted by the Secretary, including any recommendations for
policy or statutory change as the Comptroller deems
appropriate.
Report on Department of Defense application of the Federal Employees'
Compensation Act
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives a report setting forth
the results of a study, conducted by the Comptroller General
for the purposes of the report, due no later than February 1,
2015, to examine the military services' application of the
Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) to determine: (1)
whether the FECA program creates disincentives to return to
work; (2) whether the Services have appropriate access to the
FECA database in order to validate and examine employee injury
records to manage return-to-work outcomes; (3)whether FECA
benefits may be converted to retirement benefits at retirement
age; and (4) how many non-working employees remain on the
Services' payrolls despite being over social security
retirement age.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS
Subtitle A--Training and Assistance
One-year extension of funding limitations for authority to build the
capacity of foreign security forces (sec. 1201)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
1 year the funding limitations for the Department of Defense to
build the capacity of foreign security forces under section
2282, title 10, United States Code.
Extension, expansion, and modification of authority for reimbursement
to the Government of Jordan for border security operations
(sec. 1202)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
assistance to the Governments of Jordan and Lebanon in any
fiscal year through fiscal year 2020 for the purposes of
supporting and enhancing efforts of those governments to
support and sustain security along their borders with Syria
and/or Iraq. Regarding assistance to the Government of Lebanon,
the provision would prohibit reimbursement of Hezbollah or any
forces other than the armed forces of Lebanon.
The actions of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and
other terrorist groups present a serious threat to Jordan and
Lebanon. As such, it is in the United States' national security
interest to respond to this increased threat to Jordan and
Lebanon by providing the necessary assistance.
Extension of authority to conduct activities to enhance the capability
of foreign countries to respond to incidents involving weapons
of mass destruction (sec. 1203)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority for the Secretary of Defense to provide Weapons of
Mass Destruction incident response training and basic equipment
to foreign first responders until September 30, 2018.
Redesignation, modification, and permanent extension of National Guard
State Partnership Program (sec. 1204)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1205 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 2014 (Public Law 114-66) to provide for the
extension of the Department of Defense State Partnership
Program and direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
and Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) to conduct a
advisability and feasibility study as to whether a central fund
should be created to support the activities associated with the
State Partnership Program.
Authority to provide support to national military forces of allied
countries for counterterrorism operations in Africa (sec. 1205)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
through September 30, 2018 the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide, on a non-
reimbursable basis, logistic support, supplies, and services to
the national military forces of an allied country conducting
counterterrorism operations in Africa if the Secretary of
Defense determines that the provision of such support is (1) in
the national security interests of the United States; and (2)
critical to the timely and effective participation of such
national military forces in such operations.
The committee's intent is for this authority to address
situations similar to ongoing U.S. support to Operation
Barkhane, a French-led counterterrorism operation in the Sahel
region of Africa that, to date, has been funded under an
emergency declaration by the president under section 506(a)(1)
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Public Law 87-195), as
amended, 22 U.S.C. 2318(a)(1).
Authority to build the capacity of foreign military intelligence forces
(sec. 1206)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Director
of National Intelligence and Secretary of State, to provide
intelligence training to foreign military intelligence units to
increase partner capacity.
Prohibition on assistance to entities in Yemen controlled by the Houthi
movement (sec. 1207)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
assistance to an entity in Yemen controlled by members of the
Houthi movement unless the Secretary of Defense determines the
provision of such assistance is important to the national
security interests of the United States.
Report on potential support for the vetted Syrian opposition (sec.
1208)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the military support
the Secretary considers necessary to provide to recipients of
assistance under section 1209 of the Carl Levin and Howard P.
``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) upon their return to Syria.
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq
Drawdown of United States forces in Afghanistan (sec. 1221)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that:
(1) the drawdown of United States forces in
Afghanistan should be based on security conditions in
Afghanistan and U.S. security interests in the region;
and
(2) as the Afghan National Defense Security Forces
continue to develop security capability and capacity,
an appropriate U.S. and international presence should
continue, upon invitation by the Government of
Afghanistan, to provide adequate capability and
capacity to retain gains made to date and continue
counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan against
terrorist organizations that can threaten United States
interests or the U.S. homeland.
The provision would also require a certification by the
President to the congressional defense committees that the
reduction of U.S. forces in Afghanistan will result in an
acceptable level of risk to U.S. national security objectives
taking into consideration the security conditions on the
ground. The provision would provide for a waiver of such
certification with an associated notification.
Extension and modification of Commanders' Emergency Response Program
(sec.1222)
The committee recommends a provision that would make up to
$10.0 million available during fiscal year 2016 for the
Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP) in Afghanistan
under section 1201 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) as amended. The
provision would also authorize certain payments to redress
injury and loss in Iraq in accordance with the authorities and
limitations in section 8121 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2015 (division C of Public Law 113-235),
other than subsection (h) of such section.
Extension of authority to transfer defense articles and provide defense
services to the military and security forces of Afghanistan
(sec. 1223)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through December 31, 2016, the authority under section 1222 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
(Public Law 112-239) to transfer defense articles being drawn
down in Afghanistan, and to provide defense services in
connection with such transfers, to the military and security
forces of Afghanistan. The provision would also extend through
fiscal year 2016 the exemption for excess defense articles
(EDA) transferred from Department of Defense stocks in
Afghanistan from counting toward the annual limitation on the
aggregate value of EDA transferred under section 516 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (Public Law 87-195).
Extension and modification of authority for reimbursement of certain
coalition nations for support provided to United States
military operations (sec. 1224)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend for
fiscal year 2016 the authority to make Coalition Support Funds
(CSF) payments under section 1233 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as
amended. Under this section the Secretary of Defense may use
CSF to reimburse certain or designated nations for support
provided to or in connection with U.S. military operations in
Afghanistan or to use such funds to provide specialized
training or loan specialized equipment to key nations
participating in coalition operations in Afghanistan. The
provision would limit the total amount of CSF that could be
provided in fiscal year 2016 to $1.2 billion. Of this amount,
the amount of CSF that could be provided to Pakistan would be
limited to $900.0 million. The provision would also extend for
1 year certain notifications and certification requirements
relating to CSF payments to Pakistan. The provision would
extend for 1 year the restriction on the Secretary of Defense
from waiving the certification requirements relating to $300.0
million of the $900.0 million and add the requirement for the
Secretary to certify that the Government of Pakistan has taken
actions to promote stability in Afghanistan.
The provision also includes a pilot program that authorizes
the use of up to $100.0 million of the $900.0 million
authorized for Pakistan for stability activities in the
Federally Administered Tribal Areas, including for such
activities undertaken by the Pakistan military and the Pakistan
Frontier Corps Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The provision would require
a report on the use of CSF funds for such activities.
Prohibition on transfer to violent extremist organizations of equipment
or supplies provided by the United States to the Government of
Iraq (sec. 1225)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
provision of assistance authorized by section 1236 of the Carl
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) to
an organization determined to be a violent extremist
organization. The provision prohibits providing assistance
under this authority unless appropriate steps have been taken
by the Government of Iraq to safeguard against transferring or
otherwise providing such assistance to violent extremist
organizations.
The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not
later than 30 days after a determination by the Secretary that
equipment provided pursuant to such authorization has been
subsequently transferred to or acquired by a violent extremist
organization. The committee is concerned that such equipment,
intended to be provided for the purpose of assisting the
Government of Iraq, may end up in the possession of violent
extremist organizations.
The provision would also require a description of the
criteria used to determine which organizations are violent
extremist organizations and therefore unsuitable to receive or
possess equipment or supplies provided by the United States to
the Government of Iraq as well as the end-use monitoring or
other policies and procedures put in place to promote
accountability. The intent of such policies and procedures is
to help prevent transfer to or acquisition by violent extremist
organizations that could include certain Shia militias, Sunni
extremists, or other groups assessed to have hostile intent
towards the United States or United States Armed Forces.
Report on lines of communication of Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant and other foreign terrorist organizations (sec. 1226)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the lines of
communication that enable the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant, Jabhat al-Nusra, and other foreign terrorist
organizations that facilitate assistance through countries
bordering on Syria.
Modification of protection for Afghan allies (sec. 1227)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program.
Extension of authority to support operations and activities of the
Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq (sec. 1228)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend
through fiscal year 2016 the authority under section 1215 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) as amended, for the Secretary of Defense to
support the operations and activities of the Office of Security
Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I). The provision would authorize the
use of up to $80.0 million in fiscal year 2016 to support OSC-I
operations and activities.
The provision would also update reporting requirements to
reflect the need for OSC-I to coordinate efforts with
assistance provided pursuant to section 1236 of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) and the
committee's concern for maintaining accountability of equipment
provided to the Government of Iraq.
Sense of Senate on support for the Kurdistan Regional Government (sec.
1229)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate urging the United States, in coordination
with coalition partners, to provide, in an expeditious and
responsive manner and without undue delay, security assistance
to the security forces of the Kurdistan Regional Government.
The committee emphasizes that the defeat of the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant is critical to maintaining a unified and
integrated Iraq.
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Iran
Modification and extension of the annual report on the military power
of Iran (sec. 1241)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
annual report on the military power of Iran as required by
section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) through 2021, as well as
make other modifications.
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation
Ukraine security assistance initiative (sec. 1251)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of
State, to provide security assistance and intelligence support
to military and other security forces of the Government of
Ukraine for the purposes of: (1) enhancing the defensive combat
capabilities of the military and other security forces of the
Government of Ukraine to defend Ukraine against further
aggression; (2) assisting Ukraine in developing combat
capability to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of Ukraine; and (3) supporting Ukraine in defending itself
against actions by Russia and Russian-backed separatists in
violation of the ceasefire agreements of September 5, 2014, and
February 11, 2015.
The committee notes that the authority granted in this
provision would not authorize the use of the United States
Armed Forces on the ground in Ukraine for the purpose of
conducting combat operations.
The committee is deeply concerned about the continuing
aggression by Russia and Russian-backed separatists in
violation of the ceasefire and continues to emphasize the
importance of providing security assistance and intelligence
support, including lethal military assistance, to the
Government of Ukraine to build its capacity to defend its
territory and sovereignty and to support the integrity of the
ceasefire agreement.
The committee notes the commencement of training of
Ukrainian security forces using the authority under section
1207 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012 (Public Law 112-81), as amended, for the Global Security
Contingency Fund and supports the expansion of this program to
additional units of the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior and
Ministry of Defense.
Eastern European Training Initiative (sec. 1252)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary
of State, to conduct the Eastern European Training Initiative
(EETI) to provide multilateral or regional training, and pay
the incremental expenses of participating in such training, for
countries in Eastern Europe that are a signatory to the
Partnership for Peace Framework Documents but not a member of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or that became a
NATO member after January 1, 1999. The committee notes the
purpose of such training is to promote interoperability,
improve the ability of participating countries to respond to
external threats including from hybrid warfare, and increase
the ability of NATO to take collective action when required.
The committee believes that training under the EETI should
be provided only to the newer NATO members and appropriate non-
NATO countries participating in the NATO Partnership for Peace
program, in particular those countries that are at risk or may
become at risk of intimidation from external threats to their
sovereignty or territorial integrity from neighboring
countries.
Increased presence of United States ground forces in Eastern Europe to
deter aggression on the border of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (sec. 1253)
The committee recommends a provision that would require a
report to the congressional defense committees, not later than
120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, by the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, assessing options for expanding the presence of U.S.
ground forces of the size of a brigade combat team in Eastern
Europe to respond, along with European allies and partners, to
the security challenges posed by Russia and to increase the
combat capability of allied forces to respond to unconventional
or hybrid warfare tactics like those used by Russia in Crimea
and eastern Ukraine. The committee believes that any increases
in the presence of U.S. ground forces in Eastern Europe should
be matched by similar increases in the commitment of ground
forces by European allies and partners for these purposes.
Sense of Congress on European Defense and North Atlantic Treaty
Organization spending (sec. 1254)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress urging the United States to encourage North
Atlantic Treaty Organization allies to meet defense budget
commitments made at the Wales Summit in September 2014 and to
continue to coordinate defense investments to improve
deterrence against Russian aggression and terrorist
organizations and more appropriately balance defense spending
across the alliance.
Additional matters in annual report on military and security
developments involving the Russian Federation (sec. 1255)
The committee recommends a provision that would add a
reporting requirement to section 1245 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) requiring an
assessment of the force structure and capabilities of Russian
military forces stationed in the Arctic region, Kaliningrad,
and Crimea, as well as an assessment of the Russian military
strategy in the Arctic region.
The committee is concerned about increased Russian military
activity in the Arctic region and notes that Russian activities
and apparent ambitions could present challenges to
international law, norms, and agreements relating to the Arctic
region.
Report on alternative capabilities to procure and sustain nonstandard
rotary wing aircraft historically procured through
Rosoboronexport (sec. 1256)
The committee recommends a provision that would require an
independent assessment directed by the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics in
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
report on the feasibility and advisability of using alternative
industrial base capabilities to procure and sustain nonstandard
rotary wing aircraft historically acquired through the Russian
state corporation Rosoboronexport. The assessment would include
an analysis of the economic impact as well as alterations that
would be required for waivers of foreign military sales
requirements and procedures for approval of airworthiness
certificates.
The committee notes that the use of alternative industrial
base capability to divest reliance on Rosoboronexport could
benefit United States national security interests, deny
financial support to the Russian Federation, and could
potentially benefit U.S. and Ukrainian commercial interests.
Subtitle E--Matters Relating to the Asia-Pacific Region
South China Sea Initiative (Sec. 1261)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary
of State, to provide equipment, supplies, and training to
national military or other security forces of foreign countries
to respond to threats to maritime security. The provision would
authorize $50.0 million with increase in future years, in
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Global
Train and Equip Program to provide assistance to the recipient
countries, which include Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines,
Thailand, and Vietnam. The provision would require that the
Secretary of Defense provide prior notification to the
congressional defense committees not later than 15 days before
exercising this authority.
Sense of Congress reaffirming the importance of implementing the
rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region (Sec. 1262)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the United States continue to
implement the rebalance of U.S. forces to the Asia-Pacific
region. The committee believes that the withdrawal of U.S.
forces from the Pacific theater of operations would undermine
the rebalance and that forces should be increased consistent
with commitments already make by the Department of Defense and
aligned with the requirement to maintain a balance of military
power that favors the United States and its allies in the
region.
Sense of the Senate on Taiwan Asymmetric Military Capabilities and
Bilateral Training Activities (Sec. 1263)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the United States continue to make
available to Taiwan such defense articles and services as may
be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-
defense, including support for Taiwan's innovative and
asymmetric measures to balance the growing capabilities of the
People's Republic of China. The committee also believes that
military forces of Taiwan should be encouraged to participate
in bilateral training activities hosted by the United States
that support the credible deterrent capabilities of Taiwan,
including the Red Flag exercise conducted at Eielson Air Force
Base, Alaska, and Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada.
Subtitle F--Reports and Related Matters
Item in quarterly reports on assistance to counter the Islamic State in
Iraq and the Levant on forces ineligible to receive assistance
due to a gross violation of human rights (sec. 1271)
The committee recommends a provision that would add an
additional element to the quarterly progress report required
under section 1236 (the ``Iraq Train and Equip authority'') of
the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
The additional element to be included in the report would be a
list of units restricted from receiving assistance under the
Iraq Train and Equip authority as a result of vetting required
by the authority or by section 2249e, title 10, United States
Code, including, as applicable, a description of information
relating to gross violations of human rights and association
with or assistance from the Government of Iran, unless such
vetting has been waived under subsection (j) of the Iraq Train
and Equip authority.
Report on bilateral agreement with Israel on joint activities to
establish an anti-tunneling defense system (sec. 1272)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of
State, to conduct a feasibility and advisability study of the
entry of the United States and Israel into a bilateral
agreement through which the two governments could conduct
cooperative anti-tunneling research, development, and testing,
and submit their findings to the appropriate congressional
committees.
The committee notes that both Israel and the United States
confront threats on their borders from tunnels used by foreign
terrorist organizations and transnational criminal
organizations. Given these common threats and our ongoing
cooperation with Israel on issues of mutual concern, the
committee notes there may be opportunities for additional
collaboration on this issue and awaits the Secretary's report.
Sense of Senate and report on Qatar fighter aircraft capability
contribution to regional security (sec. 1273)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of the Senate that the United States should promptly
consider the sale of fighter aircraft to the Government of
Qatar. The provision would also require a report describing the
risks and benefits as they relate to the sale of fighter
aircraft to the Government of Qatar.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
NATO Special Operations Headquarters (sec. 1281)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend, for
3 years, the authority under section 1244(a) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84; 123 Stat. 2541), as most recently amended by section
1272(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 2023).
Two-year extension and modification of authorization for non-
conventional assisted recovery capabilities (sec. 1282)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authority of the Department of Defense (DOD) to establish,
develop, and maintain non-conventional assisted recovery (NAR)
capabilities for 2 additional years. The provision would also
designate the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special
Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC) as the
primary civilian within DOD with programmatic and policy
oversight responsibilities for such activities. Given the
sensitive nature of NAR activities, including the authorized
use of irregular forces, groups, and individuals, the committee
believes that ASD SOLIC is the most appropriate civilian office
within the Department to exercise oversight of such activities
and associated policies. Furthermore, the committee directs the
Department to provide ASD SOLIC resourcing commensurate with
these responsibilities, with assistance and support from the
Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency as appropriate.
Items of Special Interest
Additional Analysis of People's Liberation Army Cyber Capabilities
The committee is concerned about the growing offensive
cyber capabilities of the People's Republic of China. The
Annual Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments
Involving the People's Republic of China 2015 concluded that
``Chinese offensive cyberspace operations could support A2/AD
by targeting critical nodes to disrupt adversary networks
throughout the region.'' The report also noted that, ``In 2014,
numerous computer systems around the world, including those
owned by the U.S. Government, continued to be targeted for
intrusions, some of which can be attributed directly to the
Chinese Government and military.''
The committee believes that China's growing cyber
capabilities warrant additional review and analysis in both
classified and unclassified form. Therefore, the committee
recommends the Department of Defense provide a more holistic
assessment of offensive and defense cyber capabilities within
the People's Liberation Army, the Chinese Ministry of State
Security, and non-state actors seeking to further Chinese
political and strategic goals as a part of the 2016 Annual
Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments
Involving the People's Republic of China. In particular, the
committee is interested in an assessment of Chinese
capabilities for integrating cyber activity into conventional
and unconventional operations, China's ability to avoid
attribution while executing or facilitating offensive cyber
operations, and China's assistance to other countries to assist
in building cyber capabilities.
Annual report on the military power of Iran
The committee remains concerned about the threat posed by
Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile development programs. The
committee notes that last year, the Director of National
Intelligence, James Clapper, testified that, ``We judge that
Iran would choose a ballistic missile as its preferred method
of delivering nuclear weapons. . .'' In February, Iran
successfully launched the Safir long-range missile system. In
2013, the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC)
made the following statement about this system:
Iran could develop and test an ICBM capable of reaching the
United States by 2015. Since 2008, Iran has conducted multiple
successful launches of the two-stage Safir space launch vehicle
(SLV) and has also revealed the larger two stage Simorgh SLV,
which could serve as a test bed for developing ICBM
technologies.
The committee remains interested in an update from the
Secretary of Defense on Iran's ballistic missile development
programs. The committee notes that section 1245 0f the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, as amended
(Public Law 111-84) requires the Secretary of Defense to
submit, on an annual basis, a report on the military power of
Iran. The committee notes that previous versions of this report
have provided useful information on Iran's military power,
including its ballistic missile capabilities and developments.
The report is due January 30 of each year. However, the
committee notes that, as of May 2015, the report has not been
provided to Congress. Given the longstanding nature of this
reporting requirement, the committee expects the prompt
delivery of this report each year. Given this delay, upon the
delivery of the report covering 2014, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide to Congress a briefing on the
report which--in addition to covering information from 2014--
should also provide an update from the report' s information
cut-off date to the present on any developments within Iran's
ballistic missile program that would, at a minimum, contain the
information required in section 1245(b)(4).
Briefing on United States Unmanned Aerial System Export Requests
The committee notes that in the context of the threat
presented by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in
the Middle East and elsewhere, coalition countries have
requested specific U.S. military assets and assistance to
support their efforts. The committee values the contributions
of these countries and urges continued consideration of their
requests.
The committee recognizes that some of these coalition
countries, including the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the
United Arab Emirates, have requested Unmanned Aerial System
(UAS) capability.
The committee notes that appropriate transfers of UAS
technology can help build the capacity of partner nation
military forces, foster interoperability with the United
States, support critical counterterrorism objectives, and
sustain the defense industrial base. The Committee also
supports expeditious interagency review of all letters of
request or license applications for the export of such systems
to these partners and allies in the Middle East whose military
requirements demand assets that provide persistent
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide a
briefing, not later than September 15, 2015, to congressional
defense and foreign relations committees on any UAS requests
from Jordan and other Middle Eastern countries that are
contributing to Operation Inherent Resolve. The briefing should
include the dates that requests were received, specific issues
under consideration, waiver recommendations, and expectations
for completing the review for each request.
Countering Russian propaganda
The committee has watched with increasing concern the
proliferation and expansion of Russian propaganda not only in
Eastern Europe, but also throughout Central and Western Europe
to levels not seen since the end of the Cold War. Russian-
speaking populations in Eastern Europe in former Soviet Union
nations, including North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
allies, are especially vulnerable to propaganda that could be
used to create more favorable conditions for future Russian
aggression. Moreover, the sophistication and pervasiveness of
outlets such as the Russia Today (RT) television network that
broadcast in multiple languages in Western European democracies
is cause for concern.
The committee notes that Russian propaganda has promoted a
false narrative on the nature, scope, and cause of the conflict
in Crimea and eastern Ukraine and has unfortunately achieved
some success with targeted audiences in obscuring attribution
for Russian-driven aggression and disregard for sovereignty,
territorial integrity, and international law.
The committee recognizes that propaganda is a critical
element of Russia's ``hybrid warfare'' concept. The speed and
reach of Russian propaganda and the ambiguity it creates pose a
challenge to NATO collective defense and the political
consensus upon which it relies.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to consult with the Secretary of State with the
objective of developing a strategy, including supporting
resources, to counter Russian propaganda in Europe.
Designation of lead Inspector General for Overseas Contingency
Operations in Afghanistan
The committee supports the designation by the Chair of the
Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency of a
lead inspector general for overseas contingency operations for
Operation Freedom's Sentinel in Afghanistan on April 1, 2015,
in compliance with section 8L of the Inspector General Act of
1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), as amended by section 848 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239; 126 Stat. 1851).
The committee recognizes the importance of a lead inspector
to coordinate and optimize the collection and reporting of
information across agencies and inspectors general and the need
to establish clear oversight by the appointment of such a lead
inspector general as intended and required by section 848. The
committee expects the lead inspector general to assist in the
refinement of the size, functions and purpose of the inspector
general mission taking into consideration the reduction of
United States forces in Afghanistan.
Organizational management of Department of Defense security assistance
programs
At present, the Department of Defense's (DOD) security
assistance and security cooperation programs are overseen and
implemented by a multiple offices, including the Undersecretary
of Defense for Policy (USD-P), the geographic combatant
commands, the military services, the Joint Staff, and
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics (USD-AT&L). The divergent lines of responsibility and
reporting exacerbate DOD's challenges in aligning security
cooperation programs coherently in support of strategic defense
objectives. No office or management official within OSD,
underneath the level of the Secretary of Defense, has the
authority to look across the security assistance and
cooperation enterprise and make binding strategic decisions to
align DOD's policies and resources in a manner that is
consistent with its strategic priorities and to curtail
redundancy.
The committee believes that efforts to date by the Office
of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to rationalize oversight and
management of DOD security assistance and security cooperation
programs across the Department have not gone far enough. DOD
should reevaluate the organizational structure and
responsibilities within OSD to streamline oversight and
implementation responsibilities for DOD security assistance and
cooperation activities.
As such, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
conduct an organizational review of security assistance and
security cooperation program oversight and management
responsibilities across DOD and, in particular, an examination
of the distribution of resources and policy oversight
responsibilities within OSD-P, and to submit to the Committee
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the
Senate a detailed summary of its findings no later than March
31, 2016.
This review, at a minimum, should: (1) identify all
security assistance and security cooperation programs available
to the Department and the offices in DOD that are responsible
for policy oversight, program management, and implementation of
such programs; (2) review the roles and responsibilities for
policy oversight, program management, and execution of security
cooperation programs of relevant offices and components; (3)
make recommendations to improve policy oversight and program
management for DOD security assistance and security cooperation
activities, which may include consolidation of oversight and
management responsibilities into one functional office; (4)
describe the processes for articulating security cooperation
priorities, and aligning resources and activities with those
priorities, across DOD and identify opportunities for
improvement, where appropriate; (5) describe evaluation and
monitoring mechanisms to assess security assistance and
cooperation programs and ensure lessons learned and best
practices are incorporated into program formulation and
implementation; and (6) any other matters the Secretary
determines to be appropriate to inform the committee of its
findings and recommendations.
Report on capability of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to
respond to unconventional or hybrid warfare tactics such as
used by the Russian Federation in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine
The committee is concerned about the capability of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to respond to
unconventional or hybrid warfare tactics such as those used by
the Russian Federation in Crimea and eastern Ukraine due to the
ambiguous nature of those tactics and the resultant challenges
of attribution. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report not later than September 1, 2016 to
the congressional defense committees on recommendations for
improving the alliance's response options, decision-making
processes and implementation timelines for addressing the use
of unconventional or hybrid warfare tactics such as those used
by the Russian Federation. The report should include:
(1) An identification of the unconventional or hybrid
tactics the Russian Federation may employ against NATO
nations;
(2) A consolidation of tactics identified pursuant to
paragraph (1) into a set of possible scenarios to be
used to analyze potential response options by NATO;
(3) An assessment of the response options NATO could
potentially pursue for each of the scenarios identified
pursuant to paragraph (2);
(4) Recommendations to improve response options,
decision-making processes, and implementation timelines
for the scenarios identified pursuant to paragraph (2);
(5) An assessment of implementation by NATO of
commitments made at the Wales Summit regarding the
Readiness Action Plan;
(6) Recommendations, if any, for exercises or
mechanisms to improve the ability of NATO to consult
and reach consensus in scenarios relating to the
employment of unconventional or hybrid tactics; and
(7) Such other matters as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
Support of foreign forces participating in operations against the
Lord's Resistance Army
The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) has perpetrated atrocities
throughout central Africa for more than two decades, which have
included murder, rape, and the abduction of children to serve
as child soldiers. The committee notes the important progress
the African Union Regional Task Force (AU-RTF) and other
regional partners have made in combatting the threat posed by
the LRA. These operations have resulted in the removal of
several key LRA leaders and contributed to an increase in
defections. The committee notes that support provided by the
Department of Defense (DOD) under Operation Observant Compass
(OOC) has played a key role in enabling counter-LRA operations.
The committee further notes that section 1208 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) authorizes the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence
of the Secretary of State, to provide logistic support,
supplies, and services, and intelligence support to foreign
forces participating in operations to mitigate and eliminate
the threat posed by the LRA. The committee believes that
continued DOD support, specifically additional enablers and
actionable intelligence, is required to increase the
effectiveness of partner operations to eliminate the threat
posed by Joseph Kony and the LRA and encourages DOD to continue
such assistance.
United States-Indonesia military cooperation
The committee notes Indonesia's remarkable achievements as
it has developed its economy, consolidated its democratic
institutions, and improved its self-defense capabilities since
the fall of the Suharto government in 1998. Furthermore, the
committee acknowledges the progress the Indonesian government
has made on human rights issues, including progress on civilian
control over the military. The committee looks for Indonesia to
continue improving its human rights record and building a more
inclusive democratic process. As the largest country in
Southeast Asia and the most populous Muslim-majority nation in
the world, the committee believes Indonesia represents a
critical partner for the United States in the Asia-Pacific
region.
The committee strongly supports President Jokowi's declared
vision of building Indonesia into a ``global maritime axis.''
The committee welcomes an Indonesia with the infrastructure,
industrial base, training, and capabilities that will allow it
to benefit from and contribute to regional maritime commerce
and security.
In the security domain, the committee notes that Indonesia
has committed to a military modernization effort known as the
Minimum Essential Force (MEF) through 2024. The MEF is focused
on enhancing the naval and air force capabilities of the
archipelagic state's military (known as the Tentara Nasional
Indonesia, or TNI) to address both traditional and
nontraditional security concerns. Nevertheless, the committee
understands Indonesia's military modernization has suffered
from a lack of resources, ill-equipped infrastructure, and
aging defense research facilities.
The committee recognizes that the United States-Indonesia
Comprehensive Partnership, signed in 2010, provides the
relationship with a mechanism to help enhance Indonesia's
defense capabilities. The committee believes the Department of
Defense (DOD) should consider all available opportunities to
continue to expand the depth and breadth of the defense
relationship. Specifically, the committee believes the United
States should look to the following priorities:
(1) Continue to deepen the military-military
relationship in ways that effectively grow the
organizations that enable the development, sustainment,
and use of military power. Building such ties will
require engagement both by senior leaders and at the
working level. More specifically, the United States
should focus on providing training to civilian and
military officials to improve the management of full
life-cycle costs of defense programs. In this regard,
the committee is encouraged by the recent memorandum of
understanding between the Indonesian Defense Minister
and the Defense Institution Reform Initiative (DIRI);
(2) Continue to utilize bilateral and multilateral
exercises that enhance the TNI's command, control,
communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance
and reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities. In this
regard, the committee sees value in expanding
Indonesia's participation in Cooperation Afloat
Readiness and Training, Rim of the Pacific, and Red
Flag exercises. Over the longer-term, exercises should
work towards encouraging more joint operations between
the various TNI services;
(3) Emphasize Foreign Military Sales that will
contribute to Indonesia's naval, air, and C4ISR
capabilities; and
(4) Move to normalize relations between the United
States military and the Indonesian Special Forces
Command, Komando Pasukan Khusus (Kopassus), as it
continues to improve its record on human rights.
Therefore, the Secretary of Defense is directed to provide
a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate no
later than December 30, 2015 on the DOD's current and planned
defense cooperation with Indonesia.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
Subtitle A--Funding Allocations
Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction funds (sec. 1301)
The committee recommends a provision that would define the
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs, define the funds
as authorized to be appropriated in section 301 of this bill,
and authorize CTR funds to be available for obligation for 3
fiscal years.
Funding allocations (sec. 1302)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$358.5 million, the amount of the budget request, for the
Cooperative Threat Reduction program.
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
Subtitle A--Military Programs
Working Capital Funds (sec. 1401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for the Defense Working Capital Funds at the
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
National Defense Sealift Fund (sec. 1402)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for the National Defense Sealift Fund at
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (sec. 1403)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction, Defense, at levels identified in section 4501 of
division D of this Act.
Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Defense-wide (sec. 1404)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug
Activities, Defense-wide, at the levels identified in section
4501 of division D of this Act.
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1405)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General of
the Department of Defense at the levels identified in section
4501 of division D of this Act.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1406)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the Defense Health Program activities at the
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Authority for transfer of funds to Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration
Fund for Captain James A. Lovell Health Care Center, Illinois
(sec. 1411)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to transfer $120.4 million from the
Defense Health Program to the Joint Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration
Fund created by section 1704 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) for
the operations of the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health
Care Center.
Authorization of appropriations for Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec.
1412)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$64.3 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2016 for the
operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
Inspections of the Armed Forces Retirement Home by the Inspector
General of the Department of Defense (sec. 1413)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1518 of the Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991
(24 U.S.C. 418) to require the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense to conduct an inspection of the Armed
Forces Retirement Home not less than once every 3 years and to
authorize the Inspector General to determine the scope of the
inspection through a risk-based analysis of the operations of
the home. The provision would also remove the requirement for
the Inspector General to provide the report not later than 90
days after the inspection.
Budget Items
United States Southern Command unfunded priorities increase
The budget request included $739.0 million in drug
interdiction and counterdrug activities, of which $23.1 million
is for U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) Central American and
Caribbean CN Operation Support [Project Code (PC) 9493], and
$13.7 million is for SOUTHCOM Section 1033 Support [PC9494].
SOUTHCOM has identified specific resource mission shortfalls
that impact its detection and monitoring support to maritime
interdiction operations in Central America. In written
testimony submitted to the committee on March 12, 2015, General
John Kelly, Commander of SOUTHCOM, stated that ``homeland
defense does not begin at the `one yard line' of our Southwest
border, but instead extends forward, throughout the hemisphere,
to keep threats far from our nation's shores.'' Further, the
committee believes that increased support to detection,
monitoring, and interdiction efforts in the region is required
to combat the growth in trafficking of illicit drugs, such as
heroin and methamphetamine, that is having a devastating impact
on many U.S. communities.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.7
million PC 9493 and $25.3 million for PC 9494 in drug
interdiction and counterdrug activities for SOUTHCOM detection
and monitoring and maritime interdiction support operations in
Central America.
Drug Demand Reduction Program
The budget request included $739.0 million for the
Department of Defense's (DOD) Drug Interdiction and Counter-
drug Activities, Defense-wide, and $111.6 million for the DOD's
Drug Demand Reduction Program. The committee recommends a
decrease of $8.0 million in Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug
Activities, Defense-wide, and increase of $8.0 million in Drug
Demand Reduction Program.
The committee supports the ongoing efforts of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to expand the
existing Drug Demand Reduction Program testing program to
include prescription and synthetic drugs. Further, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to program funding
for these activities in future years.
Department of Defense Inspector General Research, Development, Test &
Evaluation reduction
The budget request included $5.1 billion in Research,
Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Defense-wide of which
$4.7 million was for the SAG 4GTV Office of the Inspector
General (OIG).
After discussions with the OIG, the committee understands
that portions of this funding are no longer needed due to
delays in program development.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $2.6
million in RDT&E for the SAG 4GTV DIG. Additionally, the
committee strongly encourages the DODIG to take steps to
improve the planning, programming, budgeting and execution
associated with development of information technology systems
and capabilities to support its mission, ensuring that these
activities conform to best practices and can serve as a model
for the Department of Defense.
Department of Defense Inspector General procurement reduction
The budget request included $5.1 billion in Procurement,
Defense-wide of which $1.0 million was for SAG 4GTV Office of
the Inspector General (OIG).
After discussions with the OIG, the committee understands
that the OIG has withdrawn its request for procurement funding
for fiscal year 2016 based on the lack of identified need.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.0
million for the SAG 4GTV OIG.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1406)
The amount authorized to be funded for the Defense Health
Program includes the following changes from the budget request.
[Changes in millions of dollars]
Reduction for combating antibiotic resistant bacteria. -16.5
Total............................................. -16.5
The committee recommends a reduction in the Defense Health
Program of $16.5 million for combating antibiotic resistant
bacteria to support the President's global health security
agenda initiative, which the committee did not adopt.
Foreign currency fluctuation deduction
The budget request included $32.2 billion for Defense
Health Program.
The committee believes that when foreign currency
fluctuation (FCF) rates are determined by the Department of
Defense, the balance of the FCF funds should be considered,
particularly if the balance is close to the cap of $970.0
million. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
informed the committee that as of March 2015, the Department
has not transferred in any prior year unobligated balances to
replenish the account for fiscal year 2015 from a beginning
balance of $970.0 million. GAO analysis projects that the
Department will experience a net gain of $739.8 million in
fiscal year 2015 due to favorable foreign exchange rates, of
which $456.1 million is attributed to Operation and Maintenance
(O&M). Additionally, GAO analysis projects the Department will
experience a net gain of $891.4 million in fiscal year 2016 in
FCF, of which $587.4 million is attributed to O&M.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $36.4
million from Defense Health Program for FCF.
Items of Special Interest
Clarification of funding available for additional support for counter-
drug activities and activities to counter transnational
organized crime
The committee is concerned by the threat posed by
transnational organized crime (TOC) to United States national
security. Testimony before the committee by the Commander of
U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and the Commander of U.S.
Northern Command (NORTHCOM) emphasized the increasingly complex
and global nature of these illicit networks and highlighted
that a whole-of-government approach is required to effectively
counter the threat posed by TOC. The committee notes that the
Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime, released by
the President on July 19, 2011, sought to establish a framework
for the United States to ``combat TOC networks that pose a
strategic threat to Americans and to U.S. interests in key
regions.''
In recognition of this emerging security reality, section
1012 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015 (Public Law 113-
291) amended the Department's longstanding authority to provide
support for counter-drug activities to other governmental
agencies, commonly referred to as ``section 1004,'' to also
include the authority to provide support to counter-TOC
activities. It was the committee's intent that funds under the
drug interdiction and counter drug activities account, which
have historically been available to support counterdrug
activities under this authority, shall also be available to
support counter-TOC activities authorized under the
aforementioned section 1012 of Public Law 113-291.
Comptroller General review of electronic waste recycling
The committee notes that modern electronics used by the
Department of Defense (DOD) may contain valuable, recyclable
materials, including strategic and critical materials of rare
earth elements. The committee also notes that through the
proper disposal of end-of-life electronics, recyclable
materials may be able to be reclaimed for use in DOD advanced
technology programs and the National Defense Stockpile. The
committee is interested in understanding more about how DOD
plans for and executes the disposal and recycling of
electronics.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to conduct an assessment of: (1)
information on the disposition of used DOD electronics,
including the volume of electronics that are recycled, reused,
refurbished, and de-manufactured; (2) information on the value
of all strategic and critical materials, including rare earth
elements, recovered from recycled electronics used by DOD since
fiscal year 2010; (3) information on the models used by DOD for
the collection and capture of strategic and critical materials
from used electronics, including any benefits and challenges
associated with the models; and (4) an identification and
assessment of potential opportunities for improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of DOD efforts to recover
strategic and critical materials from used DOD electronics.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a
report to the committee no later than March 1, 2016.
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Additional Appropriations
Purpose (sec. 1501)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
this title and make authorization of appropriations available
upon enactment of this Act for the Department of Defense, in
addition to amounts otherwise authorized in this Act.
Overseas contingency operations (sec. 1502)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
additional appropriations for overseas contingency operations.
Procurement (sec. 1503)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriation for procurement activities at the
levels identified in section 4102 of division D of this Act.
Research, development, test, and evaluation (sec. 1504)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriation for research, development, test,
and evaluation activities at the levels identified in section
4202 of division D of this Act.
Operation and Maintenance (sec. 1505)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriations for operation and maintenance
activities at the levels identified in section 4302 of division
D of this Act.
Military personnel (sec. 1506)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriations for military personnel activities
at the levels identified in section 4402 of division D of this
Act.
Working capital funds (sec. 1507)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriations for the Defense Working Capital
Funds at the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of
this Act.
Drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, defense-wide (sec. 1508)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriations for the Drug Interdiction and
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide at the levels identified
in section 4502 of division D of this Act.
Defense Inspector General (sec. 1509)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriations for the Office of the Inspector
General of the Department of Defense identified in section 4502
of division D of this Act.
Defense Health Program (sec. 1510)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriations for the Defense Health Program
activities identified in section 4502 of division D of this
Act.
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (sec. 1511)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the additional appropriations for the Counterterrorism
Partnerships Funds at the levels identified in section 4502 of
division D of this Act. Amounts authorized in this fund will be
available for obligation for 2 fiscal years.
Subtitle B--Financial Matters
Treatment as additional authorizations (sec. 1521)
The committee recommends a provision that would state that
the amounts authorized to be appropriated in this title are in
addition to amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated by
this Act.
Special transfer authority (sec. 1522)
The committee recommends a provision that would allow the
Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $4.0 billion of overseas
contingency operation funding authorized for fiscal year 2016
in this title. This transfer authority would be in addition to
the authority provided to the Secretary elsewhere in this Act.
Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (sec. 1531)
The committee recommends a provision that would require
that amounts authorized for the Afghanistan Security Forces
Fund (ASFF) for fiscal year 2016 continue to be subject to the
conditions specified in subsections (b) through (g) of section
1513 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended. The provision would also
extend the authority under subsection 1532(b) of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) to accept certain
equipment procured using ASFF funds and to treat such equipment
as Department of Defense stocks.
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund (sec. 1532)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund and would
thereby provide the Secretary of Defense with the authority to
investigate, develop and provide equipment, supplies, services,
training, facilities, personnel, and funds to assist in the
defeat of improvised explosive devices for operations in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other operations or military
missions designated by the Secretary.
The committee notes that JIEDDO has continued to reduce its
size from a peak of more than 4,200 personnel and a $4.5
billion annual budget to 1,100 personnel and $450.0 million,
with plans to reduce further. The committee awaits the plan to
consolidate and align all of the rapid acquisition or quick
reaction capability organizations, including JIEDDO, and
certain other organizations as directed in section 1533 of the
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291),
and where appropriate to eliminate such organizations.
The committee expects that the decision on JIEDDO's
disposition (consolidation with another defense agency,
military service entity, or stand-alone organization) will be
made as part of the Secretary's review to streamline the
Department of Defense management and operational headquarters.
The streamlining of Department of Defense management and
operational headquarters is described in another provision in
title III of this Act.
Availability of Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund funds for
training of foreign security forces to defeat improvised
explosive devices (sec. 1533)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to use up to $30.0 million of the
amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2016 for
the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund to fund
training activities for foreign security forces to increase the
effectiveness of such forces in defeating improvised explosive
devices. The provision would require such training be provided
only pursuant to other provisions of law and also requires the
Secretary of Defense to coordinate the provision of training to
the extent practicable with requests received from the
geographic combatant commander.
The committee emphasizes the importance of ensuring that a
flexible and responsive approval process is established to
support the provision of this training.
Budget Items
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund
The budget request includes $493.3 million for the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Defeat Fund, of which the
request included $188.3 million Joint IED Defeat Organization's
(JIEDDO) staff and infrastructure account and $219.6 million
for its network attack account. The committee recommends
sustaining JIEDDO's funding at fiscal year 2015 levels and
therefore recommends a reduction of $43.8 million to JIEDDO's
staff and infrastructure account and $4.5 million to the
network attack account.
Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq
The budget request included $9.1 billion for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force (OMAF) for overseas contingency
operations, of which $204.7 million was for SAG 042G Other
Servicewide Activities.
The committee understands that this request included $143.0
million to support operations and activities of the Office of
Security Cooperation in Iraq.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $63.0
million for SAG 042G Other Service Activities due to a lack of
justification in the budget request.
Reimbursement of certain coalition nations for support provided to
United States military operations
The budget request included $1.7 billion in Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-wide (OMDW) for the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency for Overseas Contingency Operations, of
which $1.3 billion was for the reimbursement of key nations for
support provided to or in connection with U.S. military
operations in Afghanistan. The committee recommends a decrease
of $100.0 million in OMDW as the number of U.S. forces and the
scope of associated military operations in Afghanistan draws
down. A provision related to the authorization for the use of
such funds is included in title XII of this Act.
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund
The budget request included $2.1 billion in overseas
contingency operations funding for the Counterterrorism
Partnerships Fund (CTPF). The committee is concerned that the
budget justification materials did not provide sufficient
levels of detail to support the budget request. Therefore, the
committee recommends a reduction of $1.1 billion for CTPF.
The committee continues to support the CTPF and the
Department's proposed regional approach for counterterrorism
operations and building partnership capacity (BPC) activities
described in the budget justification materials. The committee
is concerned that the increase in requested funding for BPC
efforts could outpace the ability of foreign partners to absorb
and sustain the assistance beyond the logistic support provided
under such BPC programs. As such, the committee encourages the
Department to incorporate training of partner nation
maintenance and logistic personnel to enhance the
sustainability of capabilities provided through this program.
Additionally, the committee directs that any proposal to
undertake BPC activities using CTPF funding shall include a
detailed sustainment plan for the capabilities to be provided,
which should be broadly-vetted across the interagency. The plan
should also include a description of the planned transition of
sustainment responsibilities from CTPF-funded programs.
Further, the committee notes with concern the growing
malign influence of Iranian supported proxy militant groups
throughout the Middle East and Africa, commonly referred to as
the Iran Threat Network (ITN). These activities contribute to
regional instability, undermine U.S. national security
interests, and directly threaten U.S. partners in the affected
regions. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to present a plan to counter the ITN to the committee
by December 31, 2015. Further, the committee directs that up to
$50.0 million of the funds authorized to be appropriated for
the CTPF be made available to support counter-ITN efforts.
In preparation for the fiscal year 2017 budget request, the
committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
and Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) to conduct a review of
the feasibility and advisability of consolidating additional
building partnership capacity funding, including non-
counterterrorism related funding, into a building partner
capacity fund and to provide a briefing to the congressional
defense committees on their findings no later than November 30,
2015.
Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative
The budget request included no funding for a Ukraine
Security Assistance Initiative. The committee recommends an
increase of $300.0 million for this initiative. A provision
related to the authorization for the use of such funds is
included in title XII of this act.
Items of Special Interest
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Analysis Tool
The committee notes that the Army has decided not to field
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Analysis Tool (JIST) software
after spending more than $10.0 million developing it in
conjunction with the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Organization (JIEDDO). While the committee understands that the
Army intends to use an existing software program resident in
the Distributed Common Ground Station-Army (DCGS-A) program to
meet the requirement for counter-improvised explosive devices
(IED) forensic analysis, the critical nature of the IED threat
may demand a dedicated software analysis tool to meet certain
intelligence analysis requirements. Therefore, the committee
urges the Army to consider including IED forensic analysis
tools as part of any planned DCGS-A Increment 2 competition.
The committee requests that the Army keep the committee
informed of its plan in this regard.
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS
Subtitle A--Space Activities
Integrated policy to deter adversaries in space (sec. 1601)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
President to establish an interagency process to develop a
policy to deter adversaries in space. This integrated
deterrence policy would be developed with the objectives of (1)
reducing risks to the United States and its allies in space;
and (2) protecting and preserving the rights, access,
capabilities, use, and freedom of action of the United States
in space and the right of the United States to respond to an
attack in space and, if necessary, deny adversaries the use of
space capabilities hostile to the national interests of the
United States. The provision would require the President to
provide a report setting forth the deterrence policy and the
answers to Enclosure 1, regarding offensive space control
policy, of the classified annex to this Act, to the Committee
on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives within 180 days of the
date of enactment. If the report required and the answers to
Enclosure 1 are not provided within 180 days of the date of
enactment, the provision would prohibit, until provided, the
obligation or expenditure of $10.0 million of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to
the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2016 to provide
support services to the Executive Office of the President.
The committee is concerned that China and Russia have
weaponized space and seek to gain an asymmetric advantage
against the United States by holding United States space
capabilities at risk. To counter growing Chinese and Russian
aggression in space, the committee believes a multifaceted
strategy will be necessary and that the deterrence policy that
would be required by this provision is a critical element of
that strategy. Elsewhere in the classified annex of this act,
the committee discusses additional elements of that strategy.
Elsewhere in this act, the committee recommends a provision
prohibiting the obligation or expenditure of $10.0 million of
the unobligated balance of the amounts appropriated or
otherwise made available to the Department of Defense to
provide support services to the Executive Office of the
President, until the President submits to the congressional
defense committees the integrated cyber deterrence policy
required by section 941 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-61). The committee
hopes including the funding limitation in this provision will
incentivize the President to meet the deadline this provision
would establish.
Principal advisor on space control (sec. 1602)
The committee recommends a provision requiring the
Secretary of Defense to designate an individual who is already
a full time equivalent of the Department of Defense to serve as
the Principal Space Control Advisor, who shall act as the
principal advisor to the Secretary on space control activities.
The committee believes that the space control mission will
see significant growth in the coming years. The committee
believes that because of the growing importance of space
control capabilities, the establishment of a Principal Space
Control Advisor would be necessary to coordinate and lead
department-wide efforts, streamline decision making, and
enhance the level of focus across the department and
interagency.
Exception to the prohibition on contracting with Russian suppliers of
rocket engines for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
program (sec. 1603)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1608 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3626; 10 U.S.C. 2271 note) by adding a
special rule for Phase 1A competitive opportunities. For not
more than nine competitive Phase 1A launches, the special rule
would allow the Secretary of Defense to award a contract
requiring the use of a rocket engine designed or manufactured
in the Russian Federation that is eligible for the existing
waiver or exception requirements as specified in the existing
statute. If a circumstance arises during the Phase 1A period
where a launch provider is awarded a competitive contract and
requires a rocket engine unable to meet the waiver or exception
requirements, the provision would allow for the Secretary to
waive the waiver or exception. In order to qualify for the new
special rule, all engines that meet the waiver or exception of
the existing statute must first be used.
The committee notes that for the Phase 1A competitive
period, this could result in as few as zero Russian rocket
engines or up to nine, depending upon the outcome of the
competitions. The committee believes that the continued use of
Russian rocket engines represents a threat to our national
security and that their use should be minimized to the greatest
extent practicable.
National Security Presidential Directive 40 states that
Assured Access to Space is ``a requirement for critical
national security, homeland security, and civil missions and is
defined as a sufficiently robust, responsive, and resilient
capability to allow continued space operations, consistent with
risk management and affordability. The Secretary of Defense and
the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, as appropriate, are responsible for assuring
access to space.'' The committee notes that under section 1608,
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is not
prohibited from procuring launches that utilize rocket engines
manufactured or designed in the Russian Federation. The
committee also notes that NASA has contracts for numerous
launches that rely on Russian rocket engines for the
foreseeable future. While the committee does not condone the
use of Russian rocket engines for NASA purposes, the committee
recognizes that assured access to space can still be met if a
national emergency required the use of a NASA procured launch
for Department of Defense purposes.
Elimination of launch capabilities contracts under Evolved Expendable
Launch Vehicle program (sec. 1604)
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the Secretary of Defense from awarding a contract, renewing a
contract, or maintaining a separate contract line item for the
procurement of property or services for space launch
capabilities under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)
program. The provision would define space launch capabilities
as work associated with supporting launch infrastructure
maintenance and sustainment, program management, systems
engineering launch site operations, launch site depreciation,
and maintenance commodities. The provision would allow for the
Secretary to waive the requirement and award a separate
contract or maintain a separate contract line item for launch
capabilities only if the Secretary determines and reports to
the congressional defense committees 30 days prior to executing
a waiver that: (1) awarding or renewing, or maintaining a
separate contract line item for launch capabilities is
necessary for the national security interests of the United
States and the contract or contract line item does not support
space launch activities using rocket engines designed or
manufactured in the Russian Federation; and (2) failing to
award or renew such a contract or maintain such a contract line
item would have significant consequences to national security
and result in the significant loss of life or property or
economic harm. The provision would not apply to the placement
of orders or the exercise of options under the contract
numbered FA8811-13-C-003 and awarded on December 18, 2013. That
exception would expire on September 30, 2019.
The EELV Launch Capability (ELC) was created in 2005 by the
Air Force to augment a fragile domestic industrial base and
maintain a national capability to launch national security
payloads as set forth in National Security Presidential
Directive-40 (NSPD-40). Since 2005, the Air Force has spent
billions of dollars supplementing the infrastructure and
capacity of the incumbent launch provider. Also since 2005, new
launch providers have entered the market and created
competition. The committee believes that with the introduction
of space launch competition, launch capability subsidies
inappropriately inhibit fair competition and are no longer
necessary. The Commander of Air Force Space Command testified
to this point before Congress on March 25, 2015 when he stated
``I don't think you can have fair competition with that
contract in place.'' To ensure a fair competitive environment
in the future, the committee believes that all future
competitive launch opportunities should require a bid price
that provides a fully burdened launch service cost.
The committee recognizes that a limited need for launch
capability funding could arise in order to meet certain heavy
launch requirements that are at significant near-term risk,
since the incumbent launch provider announced its intention to
no longer produce the Delta IV line of launch vehicles. The
Delta IV rocket, which uses a rocket engine designed and
manufactured in the United States, is being discontinued prior
to its replacement with a new domestically sourced capability.
This will leave the incumbent launch provider with only the
Atlas V rocket, which uses a rocket engine designed and
manufactured in the Russian Federation. The committee is
troubled by the incumbent launch provider's decision, given the
billions of dollars the taxpayer has provided to the incumbent
provider to maintain the capability. The committee also
believes that this decision, which may be a result of the
prospect of increasing space launch competition, should not
create an impression of a lack of competition.
Because of the unique role of the Delta IV in meeting our
national security space requirements, the provision includes a
limited national security waiver as long as the contract does
not support space launch activities using rocket engines
designed or manufactured in the Russian Federation.
Allocation of funding for Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program
(sec. 1605)
The committee recommends a provision realigning the cost
share of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Launch
Capabilities (ELC) between the Air Force and the National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO). The provision would require, for
fiscal years 2017, 2018, or 2019, that the Air Force request
for ELC funding bear the same ratio to the total number of Air
Force cores to be procured under the Evolved Expendable Launch
Vehicle Launch Services (ELS).
The committee is concerned that the existing Memorandum of
Understanding between the Air Force and the National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO), dated October 7, 2011 provides a
disproportionate cost share agreement for the ELC of 75 percent
costs to the Air Force and 25 percent of costs to the NRO. The
committee believes that this cost share unfairly burdens the
Air Force. For example, in fiscal year 2016 the Air Force
request of five cores represents just 55.5 percent of the total
number of cores requested. In fiscal year 2017, while the NRO
projects a request of seven cores, the Air Force projects a
request of just five cores, or only 42 percent of the total
buy. The committee recognizes that actual launch capability
costs in a given year may not be based on the ratio of ELS
versus ELC, but believes basing the cost share on the actual
number of cores procured in a given year is the most equitable
way to share ELC requirements under the current block buy.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee recommends a provision
that would prohibit the award of a new contract, the renewal of
an existing contract, or maintaining a separate contract line
item for ELC. The committee expects that after the current
block buy, future EELV contracts will reflect the total cost of
a launch under fully burdened launch services contracts.
Inclusion of plan for development and fielding of a full-up engine in
rocket propulsion system development program (sec. 1606)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1604 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) to include a plan for the development and fielding
of a full-up engine. The committee emphasizes the importance of
expediting the developing of a rocket propulsion system by
2019, consistent with the requirements of section 1604.
Limitations on availability of funds for the Defense Meteorological
Satellite Program (sec. 1607)
The committee recommends a provision prohibiting the use of
funds authorized to be appropriated in fiscal year 2016 and any
unobligated funds made available for appropriation in fiscal
year 2015 for the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program
(DMSP) or the launch of Defense Meteorological Satellite
Program satellite #20 (DMSP-20) until the Secretary of Defense
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff jointly certify
to the congressional defense committees that: (1) relying on
civil and international contributions to meet space-based
environmental monitoring requirements is insufficient or is a
risk to national security and launching DMSP-20 will meet those
requirements; (2) launching DMSP-20 is the most affordable
solution to meeting requirements validated by the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council; and (3) nonmaterial solutions
within the Department of Defense, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), or National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) are incapable of providing a
solution for cloud characterization and theater weather
requirements as validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council.
The committee understands that the Space Based
Environmental Monitoring Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) assumed
continued international support from a Geostationary European
Weather Satellite over the Indian Ocean. With that assumption,
the AOA concluded that DMSP-20 was not needed. The committee
now understands that since the completion of that AOA, a
decision was made by an international partner to no longer
provide coverage over the Indian Ocean, leading to possibility
of a weather gap as early as 2017. While the committee believes
a solution should be identified to address that gap, the
committee is not convinced that launching DMSP-20 is the most
cost effective solution. According to the Air Force, a
satellite in geostationary orbit is ideal for meeting cloud
characterization and theater weather requirements by providing
updates to users every 30 minutes. Attempting to conduct the
same cloud characterization and theater weather observations
using DMSP-20 in Low-Earth Orbit requires multiple satellites
and delivers updates to users once every 4 hours, an almost 90
percent reduction in capability.
The committee believes that better alternatives to meeting
the potential space weather gap exist and should be explored
prior to spending between $400.0 million and $500.0 million to
launch DMSP-20 later this decade. For example, the committee
understands that the potential gap could be mitigated by simply
relocating an existing on-orbit NOAA asset with excess capacity
or by hosting appropriate electro-optical infrared sensors on
future Department of Defense or commercial satellites.
To evaluate these lower cost, higher value options, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
(GAO) to assess whether alternatives for addressing the
potential Indian Ocean weather gap exist, and if so, whether
those options would be less costly than launching DMSP-20. The
committee directs GAO to report their findings in a briefing to
the committee by no later than October 1, 2015. In their
analysis, GAO should review any current or planned space
systems of the Department of Defense (to include the National
Reconnaissance Office), NASA, and NOAA. The committee directs
the GAO to assess specifically whether the relocation of NOAA
Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES), or
the hosting of an appropriate electro-optical infrared sensor
on an alternative Department of Defense or commercial
satellite, could address any future gaps at a lower cost.
Quarterly reports on Global Positioning System III space segment,
Global Positioning System operational control segment, and
Military Global Positioning System User Equipment acquisitions
programs (sec. 1608)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Air Force to provide quarterly reports to the
Comptroller General of the United States on the Global
Positioning System III (GPS III) space segment, the Global
Positioning System Operational Control Segment (GPS OCX), and
the Military Global Positioning System User Equipment (MGUE)
acquisition programs. The provision would require that each
report include: (1) the status on cost, schedule, and
performance; (2) a detailed description of any technical risk
impacting cost, schedule, and performance; (3) any changes to
program requirements; (4) an assessment of how risks are to be
addressed and their associated costs; and (5) an assessment of
the extent the segments are synchronized. The provision would
require the Comptroller General to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees within 30 days of receiving
the first report and as necessary after subsequent reports. The
reporting requirement would sunset on the date at which GPS
III, GPS OCX, and MGUE reach their full operational
capabilities.
The committee is concerned the GPS III and GPS OCX programs
are facing a number of development issues that have resulted in
significant cost increases and schedule delays. According to
Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates, GPS III is
currently $471.0 million (11 percent) over its initial total
program cost estimate and the first GPS III satellite is not
scheduled to launch until January 2016, a 21 month delay.
Similarly, GPS OCX is failing to meet many of its cost and
schedule requirements. According to GAO, the GPS OCX Block 0
delivery has been delayed until April 2016, and the program is
not expected to meet its initial operational capability until
January 2020, a 53 month delay. According to a recent GAO
assessment, MGUE is accelerating risk reduction efforts in
software and security certification. However, there is concern
given a November 2014, Office of Test and Evaluation assessment
that found that MGUE's development maturity was overstated and
that the program has asserted technical maturity not yet
demonstrated.
Plan for consolidation of acquisition of commercial satellite
communications services (sec. 1609)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space to submit by
January 31, 2016 a plan to the congressional defense committees
for consolidating the acquisition of commercial satellite
communications (COMSATCOM) services from across the Department
of Defense into a program office in the Air Force Space and
Missile Systems Center. The plan would require consolidation to
take place within a 3-year period. It would also require an
assessment of the current management and overhead costs, a
projection of the consolidated management and overhead costs,
and an estimate of the cost of consolidation. The provision
would require the Director of Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation to review and validate each of the estimates.
In the Senate report to accompany S. 1197 (S. Rpt. 113-44)
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(Public Law 113-66), the committee required the Secretary of
Defense to provide a report detailing a 5-, 10-, and 25-year
strategy for using an appropriate mix of Department of Defense
and COMSATCOM bandwidth. That plan was provided to the
committee in August 2014. In the plan's discussion on demand
predictions, it described the choices the Department must weigh
in determining the appropriate mix between military satellite
communications (MILSATCOM) satellites and the purchase of
affordable COMSATCOM services. For years, the purchase of
COMSATCOM services has been highly inefficient, and the
committee believes that there are a number of approaches being
considered to enhance efficiency, such as the establishment of
a COMSATCOM working capital fund. The committee believes that
if efficiencies can also be gained by consolidating the
acquisition of all COMSATCOM services into a program office co-
located with the MILSATCOM program office at the Air Force
Space and Missile Systems Center, then such moves should be
considered.
Council on oversight of the Department of Defense Positioning,
Navigation, and Timing Enterprise (sec. 1610)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish a
council to review and be responsible for the Department of
Defense positioning, navigation, and timing enterprise,
including positioning, navigation, and timing services provided
to civil, commercial, scientific and international users. This
council would terminate 10 years after the date of enactment.
Analysis of Alternative for Wide-band Communications (sec. 1611)
The committee recommends a provision that would require an
analysis of alternatives for the replacement of the Wideband
Global Satellite System with a report due to the congressional
defense committees by March 31, 2017. The analysis shall take
into account future bandwidth of space, air, and ground
communications systems.
Expansion of goals for pilot program for acquisition of commercial
satellite services (sec. 1612)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 1605 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) to include improvements in communications
capability as a goal of pilot programs for commercial satellite
communications.
The committee notes the effort the Department has made
towards pathfinder pilot projects for satellite communications
capability. However, the committee is concerned that the
Department is focused solely on savings for legacy satellite
communication capability and not also seeking to achieve
potential order-of-magnitude improvements in satellite
capability at current or lower costs. For example, the
Department should consider pilot projects that address the
growing demand for full-motion video in support of
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) platforms
used by combatant commanders.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
prepare a briefing or a report to the committee no later than
June 30, 2016 on the status and plans for this pilot program.
Streamline commercial space launch activities (sec. 1613)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary
of Defense, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, the commercial space sector, and the
heads of other executive agencies as appropriate to report
annually on actions taken to remove duplication and minimize
inconsistencies across the federal government for commercial
space launch requirements and approval. The report shall be
submitted to the congressional defense committees, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House
Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
Subtitle B--Cyber Warfare, Cyber Security, and Related Matters
Authorization of Military Cyber Operations (sec. 1621)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to develop, prepare, coordinate, and
(when authorized by the President to do so) to conduct a
military cyber operation in response to malicious cyber
activity carried out against the United States or a United
States person by a foreign power (as defined in section 101 of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1801)).
The committee is concerned by the growing number and
severity of malicious cyber activities being carried out
against the United States and its interests. The committee is
also concerned that failing to impose meaningful consequences
on those seeking to harm the United States through the cyber
domain will embolden our adversaries and lead to more severe
attacks in the future. The committee believes that the fielding
of a well-trained and highly-capable cyber force is fundamental
to the national security of the United States and the
deterrence of future cyber conflict.
Designation of Department of Defense entity responsible for acquisition
of critical cyber capabilities (sec. 1622)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to designate within 90 days of the date of
enactment an entity of the Department of Defense (DOD) to be
responsible for the acquisition of critical cyber capabilities
to include: (1) the unified platform, (2) a persistent cyber
training environment, and (3) a cyber situational awareness and
battle management system.
The committee believes these cyber acquisitions are
foundational capabilities that are essential to the equipping
of the Cyber Mission Force. The committee is disappointed that
the DOD has not made sufficient progress in recognizing the
need for these capabilities, developing requirements for them,
designating responsibilities for acquiring them, and requesting
funding for them in the fiscal year 2016 budget request. The
committee urges the Secretary to quickly designate an entity of
the DOD to execute these acquisitions as programs of record,
and to ensure that they are properly resourced and prepared to
proceed as expeditiously as possible. The committee also
expects that if United States Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) is not
designated as the responsible entity, CYBERCOM will be an
active participant in all significant programmatic decisions
with the designated DOD entity regarding acquisition programs
for which the Command is a customer.
The committee is concerned there are urgent needs for cyber
capabilities that are not being fulfilled by DOD's acquisition
process or by the military services. The committee has long
been concerned that traditional acquisition practices and
existing acquisition statutes and regulations lack the
flexibility, agility, and speed necessary to deliver cyber
capabilities responsively enough to stay ahead of the rapidly
evolving threat. The committee has enacted legislation that
invited the Department to construct a tailored cyber
acquisition process to match this threat, with meager results
thus far. The committee encourages the Secretary to consider
whether traditional service-led acquisition strategies are
appropriate for the development of these foundational
capabilities.
Elsewhere, in Title VIII of this act, the committee
recommends a provision that would grant the Commander of
CYBERCOM the authority to conduct acquisition activities. The
committee believes that there is a class of cyber tools,
applications, and other tailored capabilities, beyond the large
scale efforts identified in this provision, that traditional
service-led acquisition processes cannot support in
operationally responsive timeframes. For such cyber operations-
peculiar equipment and capabilities, the committee believes the
Commander of CYBERCOM is uniquely positioned to identify,
acquire, and field those tools and applications that require
significant tailoring and customization.
The committee notes that the ability of CYBERCOM, or the
services and defense agencies, to quickly acquire and integrate
new tools, applications, and weapons depends on the quality of
the design and engineering of the foundational capabilities
addressed in this provision.
Incentive for submittal to Congress by President of integrated policy
to deter adversaries in cyberspace (sec. 1623)
Section 941 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (127 Stat. 837; Public Law 113-66), required
the President to establish an interagency process to provide
for the development of an integrated policy to deter
adversaries in cyberspace. The provision required the
President, not later than 270 days after the date of enactment,
which occurred on December 26, 2013, to submit to the
congressional defense committees a report setting forth that
integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyberspace.
The report required has not been provided.
The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit
the obligation or expenditure of $10.0 million of the
unobligated balance of the amounts appropriated or otherwise
made available to the Department of Defense to provide support
services to the Executive Office of the President, until the
President submits to the congressional defense committees the
report required by section 941 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.
Authorization for procurement of relocatable Sensitive Compartmented
Information Facility (sec. 1624)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$10.6 million of the unobligated amounts made available in
fiscal years 2014 and 2015 for the Army for the procurement of
a relocatable Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility
(SCIF) for the Cyber Center of Excellence at Fort Gordon,
Georgia.
The Department of Defense requested $10.6 million, on
behalf of the Army, on February 6, 2015, for a new start
approval to transfer funding to procure six SCIF-level
classrooms. According to the reprogramining documentation (DoD
Serial Number FY 15-06PA) provided to the committee, the Army
has a new requirement for the Cyber Center of Excellence at
Fort Gordon, Georgia to establish a cyber-school in fiscal year
2015 for which six SCIF-level classrooms will be necessary to
support the anticipated training throughput.
The committee strongly supports the rapid development and
deployment of a well-trained and highly capable Cyber Mission
Force. However, the committee believes requests for new-start
authorizations through the reprograming process should be
limited only to the most urgent circumstances and should be
directly linked to an urgent warfighting need as identified by
a combatant commander or the Joint Chiefs of Staff through an
urgent operational needs or similar request. While the
reprogramming request did not reach that threshold, the
committee does believe the request has merit and meets
validated requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends it
be authorized in this Act.
Evaluation of cyber vulnerabilities of major weapon systems of the
Department of Defense (sec. 1625)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to evaluate the cyber vulnerabilities of
every major Department of Defense weapons system by not later
than December 31, 2019.
The provision would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop a plan, within 180 days of the enactment of this Act,
identifying the weapons systems that will be evaluated and an
estimate of the funding required for conducting the
assessments. The provision would require the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff to prioritize the order of system
evaluations based on the criticality of each major weapon
system, the employment of forces, and threats. The provision
would require that the assessments build upon and not be
duplicative of ongoing efforts such as the Navy's ``Task Force
Cyber Awakening'' and the Air Force's ``Task Force Cyber
Secure.'' The provision would require the Secretary to keep the
congressional defense committees regularly apprised of the
activities underway, to include the number of completed
evaluations and the number of evaluations remaining. The
provision would require the Secretary to develop strategies for
mitigating the risks of cyber vulnerabilities to major weapons
systems. The provision would also authorize $200.0 million to
begin the cyber vulnerabilities assessments in fiscal year
2016.
The committee believes that this evaluation should cover
all major weapons systems and that exceptions should be
limited. Any decision to exempt a particular weapons system
from being evaluated requires a certification to the
congressional defense committees that an assessment is not
necessary because a cyber vulnerability would have minimal
operational impact.
Assessment of capabilities of United States Cyber Command to defend the
United States from cyber attack (sec. 1626)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Principal Cyber Advisor (PCA) to sponsor an independent panel
to assess the ability of the National Mission Forces of the
U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) to reliably prevent or block
large-scale attacks on the United States by foreign powers with
capabilities comparable to those of countries like China, Iran,
North Korea and Russia in the 2020 and 2025 timeframes.
In addition, the provision would require the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in consultation with the PCA, to
conduct a series of war games through the Warfighting Analysis
Division of the Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment
Directorate of the Joint Staff to assess the strategy,
assumptions, and capabilities of CYBERCOM to prevent large-
scale cyber attacks by foreign powers with the capabilities
described above.
The provision requires that the results of these
assessments be conveyed to Congress not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act.
The Department of Defense (DOD) published a new Cyber
Strategy document in April, 2015. The document states that ``If
directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense, the U.S.
military may conduct cyber operations to counter an imminent or
on-going attack against the U.S. homeland or U.S. interests in
cyberspace. The purpose of such a defensive measure is to blunt
an attack and prevent the destruction of property or the loss
of life.'' The document acknowledges that ``the Defense
Department's capabilities cannot necessarily guarantee that
every cyberattack will be denied successfully,'' and emphasizes
the necessity for DOD to improve its intelligence capabilities
to anticipate threats, and gain knowledge of ``key adversary
human and technical networks.'' The document also states that
DOD will conduct an ``annual comprehensive review of DOD's
defend the nation capabilities.''
The committee concurs that it is critical for the
leadership of the executive branch and Congress to gain an
understanding of the prospects for blunting and preventing
destructive cyber attacks. Independent assessments need to be
part of this process.
Biennial exercises on responding to cyber attacks against critical
infrastructure (sec. 1627)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to conduct national-level cyber exercises
not less frequently than once every 2 years for a period of 6
years. In preparing and executing these exercises, the
Secretary would be required to coordinate with the Secretary of
Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, the
Director of the FBI, and the heads of the critical
infrastructure sector-specific agencies designated under
Presidential Policy Directive 21. The Secretary also would be
required to consult with governors of the States and the owners
and operators of critical infrastructure. The exercises would
be based on scenarios in which critical infrastructure is
attacked through cyberspace and the President directs the
Secretary to defend the Nation and to provide support to civil
authorities in responding and recovering from the attacks.
The provision specifies that the purposes of the exercises
are to (1) improve cooperation and coordination across the
government and industry; (2) develop and practice command and
control, communications and information sharing processes and
capabilities; (3) identify gaps and problems requiring new or
enhanced training, capabilities, procedures, or authorities;
and (4) identify interdependencies, strengths, and weaknesses.
The provision also would require the Secretary to vary,
from exercise-to-exercise, the assumptions and conditions for
the exercise, including (1) the size, scope, duration, and
sophistication of the simulated cyber attacks; (2) the degree
of warning and knowledge about the attack and the means used,
as well as the degree of delegation of authority from the
President to react, including with pre-planned responses; (3)
the effectiveness of United States Cyber Command's National
Mission Forces in preempting, blunting, and defeating attacks,
including through the use of offensive capabilities; (4) the
effectiveness of attacks on critical infrastructure; and (5)
the effectiveness of resilience and recovery mechanisms.
Finally, the provision would require the Secretary of
Defense to coordinate with interagency partners to develop
equitable cost-sharing agreements for the exercises.
The committee believes that the complexity of cross-
jurisdictional coordination required to react to serious cyber
attacks on the Nation demands the types of exercises mandated
by this provision. It is imperative that federal agencies,
States, and the private sector not only understand their own
roles and missions, but become more capable through the
practice of effective joint operations. It is imperative, too,
for all elements of this integrated team to understand the
challenges and limitations facing the Nation in preventing
attacks from reaching critical infrastructure.
Subtitle C--Nuclear Forces
Designation of Air Force officials to be responsible for policy on and
procurement of Nuclear Command and Control Communications
Systems (sec. 1631)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of the Air Force to designate a senior acquisition
official responsible for ensuring the procurement and
integration of Air Force Nuclear, Command and Control (NC3)
Systems. The Air Force is responsible for over 70 percent of
the Department's NC3 systems, which communicate with high
reliability across space, air and ground environments. However,
as the NC3 system begins modernization there have been examples
where integration has failed. The Advanced Extremely High
Frequency Satellite System was developed independently of its
terminal--the Family of Beyond Line of Sight Terminal (FAB-T),
which is to be placed on ground and aircraft command posts as
well as long range bombers. The result is that the satellite
system is now deploying with its terminal system for command
posts well behind in acquisition and even further behind for
the bomber aircraft. The individual appointed by the Secretary
of the Air Force shall be responsible long range system
planning and procurement of this highly redundant and
interconnected communications system to avoid future FAB-T
failures.
Comptroller General of the United States review of recommendations
relating to the Nuclear Security Enterprise (sec. 1632)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Comptroller General of the United States to review the
Department of Defense's approach for addressing the
recommendations included in reports stated below, as well as
subsequent recommendations of the Office of Cost Analysis and
Performance Evaluation (CAPE), which is charged with monitoring
these and subsequent recommendations resulting from the
meetings of the Nuclear Deterrence Enterprise Group (NDERG).
The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide an
initial assessment in the form of a briefing, to be followed by
a written report, to the congressional defense committees no
later than February 12, 2016 that addresses the following:
(1) To what extent has the Department of Defense
(DOD) established a process to implement the
recommendations in the reports and subsequent
recommendations of the NDERG;
(2) To what extent has DOD established a process to
track the Department's progress in implementing these
recommendations as well as provide an annual updated
list of such recommendations;
(3) To what extent has the CAPE Office determined
whether each recommendation has been effective; and
(4) Any related matters the Comptroller General deems
appropriate in consultation with the congressional
defense committees.
The committee notes that the Independent Review of the
Department of Defense Nuclear Enterprise Report (June 2014) and
the Internal Assessment of the Department of Defense Nuclear
Enterprise examined the nuclear deterrent mission in the
Department of Defense and identified leadership, organization,
investment, morale, policy, procedural, and other shortcomings
that are adversely impacting the mission. The report included
recommendations to address the Department's management of
nuclear personnel, security requirements for nuclear weapons,
and the availability of key equipment and support parts, among
other issues. The Department has stated that the budget request
includes additional investments to address these
recommendations, identifying over $1.0 billion for fiscal year
2016 and nearly $8.5 billion from fiscal years 2016-2020. DOD
has also established the NDERG to monitor implementation of the
recommendations included in the nuclear enterprise review
report.
Assessment of global nuclear environment (sec. 1633)
The committee recommends a provision that would direct the
Department of Defense Director of Net Assessment, in
coordination with the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, to
conduct an assessment of the global security environment with
respect to nuclear weapons and the role of United States
nuclear forces, policy, and strategy in that environment. Not
later than November 15, 2016, the Director of Net Assessment
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report
on its findings. The assessment should include experts outside
the Department of Defense with particular emphasis on those
individuals and independent institutions with demonstrated
expertise in strategy and net assessment methodology.
The committee notes that the nuclear competition has become
both different and in some ways more complex than was the case
during the Cold War, which was essentially a bipolar nuclear
competition between the United States and Soviet Union.
There is significant risks to the security and safety of
the U.S. homeland and U.S. military assets should nuclear
deterrence fail in this changing nuclear competition
environment. Over the past quarter century new nuclear powers
have emerged. North Korea is now a nuclear-armed state, and
Iran has consistently sought to acquire a nuclear capability. A
regional nuclear competition has emerged in South Asia between
India and Pakistan. Another may soon emerge in the Middle East,
potentially a multilateral competition. There are concerns that
a nuclear-armed Iran may trigger a nuclear proliferation
cascade across the Middle East, involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
and perhaps other states as well. As the United States and
Russia have reduced their arsenals to levels far below those of
the Cold War, the barrier to entry to great power nuclear
status has been lowered to levels that could tempt other
nuclear powers to increase their arsenals to these lesser
``superpower'' levels. Such a multipolar nuclear competition
would likely be characterized by an intense ``n-player'' or
multipolar competition to gain advantage, increasing
uncertainty over the nuclear military balance, and crisis
instability. The proliferation of nuclear weapons to states
whose strategic decision making and crisis response systems are
quite different from our own raises concerns regarding how
leaders in these states would calculate cost, benefit, and risk
when it comes to decisions about use of nuclear weapons.
The character of the nuclear competition is undergoing a
fundamental and potentially dangerous shift with respect to the
security of the United States, its allies, and partners.
Therefore, there is a need for a thorough net assessment of the
new nuclear environment, which objective should be to minimize
the risk to key U.S. security interests. Such an assessment
should involve the following:
(1) A statement of U.S. vital security interests,
both near term and long term, that could be
significantly affected by the competition among current
and potential future nuclear powers;
(2) An examination of how the other current and
prospective nuclear powers view nuclear weapons, to
include their rationale for maintaining a nuclear
arsenal, the role nuclear weapons play in advancing
their geopolitical objectives, their nuclear doctrine,
the circumstances under which they would employ nuclear
weapons, and how;
(3) An evaluation of key trends in nuclear force
developments, to include weapons and delivery systems,
among existing and prospective nuclear powers;
(4) An identification and analysis of other key
military capabilities that exert significant influence
on the nuclear competition, to include early warning
and command and control systems; conventional precision
strike (with emphasis on prompt global strike);
advanced air and missile defenses; cyber weapons and
cyber defenses; and emerging capabilities that could
significantly influence the competition, such as
directed-energy systems;
(5) An examination of the geographic factors
affecting the competition, particularly those that
affect early/attack warning and those that could find
nuclear strikes transiting the sovereign territory of
third-party states, to include space over flight; and
(6) An analysis of the dynamics of multipolar or ``n-
player'' nuclear competitions involving three or more
nuclear powers.
(7) The risk and probability of nuclear deterrence
failing measured in percent per year of annualized risk
through different failure modes (a nuclear terrorist
event, a tactical nuclear attack, a strategic nuclear
attack), an event tree analysis of deterrence failure
modes, and the uncertainty in those probabilities and
ways to reduce that uncertainty.
In the course of addressing these factors, such an
assessment should develop and analyze a range of contingencies/
scenarios ranging from crises that examine short-term factors,
to the characteristics of a long-term competition. These
contingencies and/or scenarios should include crises emerging
from the ongoing competition in the near-to-mid term future,
out to 10 years, involving:
(1) The United States and individual nuclear powers;
(2) The United States and multiple nuclear powers;
(3) Two other nuclear powers;
(4) Three or more other nuclear powers; and
(5) Regional and cross-regional geography, to include
contingencies/scenarios in Europe, the Middle East,
South Asia, and East Asia, and contingencies/scenarios
that transcend regions (e.g., South and East Asia).
While conducting the assessment, the committee expects
the Director of Net Assessment to assume that the size
and characteristics of U.S. nuclear forces remains
largely unchanged from its current form. However, the
Director may consider alternative configurations of
U.S. nuclear forces, insofar as doing so is relevant
and beneficial to the required analysis.
Deadline for Milestone A decision on Long-Range Standoff Weapon (sec.
1634)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to make a Milestone A decision on the
Long-Range Standoff Weapon no later than May 31, 2016.
Availability of Air Force procurement funds for certain commercial off-
the-shelf parts for intercontinental ballistic missiles fuzes
(sec. 1635)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$13.7 million in Missile Procurement, Air Force, for the
procurement of covered parts pursuant to contracts entered into
under section 1645 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat.)
Sense of Congress on policy on the nuclear triad (sec. 1636)
The committee recommends a provision which states the sense
of the Congress that retaining all three legs of the nuclear
triad is the highest priority mission of the Department of
Defense and will best maintain strategic stability at a
reasonable cost, while hedging against potential technical
problems and vulnerabilities. The provision would state that it
is the policy of the United States to sustain and modernize or
replace the triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems,
including heavy bombers equipped with nuclear gravity bombs and
air-launched nuclear cruise missiles; land-based
intercontinental ballistic missiles; and ballistic missile
submarines equipped with submarine launched ballistic missiles.
The provision would also state that it is the policy of the
United States to operate, sustain, and modernize or replace a
capability to forward-deploy nuclear weapons and dual capable
fighter-bomber aircraft. The committee believes these
capabilities serve to deter potential adversaries and assure
allies and partners of the United States through a strong and
long-term commitment to the nuclear deterrent of the United
States to achieve a modern and responsive nuclear
infrastructure to support the full spectrum of deterrence
requirements.
Subtitle D--Missile Defense Programs
Plan for expediting deployment time of continental United States
interceptor site (sec. 1641)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for expediting the
deployment time for a potential future continental United
States interceptor site by at least 2 years, and submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on such plan not
later than 30 days after the transmittal of the environmental
impact assessment required by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
The committee notes that the environmental impact study for
the four sites being examined for a potential continental
United States interceptor site is scheduled to be completed in
2016. According to the Missile Defense Agency, should the
decision be made to move forward with an additional interceptor
site, the overall timeline to achieve Initial Operational
Capability is approximately 5 years. The committee is concerned
that this timeline may be too lengthy if necessary to react to
the deployment of intercontinental-range ballistic missiles in
Iran. In such a circumstance, it would be advantageous to
understand if, and how, an additional interceptor site in the
United States could be made operational in 3 years or less.
Such an assessment may include a description of legislative and
administrative actions that may be necessary to shorten the
deployment time and any acquisition risks associated with a
shorter deployment time.
The provision would also require the Comptroller General to
assess the Department's report on the deployment plan and
submit a report to the congressional defense committees with
findings and recommendations.
Additional missile defense sensor coverage for the protection of the
United States homeland (sec. 1642)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency, in cooperation with the
relevant combatant command, to deploy by not later than
December 31, 2020, a long-range discrimination radar or other
appropriate tracking and discrimination sensor capabilities in
a location optimized to support the defense of the homeland of
the United States against emerging long-range ballistic missile
threats from Iran.
The committee notes that the currently deployed ground-
based midcourse missile defense system protects the entire
United States homeland, including the East Coast, against the
threat of limited ballistic missile attack from North Korea and
Iran. In testimony to the committee on March 25, 2015, the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency stated, ``the
discrimination capability of the system'' is one of the ``two
fundamental means for improving homeland missile defense
capability and capacity.'' Furthermore, according to the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency, long-range
discrimination radar will provide larger hit assessment
coverage, thereby enabling improved warfighting capabilities to
manage ground-based interceptor inventory and improve the
capacity of the ballistic missile defense system. The
Department of Defense will deploy by 2020 a new midcourse
tracking radar to provide persistent coverage and improve
discrimination capabilities against threats to the United
States homeland from the Pacific, an action this committee
endorses.
According to testimony before the committee by the
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Iran
has the ``means and motivation to develop longer-range
missiles, including an ICBM. Iran publically stated that it
intends to launch a space-launch vehicle as early as this year
capable of intercontinental ranges, if configured as such.''
Accordingly, this committee believes that additional missile
defense sensor discrimination capabilities are needed to
enhance the protection of the United States homeland against
long-range ballistic missiles from Iran.
Air defense capability at North Atlantic Treaty Organization missile
defense sites (sec. 1643)
The committee recommends a provision that would express the
sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the relevant combatant command, should ensure
that arrangements are in place, including support from North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, to provide anti-air
defense capability at all NATO missile defense sites in support
of phases 2 and 3 of the European Phased Adaptive Approach. Not
later than 30 days after a site achieves full operating
capability, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report describing the plan
of the Secretary to provide anti-air defense capability at the
site.
Availability of funds for Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system
(sec. 1644)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$41.4 million for the Department of Defense to provide to the
Government of Israel to procure the Iron Dome short-range
rocket defense system, including for co-production of Iron Dome
parts and components in the United States by United States
industry. The provision would also provide that these funds
shall be available subject to the terms and conditions in the
``Agreement Between the Department of Defense and the Ministry
of Defense of the State of Israel Concerning Iron Dome Defense
System Procurement,'' signed on March 5, 2014, subject to an
amended agreement to be negotiated for co-production of Iron
Dome radar components.
The provision would also require that not later than 30
days prior to the initial obligation of funds, the Director of
the Missile Defense Agency and the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall jointly submit
to the congressional defense committees a certification that
the agreement specified above is being implemented and an
assessment detailing any risks relating to the implementation
of the agreement.
Israeli cooperative missile defense program codevelopment and potential
coproduction (sec. 1645)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$150.0 million for the Missile Defense Agency to provide to the
Government of Israel to procure the David's Sling Weapon System
and $15.0 million for the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor
program, including for co-production of parts and components in
the United States by United States industry.
The funds may be disbursed after certain conditions, which
include a certification by the Director of the Missile Defense
Agency and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, that the United States has entered
into a bilateral agreement with the Government of Israel that
accomplishes the following: (1) Establishes the terms of co-
production of parts and components; (2) establishes complete
transparency on the Israeli requirement for the number of
interceptors and batteries; (3) allows the Director of the
Missile Defense Agency and Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to establish technical
milestones for co-production and procurement and establish
joint approval processes for third party sales; and (4) in the
case of co-production for the David's Sling Weapon System, not
less than half of such co-production is carried out by the
United States.
Development and deployment of multiple-object kill vehicle for missile
defense of the United States homeland (sec. 1646)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency to conduct rigorous
flight testing of the multi-object kill vehicle by not later
than 2020 and field such vehicle as soon as technically
practicable. The provision would also direct that the
management of the multi-object kill vehicle program shall
report directly to the Deputy Director of the Missile Defense
Agency.
The Director of the Missile Defense Agency testified before
this committee that ``these multi-object kill vehicles will
revolutionize our missile defense architecture, substantially
reducing the interceptor inventory required to defeat an
evolving and more capable threat to the homeland.'' The
committee also observes that the Commander, U.S. Northern
Command, testified before the committee that the multiple-
object kill vehicle concept is one of his top missile defense
priorities.
The Missile Defense Agency will begin concept definition of
a multiple-object kill vehicle leading to a Milestone A
technology maturation and risk reduction decision in fiscal
year 2017. According to briefings provided to committee staff
on February 20, 2015, by the Missile Defense Agency, a
prototype could be available in the fiscal year 2020 to 2022
timeframe, with fielding sometime in the post-2025 period. The
committee believes that the multiple-object kill vehicle could
contribute critical capabilities to the future of the ballistic
missile defense of the United States homeland, particularly
against the evolving threats from North Korea and Iran.
Requirement to replace capability enhancement I exoatmospheric kill
vehicles (sec. 1647)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency to ensure, to the
maximum extent practicable, that all remaining ground-based
interceptors (GBIs) of the ground-based midcourse defense
system that are armed with the capability enhancement I
exoatmposheric kill vehicle are replaced with the redesigned
exoatmospheric kill vehicle (RKV) before September 30, 2022.
The committee supports the Missile Defense Agency's plan to
develop an RKV that increases reliability, performance,
producibility, and affordability. As required by section 1663
of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-
291), the committee agrees on the need for a rigorous
acquisition process, including prototype testing, to ensure
that the RKV works in an operationally effective and cost-
effective manner.
The committee notes that according to written testimony by
the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, ``upgrading the
kill vehicle on the GBI and enhancing the homeland defense
sensor network are higher priorities and prerequisites for
improving protection against limited ICBM attack,'' and that
initial deployment of the RKV is anticipated in 2020. Given the
planned availability of the RKV in 2020, the committee believes
it could be feasible to replace the remaining 17 capability
enhancement I exoatmospheric kill vehicles within 2 years, or
by 2022. The committee notes that emplacement of the capability
enhancement II exoatmospheric kill vehicles will take place at
the rate of 8 to 10 per year in 2015, 2016 and 2017,
demonstrating that it could be possible to increase the rate of
production for the RKV to stay ahead of the North Korean and
potential Iranian ICBM threat.
Airborne boost phase defense system (sec. 1648)
The committee notes that in his speech of March 17, 2015,
Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work highlighted the
challenge of developing a low-cost way to defeat inbound
missile raids. According to Deputy Secretary of Defense Work,
``this doesn't have to entail a kinetic solution--in fact,
shooting down incoming missiles with our own missiles can put
us on the wrong side of the cost imposition equation. We need
to come up with other ideas to defeat this threat.'' Likewise,
the Commander, U.S. Northern Command, said on April 7, 2015,
``if I had one more dollar to do ballistic missile defense . .
. I would put it against those technologies that allow us to
get to the correct side of the cost curve,'' and ``we need to
be able to start knocking them down in the boost phase . . .
and not rely on the midcourse phase where we are today.''
To address the growing threat posed by increasingly
accurate and longer-range ballistic and cruise missiles, the
Missile Defense Agency (MDA), in collaboration with the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency and the military departments,
is pursuing a suite of laser technologies that could serve as a
cost-effective solution for destroying cruise missiles and
ballistic missiles in the boost phase. A successful airborne
laser system could transform U.S. missile defense capabilities
against a broad range of missile threats, and place defense on
the winning side of the offense-defense cost curve.
The committee supports MDA's efforts to develop and
demonstrate compact, efficient laser technology for missile
defense applications and, in parallel, to explore the potential
for developing and integrating a laser into a high-altitude,
long-endurance aero-vehicle. Under current plans, the goal of
MDA is to demonstrate a 100 kilowatt high energy laser by
fiscal year 2020, which could serve as the basis for a boost
phase missile defense weapon system.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that
would prioritize technology investments in the Department of
Defense to support efforts by MDA to develop and deploy a boost
phase airborne laser weapon system by fiscal year 2025. The
provision encourages collaboration and cooperation between MDA
and other Department of Defense components, and directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide the congressional defense
committees with a report, within 120 days of enactment of this
Act, of Department of Defense efforts to develop and deploy a
boost phase airborne laser weapon system for missile defense.
Extension of limitation on providing certain sensitive missile defense
information to the Russian Federation (sec. 1649)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Section 1246(c)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66; 127 Stat. 923) to
extend the limitation on providing certain sensitive missile
defense information to the Russian Federation for fiscal years
2014 through 2017.
Extension of requirement for Comptroller General of the United States
review and assessment of missile defense acquisition programs
(sec. 1650)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 1120981) to continue to require
the Comptroller General to review, for fiscal years 2016
through 2020, the annual reports of the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA) on acquisition baselines and variances and assess the
extent to which MDA has achieved its acquisition goals and
objectives. The provision would also extend the reports
required on activities of the Missile Defense Executive Board.
The committee notes that the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) has played an instrumental role over many years in
the oversight of missile defense acquisition programs, and in
helping improve the oversight and accountability of such
programs. The existing legislative mandate for GAO's review of
missile defense acquisition programs would otherwise expire,
and the committee believes it is important for GAO to continue
its review.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Measures in response to violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces Treaty by the Russian Federation (sec. 1661)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
President to notify the appropriate congressional committees
with respect to whether the Russian Federation has flight-
tested, deployed, or possesses a military system that has
achieved an initial operating capability that is in violation
of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty or has
begun taking measures to return to full compliance with the INF
Treaty. The provision would also require the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to the appropriate congressional
committees on the status of updates provided to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other allies of the
United States on the Russian Federation's flight testing,
operational capability, and deployment of ground-launched
ballistic missiles in violation of the INF Treaty. The
provision would state that it is the sense of the Congress that
the deployment of a nuclear ground-launched cruise missile by
the Russian Federation would pose a dangerous threat to the
United States and its allies; the Russian Federation has
established an increasing role for nuclear weapons in its
military strategy; efforts to compel the Russian Federation to
return to compliance are in the best interests of the United
States, but cannot be open-ended; and efforts by the United
States to develop military and non-military options for
responding to violations of the INF Treaty could encourage the
Russian Federation to return to compliance with the INF Treaty.
If, on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Russian
Federation has not begun taking measures to return to full
compliance with the INF Treaty, the provision would require the
Secretary of Defense to, within 120 days, submit to Congress a
plan with respect to developing the following military
capabilities: (a) Counterforce capabilities to prevent INF
Treaty-range ground-launched ballistic missile and cruise
missile attacks; (b) countervailing strike capabilities to
enhance the forces of the United States or allies of the United
States; and (c) active defenses to defend against intermediate-
range ground launched cruise missile attacks. The provision
directs the President to include in the plan such other options
as the President considers useful to encourage the Russian
Federation to return to full compliance with the INF Treaty.
The committee believes the development and deployment of a
nuclear ground-launched cruise missile by the Russian
Federation in violation of the INF Treaty would pose a
dangerous threat to the United States and its allies, and that
efforts taken by the President to compel the Russian Federation
to return to compliance with the INF Treaty must be persistent
and are in the best interests of the United States, but cannot
be open-ended.
Modification of notification and assessment of proposal to modify or
introduce new aircraft or sensors for flight by the Russian
Federation under the Open Skies Treaty (sec. 1662)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
Section 1242(b) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) by adding a requirement to include an assessment
by the commander of each combatant command potentially affected
by a proposal of the Russian Federation to modify or introduce
a new aircraft or sensor for flight under the Open Skies
Treaty, including an assessment of the potential effects of the
proposal on operations and any potential vulnerabilities. The
provision would also require that not later than 30 days after
the date of any meeting of the Open Skies Consultative
Commission, the Secretary of Defense submit to the defense
committees of Congress a report on such meeting, including a
description of any agreements entered into during such meeting,
and whether any such agreement will result in a modification to
the aircraft or sensors that will be subject to the Open Skies
Treaty.
Milestone A decision for the conventional prompt global strike weapons
system (sec. 1663)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to make a Milestone A decision for the
conventional prompt global strike program no later than
September 30, 2020, or 8 months after the successful completion
of the Intermediate Range Flight 2 test.
Budget Items
Conventional prompt global strike
The budget request included $79.0 million for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense Wide, PE 64165D8Z,
for conventional prompt global strike development.
The committee is aware that the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review
(NPR) identified development of conventional prompt global
strike capabilities as a key initiative for the defeat of time-
urgent regional threats. The Department of Defense is examining
sea-based and ground-based concepts and technology in advance
of a future program of record. The Flight Experiment-I flight
test scheduled for March 2017 will, if successful, mature and
demonstrate key technologies needed by both land- and sea-based
prompt global strike systems. In support of these efforts, the
committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
64165D8Z for conventional prompt global strike development.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends a
provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to make a
Milestone A decision for the conventional prompt global strike
weapons system not later than September 30, 2020, or 8 months
after the successful completion of Intermediate Range Flight 2,
whichever is earlier.
Divert attitude control system in support of multi-object kill vehicle
The budget request included $43.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63178C, for
Weapons Technology in support of the Missile Defense Agency,
including $13.0 million for interceptor technology.
The committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency is
pursuing research and development on the next generation divert
attitude control system (DACS), which is critical for a
successful multi-object kill vehicle program. According to the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency, a multi-object kill
capability would ``revolutionize'' the missile defense
architecture, permitting the destruction of several threat
objects with a single ground-based interceptor missile. The
committee believes the multi-object kill vehicle program should
be a high priority of the Missile Defense Agency. Accordingly,
the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
63178C to reduce development risk for the next generation
divert attitude control system.
Fiber combining laser prototype
The budget request included $43.3 million in Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63178C, for
Weapons Technology in support of the Missile Defense Agency,
including $30.3 million for directed energy research.
The committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency, in
collaboration with the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, is pursuing a suite of laser technologies that, when
combined with high-altitude, long-endurance unmanned aerial
vehicles, could serve as a cost-effective solution for
destroying cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. The
committee notes that the Director of the Missile Defense Agency
and the Commander of U.S. Northern Command believe this
technology holds great promise. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 63178C for the
Missile Defense Agency to develop a prototype fiber combining
laser suitable for flight testing on an unmanned aerial vehicle
as soon as possible.
Funding for U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs
The budget request included $102.8 million for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63913C, for
U.S.-Israeli cooperative missile defense programs, including
$11.0 million to improve the existing Arrow Weapon System;
$55.1 million for continued development of the Arrow-3 upper
tier interceptor missiles; and $36.7 million for the David's
Sling short range ballistic missile defense system. These
systems are part of Israel's layered missile defenses against
missiles and rockets of varying ranges. The United States is
jointly developing and co-managing these systems to ensure they
are compatible and interoperable with U.S. missile defense
systems. The Government of Israel has requested an additional
$166.0 million for the Arrow program and the David's Sling
program to address the growing short-range and long-range
ballistic missile threat.
The committee recommends an increase of $166.0 million in
PE 63913C for continued development of the Arrow-3 upper tier
interceptor missile and the David's Sling short range ballistic
missile defense system.
Multiple Object Kill Vehicle
The budget request included $46.7 million for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 63294C, for
Common Kill Vehicle Technology, which includes development of
the Multiple Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV). According to the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency, a multi-object kill
capability would ``revolutionize'' the missile defense
architecture, permitting the destruction of several threat
objects with a single ground-based interceptor missile. The
committee believes the MOKV program should be a high priority
of the Missile Defense Agency. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 63294C for the
MOKV development program.
Operationally Responsive Space program
The budget request included $6.5 million for the
Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) program, Air Force exhibit
R-1, line 44, Program Element 64857F. The committee recommends
an increase of $13.5 million to continue the development of a
Space Based Surveillance System prototype satellite as well as
a follow-on simplified weather satellite. In addition the
committee encourages the program and the department to continue
its efforts in the low-cost launch of small payloads. The
committee recognizes that as space threats increase, the
importance of rapid reconstitution grows dramatically. The
committee commends the Department's decision to use the
program's streamlined acquisition authorities within the Air
Force's Space and Missile Systems Center to prototype systems
that if successful will transition into traditional space
acquisition programs.
Redesigned Kill Vehicle
The budget request included $266.7 million for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, PE 64874C, for
improved homeland defense interceptors. This program will
develop a new kill vehicle, known as the Redesigned Kill
Vehicle (RKV), for the ground-based interceptor that supports
defense of the United States homeland against long-range
ballistic missile attack. The RKV will improve the reliability,
producibility, affordability, and performance of the current
capability enhancement I and II exoatmospheric kill vehicles
for the ground based interceptor.
The committee notes that improving the reliability of the
ground-based interceptor is a top priority for the Director of
the Missile Defense Agency and the Commander of U.S. Northern
Command. The committee strongly concurs with this priority.
According to the Missile Defense Agency, the first flight test
of the RKV is scheduled for fiscal year 2018, followed by an
intercept flight test in the third quarter of fiscal year 2019.
Limited initial production of the RKV could begin in fiscal
year 2020, with four production article RKVs available by the
end of fiscal year 2021. The committee is concerned that this
schedule may not stay ahead of the evolving threat from North
Korea and Iran. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase
of $20.0 million in PE 64874C for risk reduction activities
associated with the development of the RKV.
Sharkseer zero day defense for enterprise email
The National Security Agency (NSA), at the direction of the
Chief Information Officer, established a program called
Sharkseer to provide non-signature-based defenses against
previously unknown and morphing malware at the Department of
Defense (DOD) enterprise perimeter. Sharkseer seeks to identify
and integrate best-of-breed advanced commercial products.
Congress added $28.0 million in fiscal year 2015 funding to
start the program and to deploy capabilities to all of the DOD
Internet Access Points (IAPs).
The budget request for fiscal year 2016 included $42.0
million in NSA funding to fully field and sustain Sharkseer to
all IAPs. However, this funding only addressed capabilities to
inspect and block web traffic. Separately, the Defense
Information Systems Agency (DISA) sought funding for DOD
Enterprise Email services, which included a request for
protecting that email traffic with Sharkseer. That overall
initiative was not approved prior to the transmittal of the
fiscal year 2016 budget. As a result, the funding request does
not provide the funding necessary to address the protection of
email traffic.
Email that enters the DOD is a primary avenue that malign
actors use to compromise DOD networks and computer systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends increased funding for
DISA to field Sharkseer capabilities to protect against
compromises through email traffic. The committee recommends an
increase of $10.0 million to Program Element 33140G, line 7,
defense-wide procurement, and an increase of $10.0 million for
defense-wide operations and maintenance for this purpose.
The committee directs that the Sharkseer systems for web
and email traffic be integrated, and that DOD ensure that
malware identified by Sharkseer be rapidly and automatically
used to tip other defensive systems across the Department,
including the Cyber Protection Teams.
Standard Missile-3 block IB
The budget request included $147.8 million in Procurement,
Defense-wide, line 25, for the Missile Defense Agency for
advanced procurement of the Standard Missile-3 IB (SM-3 IB)
missile. The committee is concerned that this funding, in
support of multi-year procurement, is early to need. The
committee recommends a decrease of $147.8 million in
Procurement, Defense-wide, line 25, for the Standard Missile-3
IB missile program. The committee recommends an increase of
$147.8 million in Procurement, Defense-wide, line 24, for the
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense program distributed as follows:
$117.9 million to increase SM-3 IB quantities from 40 to 49
missiles; $2.6 million to increase SM-3 IB canisters from 41 to
50; and $27.3 million for missile test participation costs.
U.S. Cyber Command Technology Development
The budget request included $19.1 million for the U.S.
Cyber Command Technology Development program's Combatant
Command Support project, Air Force exhibit R-2A, Program
Element 36250F, project number 646008. The Combatant Command
Support project supports the development and testing of various
tools critical to achieving combatant command military
objectives. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0
million because the committee is concerned that the capacity to
meet the cyber effects requirements of the combatant commands
is too limited and that additional funding is necessary to meet
both current and future cyber requirements.
Items of Special Interest
Assessment of the information security threats of wireless-enabled
capabilities at Department of Defense facilities
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide
to the congressional defense and intelligence committees an
assessment of the information security threats to and
vulnerabilities posed by Wi-Fi, Distributed Antenna Systems,
and wireless-enabled endpoints installed in Department of
Defense (DOD) facilities, including DOD combat support
agencies. The report shall identify any entities currently
allowing wireless connections to classified and unclassified
networks and a detailed description comparing information
assurance protections in place on wireless versus wired
networks to prevent unauthorized access and cyber intrusions to
networks. This report shall identify if any single lines of
defense exist that could result in the compromise of DOD or
Intelligence Community networks. The report shall be due no
later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act.
Comptroller General review of space system acquisition and acquisition
oversight
The committee has grown increasingly concerned by the
disjointed nature of Department of Defense space system
acquisition and acquisition oversight. Over the past two
decades, various commissions and reviews have found governance
over Department of Defense space system acquisitions and
operations to be fragmented and overlapping, leading to
significant cost increases, delays in delivering capabilities,
program cancellations, and inefficient operations. Over the
past 10 years, the Department of Defense has made a number of
changes to its space leadership including: creation of the
Defense Space Council; alignment of Air Force space system
acquisition leadership under a single headquarters
organization; creation of the Space and Intelligence Office
within the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; and disestablishing the
National Security Space Office and Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration;
among other changes.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to brief the congressional defense committees by March
1, 2016 on the effectiveness of the Department of Defense's
space acquisition and acquisition oversight model. The
committee is interested in better understanding how the
existing framework has influenced decision making and
accountability and whether efforts intended to reduce
fragmentation and overlap have been effective. The committee
also directs the Comptroller General of the United States to
evaluate what additional changes, if any, could be considered
to improve governance of space system acquisitions and
operations.
Continuation of nuclear command, control and communications assessments
by the Government Accountability Office
The committee directs the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to update recent prior assessments of nuclear command,
control, and communications (NC3) acquisition programs with an
interim briefing the congressional defense committees no later
than September 30, 2015, and a briefing no later than January
31, 2016.
The committee values the ongoing work of the GAO in
reviewing the NC3 acquisition programs. Similar to space
acquisition programs, NC3 acquisition is a systems of systems
process, which takes years to oversee on a continuous basis to
determine if the programs are achieving the desired cost,
scope, and schedule.
Missile Defense Agency assessment of capabilities to defend against
current and projected missile threats
The committee recognizes that the current Ballistic Missile
Defense System protects the entire United States homeland,
including Hawaii, against the threat of limited ballistic
missile attack from North Korea. However, the committee
acknowledges that North Korea is developing advanced missile
technologies, and claims to have tested several of them,
including a submarine-launched ballistic missile. By expanding
persistent sensor discrimination capabilities, the Ballistic
Missile Defense System would be better enabled to respond to
emerging ballistic missile threats involving countermeasures
and decoys. The committee is aware that, in response to a
request from the Commander of U.S. Northern Command, the
Missile Defense Agency is exploring potential solutions for
additional sensor coverage of Hawaii. Additionally, the
Department of Defense is currently conducting an analysis of
alternatives related to homeland ballistic missile defense
sensor and discrimination capabilities, as directed by the Carl
Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
The committee supports these efforts and encourages the
Department to prepare recommendations from these analyses in
advance of the fiscal year 2017 budget submission.
To ensure that Hawaii continues to be protected under the
Ballistic Missile Defense System in the face of evolving
ballistic missile threats and capabilities, the committee
requires the Missile Defense Agency to conduct an assessment
and provide a report no later than 90 days after the enactment
of this act to the congressional defense committees.
The report shall include an assessment of the current
Ballistic Missile Defense System's ability to protect Hawaii
against current missile threats and the projected threats we
could face in 2 and 5 years, and options for modifying or
augmenting systems to ensure that Hawaii remains protected from
possible rogue nation missile attacks. The report shall be
submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified
annex.
Organization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear
Deterrence Mission
The Nuclear Enterprise Review (NER) conducted by the
Department of Defense in 2014 made a variety of recommendations
regarding changes to the organization of the Department of
Defense to enable focused coordination of the nation's nuclear
deterrence mission. The independent review led by two former
senior military officers recommended that the Secretary of
Defense, ``direct that the loosely federated nuclear activities
within [the Office of the Secretary of Defense] and the Air
Force be brought together into a coherent and synchronized
structure that focuses on direction and support for the nuclear
forces.'' The internal review conducted by the Department
echoed these findings and made similar recommendations.
The committee is concerned that recent structural changes
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) may lead to
the opposite result in the long term. The elimination last year
of the position of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Global Strategic Affairs may bring decreased policy focus on
nuclear deterrence issues. Furthermore, division of
responsibilities for various components of the nuclear mission
(e.g., nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and command and
control) within the Office of the Under Secretary for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics could lead to similar
end results. While the committee supports management
specialization and seeking efficiencies within OSD, such
efforts must not come at the expense of the recently renewed
focus on nuclear deterrence.
Report on Advanced Extremely High Frequency Terminals for bomber
aircraft
The Secretary of the Air Force shall report to the
congressional defense committees no later than February 28,
2016, on alternatives to the current program of record for the
Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) terminals to be used
in long range strike bomber aircraft, specifically the B-52, B-
2, and Long Range Strike Bomber.
Report on Follow-On Commander's Evaluation Tests and Demonstration and
Shake Out tests
The Secretary of the Navy shall report to the congressional
defense committees on Follow-on Commander's Evaluation Tests
(FCET) and Demonstration and Shake Out (DASO) tests for fiscal
year 2016. In addition, the Secretary of the Navy shall report
to the congressional defense committees on a plan for future
reporting of FCET and DASO tests to the congressional defense
committees no later than February 28, 2016.
Report on space-based missile defense interceptor
The committee supports the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA)
efforts to consider additional capabilities to prevent
ballistic missile attack on the United States, including
solutions that would reduce cost-per-kill. Additionally, the
committee is aware of technology development that focuses on
interception in the boost phase of a ballistic missile. The
committee believes that such capabilities that are both cost-
effective and operationally reliable should be explored.
The Senate-passed version of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 required the
Department of Defense to conduct an independent assessment of
the feasibility and advisability of developing a space-based
interceptor (SBI) element to the ballistic missile defense
system. This study was completed in April 2011 and submitted to
Congress. Among its findings, the study determined that ``the
creation, deployment, and operation of an SBI system would
provide a number of strategic benefits but would also face
certain challenges.''
In order to understand the current status of technologies
under development and those that are potentially capable of
providing a space-based element to the ballistic missile
defense system, the committee directs MDA to submit a report to
the congressional defense committees no later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of this act that includes the
following elements: (1) an assessment of the need for a space-
based interceptor element to the ballistic missile defense
system, including an assessment of the extent to which there is
a ballistic missile threat that such an interceptor would
address; (2) whether other elements of the ballistic missile
defense system could be modified to meet that threat; (3) an
assessment of the components and capabilities and the maturity
of critical technologies necessary to make such a space-based
interceptor element operational; (4) an estimate of the total
cost for the life cycle of such a space-based interceptor
element, including the costs of research, development,
demonstration, procurement, deployment, and launching of the
element; (5) an assessment of the effectiveness of such a
space-based interceptor element in intercepting ballistic
missiles and the survivability of the element in case of
attack; (6) an assessment of possible debris generated from the
use or testing of such a space-based interceptor element; and
(7) an assessment of any command, control, or battle management
considerations of using such a space-based interceptor element,
including estimated timelines for the detection of ballistic
missiles, decision-making with respect to the use of the
element, and interception of the missile by the element. The
report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include
a classified annex.
Reserve component Cyber Protection Teams
The committee has a strong interest in Department of
Defense (DOD) plans for establishing Cyber Protection Teams
(CPTs) in the reserve components to meet the needs of United
States Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), and the states, in defending
DOD networks and assisting the states in the event of serious
cyber attacks.
The committee notes that the Army and the Army reserve
components intend to field 21 CPTs in fiscal years 2016-2018,
one in active status, and 10 each in the Guard and Reserve.
These CPTs are not currently planned to be included in the
forces assigned to CYBERCOM. The Air Force intends to establish
12 CPTs in the Air National Guard, which will be manned to
achieve the equivalent of 2 active CPTs dedicated to the Cyber
Mission Forces (CMF) on behalf of the Air Force.
The committee commends the Department and the reserve
components for planning for a robust number of CPTs, but has
concerns about implementation. Specifically, training costs
have not been budgeted yet, and the Department does not yet
have a plan for sustaining the current training infrastructure
after fiscal year 2016, when funding provided by the Office of
the Secretary of Defense for the standup of the CMF ends.
The Army Reserve included $10.6 million in the budget
request for training the 3 CPTs it plans to establish in fiscal
year 2016. However, the $9.0 million required to train the 3
Army National Guard CPTs to be fielded in 2016 has not yet been
allocated. Outyear funding to train the remaining 14 CPTs is
not budgeted.
The committee directs the following actions. First, the
committee directs the Army and Army National Guard to notify
the congressional defense committees when a decision is made to
allocate funding in fiscal year 2016 for training the CPTs.
Second, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army,
the Secretary of the Air Force, the Principal Cyber Advisor
(PCA), the Commander of CYBERCOM, and the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau to report to the congressional defense committees
on how the basing and intended use of the reserve component
CPTs reflects an appropriate balance between, on the one hand,
the core mission of the reserve component's CPTs to provide
surge capacity for CYBERCOM, and, on the other hand, the needs
of the states, and the defense of the reserve components'
networks.
Third, the committee directs the PCA, the Service
Secretaries, and the Commander of CYBERCOM to develop a plan
for the Services to sustain the individual training
capabilities that have been centrally funded and maintained
since the CMF were first created. The committee urges the
Department to create a federated and joint training model and
discourages having each service build separate training
capabilities for its cyber contingent. The committee directs
that the plan provide for a training capacity in fiscal years
2017 and 2018 that is adequate to complete all required
training for the reserve component CPTs and the sustainment of
the active CMF units. The plan should be available for briefing
to the congressional defense committees when the President
submits the budget request for fiscal year 2017.
Solid Rocket Motor industrial base
The committee recognizes that the Air Force is currently
exploring options to acquire the Ground Based Strategic
Deterrent (GBSD), a replacement for the Minuteman III (MMIII)
system. The Committee understands that the Air Force's
acquisition decisions will have lasting impacts on the health
and viability of the Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) industrial base,
a vital element of the defense industrial base that supports
U.S strategic forces.
The committee believes that sustaining two healthy SRM
sources is critical to the long term viability of the Nation's
strategic triad, both as a hedge against a single point of
failure and as a means of promoting competition in GBSD, which
will involve the development, acquisition, and sustainment of
rocket motors to replace the MMIII's three booster stages. As
with all major acquisition programs, and consistent with
current Department of Defense policy, the committee strongly
believes the use of full and open competition will provide the
best opportunity for Air Force to benefit from the innovation,
improved contractor performance, and cost reduction during
development, acquisition, and sustainment of the booster
stages.
Space control modeling and simulation range
The Secretary of Defense shall report to the congressional
defense committees on a plan for a modeling and simulation
range for offensive and defensive space control activities no
later than February 28, 2016.
The importance and use of U.S. FAA licensed spaceports
The committee appreciates the unique importance of U.S. FAA
licensed spacesports and recognizes and when appropriate,
encourages the use of U.S. FAA commercially-licensed spaceports
and launch and range complexes that provide mid- to low-
inclination orbits or polar high-inclination orbits in support
of national security space capabilities. The committee
recognizes that these federally-licensed, non-federally owned
launch facilities, are available to meet the requirements for
the national security space program from the Department of
Defense (DOD), Air Force Space Command.
The Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska (PSCA) has supported
numerous launches for Air Force Space Command including
specific national security launches. It remains the only
commercial polar launch range available in the United States
and PSCA, a state-of-the-industry spaceport on Kodiak Island,
Alaska, provides access to space for vital government and
commercial interests. The Mid Atlantic Regional Spaceport
(MARS) at Wallops Island, Virginia provides medium-class and
small-class launch capabilities for the DOD. It has launched
numerous missions for DOD with its agency partners, Air Force
Space Command, ORS, and MDA. MARS provides assured/responsive
access to mid-to-low inclination orbits for payloads up to
14,000 lbs.
The committee believes that these two facilities can be
used, when appropriate, to support the national security space
program.
Upgrades to the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System
The committee notes that the architecture of the Ground-
based Midcourse Defense System is in need of hardware and
software upgrades to improve reliability and maintainability
and eliminate obsolescence. The committee recognizes that
significant improvements are being made to the interceptors to
correct the problems with the existing kill vehicles discovered
in flight tests, to increase survivability of the boosters, and
to ensure reliability throughout the service life of the fleet.
The committee supports the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA)
efforts to accomplish these improvements, along with the
refurbishment of Missile Field 1 and deployment of an
additional 14 ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska.
The budget request for MDA prioritizes investments in these
areas and this committee will continue to monitor progress
toward these goals.
Additionally, the committee notes that section 1665 of the
Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291)
requires the Director of the MDA, in coordination with the
Commander of the United States Northern Command, to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees setting forth
the status of current and planned efforts to improve the
homeland ballistic missile defense capability of the United
States. Elements of this report include the status of such
efforts as fielding the additional 14 ground-based interceptors
and refurbishing Missile Field 1 at Fort Greely; improving the
capabilities of the ground-based interceptors deployed with
upgraded capability enhancement-I and capability enhancement-II
exo-atmospheric kill vehicles; developing, testing, and
fielding the next generation exo-atmospheric kill vehicle; and
improving sensor and discrimination capabilities, including the
deployment of a long-range discrimination radar. The committee
strongly encourages MDA to submit this report promptly.
The committee further directs MDA to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees within 90 days of completion
of the above-mentioned report that addresses the status of
efforts to enhance the ground-based interceptor stockpile
reliability program; to implement upgrades to the ground-based
midcourse defense ground system (to include fire control nodes,
fire control software, command launch equipment, and data
terminals) to improve reliability and eliminate obsolescence;
and to upgrade the Early Warning Radars in Clear, Alaska,
Shemya, Alaska and Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
Summary and explanation of funding tables
Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military
construction projects of the Department of Defense (DOD). It
includes funding authorizations for the construction and
operation of military family housing as well as military
construction for the reserve components, the defense agencies,
and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program. It also provides authorization for the base closure
accounts that fund military construction, environmental
cleanup, and other activities required to implement the
decisions in base closure rounds.
The tables contained in this Act provide the project-level
authorizations for the military construction funding authorized
in Division B of this Act and summarize that funding by
account.
The fiscal year 2016 budget requested $8.3 billion for
military construction and housing programs. Of this amount,
$6.6 billion was requested for military construction, $1.4
billion for the construction and operation of family housing,
and $251.3 million for base closure activities.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations
for military construction, housing programs, and base closure
activities totaling $8.3 billion. The total amount authorized
for appropriations reflects the committee's continuing
commitment to invest in the recapitalization of DOD facilities
and infrastructure.
Short title (sec. 2001)
The committee recommends a provision that would designate
division B of this Act as the ``Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.''
Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified by
law (sec. 2002)
The committee recommends a provision that would establish
the expiration date for authorizations in this Act for military
construction projects, land acquisition, family housing
projects, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment Program as of October 1, 2018,
or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is later.
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $743.3 million for military construction and $493.2 million
for family housing for the Army for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$721.7 million for military construction and $493.2 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2016.
The budget request included $37.0 million for an
instruction facility for the U.S. Army Band at Joint Base Myer-
Henderson Hall, Virginia. The committee recommends no funding
for this project and applies the savings to higher priority
unfunded military construction projects in fiscal year 2016.
The committee believes that many of the challenges associated
with the current facility may be addressed through a
combination of facilities additions, minor military
construction, and/or renovation.
The budget request included $43.0 million for a Homeland
Defense Operations Center at Joint Base San Antonio, Texas. The
committee defers consideration of the authorization for this
facility until after the completion of the plan for reducing
administrative and headquarters activities required elsewhere
in this bill.
Additionally, the committee recommends a reduction of $52.0
million from prior-year authorization of appropriations to
reflect project cancellations and bid savings and applies such
savings to high priority unfunded military construction
projects in fiscal year 2016.
The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of
other priorities and notes the Army has identified significant
unfunded military construction priorities, including two access
control points at Fort Meade, Maryland and an unaccompanied
personnel barracks at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The committee notes
that these projects were identified as the top priorities of
the Chief of Staff of the Army and Commander of U.S. Southern
Command, respectively. Funding for these projects has been
added as outlined in the tables in sections 2101 and 4601.
Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Active Duty component of
the Army for fiscal year 2016. The authorized amounts are
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2102)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Army for fiscal year 2016. This provision would also
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing,
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and
storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to improve existing family housing
units of the Department of the Army in an amount not to exceed
$3.5 million.
Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Army authorized for
construction for fiscal year 2016. This provision would also
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the Active-Duty
component of the Army. The state list contained in this report
is the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2013 project
(sec. 2105)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2101(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B
of Public Law 112-239) for construction of a cadet barracks
building at the United States Military Academy, New York, to
include mechanical equipment and associated distribution lines.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec.
2106)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization contained in section 2101 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B
of Public Law 112-81) for three projects until October 1, 2016,
or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec.
2107)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization contained in section 2101 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B
of Public Law 112-239) for seven projects until October 1,
2016, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds
for military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is
later.
Additional authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2016 project
(sec. 2108)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Army to carry out a $12.4 million project
to construct a vehicle bridge and traffic circle to facilitate
traffic flow to and from the medical center at Rhine Ordnance
Barracks, Germany, using host-nation payment-in-kind funding.
Limitation on construction of new facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
(sec. 2109)
The committee recommends a provision that would limit
funding authorized by the bill for new facilities at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the
congressional defense committees that any new construction of
facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have enduring military
value independent of a high-value detention mission.
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $1.6 billion for military construction and $369.6 million
for family housing for the Navy for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$1.7 billion for military construction and $369.6 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2016.
The budget request included $44.5 million for a raw water
pipeline from Camp Pendleton to the City of Fallbrook in order
to allow the city to access water from the Santa Margarita
watershed. The project would also provide upgrades to the
existing Camp Pendleton water system. The committee notes that
the requested project is intended to represent a physical
solution to ongoing litigation over water rights between the
Fallbrook Public Utilities District (FPUD) and the Navy.
However, given that negotiations between the Navy and the FPUD
to resolve this litigation are ongoing, the committee believes
that this project is early to need. Therefore, the committee
recommends no funds for this project and directs the Secretary
of the Navy to submit a rescoped project that would provide the
funds needed for the upgrade of the Camp Pendleton water
system. The Secretary may, to the extent funds are provided
from the State of California, the City of Fallbrook, or another
source outside the Department of Defense, enter into an
agreement to construct both the military and civilian elements
of the projects as outlined by the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11). Prior to entering
into such an agreement, the Secretary is directed to notify the
congressional defense committees of the proposed terms
including the cost allocation between the Department of Defense
and civilian authorities.
The budget request also included $48.3 million for the
Townsend Range Expansion, including $5.0 million for two
civilian fire stations in Long and McIntosh Counties, Georgia.
The committee authorizes $43.3 million for the Townsend Range
expansion without the two civilian fire stations. The committee
does not believe the Navy has the authority to construct fire
stations for which it will not have operational control.
The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of
other priorities and notes the Navy has identified significant
unfunded priorities for military construction in support of the
Marine Corps, including air field security improvements at
Cherry Point, North Carolina; a KC-130J enlisted air crew
trainer at Miramar, California; an LHD pad conversion and new
MV-22 landing pads at Marine Corps base, Hawaii; range safety
improvements at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; installation
operations facilities at Camp Pendleton, California; and a
replacement fire station for the Basic School at Quantico,
Virginia. The committee notes that these projects were
identified as the top priorities of the Commandant of the
Marine Corps. Funding for these projects has been added as
outlined in the tables in sections 2201 and 4601.
Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Navy and Marine Corps military construction projects for fiscal
year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2202)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Navy for fiscal year 2016. This provision would also
authorize funds for facilities that support family housing,
including housing management offices, housing maintenance, and
storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Navy to improve existing family housing
units of the Department of the Navy in an amount not to exceed
$11.5 million.
Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the Active Duty component military
construction and family housing projects of the Department of
the Navy authorized for construction for fiscal year 2016. This
provision would also provide an overall limit on the amount
authorized for military construction and family housing
projects for the Active-Duty components of the Navy and the
Marine Corps. The state list contained in this report is the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec.
2205)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B
of Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1666), for three projects until
October 1, 2016, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2017, whichever is later.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec.
2206)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2201(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B
of Public Law 112-239), for seven projects until October 1,
2016, or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds
for military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is
later.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $1.4 billion for military construction and $491.7 million
for family housing for the Air Force in fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$1.4 billion for military construction and $491.7 million for
family housing for fiscal year 2016.
Additionally, the committee recommends a decrease of $50.0
million from prior-year authorization of appropriations to
reflect project cancellations and bid savings and applies such
savings to high priority unfunded military construction
projects in fiscal year 2016.
The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of
other priorities and notes the Air Force has identified
significant unfunded military construction priorities
including: a new communications facility at Luke Air Force
Base, Arizona; a fixed ground control station facility at
Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico; an air traffic control
tower at McConnell Air Force Base, Kansas; an expansion of the
Air Support Operations Center at Fort Drum, New York; and a
consolidated communications facility at Barksdale Air Force
Base, Louisiana. The committee notes that these projects were
identified as the top priorities of the Chief of Staff of the
Air Force. Funding for these projects has been added as
outlined in the tables in sections 2301 and 4601.
Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec.
2301)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
Air Force military construction projects for fiscal year 2016.
The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis.
Family housing (sec. 2302)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
new construction, planning, and design of family housing units
for the Air Force for fiscal year 2016. This provision would
also authorize funds for facilities that support family
housing, including housing management offices, housing
maintenance, and storage facilities.
Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of the Air Force to improve existing family
housing units of the Department of the Air Force in an amount
not to exceed $150.7 million.
Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the active component military construction
and family housing projects of the Air Force authorized for
construction for fiscal year 2016. This provision would also
provide an overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the active-duty
component of the Air Force. The state list contained in this
report is the binding list of the specific projects authorized
at each location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2010 project
(sec. 2305)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2301(a) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) for a ground control tower at Hickam Air Force Base,
Hawaii, to include the installation of communications cabling.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2014 project
(sec. 2306)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2301 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) for
the construction of an operations facility at Royal Air Force
Station Lakenheath, United Kingdom, to allow for construction
at an unspecified worldwide location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2015 project
(sec. 2307)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2301 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) for the construction
of a KC-46A Alter Composite maintenance shop at McConnell Air
Force Base, Kansas, to allow for a 7,500 square foot facility
consistent with Air Force guidelines for such facilities.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2012 project (sec.
2308)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization contained in section 2301 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B
of Public Law 112-81) for one project until October 1, 2016, or
the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 project (sec.
2309)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization contained in section 2301 of the Military
Construction Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public Law
112-239) for one project until October 1, 2016, or the date of
the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
Summary
The budget request included authorization of appropriations
of $2.3 billion for military construction for the defense
agencies and $58.7 million for family housing for the defense
agencies for fiscal year 2016.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$2.1 billion for military construction and $58.7 million for
family housing for the defense agencies for fiscal year 2016.
The budget request included $49.7 million for the Defense
Logistics Agency Headquarters Facility Replacement at
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The committee defers consideration
of the authorization for this facility until after the
completion of the plan for reducing administrative and
headquarters activities required elsewhere in this bill.
Additionally, the committee recommends a decrease of $120.0
million from prior-year authorization of appropriations to
reflect project cancellations and bid savings and applies such
savings to high priority unfunded military construction
projects in fiscal year 2016.
Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2401)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the defense agencies for
fiscal year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to carry out energy conservation
projects. The authorized amounts are listed on an installation-
by-installation basis.
Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the military construction and family housing
projects of the defense agencies authorized for construction
for fiscal year 2016. This provision would also provide an
overall limit on the amount authorized for military
construction and family housing projects for the defense
agencies. The state list contained in this report is the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2012 project
(sec. 2404)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authority contained in section 2401 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B
of Public Law 112-81) for the High Performance Computing Center
at Fort Meade, Maryland, to include a generator plant capable
of providing 60 megawatts of backup electrical power.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec.
2405)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization contained in section 2401 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B
of Public Law 112-81) for three projects until October 1, 2016,
or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec.
2406)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization contained in section 2401 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B
of Public Law 112-239) for eight projects until October 1,
2016, of the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for
the military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is
later.
Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2014 project (sec. 2407)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2401 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B
of Public Law 113-66) for an ambulatory health center at Fort
Knox, Kentucky, which was subsequently cancelled by the
Department of Defense, by substituting authorization for a
102,000 square foot medical clinic at the same location and
extending the authority until October 1, 2018, or the date of
the enactment of an act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2019, whichever is later. With the
drawdown in military personnel at Fort Knox, the required level
of medical support has been similarly reduced.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM
Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $120.0 million for military construction in
fiscal year 2016 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) Security Investment Program. The committee recommends
the requested amount.
Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2501)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to make contributions to the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program in an
amount equal to the sum of the amount specifically authorized
in section 2502 of this title and the amount of recoupment due
to the United States for construction previously financed by
the United States.
Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations of $120.0 million for the U.S. contribution to
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program for fiscal year 2016.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
Summary
The Department of Defense requested authorization of
appropriations of $517.3 million for military construction in
fiscal year 2016 for facilities for the National Guard and
reserve components.
The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$636.8 million for military construction in fiscal year 2016
for facilities for the National Guard and reserve components.
The detailed funding recommendations are contained in the state
list table included in this report.
The committee recognizes that in difficult budget times
military construction funding is often deferred in favor of
other priorities and notes the National Guard and Reserve
forces have identified significant unfunded military
construction priorities, including a tactical aerial unmanned
systems hangar at Fort Stewart, Georgia; an equipment
concentration point at Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia; an access
control point at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico; an aviation
classification and repair depot at Gulfport, Mississippi; a
fire station/security complex at Dobbins, Georgia; a space
control facility at Cape Canaveral, Florida; an F-22 composite
repair facility at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii; a
building modification for the KC-46 fuselage trainer at Pease,
New Hampshire; operations and deployment facilities at Bradley
Air National Guard Base, Connecticut; and a vehicle maintenance
shop at Camp Foley, Alabama. The committee notes that these
projects were identified as the top unfunded priorities of
their respective service chiefs or the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau. Funding for these projects has been added as
outlined in the tables in this title and section 4601.
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorizations of Appropriations
Authorized Army National Guard construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2601)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Army National Guard for
fiscal year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Army Reserve construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2602)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Army Reserve for fiscal
year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects (sec. 2603)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Navy Reserve and Marine
Corps Reserve for fiscal year 2016. The authorized amounts are
listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air National Guard construction and land acquisition
projects (sec. 2604)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Air National Guard for
fiscal year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorized Air Force Reserve construction and land acquisition projects
(sec. 2605)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
military construction projects for the Air Force Reserve for
fiscal year 2016. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis.
Authorization of appropriations, National Guard and Reserve (sec. 2606)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for the reserve component military construction
projects authorized for construction for fiscal year 2016 in
this Act. This provision would also provide an overall limit on
the amount authorized for military construction projects for
each of the reserve components of the military departments. The
state list contained in this report is the binding list of the
specific projects authorized at each location.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Modification and extension of authority to carry out certain fiscal
year 2013 project (sec. 2611)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorization contained in section 2602 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (division B
of Public Law 112-81) for construction of an Army Reserve
Center at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, to allow its
construction in the vicinity at Aberdeen Proving Ground. The
provision would also extend the authorization for this project
until October 1, 2016, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2017, whichever is later.
Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2015
projects (sec. 2612)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify the
authorizations contained in section 2604 and 2605 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(division B of Public Law 113-291), for construction of a
Guardian Angel Operations facility at Davis-Monthan Air Force
Base, Arizona, and construction of a consolidated Secure
Compartmented Information Facility at Fort Smith Municipal
Airport, Arkansas to provide for increased costs associated
with these projects.
Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 2012 projects (sec.
2613)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization contained in section 2602 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (division B
of Public Law 112-81) for two projects until October 1, 2016,
or the date of the enactment of an act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2017, whichever is later.
Extension of authorization of certain fiscal year 2013 projects (sec.
2614)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
authorization contained in sections 2601, 2602, and 2603 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
(division B of Public Law 112-239) for five projects until
October 1, 2016, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2017, whichever is later.
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES
Summary and explanation of tables
The budget request included $251.3 million for the ongoing
cost of environmental remediation and other activities
necessary to continue implementation of the 1988, 1991, 1993,
1995, and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds. The
committee recommends this amount. The detailed funding
recommendations are contained in the state list table included
in this report.
Authorization of appropriations for base realignment and closure
activities funded through Department of Defense Base Closure
Account (sec. 2701)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for ongoing activities that
are required to implement the decisions of the 1988, 1991,
1993, 1995, and 2005 Base Realignment and Closure rounds.
Prohibition on conducting additional base realignment and closure
(BRAC) round (sec. 2702)
The committee recommends a provision that would make clear
that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize a
future Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. Elsewhere in
the bill, the committee recommends a reduction of $10.5 million
for BRAC planning activities.
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Authority for acceptance and use of contributions for certain mutually
beneficial projects (sec. 2801)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
Subchapter II of Chapter 138 of title 10, United States Code,
to authorize the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of State, to accept cash contributions from partner
countries for the purpose of the payment of costs in connection
with mutually beneficial construction, maintenance, and repair
projects. Such projects would be required to support bilateral
defense cooperation agreement, or otherwise benefit the United
States, as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
Change in authorities relating to scope of work variations for military
construction projects (sec. 2802)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, to authorize a
military service to increase the scope of a military
construction project by up to 10 percent once the service
secretary involved approves the increase and notifies the
congressional defense committees of the increase and the
reasons for it.
The committee recognizes that there are valid reasons why
the square footage of a facility might be appropriately
increased as new electronic systems are incorporated, new
security requirements are identified, or other needs emerge
after authorization. Rather than requiring a delay in the
project as new authority is sought, or sub-optimizing the
project in order to avoid delays, the committee believes that
the ability of a service to increase the scope by up to 10
percent, subject to congressional notification and a waiting
period of 14 days, is warranted.
Extension of temporary, limited authority to use operation and
maintenance funds for construction projects in certain areas
outside the United States (sec. 2803)
The committee recommends a provision that would reauthorize
contingency construction authority in certain areas outside the
United States for an additional year.
Modification of reporting requirement on in-kind construction and
renovation payments (sec. 2804)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to provide an annual report to the
congressional defense committees on the in-kind construction
and renovation payments received by the Department of Defense
during the preceding fiscal year.
The provision would also repeal the existing requirement
for the Comptroller General to provide such a report.
Lab modernization pilot program (sec. 2805)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Secretary of Defense to use funds appropriated to the
Department of Defense for research, development, test, and
evaluation (RDT&E) for the construction of laboratory
facilities at Department of Defense RDT&E installations. Such
projects would be required to comply with section 2802 of title
10, United States Code, be included in the President's budget
submission, and be specifically appropriated for such purposes.
Authorized facilities would also be required to support the
science and technology requirements of more than one military
department or agency, or a technology development program
consistent with the technology offset program authorized
elsewhere in this Act.
Conveyance to Indian tribes of certain housing units (sec. 2806)
The committee recommends a provision that would permit
service secretaries to convey excess relocatable military
housing units to certain Indian tribes, at no cost, and without
consideration. The provision also provides a mechanism that
would allow tribes to make requests to the military services.
The recommended provision would expand the existing Air Force
program for conveyance of relocatable military housing units
enacted by section 2308 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) and allows for
conveyance of excess relocatable military housing units by
other military services.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Utility systems conveyance authority (sec. 2811)
The committee recommends a provision that would clarify
section 2688(j) of title 10, United States Code, to allow for
conveyance of additional utility systems to an entity already
operating other utility systems on a joint base if doing so
would be in the best interest of the government and is
supported by an independent cost estimate.
The committee notes that there has been confusion about
whether the definition of a utility system for the treatment of
wastewater includes the treatment of stormwater. The committee
believes, consistent with the Department of Defense's
interpretation, that wastewater includes stormwater.
Leasing of non-excess property of military departments and defense
agencies; treatment of value provided by local education
agencies and elementary and secondary schools (sec. 2812)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 2667 of title 10, United States Code, by authorizing
the Secretary concerned to lease non-excess property for
consideration in an amount below fair market value if the lease
is to a local education agency or an elementary or secondary
school. This provision is intended to help local education
agencies and schools that are providing support for military
families.
Modification of facility repair notification requirement (sec. 2813)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 2811 of title 10, United States Code, by adding new
congressional notifications for facility repair projects that
are expected to cost more than 75 percent of the estimated cost
of a military construction project to replace the facility or
the facility is located at an overseas location that has not
been designated a main operating base or forward operating
site. These new reporting requirements would only apply to
facility repair projects that are expected to cost more than
$1.0 million.
Increase of threshold of notice and wait requirement for certain
facilities for reserve components and parity with authority for
unspecified minor military construction and repair projects
(sec. 2814)
The committee recommends a provision that would modify
section 18233a of title 10, United States Code, relating to
unspecified minor military construction and repair of
facilities for the reserve components to conform to sections
2805 and 2811 of title 10, United States Code.
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances
Release of reversionary interest retained as part of the conveyance to
the economic development alliance of Jefferson County, Arkansas
(sec. 2821)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend the
terms of conveyance contained in section 2827 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 104-
201) to allow the conveyance for other than the conditions
contained in the section 2827, if the Economic Development
Alliance pays fair market value for the property and the costs
associated with conveyance are born by the Economic Development
Alliance.
Items of Special Interest
Kwajalein Atoll infrastructure
The committee recognizes the unique and important nature of
test facilities on the Kwajalein Atoll and appreciates the U.S.
Army Installation Management Command's (IMCOM) Long-Term
Management Plan for the Kwajalein Atoll, submitted to the
committee on February 9, 2015. However, given the remote
location and the difficult environmental conditions present on
the atoll, the committee believes that continued vigilance and
additional facilities investments will be necessary in future
years to maintain required capabilities. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide the
congressional defense committees an updated report on the
IMCOM's infrastructure goals and an updated 5-year profile of
planned facilities recapitalization for the Kwajalein Atoll
with the fiscal year 2017 budget request and subsequent budget
requests through fiscal year 2021. Furthermore, the committee
notes that elsewhere in this Act, an additional $34.0 million
has been provided to correct facilities sustainment,
recapitalization, and maintenance deficiencies identified as an
unfunded requirement by the Chief of Staff of the Army.
Military construction delay report
The committee notes that the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) and the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public
Law 111-117) included $10.7 million for the construction of a
control tower at Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma. Multiple
contract problems have caused an unacceptable delay in the
construction of the tower and although it was projected to be
completed by fiscal year 2012, it is still not finished.
The committee is concerned about mission and cost impacts
caused by the delays associated with this project. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide
a report to the congressional defense committees, not later
than August 1, 2015, detailing the timeline from passage of the
Fiscal Year 2010 Authorization and Appropriations Acts to the
completion of the tower and an explanation of delays and cost
increases associated with this project. The report should also
include any remedial, legal, or disciplinary actions taken
against contractors or others involved in the delays and cost
issues and any lessons learned that could be applied to future
projects.
Military construction supporting major range and test facility bases
The committee is concerned about the lack of investment and
sustainment of Major Range and Test Facility Bases (MRTFB). The
committee notes that in the last 5 years only seven Military
Construction (MILCON) projects have been requested in direct
support of test and evaluation missions at MRTFBs nationwide.
In fact, some MRTFBs have not received a MILCON project in
support of test and evaluation missions in over a decade. The
committee is also aware that the Strategic Plan for Department
of Defense Test & Evaluation (T&E) Resources from March 2013,
noted, ``Due to age and outmoded technology, many test
facilities are increasingly difficult to sustain and/or
maintain. Obsolescence and deterioration contribute
significantly to increased levels of maintenance, reductions in
reliability, and an overall increase in operating costs.
Services are under pressure to keep existing ground test
facilities viable and relevant to meet immediate and forecasted
needs. Across all services, there has been a downward trend in
T&E MILCON appropriations to address ongoing maintenance,
sustainment, and modernization needs of our T&E facilities.
Further analysis is required (e.g., recapitalization rate) to
provide a comprehensive assessment of MRTFB-only MILCON needs
and investments.''
The committee recognizes the difficult overall budget
environment for MILCON, but notes that the Department of
Defense's fiscal year 2016 budget request still only funds two
additional MILCON projects in direct support of test and
evaluation missions. The committee awaits the comprehensive
assessment of MRTFB-only MILCON needs and investments, and
urges the Department of Defense to ensure appropriate funding
is requested to support current and projected future
operations.
Military training ranges for Special Operations Forces
The committee notes that in the report submitted to
Congress in response to section 344 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) on
Training Range Infrastructure for Special Operations Forces,
the Commander of United States Special Operations Command
(SOCOM) noted that while SOCOM and the Services have worked
together to greatly improve the access to and capabilities at
training ranges used by Special Operations Forces (SOF),
defense budget reductions have forced the military services to
``reduce or eliminate training range modernization and
recapitalization programs and to reduce sustainment and
operating funds.'' These budget reductions have a direct impact
on training and overall readiness of SOF at a time of continued
high operational tempo and evolving threats are stretching the
ability of training ranges to support the unique training
requirements of SOF.
The committee receives annual updates from the Department
of Defense (DOD) on the status of all test and training ranges
through Sustainable Ranges Reports (SRR) to Congress, which
summarizes the DOD's actions to ensure the long-term
sustainability of its training ranges. The SRR responds to
Section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314), which requires DOD
to develop and submit to Congress a comprehensive plan to
address training constraints caused by limitations on the use
of available military lands, marine areas, and airspace in the
United States and overseas. While each service identifies in
the report critical issues affecting the training of general
purpose forces, the unique training requirements of SOF are
rarely specifically addressed.
The committee notes that in the December 2013 submission of
the 2025 Air Test and Training Range Enhancement Plan, in
response to section 343 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81), the Air Force
described efforts with SOCOM to transform the Melrose Military
Range in New Mexico into a premier range supporting SOF and its
intent to partner with SOCOM on future investments. However,
the report does not satisfy the requirement of section 343 to
submit a list of prioritized improvements and modernization of
the facilities, equipment, and technology supporting the
infrastructure in order to provide a test and training
environment that accurately simulates and or portrays the full
spectrum of threats and targets of likely United States
adversaries in 2025 nor does it propose a list of prioritized
projects, easements, acquisitions, or other actions, including
estimated costs required to upgrade the test and training range
infrastructure, taking into consideration the criteria set
forth in the legislation.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report, not later than March 1, 2016, on a
comprehensive range plan to include proposed investments over
the next five years by the Air Force and SOCOM to address the
training range requirements of Melrose Range. The report should
describe requirements and proposed funding to maximize the
available range training space and safety margins for air to
ground integration training with other DOD and SOCOM
components. The report should also describe any planned
transition from basic bombing and gunnery to integrated air and
ground training and any associated requirements for expansion
of land or infrastructure at the range. The report should note
the extent to which such requirements are addressed in the
budget request for fiscal year 2017 and future years defense
plan.
The committee also strongly encourages the Secretary of
Defense to include in future SRR reports to Congress a review
of the general capabilities, critical issues, and future
capabilities necessary for ranges supporting unique SOF
training requirements.
Redevelopment of the former Indiana Army Ammunition Plant
The committee is aware of ongoing efforts between the Army
and the local reuse authority to finalize property conveyance
at the inactivated Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (INAAP). This
conveyance was authorized by the Strom Thurmond National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-
736) for the purpose of developing the site ``as an industrial
park to replace all or part of the economic activity lost at
the inactivated plant.'' In executing land transfers, the Army
is obligated to fully comply with requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-510) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-580). In
return, the local reuse authority is obligated by statute to
pay fair market value for conveyed property as determined by
the Secretary in accordance with Federal appraisal standards
and procedures. The committee expects both the Army and the
local reuse authority to abide by the mutually-agreed terms of
the Memorandum of Agreement governing the conveyance and to
work in good faith to resolve environmental and liability
concerns related to hazardous waste on the property. The
committee further encourages the Army and the local reuse
authority to expedite actions necessary to execute remaining
conveyances in a timely fashion.
Repair by replacement
The committee is aware that some within the Department of
Defense interpret section 2811 of title 10, United States Code,
as providing authority to conduct ``repair by replacement'' or,
in other words, replacement of an entire facility using
operation and maintenance funds. However, the committee notes
that section 2811 specifically prohibits the ``construction of
new facilities or additions to existing facilities.'' Under
this authority, replacement of a component of a complete and
useable facility or system is allowable so long as it does not
increase the capacity of the component or facility (unless to
correct a life, safety, or code deficiency), but replacement of
an entire facility is prohibited and should be accomplished via
military construction.
Given confusion within the Department regarding allowable
activities under section 2811, the committee urges the
Assistant Secretary of Defense Energy, Installations and
Environment to review relevant written guidance memoranda and
issue clarifications as necessary.
Safe and suitable housing for junior enlisted servicemembers
The committee believes that the services have a
responsibility to provide safe and suitable housing for
servicemembers--including junior enlisted personnel living in
unaccompanied housing.
The committee notes the unacceptable conditions of Building
191 at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Building 191 violates current
state and federal building and fire codes, does not have an
operational fire suppression system, and features heating,
ventilation, air conditioning, power distribution, and lighting
systems that are at the end of their life cycle. The same
barracks building does not have code compliant fresh air
ventilation and there have been sewage failures, rodent
problems, mold problems, and regular hot water failure.
The committee believes junior enlisted sailors should not
have to live in such conditions. The committee is concerned
that the project to tear down Building 191--and replace it with
a new Junior Enlisted Unaccompanied House (P-285)--was
originally planned for fiscal year 2015 and has been postponed
to fiscal year 2016 and then to fiscal year 2018. The committee
believes it is difficult for the Navy to justify continued
deferral of P-285, especially in light of some of the lower
priority military construction projects in its FY 2016 request
and given the unacceptable conditions found in Building 191 at
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
In the fiscal year 2017 budget request, the committee
expects the Navy to request funding for P-285 or to justify why
such a request is not a priority for the Navy.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
Overview
Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for atomic energy
defense activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2016, including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of
plant and capital equipment; research and development; nuclear
weapons; naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration
and waste management; operating expenses; and other expenses
necessary to carry out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (Public Law 95-91). This title authorizes
appropriations in three categories: (1) National Nuclear
Security Administration; (2) defense environmental cleanup; and
(3) other defense activities.
The committee recommends a provision allocating funding
consistent with the funding allocations in section 4701. The
committee notes that recent actions taken at the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), and its projected initial
operating date of March 2016, necessitate quarterly reporting
to the congressional defense committees on actions taken
towards bringing WIPP towards full operational status,
including key milestones, status of any capital projects under
Department of Energy Order 413.3, as well as obligations and
expenditures of fiscal year 2015 funding. Such reporting shall
be due within 30 days of the quarter for which it is reporting.
The committee further requests the General Accountability
Office review these quarterly updates and report to the
congressional defense committees on significant findings and
trends in the above tasks.
The committee further directs the Government Accountability
Office to continue its ongoing evaluation of the Hanford Waste
Treatment Plant in the areas of cost-schedule performance,
technology readiness levels, contractor assurance system, and
other agreements to be mutually agreed upon with a briefing to
the committee due no later than February 28, 2016.
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a
total of $12.8 billion for the Department of Energy in fiscal
year 2015 for the National Nuclear Security Administration to
carry out programs necessary to national security.
Defense environmental clean-up (sec. 3102)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$5.1 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities at
the Department of Energy. The defense environmental cleanup
activities support the cleanup of contaminated facilities,
soil, ground, and surface water, and the treatment and disposal
of radioactive and other waste generated through the production
of nuclear weapons and weapons materials.
Other defense activities (sec. 3103)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
$774.4 million for other defense activities for fiscal year
2016, including funds for health, safety, and security, the
Office of Legacy Management, and Nuclear Energy.
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Responsive capabilities program (sec. 3111)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) to establish and carry out a program to exercise the
technical capabilities of the NNSA with respect to design and
production of nuclear weapons to ensure that NNSA is ready to
respond to future uncertainties not addressed by existing life
extension programs.
The program shall be integrated across the science,
engineering, design, and manufacturing cycle of the NNSA, and
integrate physics, engineering, and production capabilities
into joint test assemblies and designs. The program shall
result in: (1) Physics models of components and systems,
capable of being certified as safe and reliable in the absence
of testing, and contribute to the predictive design framework;
(2) shortened engineering design cycles that minimize the
amount of time leading to an engineering prototype; and (3)
rapid manufacturing capabilities to reduce the time and cost of
production.
In January 2015, the United States Strategic Command issued
a report titled ``Report on Balance in Nuclear Weapons
Program.'' The report found that ``the nation requires an agile
and capable infrastructure with requisite capacities able to
respond to technical and geopolitical developments. Investments
in processing and production infrastructure are needed to
enhance the nation's ability to respond to uncertainty.
Additionally, a full design and production capability is a
critical component of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.''
The committee notes it is the view of the Director of the
Sandia National Laboratory that we must ``engage in a long-term
transformation of the approach to the design, development,
qualification, and production of nuclear weapons. Lowering the
cost, reducing the time to deploy, and being responsive to
changing external threats will help assure we continue to meet
the nation's needs into the future. The nature of the emerging
threat itself provides another strategic reason for ensuring we
are not surprised.'' Likewise, the Director of the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory has told this committee that
``mission success depends on the laboratories' science and
technology excellence and their ability to deliver innovative,
cost-efficient solutions.''
The committee authorizes $20.0 million in fiscal year 2016,
identified elsewhere in the committee report, to commence a
responsive capabilities program.
Long-term plan for meeting national security requirements for
unencumbered uranium (sec. 3112)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Energy to submit a plan, on even-numbered years,
with the President's budget submission, for meeting the
national security requirements for unencumbered uranium through
2065. Unencumbered uranium is uranium for which the United
States has no obligations to foreign governments to use uranium
only for peaceful purposes. The committee remains concerned
about accurately accounting for the inventory of existing
unencumbered uranium that is allocated for national security
purposes as well as future costs for any future production
options being considered and policy options that could help
offset such costs.
Defense nuclear nonproliferation management plan (sec. 3113)
The committee recommends a provision that would require in
each odd numbered year that the Administrator, National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA), submit a management plan of
defense nuclear nonproliferation programs of the NNSA. Updates
to this plan are required in each even numbered year.
Plan for deactivation and decommissioning of nonoperational defense
nuclear facilities (sec. 3114)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Energy to develop a plan to perform a cost-benefit
analysis of defense nuclear facilities requiring deactivation
and decommissioning as to whether they should be kept in cold
shutdown awaiting demolition, or accelerated to save long-term
storage costs. The plan will be required beginning every even
calendar year no later than March 31, 2016, and end after the
fifth report submission on March 31, 2026. The committee is
concerned about the large inventory of nonoperational buildings
at active defense nuclear facilities, such as at the Y-12
plant, some dating to the Manhattan Project, that continue to
sit idle and must be continuously maintained in a safe
condition by the National Nuclear Security Administration
instead of being transferred to the Office of Environmental
Management for demolition. The accelerated cleanup of the Rocky
Flats plant saved the taxpayer billions of dollars. The
committee expects the Department of Energy will take a similar
approach with these facilities.
Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant contract oversight
(sec. 3115)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Energy to arrange to have an owner's agent assist
the Secretary in carrying out oversight responsibilities
associated with Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization
Plant contract DE-AC27-01RV14136. Since the current contractor
for the Waste Treatment Plant is its own design agent, the
owner's design agent will act as an independent expert on the
project.
Assessment of emergency preparedness of defense nuclear facilities
(sec. 3116)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Secretary of Energy to include in each award-fee evaluation
conducted of a management and operating contract for a
Department of Energy defense nuclear facility in 2016, or any
even-numbered year thereafter, an assessment of the adequacy of
the emergency preparedness of that facility, including an
assessment of the seniority level of employees and contractors
of the Department of Energy that participate in emergency
preparedness exercises at that facility.
The committee is concerned that on September 3, 2014, the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) issued a
recommendation to the Department of Energy that it make
specific improvements in its emergency management directive and
strengthen the implementation of its emergency management
requirements to ensure the continued protection of workers and
the public. The DNFSB attributed observed problems to the
absence of sound emergency preparedness and response programs
at defense nuclear facilities. The committee notes that the
Secretary of Energy accepted the recommendation on November 7,
2014, and is in the process of developing an implementation
plan to accomplish the improvements.
Laboratory- and facility-directed research and development programs
(sec. 3117)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 4811(c) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C.
2791(c)) to strike the 6 percent upper bound for National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) weapons laboratory-
directed research and development programs with a floor not to
go below 5 percent and with an upper bound not to exceed 8
percent. The committee recommends a similar provision
recommended for NNSA weapons production facilities and the
Nevada Site Office with an upper bound of 4 percent. These
funds have served as the source of new innovations throughout
the NNSA complex, keeping scientists and engineers at the
cutting edge of technology, which translates into cost-saving
innovations for the nation's stockpile program, with an ability
to meet any future uncertainties that might arise. The funds
are also used to attract young scientists and engineers to
mentor under senior personnel to ensure there is a fresh talent
pool coming into the NNSA complex on an enduring basis.
Limitation on bonuses for employees of the National Nuclear Security
Administration who engage in improper program management (sec.
3118)
The committee recommends a provision that would provide
authority to the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration to withhold bonus payments to employees who
engage in improper program management on the date such a
determination is made.
Modification of authorized personnel levels of the Office of the
Administrator for Nuclear Security (sec. 3119)
The committee recommends a provision that permits the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) to hire above the statutory limit of 1,690 full-time
positions using up to 100 exempt employees hired under section
3241 of the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (50
U.S.C section 2441). The committee recognizes the need of the
NNSA to hire positions that are unique to the Administration in
areas such as cost evaluation, program management, science and
engineering, and encourages the Administrator to use exempt
hiring to bring new expertise into the NNSA.
Modification of submission of assessments of certain budget requests
relating to the nuclear weapons stockpile (sec. 3120)
The committee recommends a provision that would extend the
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) annual reporting
deadline for reviewing the budget of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) weapons program from 90 days to
150 days in odd-numbered years when NNSA is required to submit
a detailed Stockpile Stewardship Management Plan (SSMP).
Each fiscal year, section 3113 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383), requires GAO to report not later than 90 days after NNSA
submits its nuclear security budget material to Congress on an
assessment of whether the budget materials provide sufficient
funding for the modernization of the nuclear security
enterprise. GAO reviews budgetary materials that include the
SSMP, which NNSA is required to develop in consultation with
the Department of Defense. GAO would be required to submit a
detailed report in odd-numbered years and a summary in even-
numbered years. However, for the odd-numbered years, NNSA's
detailed SSMP is frequently issued 60 days after the agency
issues its nuclear security budget materials. This delay
significantly reduces GAO's time to review detailed SSMP
information and still meet the 90-day statutory reporting
deadline.
Repeal of phase three review of certain defense environmental cleanup
projects (sec. 3121)
The committee recommends a provision that would repeal
phase three of section 3134 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) as
the Government Accountability Office has reported on all phases
of this project.
Modifications to cost-benefit analysis for competition of management
and operating contracts (sec. 3122)
The committee recommends a provision that would amend
section 3121 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to make technical
corrections to increase the utility of reports on competition
for management and operating contracts at facilities of the
National Nuclear Security Administration and change the timing
of the Government Accountability Office's review to assess
whether estimated cost savings and other benefits are actually
occurring as planned.
Review of implementation of recommendations of the Congressional
Advisory Panel on the governance of the Nuclear Security
Enterprise (sec. 3123)
The committee recommends a provision that would require the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration
to enter into agreements with the National Academy of Sciences
and the National Academy of Pubic Administration to assess
implementation of recommendations of the Congressional Advisory
Panel on the Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise that
can be carried out without additional legislation. In addition
to monitoring implementation, the agreement should specify that
the two entities should determine whether the implementation
was effective in addressing the problem it was intended to
solve. The agreement shall utilize the procedures of the
National Academies in reviewing and publishing the joint
report.
Budget Items
Defense Environmental Cleanup, Los Alamos National Laboratory
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to
the Department of Energy Defense Environmental Clean-up account
to accelerate the cleanup of transuranic waste at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory, and in particular to enhance the
ability to sort, track and re-package transuranic waste drums.
These actions are needed to avoid future preventable incidents
associated with the Los Alamos drum that underwent an
exothermic reaction at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
Deferred Maintenance
The budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) contained $257.7 million for
Recapitalization and $227.0 million for Maintenance.
Respectively, these programs fund day-to-day preventative or
corrective maintenance activities and efforts to reduce the
large backlog of deferred maintenance across the nuclear
security enterprise. Fiscal Year 2016 budget justification
materials submitted by NNSA note that NNSA's deferred
maintenance backlog is over $3.6 billion and growing.
The committee is encouraged that the Administrator and the
Secretary have taken steps to stop the growth in the backlog of
deferred maintenance, but believes more must be done to
actually decrease the total amount of the backlog. Therefore,
the committee recommends $407.7 million for Recapitalization,
an increase of $150.0 million to the budget request.
Enhanced surveillance
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Weapons
Account, Engineering, Enhanced Surveillance. This program
provides important models and tools used to predict the aging
of nuclear weapons systems, which is of importance to combatant
commanders and the Nuclear Weapons Council in determining
whether a life-extension program will be required.
Plutonium disposition program
The Department of Energy (DOE) continues to struggle with
its plutonium disposition program, the intent of which is for
the United States and Russia to each dispose of 34 metric tons
of surplus weapons-grade plutonium--an agreement between the
two countries was signed in 2000 and updated in 2011. The
existing strategy is based on constructing a facility to
fabricate mixed oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel and irradiating this
fuel in specially-modified commercial nuclear reactors. Once
used and removed from a reactor, the plutonium can no longer be
readily used to make a nuclear weapon.
In 2013, in light of the cost increases and the current
budget environment associated with the MOX facility and the
overall Plutonium Disposition program, DOE's fiscal year 2014
budget request stated that the strategy for converting
plutonium to MOX fuel may be much higher than initially
anticipated. The budget request announced that, as a result of
these projected cost increases, the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) would slow down activities associated
with the current plutonium disposition strategy and conduct an
analysis of alternatives to complete the mission more
efficiently.
In April 2014, DOE released its analysis of the existing
MOX strategy and four other alternatives including downblending
the 34 metric tons and disposing this material at DOE's Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), or at a new repository that would
need to be constructed if WIPP could not be modified to dispose
of this downblended material. The April 2014 analysis found
that the downblending option was significantly less expensive
than the other four alternatives examined.
An April 2015 independent analysis conducted by the
Aerospace Corporation of the lifecycle costs associated with
the MOX and downblended options also concluded that the
downblending option was significantly less expensive than the
MOX option. Although cost is a factor in considering
disposition strategies, it is important to note that the only
option that meets the requirements outlined in the Plutonium
Management and Disposition Act PMDA, signed by the United
States and Russia, is MOX. All other alternatives would not
only require that we renegotiate the PMDA with Russia, but will
likely also require statutory and regulatory changes that could
cause additional delay.
The committee is concerned, however, that these analyses
inadequately assessed the technical, regulatory, and political
feasibility of the downblending option. To address these
inadequacies, the committee directs NNSA to prepare an analysis
of the downblending option that includes answers to the
following questions:
(1) What is the capital cost, operating and
maintenance cost, other program costs, and overall
lifecycle costs associated with the optimal
downblending strategy?
(2) What is the existing subscribed capacity at WIPP
and how would DOE accommodate the volume of downblended
material from the 34 metric tons from the plutonium
disposition program? Since WIPP is currently not
accepting transuranic waste as a result of the February
2014 accident, and thus created a backlog of waste that
is being temporarily stored at multiple sites, when
would the first shipment of plutonium be transported to
WIPP if this option was selected? What costs are
associated with this delay?
(3) Would the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act need to be
modified to accommodate this additional volume? If yes,
how long with this likely take to complete? What, if
any, costs are associated with this delay?
(4) Are there statutory changes or other regulations
that would need to be modified to support the
downblending option? If so, how long would it take to
change these regulations and what are the associated
costs?
(5) Would a new geologic repository be needed to
accommodate all or some of this additional volume? If
so, what would be the potential cost and schedule of
siting, constructing, and operating such a repository?
By way of comparison, what was the capital cost of
constructing WIPP?
(6) What is the optimal blending of weapons-grade
plutonium with inert material to maximize space in a
repository?
(7) How might the percentage of plutonium in
containers of downblended material affect the security
requirements associated with transporting the material
to a repository, the security requirements at the
repository, and the ability of international monitors
to monitor the downblended material in a repository?
(8) What are the nonproliferation and arms control
concerns associated with disposing of weapons-grade
plutonium in containers that lack a radioactive barrier
in a repository?
(9) Would the PMDA need to be renegotiated if MOX was
no longer the preferred option for the United States to
dispose of 34 metric tons of plutonium? What are the
concerns associated with this action?
(10) What are the technical impediments to
downblending weapons-grade plutonium from pit and non-
pit sources?
(11) What are the views of the US Environmental
Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
and State of New Mexico in pursuing a downblend
strategy?
The fiscal year 2016 budget request includes $345.0 million
in Nonproliferation Construction for the MOX Fuel Fabrication
Facility (MFFF). The committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million for Nonproliferation Construction to support analysis
of the downblending alternative. The committee requests that
all cost analyses conducted as part of this analysis follow the
best practice guidance of the Government Accountability
Office's (GAO) Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.
The committee requests the Department of Energy to conduct
a two-step analysis of alternative uses for the MOX Fuel
Fabrication Facility (MFFF) should an alternative plutonium
disposition strategy be adopted and this facility were no
longer needed for this purpose. To preserve the long-term
mission for the Savannah River Site, (1) identify potential
long-term mission needs at the Savannah River Site over the
next 30 to 50 years, and (2) using best practices identified by
the GAO, conduct an analysis of alternatives to identify how
these mission needs could be met by using the MOX Fuel
Fabrication Facility.
The analysis for the downblending option and the
alternatives to using the MFFF shall be due to the
congressional defense committees no later than October 31,
2015. The committee directs the Government Accountability
Office to review the NNSA analysis as outlined in this section
with a report to the congressional defense committees no later
than 30 days after receipt of the NNSA analysis.
Responsive capabilities program
The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in
fiscal year 2016 to support the establishment of a new
responsive capabilities program within the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA). Elsewhere in this bill, the
committee recommends a provision that would require the
Administrator of the NNSA to establish and carry out a program
to exercise the technical capabilities of the NNSA with respect
to design and production of nuclear weapons to ensure that NNSA
is ready to respond to future uncertainties not addressed by
existing life-extension programs.
The program shall be integrated across the science,
engineering, design, and manufacturing cycle of the NNSA, and
integrate physics, engineering, and production capabilities
into joint test assemblies and designs. The program shall
result in: (1) physics models of components and systems,
capable of being certified as safe and reliable in the absence
of testing, and contribute to the predictive design framework;
(2) shortened engineering design cycles that minimize the
amount of time leading to an engineering prototype; and (3)
rapid manufacturing capabilities to reduce the time and cost of
production.
Uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund
The committee notes that a legislative assumption
accompanies the budget request of $471.8 million for the
uranium enrichment decontamination and decommissioning fund, to
reauthorize section 1101 of the Energy Policy Act of 2002
(Public Law 102-48, 42 U.S.C. 2297g) for matching industry
contributions. As in fiscal year 2015, this legislation was not
reauthorized and the committee assumes it will not be
reauthorized again this year. Accordingly, the committee
recommends a decrease of $471.8 million.
Items of Special Interest
Ability of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to communicate
with the Secretary of Energy
Section 312 of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, as amended, (42
U.S.C. 2268a) says in part ``Mission--The mission of the Board
shall be to provide independent analysis, advice and
recommendations to the Secretary of Energy to inform the
Secretary in the role of operator and regulator of defense
nuclear facilities of the Department of Energy, in providing
adequate protection of public health and safety at such defense
nuclear facilities.'' Due to the recent reorganization of the
Department to form an Office of the Undersecretary for
Management and Performance, the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board (DNFSB) no longer reports directly to the
Secretary of Energy. It has been lowered within this relatively
new organization to the Associate Under Secretary for
Environment, Health, Safety and Security. This re-organization
leaves the committee with the impression that the Department is
not adhering to the statutory language (as found in section
312), and intent of the DNFSB organization act, and that is to
report to the Secretary of Energy on matters concerning the
adequate protection of the public health and safety of defense
nuclear facilities.
The committee directs the Secretary of Energy to report to
the congressional defense committees no later than February 28,
2016 on actions the Secretary will or has taken to ensure that
the DNFSB has the ability to interact with, and report to the
Secretary of Energy (as found in section 312 of the DNFSB
organization act) on matters involving adequate protection of
the public health and safety of defense nuclear facilities.
Interoperable Warhead--1
The committee recognizes that future life extension
programs for U.S. nuclear weapons components and stockpile
systems, such as the Interoperable Warhead--1 (IW-1), will face
technical challenges. Maintaining readiness to meet these
challenges during the 5 year delay of the IW-1 program, which
will develop the first interoperable nuclear packages for both
Air Force and Navy ballistic missile systems under the Nuclear
Weapons Council's ``3+2'' strategy, is important for future
confidence in the nation's nuclear deterrent. Technical
capabilities essential to our nuclear readiness reside in the
National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) national
laboratories and production and testing organizations; they
comprise areas of nuclear design and engineering, advanced
simulation and experimentation, science, surveillance, and
production.
Technical questions concerning IW-1 need to be understood
and addressed. Integration of the IW-1 nuclear package into
different Air Force and Navy missiles with different space,
weight, and operational requirements, while assuring the
accuracy of warhead delivery in both systems, could be
problematic. This and other concerns will also pertain to
future life-extension programs beyond IW-1. For example, the
goal to enhance surety of stockpile systems increases technical
challenges. Optimizing system design to best meet requirements
involves technical trade studies, presently incomplete for the
IW-1, that draw on all nuclear capabilities listed above to
ensure component and weapon system certification. Other
difficult technical questions surround pit reuse, which may
become a key ingredient of life extension programs in the
future. In addition to drawing on nuclear design, simulation,
experimental validation capabilities, trade studies concerning
pit reuse will involve pit production capability and capacity
issues.
The committee feels strongly that maintaining the readiness
of scientists, engineers and production staff by challenging
them to address these and other crucial technical issues during
the 5-year delay of the IW-1 program will be essential to this
and other stockpile life extension programs.
Lithium supply and demand
The Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration shall report to the congressional defense
committees no later than February 28, 2016 on the supply and
demand for lithium to be used on weapons production through
2045.
Microlab Technology Transfer
The committee is aware that directors of national
laboratories, as well as a Brookings Institution study, have
recognized that most national laboratories are located outside
of major metropolitan areas, and most lab research occurs
``behind the fence'' of main campuses, inaccessible to the
public. The study recommends establishing off-campus microlabs
that would serve as the ``front-door'' to national laboratories
to give academia, local government, businesses owners, and
communities direct access to the equipment, facilities, and
personnel of national labs.
The committee therefore directs the Administrator to work
with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) lab
directors to develop a plan for a ``microlab'' program in order
to accelerate technology transfer from NNSA national
laboratories, weapons production plants and facilities operated
by the Nevada Site Office to private industry. The committee
expects the Administrator to include an estimate of the
associated costs, need, and benefit for establishing a microlab
at a facility, and require cost-sharing from academia, local
government, and private industry. The committee encourages the
Administrator to work with the Department of Energy's Office of
Technology Transitions and consider utilizing funds under the
statutorily created Energy Technology Commercialization Fund
(TCF) to help establish the federal share of establishing a
microlab. The committee directs NNSA to brief the congressional
defense committees on the plan no later than September 31,
2015.
Report on program management at the National Nuclear Security
Administration
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United
States to report to the congressional defense committees no
later than February 28th, 2016, on the program management
capabilities of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA).
The NNSA is organized into program offices to manage a wide
variety of programs and relies on federal program and project
managers as well as contracting officers to ensure that
resources are used effectively and that programs and projects
achieve their missions on time and on budget. The committee
believes that these officials should also be held accountable
when resources are not used effectively, programs or projects
do not achieve their missions on time or on budget, or when
programs or projects experience other types of management
challenges.
A number of NNSA programs and projects have suffered
significant delays and cost overruns or other forms of
mismanagement that raise questions about how these managers
interact, coordinate, and are held accountable. For example,
the Government Accountability Office's 2015 high-risk report
indicated that the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research
Replacement project, the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility,
and the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) have all suffered
extensive cost growth and schedule delays. In addition, the
NNSA created a program manager position for NNSA's uranium
program after a peer review of the UPF project found, among
other things, that the program lacked a firm requirement in
terms of how much uranium is needed by the program over the
next 20 years.
In light of these past incidents, the report shall examine:
(1) the extent to which NNSA's programs and projects have
program or project managers; (2) the technical qualifications
and training required to become an NNSA program manager,
project manager, or contracting officer and the extent to which
those currently holding these positions meet those
requirements; (3) the extent to which NNSA has clearly defined
roles and responsibilities for its program managers, project
managers, and contracting officers; and (4) the mechanisms in
place to hold responsible officials accountable for program and
project performance, and the extent to which NNSA has used
these mechanisms.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
Authorization for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3201)
The committee recommends a provision that would authorize
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board at $29.2 million.
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES
Authorization of amounts in funding tables (sec. 4001 )
The committee recommends a provision that would provide for
the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and
activities in accordance with the tables in division D of this
Act, subject to reprogramming in accordance with established
procedures.
Consistent with the previously expressed views of the
committee, the provision would also require that decisions by
an agency head to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a
specific entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on
authorized, transparent, statutory criteria, or merit-based
selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of
sections 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and
other applicable provisions of law.
Clarification of applicability of undistributed reductions of certain
operation and maintenance funding among all operation and
maintenance funding (sec. 4002)
The committee recommends a provision that clarifies that
the undistributed reductions in funding for operation and
maintenance due to bulk fuel purchases and foreign currency
fluctuations, as shown in table 4301, can be applied to all
operation and maintenance funding, regardless if funding is
available in table 4301 or table 4302.
Funding tables (secs. 4101-4701)
The committee recommends provisions that provide line-item
guidance for the funding authorized in this Act. The provisions
display the line-item funding requested by the administration
in the fiscal year 2016 budget request and show where the
committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts.
The Department of Defense may not exceed the authorized
amounts, as set forth in the provision or, if unchanged from
the administration request, as set forth in budget
justification documents of the Department of Defense, without a
reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
(In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Senate
Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
NATIONAL DEFENSE BASE BUDGET
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051)
DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY...................................... 5,689,357 26,000 5,715,357
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY....................................... 1,419,957 190,000 1,609,957
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY...................................... 1,887,073 70,611 1,957,684
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY................................. 1,233,378 -10,952 1,222,426
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY......................................... 5,899,028 -358,000 5,541,028
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY...................................... 16,126,405 2,346,700 18,473,105
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY....................................... 3,154,154 48,668 3,202,822
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC.................................. 723,741 723,741
SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY............................... 16,597,457 1,656,000 18,253,457
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY......................................... 6,614,715 -13,400 6,601,315
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS....................................... 1,131,418 107,885 1,239,303
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE................................. 15,657,769 814,944 16,472,713
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.................................. 2,987,045 2,987,045
SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.................................... 2,584,061 -288,569 2,295,492
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE............................ 1,758,843 38,500 1,797,343
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.................................... 18,272,438 41,146 18,313,584
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE....................................... 5,130,853 210,651 5,341,504
JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS FUND............................. 99,701 99,701
SUBTOTAL, TITLE I--PROCUREMENT.................................. 106,967,393 4,880,184 111,847,577
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY........................ 6,924,959 91,668 7,016,627
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY........................ 17,885,916 41,292 17,927,208
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF.......................... 26,473,669 -533,490 25,940,179
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW.......................... 18,329,861 1,507,207 19,837,068
OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL, DEFENSE................................ 170,558 170,558
SUBTOTAL, TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION.. 69,784,963 1,106,677 70,891,640
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY................................... 35,107,546 -8,233,294 26,874,252
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES............................... 2,665,792 18,789 2,684,581
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG................................... 6,717,977 19,119 6,737,096
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY................................... 42,200,756 -16,810,316 25,390,440
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS........................... 6,228,782 -1,931,024 4,297,758
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES............................... 1,001,758 -41,086 960,672
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE............................. 277,036 -2,473 274,563
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE.............................. 38,191,929 -14,242,964 23,948,965
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE............................. 3,064,257 -103,216 2,961,041
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG.................................... 6,956,210 -120,815 6,835,395
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE......................... 32,440,843 -998,802 31,442,041
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS.................................... 1,664,342 1,664,342
SUBTOTAL, TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.................. 176,517,228 -42,446,082 134,071,146
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
Military Personnel Appropriations............................... 130,491,227 -1,254,500 129,236,727
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions............. 6,243,449 6,243,449
SUBTOTAL, TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL.......................... 136,734,676 -1,254,500 135,480,176
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY...................................... 50,432 50,432
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE................................. 62,898 62,898
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE.............................. 45,084 45,084
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA...................................... 1,154,154 1,154,154
NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND................................... 474,164 474,164
CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION............................. 720,721 720,721
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF.................... 850,598 30,000 880,598
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL................................. 316,159 -3,600 312,559
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.......................................... 32,243,328 -52,940 32,190,388
SUBTOTAL, TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................... 35,917,538 -26,540 35,890,998
TOTAL, DIVISION A: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS......... 525,921,798 -37,740,261 488,181,537
DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
ARMY............................................................ 743,245 -21,500 721,745
NAVY............................................................ 1,605,929 59,360 1,665,289
AIR FORCE....................................................... 1,354,785 11,400 1,366,185
DEFENSE-WIDE.................................................... 2,300,767 -169,700 2,131,067
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD............................................. 197,237 51,300 248,537
AIR NATIONAL GUARD.............................................. 123,538 23,600 147,138
ARMY RESERVE.................................................... 113,595 34,200 147,795
NAVY RESERVE.................................................... 36,078 36,078
AIR FORCE RESERVE............................................... 46,821 10,400 57,221
NATO SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM................................ 120,000 120,000
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................. 6,641,995 -940 6,641,055
FAMILY HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION, ARMY.............................................. 99,695 99,695
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY................................. 393,511 393,511
CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS............................. 16,541 16,541
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS................ 353,036 353,036
CONSTURCTION, AIR FORCE......................................... 160,498 160,498
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............................ 331,232 331,232
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE......................... 58,668 58,668
SUBTOTAL, FAMILY HOUSING........................................ 1,413,181 1,413,181
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
ARMY............................................................ 29,691 29,691
NAVY............................................................ 157,088 157,088
AIR FORCE....................................................... 64,555 64,555
SUBTOTAL, BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE.......................... 251,334 251,334
TOTAL, DIVISION B: MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS......... 8,306,510 -940 8,305,570
TOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051). 534,228,308 -37,741,201 496,487,107
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053)
DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS
ENERGY PROGRAMS
NUCLEAR ENERGY.................................................. 135,161 135,161
SUBTOTAL, ENERGY PROGRAMS....................................... 135,161 135,161
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.............................................. 8,846,948 180,000 9,026,948
DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION................................ 1,940,302 5,000 1,945,302
NAVAL REACTORS.................................................. 1,375,496 1,375,496
FEDERAL SALARIES AND EXPENSES................................... 402,654 402,654
SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.............. 12,565,400 185,000 12,750,400
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP................................... 5,527,347 -451,797 5,075,550
OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES........................................ 774,425 774,425
SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES............ 6,301,772 -451,797 5,849,975
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATIONS................... 19,002,333 -266,797 18,735,536
TOTAL, DIVISION C: DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND 19,002,333 -266,797 18,735,536
INDEPENDENT FEDERAL AGENCY AUTHORIZATIONS......................
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 053)...... 19,002,333 -266,797 18,735,536
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNDING, BASE BUDGET REQUEST............ 553,230,641 -38,007,998 515,222,643
NATIONAL DEFENSE OCO BUDGET REQUEST
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (BUDGET SUB-FUNCTION 051)
PROCUREMENT
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY...................................... 164,987 164,987
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY....................................... 37,260 37,260
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY...................................... 26,030 26,030
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY................................. 192,040 192,040
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY......................................... 1,205,596 1,205,596
JOINT IMPR EXPLOSIVE DEV DEFEAT FUND............................ 493,271 -48,271 445,000
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY...................................... 217,394 217,394
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY....................................... 3,344 3,344
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC.................................. 136,930 136,930
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY......................................... 12,186 12,186
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS....................................... 48,934 48,934
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE................................. 128,900 128,900
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.................................. 289,142 289,142
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE............................ 228,874 228,874
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE.................................... 3,859,964 3,859,964
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE....................................... 212,418 212,418
SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT........................................... 7,257,270 -48,271 7,208,999
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, ARMY........................ 1,500 1,500
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, NAVY........................ 35,747 35,747
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, AF.......................... 17,100 17,100
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVAL, DW.......................... 137,087 137,087
SUBTOTAL, RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION............ 191,434 191,434
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY................................... 11,382,750 7,616,786 18,999,536
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES............................... 24,559 24,559
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG................................... 60,845 60,845
AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND................................ 3,762,257 3,762,257
IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND....................................... 715,000 715,000
SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND...................................... 600,000 600,000
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY................................... 5,131,588 16,106,810 21,238,398
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS........................... 952,534 1,862,836 2,815,370
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES............................... 31,643 31,643
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE............................. 3,455 3,455
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE.............................. 9,090,013 13,312,681 22,402,694
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE............................. 58,106 58,106
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG.................................... 19,900 19,900
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE......................... 5,805,633 -100,000 5,705,633
SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 37,638,283 38,799,113 76,437,396
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS............................... 3,204,758 3,204,758
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL.................................... 3,204,758 3,204,758
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE................................. 2,500 2,500
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE.............................. 86,350 86,350
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF.................... 186,000 186,000
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL................................. 10,262 10,262
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.......................................... 272,704 272,704
COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND.............................. 2,100,000 -1,100,000 1,000,000
UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE.......................... 0 300,000 300,000
SUBTOTAL, OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 2,657,816 -800,000 1,857,816
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050) OCO BUDGET REQUEST 50,949,561 37,950,842 88,900,403
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (BUDGET FUNCTION 050)................... 604,180,202 -57,156 604,123,046
MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XIV--ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME (FUNCTION 600).......... 64,300 64,300
MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADDS)
TITLE X--GENERAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY............................. [5,000,000] [4,500,000]
TITLE XV--SPECIAL TRANSFER AUTHORITY............................ [3,500,000] [4,000,000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
(In Thousands of Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Senate Senate
Request Change Authorized
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE
ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE- 534,228,308 -37,741,201 496,487,107
MILITARY, BASE BUDGET (051)..
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE 19,002,333 -266,797 18,735,536
ACTIVITIES (053).............
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY 50,949,561 37,950,842 88,900,403
OPERATIONS...................
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050). 604,180,202 -57,156 604,123,046
OTHER DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS PROGRAMS OUTSIDE THE
JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE OR ALREADY AUTHORIZED
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051)
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT 47,000 47,000
PURCHASES....................
INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: DISPOSAL 6,000 6,000
OF DOD REAL PROPERTY.........
INDEFINITE ACCOUNT: LEASE OF 35,000 35,000
DOD REAL PROPERTY............
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF 88,000 88,000
DEFENSE-MILITARY (051).......
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053)
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES 104,000 104,000
REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM......
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY 104,000 104,000
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053).....
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)
OTHER DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS.. 7,545,000 7,545,000
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED 7,545,000 7,545,000
ACTIVITIES (054).............
TOTAL, OTHER DEFENSE 7,737,000 7,737,000
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS
(050)........................
DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)
NATIONAL DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-- 585,265,869 209,641 585,475,510
MILITARY (051)...............
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE 19,106,333 -266,797 18,839,536
ACTIVITIES (053).............
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES 7,545,000 7,545,000
(054)........................
TOTAL, DISCRETIONARY BUDGET 611,917,202 -57,156 611,860,046
AUTHORITY IMPLICATION, 050...
NATIONAL DEFENSE MANDATORY PROGRAMS, CURRENT LAW (CB0 BASELINE)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-MILITARY (051)
CONCURRENT RECEIPT ACCRUAL 6,932,000 6,932,000
PAYMENTS TO THE MILITARY
RETIREMENT FUND..............
REVOLVING, TRUST AND OTHER DOD 1,135,000 1,135,000
MANDATORY....................
OFFSETTING RECEIPTS........... -1,593,000 -1,593,000
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF 6,474,000 6,474,000
DEFENSE-MILITARY (051).......
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITES (053)
ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL 1,168,000 1,168,000
ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAMS
AND OTHER....................
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY 1,168,000 1,168,000
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES (053).....
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)
RADIATION EXPOSURE 59,000 59,000
COMPENSATION TRUST FUND......
PAYMENT TO CIA RETIREMENT FUND 514,000 514,000
AND OTHER....................
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED 573,000 573,000
ACTIVITIES (054).............
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE 8,215,000 8,215,000
MANDATORY PROGRAMS (050).....
DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)
DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION (050)
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE-- 591,739,869 209,641 591,949,510
MILITARY (051)...............
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE 20,274,333 -266,797 20,007,536
ACTIVITIES (053).............
DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES 8,118,000 8,118,000
(054)........................
TOTAL, BUDGET AUTHORITY 620,132,202 -57,156 620,075,046
IMPLICATION (050)............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
FIXED WING
2 UTILITY F/W 0 879 0 879
AIRCRAFT..........
4 MQ-1 UAV........... 15 260,436 15 260,436
ROTARY
6 HELICOPTER, LIGHT 28 187,177 28 187,177
UTILITY (LUH).....
7 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 64 1,168,461 64 1,168,461
IIIA REMAN........
8 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK 0 209,930 0 209,930
IIIA REMAN (AP)...
11 UH-60 BLACKHAWK M 94 1,435,945 94 1,435,945
MODEL (MYP).......
12 UH-60 BLACKHAWK M 0 127,079 0 127,079
MODEL (MYP) (AP)..
13 UH-60 BLACK HAWK A 40 46,641 40 46,641
AND L MODELS......
14 CH-47 HELICOPTER... 39 1,024,587 39 1,024,587
15 CH-47 HELICOPTER 0 99,344 0 99,344
(AP)..............
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
16 MQ-1 PAYLOAD (MIP). 0 97,543 0 97,543
19 MULTI SENSOR ABN 0 95,725 0 95,725
RECON (MIP).......
20 AH-64 MODS......... 0 116,153 0 116,153
21 CH-47 CARGO 0 86,330 0 86,330
HELICOPTER MODS
(MYP).............
22 GRCS SEMA MODS 0 4,019 0 4,019
(MIP).............
23 ARL SEMA MODS (MIP) 0 16,302 0 16,302
24 EMARSS SEMA MODS 0 13,669 0 13,669
(MIP).............
25 UTILITY/CARGO 0 16,166 0 16,166
AIRPLANE MODS.....
26 UTILITY HELICOPTER 0 13,793 0 13,793
MODS..............
28 NETWORK AND MISSION 0 112,807 0 112,807
PLAN..............
29 COMMS, NAV 0 82,904 0 82,904
SURVEILLANCE......
30 GATM ROLLUP........ 0 33,890 0 33,890
31 RQ-7 UAV MODS...... 0 81,444 0 81,444
GROUND SUPPORT
AVIONICS
32 AIRCRAFT 0 56,215 0 56,215
SURVIVABILITY
EQUIPMENT.........
33 SURVIVABILITY CM... 0 8,917 0 8,917
34 CMWS............... 0 78,348 26,000 0 104,348
Army UPL for AH- [26,000]
64 ASE: urgent
survivability
requirement.....
OTHER SUPPORT
35 AVIONICS SUPPORT 0 6,937 0 6,937
EQUIPMENT.........
36 COMMON GROUND 0 64,867 0 64,867
EQUIPMENT.........
37 AIRCREW INTEGRATED 0 44,085 0 44,085
SYSTEMS...........
38 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 0 94,545 0 94,545
39 INDUSTRIAL 0 1,207 0 1,207
FACILITIES........
40 LAUNCHER, 2.75 0 3,012 0 3,012
ROCKET............
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 280 5,689,357 26,000 280 5,715,357
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
SURFACE-TO-AIR
MISSILE SYSTEM
1 LOWER TIER AIR AND 0 115,075 0 115,075
MISSILE DEFENSE
(AMD).............
2 MSE MISSILE........ 414,946 200,000 80 614,946
Army UPL for 80 [200,000]
Patriot PAC 3
for improved
ballistic
missile defense.
AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE SYSTEM
3 HELLFIRE SYS 113 27,975 113 27,975
SUMMARY...........
4 JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 0 27,738 0 27,738
MSLS (JAGM).......
ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT
MISSILE SYS
5 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) 331 77,163 331 77,163
SYSTEM SUMMARY....
6 TOW 2 SYSTEM 1,704 87,525 1,704 87,525
SUMMARY...........
8 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET 1,668 251,060 1,668 251,060
(GMLRS)...........
9 MLRS REDUCED RANGE 3,121 17,428 3,121 17,428
PRACTICE ROCKETS
(RRPR)............
MODIFICATIONS
11 PATRIOT MODS....... 0 241,883 0 241,883
12 ATACMS MODS........ 30,119 -10,000 0 20,119
Early to need.... 0 [-10,000]
13 GMLRS MOD.......... 0 18,221 0 18,221
14 STINGER MODS....... 0 2,216 0 2,216
15 AVENGER MODS....... 0 6,171 0 6,171
16 ITAS/TOW MODS...... 0 19,576 0 19,576
17 MLRS MODS.......... 0 35,970 0 35,970
18 HIMARS 0 3,148 0 3,148
MODIFICATIONS.....
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
19 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 33,778 0 33,778
PARTS.............
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
20 AIR DEFENSE TARGETS 0 3,717 0 3,717
21 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 1,544 0 1,544
$5.0M (MISSILES)..
22 PRODUCTION BASE 0 4,704 0 4,704
SUPPORT...........
TOTAL MISSILE 7,017 1,419,957 190,000 7,017 1,609,957
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF
W&TCV, ARMY
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
1 STRYKER VEHICLE.... 0 181,245 0 181,245
MODIFICATION OF
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
2 STRYKER (MOD)...... 0 74,085 0 74,085
3 STRYKER UPGRADE.... 62 305,743 62 305,743
5 BRADLEY PROGRAM 0 225,042 0 225,042
(MOD).............
6 HOWITZER, MED SP FT 0 60,079 0 60,079
155MM M109A6 (MOD)
7 PALADIN INTEGRATED 30 273,850 30 273,850
MANAGEMENT (PIM)..
8 IMPROVED RECOVERY 123,629 72,000 31 195,629
VEHICLE (M88A2
HERCULES).........
16 M88A2s to 31 [72,000]
supports
modernization of
ABCTs and
industrial base.
9 ASSAULT BRIDGE 0 2,461 0 2,461
(MOD).............
10 ASSAULT BREACHER 0 2,975 0 2,975
VEHICLE...........
11 M88 FOV MODS....... 0 14,878 0 14,878
12 JOINT ASSAULT 4 33,455 4 33,455
BRIDGE............
13 M1 ABRAMS TANK 0 367,939 0 367,939
(MOD).............
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
15 PRODUCTION BASE 0 6,479 0 6,479
SUPPORT (TCV-WTCV)
WEAPONS & OTHER
COMBAT VEHICLES
16 MORTAR SYSTEMS..... 0 4,991 0 4,991
17 XM320 GRENADE 0 26,294 0 26,294
LAUNCHER MODULE
(GLM).............
18 PRECISION SNIPER 1,984 -1,984 0 0
RIFLE.............
Early to need.... 0 [-1,984]
19 COMPACT SEMI- 1,488 -1,488 0 0
AUTOMATIC SNIPER
SYSTEM............
Early to need.... 0 [-1,488]
20 CARBINE............ 0 34,460 0 34,460
21 COMMON REMOTELY 8,367 6,400 0 14,767
OPERATED WEAPONS
STATION...........
Transferred funds 0 [6,400]
22 HANDGUN............ 5,417 -5,417 0 0
RFP release 0 [-5,417]
delayed, early
to need.........
MOD OF WEAPONS AND
OTHER COMBAT VEH
23 MK-19 GRENADE 0 2,777 0 2,777
MACHINE GUN MODS..
24 M777 MODS.......... 0 10,070 0 10,070
25 M4 CARBINE MODS.... 0 27,566 0 27,566
26 M2 50 CAL MACHINE 0 44,004 0 44,004
GUN MODS..........
27 M249 SAW MACHINE 0 1,190 0 1,190
GUN MODS..........
28 M240 MEDIUM MACHINE 0 1,424 0 1,424
GUN MODS..........
29 SNIPER RIFLES 2,431 -1,400 0 1,031
MODIFICATIONS.....
Early to need.... 0 [-1,400]
30 M119 MODIFICATIONS. 0 20,599 0 20,599
32 MORTAR MODIFICATION 0 6,300 0 6,300
33 MODIFICATIONS LESS 0 3,737 0 3,737
THAN $5.0M (WOCV-
WTCV).............
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
34 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 391 2,500 0 2,891
$5.0M (WOCV-WTCV).
Transfer funds... [2,500]
35 PRODUCTION BASE 0 9,027 0 9,027
SUPPORT (WOCV-
WTCV).............
36 INDUSTRIAL 0 304 0 304
PREPAREDNESS......
37 SMALL ARMS 0 2,392 0 2,392
EQUIPMENT (SOLDIER
ENH PROG).........
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 127 1,887,073 70,611 127 1,957,684
OF W&TCV, ARMY....
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
AMMUNITION
1 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL 0 43,489 0 43,489
TYPES.............
2 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL 0 40,715 0 40,715
TYPES.............
3 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL 0 7,753 -952 0 6,801
TYPES.............
Program funding [-952]
ahead of need...
4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL 0 24,728 0 24,728
TYPES.............
5 CTG, 25MM, ALL 0 8,305 0 8,305
TYPES.............
6 CTG, 30MM, ALL 0 34,330 0 34,330
TYPES.............
7 CTG, 40MM, ALL 0 79,972 -10,000 0 69,972
TYPES.............
Early to need.... [-10,000]
MORTAR AMMUNITION
8 60MM MORTAR, ALL 0 42,898 0 42,898
TYPES.............
9 81MM MORTAR, ALL 0 43,500 0 43,500
TYPES.............
10 120MM MORTAR, ALL 0 64,372 0 64,372
TYPES.............
TANK AMMUNITION
11 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 0 105,541 0 105,541
105MM AND 120MM,
ALL TYPES.........
ARTILLERY
AMMUNITION
12 ARTILLERY 0 57,756 0 57,756
CARTRIDGES, 75MM &
105MM, ALL TYPES..
13 ARTILLERY 0 77,995 0 77,995
PROJECTILE, 155MM,
ALL TYPES.........
14 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED 0 45,518 0 45,518
RANGE M982........
15 ARTILLERY 0 78,024 0 78,024
PROPELLANTS, FUZES
AND PRIMERS, ALL..
ROCKETS
16 SHOULDER LAUNCHED 0 7,500 0 7,500
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
17 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, 0 33,653 0 33,653
ALL TYPES.........
OTHER AMMUNITION
18 CAD/PAD, ALL TYPES. 0 5,639 0 5,639
19 DEMOLITION 0 9,751 0 9,751
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
20 GRENADES, ALL TYPES 0 19,993 0 19,993
21 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES. 0 9,761 0 9,761
22 SIMULATORS, ALL 0 9,749 0 9,749
TYPES.............
MISCELLANEOUS
23 AMMO COMPONENTS, 0 3,521 0 3,521
ALL TYPES.........
24 NON-LETHAL 0 1,700 0 1,700
AMMUNITION, ALL
TYPES.............
25 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 6,181 0 6,181
MILLION (AMMO)....
26 AMMUNITION PECULIAR 0 17,811 0 17,811
EQUIPMENT.........
27 FIRST DESTINATION 0 14,695 0 14,695
TRANSPORTATION
(AMMO)............
PRODUCTION BASE
SUPPORT
29 PROVISION OF 0 221,703 0 221,703
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES........
30 CONVENTIONAL 0 113,250 0 113,250
MUNITIONS
DEMILITARIZATION..
31 ARMS INITIATIVE.... 0 3,575 0 3,575
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 0 1,233,378 -10,952 0 1,222,426
OF AMMUNITION,
ARMY..............
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
1 TACTICAL TRAILERS/ 0 12,855 0 12,855
DOLLY SETS........
2 SEMITRAILERS, 0 53 0 53
FLATBED:..........
4 JOINT LIGHT 450 308,336 450 308,336
TACTICAL VEHICLE..
5 FAMILY OF MEDIUM 166 90,040 166 90,040
TACTICAL VEH
(FMTV)............
6 FIRETRUCKS & 0 8,444 0 8,444
ASSOCIATED
FIREFIGHTING EQUIP
7 FAMILY OF HEAVY 273 27,549 273 27,549
TACTICAL VEHICLES
(FHTV)............
8 PLS ESP............ 0 127,102 0 127,102
10 TACTICAL WHEELED 0 48,292 0 48,292
VEHICLE PROTECTION
KITS..............
11 MODIFICATION OF IN 0 130,993 0 130,993
SVC EQUIP.........
12 MINE-RESISTANT 0 19,146 0 19,146
AMBUSH-PROTECTED
(MRAP) MODS.......
NON-TACTICAL
VEHICLES
14 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 1,248 0 1,248
VEHICLES..........
15 NONTACTICAL 0 9,614 0 9,614
VEHICLES, OTHER...
COMM--JOINT
COMMUNICATIONS
16 WIN-T--GROUND 0 783,116 -200,000 0 583,116
FORCES TACTICAL
NETWORK...........
Delayed [-200,000]
obligation of
prior year funds
17 SIGNAL 0 49,898 0 49,898
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM...........
18 JOINT INCIDENT SITE 0 4,062 0 4,062
COMMUNICATIONS
CAPABILITY........
19 JCSE EQUIPMENT 0 5,008 0 5,008
(USREDCOM)........
COMM--SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
20 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE 0 196,306 0 196,306
WIDEBAND SATCOM
SYSTEMS...........
21 TRANSPORTABLE 0 44,998 -15,000 0 29,998
TACTICAL COMMAND
COMMUNICATIONS....
Early to need in [-15,000]
FY16 due to one
year delay......
22 SHF TERM........... 0 7,629 0 7,629
23 NAVSTAR GLOBAL 0 14,027 0 14,027
POSITIONING SYSTEM
(SPACE)...........
24 SMART-T (SPACE).... 0 13,453 0 13,453
25 GLOBAL BRDCST SVC-- 0 6,265 0 6,265
GBS...............
26 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 0 1,042 0 1,042
(TAC SAT).........
27 ENROUTE MISSION 0 7,116 0 7,116
COMMAND (EMC).....
COMM--C3 SYSTEM
28 ARMY GLOBAL CMD & 0 10,137 0 10,137
CONTROL SYS
(AGCCS)...........
COMM--COMBAT
COMMUNICATIONS
29 JOINT TACTICAL 0 64,640 0 64,640
RADIO SYSTEM......
30 MID-TIER NETWORKING 0 27,762 0 27,762
VEHICULAR RADIO
(MNVR)............
31 RADIO TERMINAL SET, 0 9,422 0 9,422
MIDS LVT(2).......
32 AMC CRITICAL ITEMS-- 0 26,020 0 26,020
OPA2..............
33 TRACTOR DESK....... 0 4,073 0 4,073
34 SPIDER APLA REMOTE 0 1,403 0 1,403
CONTROL UNIT......
35 SPIDER FAMILY OF 0 9,199 0 9,199
NETWORKED
MUNITIONS INCR....
36 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT 0 349 0 349
PROGRAM COMM/
ELECTRONICS.......
37 TACTICAL 0 25,597 0 25,597
COMMUNICATIONS AND
PROTECTIVE SYSTEM.
38 UNIFIED COMMAND 0 21,854 0 21,854
SUITE.............
40 FAMILY OF MED COMM 0 24,388 0 24,388
FOR COMBAT
CASUALTY CARE.....
COMM--INTELLIGENCE
COMM
42 CI AUTOMATION 0 1,349 0 1,349
ARCHITECTURE......
43 ARMY CA/MISO GPF 0 3,695 0 3,695
EQUIPMENT.........
INFORMATION
SECURITY
45 INFORMATION SYSTEM 0 19,920 0 19,920
SECURITY PROGRAM-
ISSP..............
46 COMMUNICATIONS 0 72,257 0 72,257
SECURITY (COMSEC).
COMM--LONG HAUL
COMMUNICATIONS
47 BASE SUPPORT 0 16,082 0 16,082
COMMUNICATIONS....
COMM--BASE
COMMUNICATIONS
48 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 86,037 0 86,037
50 EMERGENCY 0 8,550 0 8,550
MANAGEMENT
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM...........
51 INSTALLATION INFO 0 73,496 0 73,496
INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
PROGRAM...........
ELECT EQUIP--TACT
INT REL ACT
(TIARA)
54 JTT/CIBS-M......... 0 881 0 881
55 PROPHET GROUND..... 0 63,650 -15,000 0 48,650
Unjustified [-15,000]
program growth..
57 DCGS-A (MIP)....... 0 260,268 0 260,268
58 JOINT TACTICAL 0 3,906 0 3,906
GROUND STATION
(JTAGS)...........
59 TROJAN (MIP)....... 0 13,929 0 13,929
60 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 0 3,978 0 3,978
(INTEL SPT) (MIP).
61 CI HUMINT AUTO 0 7,542 0 7,542
REPRTING AND
COLL(CHARCS)......
62 CLOSE ACCESS TARGET 0 8,010 0 8,010
RECONNAISSANCE
(CATR)............
63 MACHINE FOREIGN 0 8,125 0 8,125
LANGUAGE
TRANSLATION SYSTEM-
M.................
ELECT EQUIP--
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(EW)
64 LIGHTWEIGHT COUNTER 0 63,472 0 63,472
MORTAR RADAR......
65 EW PLANNING & 0 2,556 0 2,556
MANAGEMENT TOOLS
(EWPMT)...........
66 AIR VIGILANCE (AV). 0 8,224 0 8,224
67 CREW............... 0 2,960 0 2,960
68 FAMILY OF 0 1,722 0 1,722
PERSISTENT
SURVEILLANCE
CAPABILITIE.......
69 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/ 0 447 0 447
SECURITY
COUNTERMEASURES...
70 CI MODERNIZATION... 0 228 0 228
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL SURV.
(TAC SURV)
71 SENTINEL MODS...... 0 43,285 0 43,285
72 NIGHT VISION 0 124,216 0 124,216
DEVICES...........
74 SMALL TACTICAL 0 23,216 0 23,216
OPTICAL RIFLE
MOUNTED MLRF......
76 INDIRECT FIRE 0 60,679 0 60,679
PROTECTION FAMILY
OF SYSTEMS........
77 FAMILY OF WEAPON 0 53,453 0 53,453
SIGHTS (FWS)......
78 ARTILLERY ACCURACY 0 3,338 0 3,338
EQUIP.............
79 PROFILER........... 0 4,057 0 4,057
81 JOINT BATTLE 0 133,339 0 133,339
COMMAND--PLATFORM
(JBC-P)...........
82 JOINT EFFECTS 0 47,212 0 47,212
TARGETING SYSTEM
(JETS)............
83 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP 0 22,314 0 22,314
(LLDR)............
84 COMPUTER 0 12,131 0 12,131
BALLISTICS: LHMBC
XM32..............
85 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL 0 10,075 0 10,075
SYSTEM............
86 COUNTERFIRE RADARS. 0 217,379 -75,000 0 142,379
Under execution [-75,000]
of prior year
funds...........
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL C2
SYSTEMS
87 FIRE SUPPORT C2 0 1,190 0 1,190
FAMILY............
90 AIR & MSL DEFENSE 0 28,176 0 28,176
PLANNING & CONTROL
SYS...............
91 IAMD BATTLE COMMAND 0 20,917 0 20,917
SYSTEM............
92 LIFE CYCLE SOFTWARE 0 5,850 0 5,850
SUPPORT (LCSS)....
93 NETWORK MANAGEMENT 0 12,738 0 12,738
INITIALIZATION AND
SERVICE...........
94 MANEUVER CONTROL 0 145,405 0 145,405
SYSTEM (MCS)......
95 GLOBAL COMBAT 0 162,654 -16,000 0 146,654
SUPPORT SYSTEM-
ARMY (GCSS-A).....
Program growth... [-16,000]
96 INTEGRATED 0 4,446 0 4,446
PERSONNEL AND PAY
SYSTEM-ARMY (IPP..
98 RECONNAISSANCE AND 0 16,218 0 16,218
SURVEYING
INSTRUMENT SET....
99 MOD OF IN-SVC 0 1,138 0 1,138
EQUIPMENT (ENFIRE)
ELECT EQUIP--
AUTOMATION
100 ARMY TRAINING 0 12,089 0 12,089
MODERNIZATION.....
101 AUTOMATED DATA 0 105,775 -12,000 0 93,775
PROCESSING EQUIP..
Reduce IT [-12,000]
procurement.....
102 GENERAL FUND 0 18,995 0 18,995
ENTERPRISE
BUSINESS SYSTEMS
FAM...............
103 HIGH PERF COMPUTING 0 62,319 0 62,319
MOD PGM (HPCMP)...
104 RESERVE COMPONENT 0 17,894 0 17,894
AUTOMATION SYS
(RCAS)............
ELECT EQUIP--AUDIO
VISUAL SYS (A/V)
106 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M 0 4,242 0 4,242
(SURVEYING
EQUIPMENT)........
ELECT EQUIP--
SUPPORT
107 PRODUCTION BASE 0 425 0 425
SUPPORT (C-E).....
108 BCT EMERGING 0 7,438 0 7,438
TECHNOLOGIES......
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
108A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 6,467 0 6,467
CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
EQUIPMENT
109 PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS. 0 248 0 248
110 FAMILY OF NON- 0 1,487 0 1,487
LETHAL EQUIPMENT
(FNLE)............
112 CBRN DEFENSE....... 0 26,302 0 26,302
BRIDGING EQUIPMENT
113 TACTICAL BRIDGING.. 0 9,822 0 9,822
114 TACTICAL BRIDGE, 0 21,516 0 21,516
FLOAT-RIBBON......
115 BRIDGE SUPPLEMENTAL 0 4,959 0 4,959
SET...............
116 COMMON BRIDGE 0 52,546 0 52,546
TRANSPORTER (CBT)
RECAP.............
ENGINEER (NON-
CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
117 GRND STANDOFF MINE 0 58,682 0 58,682
DETECTN SYSM
(GSTAMIDS)........
118 HUSKY MOUNTED 0 13,565 0 13,565
DETECTION SYSTEM
(HMDS)............
119 ROBOTIC COMBAT 0 2,136 0 2,136
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(RCSS)............
120 EOD ROBOTICS 0 6,960 0 6,960
SYSTEMS
RECAPITALIZATION..
121 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 0 17,424 0 17,424
DISPOSAL EQPMT
(EOD EQPMT).......
122 REMOTE DEMOLITION 0 8,284 0 8,284
SYSTEMS...........
123 < $5M, COUNTERMINE 0 5,459 0 5,459
EQUIPMENT.........
124 FAMILY OF BOATS AND 0 8,429 0 8,429
MOTORS............
COMBAT SERVICE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
125 HEATERS AND ECU'S.. 0 18,876 0 18,876
127 SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT 0 2,287 0 2,287
128 PERSONNEL RECOVERY 0 7,733 0 7,733
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(PRSS)............
129 GROUND SOLDIER 0 49,798 0 49,798
SYSTEM............
130 MOBILE SOLDIER 0 43,639 0 43,639
POWER.............
132 FIELD FEEDING 0 13,118 0 13,118
EQUIPMENT.........
133 CARGO AERIAL DEL & 0 28,278 0 28,278
PERSONNEL
PARACHUTE SYSTEM..
135 FAMILY OF ENGR 0 34,544 0 34,544
COMBAT AND
CONSTRUCTION SETS.
136 ITEMS LESS THAN $5M 0 595 0 595
(ENG SPT).........
PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT
137 QUALITY 0 5,368 0 5,368
SURVEILLANCE
EQUIPMENT.........
138 DISTRIBUTION 0 35,381 0 35,381
SYSTEMS, PETROLEUM
& WATER...........
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
139 COMBAT SUPPORT 0 73,828 0 73,828
MEDICAL...........
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
140 MOBILE MAINTENANCE 0 25,270 0 25,270
EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS.
141 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 2,760 0 2,760
$5.0M (MAINT EQ)..
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
142 GRADER, ROAD MTZD, 0 5,903 0 5,903
HVY, 6X4 (CCE)....
143 SCRAPERS, 0 26,125 0 26,125
EARTHMOVING.......
146 TRACTOR, FULL 0 27,156 0 27,156
TRACKED...........
147 ALL TERRAIN CRANES. 0 16,750 0 16,750
148 PLANT, ASPHALT 0 984 0 984
MIXING............
149 HIGH MOBILITY 0 2,656 0 2,656
ENGINEER EXCAVATOR
(HMEE)............
150 ENHANCED RAPID 0 2,531 0 2,531
AIRFIELD
CONSTRUCTION CAPAP
151 FAMILY OF DIVER 0 446 0 446
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
152 CONST EQUIP ESP.... 0 19,640 0 19,640
153 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 5,087 0 5,087
$5.0M (CONST
EQUIP)............
RAIL FLOAT
CONTAINERIZATION
EQUIPMENT
154 ARMY WATERCRAFT ESP 0 39,772 0 39,772
155 ITEMS LESS THAN 0 5,835 0 5,835
$5.0M (FLOAT/RAIL)
GENERATORS
156 GENERATORS AND 0 166,356 0 166,356
ASSOCIATED EQUIP..
157 TACTICAL ELECTRIC 0 11,505 0 11,505
POWER
RECAPITALIZATION..
MATERIAL HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
159 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS 0 17,496 0 17,496
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
160 COMBAT TRAINING 0 74,916 0 74,916
CENTERS SUPPORT...
161 TRAINING DEVICES, 0 303,236 -25,000 0 278,236
NONSYSTEM.........
Unjustified [-25,000]
program growth..
162 CLOSE COMBAT 0 45,210 0 45,210
TACTICAL TRAINER..
163 AVIATION COMBINED 0 30,068 0 30,068
ARMS TACTICAL
TRAINER...........
164 GAMING TECHNOLOGY 0 9,793 0 9,793
IN SUPPORT OF ARMY
TRAINING..........
TEST MEASURE AND
DIG EQUIPMENT
(TMD)
165 CALIBRATION SETS 0 4,650 0 4,650
EQUIPMENT.........
166 INTEGRATED FAMILY 0 34,487 0 34,487
OF TEST EQUIPMENT
(IFTE)............
167 TEST EQUIPMENT 0 11,083 0 11,083
MODERNIZATION
(TEMOD)...........
OTHER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
169 RAPID EQUIPPING 0 17,937 0 17,937
SOLDIER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.........
170 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 52,040 0 52,040
SYSTEMS (OPA3)....
171 BASE LEVEL COMMON 0 1,568 0 1,568
EQUIPMENT.........
172 MODIFICATION OF IN- 0 64,219 0 64,219
SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA-
3)................
173 PRODUCTION BASE 0 1,525 0 1,525
SUPPORT (OTH).....
174 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT 0 3,268 0 3,268
FOR USER TESTING..
176 TRACTOR YARD....... 0 7,191 0 7,191
OPA2
177 INITIAL SPARES--C&E 0 48,511 0 48,511
TOTAL OTHER 889 5,899,028 -358,000 889 5,541,028
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
2 F/A-18E/F (FIGHTER) 0 0 12 1,150,000 12 1,150,000
HORNET............
Additional 12 12 [1,150,000]
aircraft,
unfunded
requirement.....
3 JOINT STRIKE 4 897,542 -24,500 4 873,042
FIGHTER CV........
Efficiencies and [-24,500]
excess cost
growth..........
4 JOINT STRIKE 0 48,630 0 48,630
FIGHTER CV (AP)...
5 JSF STOVL.......... 9 1,483,414 6 1,024,900 15 2,508,314
Efficiencies and [-25,100]
excess cost
growth..........
Additional 6 6 [1,050,000]
aircraft,
unfunded
requirement.....
6 JSF STOVL (AP)..... 0 203,060 0 203,060
7 CH-53K (HEAVY LIFT) 0 41,300 0 41,300
8 V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT). 19 1,436,355 19 1,436,355
9 V-22 (MEDIUM LIFT) 0 43,853 0 43,853
(AP)..............
10 H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/ 28 800,057 28 800,057
AH-1Z)............
11 H-1 UPGRADES (UH-1Y/ 0 56,168 0 56,168
AH-1Z) (AP).......
12 MH-60S (MYP)....... 0 28,232 0 28,232
14 MH-60R (MYP)....... 29 969,991 29 969,991
16 P-8A POSEIDON...... 16 3,008,928 16 3,008,928
17 P-8A POSEIDON (AP). 0 269,568 0 269,568
18 E-2D ADV HAWKEYE... 5 857,654 5 857,654
19 E-2D ADV HAWKEYE 0 195,336 0 195,336
(AP)..............
TRAINER AIRCRAFT
20 JPATS.............. 0 8,914 0 8,914
OTHER AIRCRAFT
21 KC-130J............ 2 192,214 2 192,214
22 KC-130J (AP)....... 0 24,451 0 24,451
23 MQ-4 TRITON........ 3 494,259 3 494,259
24 MQ-4 TRITON (AP)... 0 54,577 0 54,577
25 MQ-8 UAV........... 2 120,020 2 120,020
26 STUASL0 UAV........ 0 3,450 0 3,450
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
28 EA-6 SERIES........ 0 9,799 0 9,799
29 AEA SYSTEMS........ 0 23,151 0 23,151
30 AV-8 SERIES........ 0 41,890 3,300 0 45,190
AV-8B Link 16 [3,300]
upgrades,
unfunded
requirement.....
31 ADVERSARY.......... 0 5,816 0 5,816
32 F-18 SERIES........ 0 978,756 170,000 0 1,148,756
Jamming [170,000]
protection
upgrades,
unfunded
requirement.....
34 H-53 SERIES........ 0 46,887 0 46,887
35 SH-60 SERIES....... 0 107,728 0 107,728
36 H-1 SERIES......... 0 42,315 0 42,315
37 EP-3 SERIES........ 0 41,784 0 41,784
38 P-3 SERIES......... 0 3,067 0 3,067
39 E-2 SERIES......... 0 20,741 0 20,741
40 TRAINER A/C SERIES. 0 27,980 0 27,980
41 C-2A............... 0 8,157 0 8,157
42 C-130 SERIES....... 0 70,335 0 70,335
43 FEWSG.............. 0 633 0 633
44 CARGO/TRANSPORT A/C 0 8,916 0 8,916
SERIES............
45 E-6 SERIES......... 0 185,253 0 185,253
46 EXECUTIVE 0 76,138 0 76,138
HELICOPTERS SERIES
47 SPECIAL PROJECT 0 23,702 0 23,702
AIRCRAFT..........
48 T-45 SERIES........ 0 105,439 0 105,439
49 POWER PLANT CHANGES 0 9,917 0 9,917
50 JPATS SERIES....... 0 13,537 0 13,537
51 COMMON ECM 0 131,732 0 131,732
EQUIPMENT.........
52 COMMON AVIONICS 0 202,745 0 202,745
CHANGES...........
53 COMMON DEFENSIVE 0 3,062 0 3,062
WEAPON SYSTEM.....
54 ID SYSTEMS......... 0 48,206 0 48,206
55 P-8 SERIES......... 0 28,492 0 28,492
56 MAGTF EW FOR 0 7,680 0 7,680
AVIATION..........
57 MQ-8 SERIES........ 0 22,464 0 22,464
58 RQ-7 SERIES........ 0 3,773 0 3,773
59 V-22 (TILT/ROTOR 0 121,208 23,000 0 144,208
ACFT) OSPREY......
MV-22 Integrated [15,000]
Aircraft
Survivability...
MV-22 Ballistic [8,000]
Protection......
60 F-35 STOVL SERIES.. 0 256,106 0 256,106
61 F-35 CV SERIES..... 0 68,527 0 68,527
62 QRC................ 0 6,885 0 6,885
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
63 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 1,563,515 0 1,563,515
PARTS.............
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
EQUIP & FACILITIES
64 COMMON GROUND 0 450,959 0 450,959
EQUIPMENT.........
65 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL 0 24,010 0 24,010
FACILITIES........
66 WAR CONSUMABLES.... 0 42,012 0 42,012
67 OTHER PRODUCTION 0 2,455 0 2,455
CHARGES...........
68 SPECIAL SUPPORT 0 50,859 0 50,859
EQUIPMENT.........
69 FIRST DESTINATION 0 1,801 0 1,801
TRANSPORTATION....
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 117 16,126,405 18 2,346,700 135 18,473,105
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
WEAPONS
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
1 TRIDENT II MODS.... 0 1,099,064 0 1,099,064
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
2 MISSILE INDUSTRIAL 0 7,748 0 7,748
FACILITIES........
STRATEGIC MISSILES
3 TOMAHAWK........... 100 184,814 49 30,000 149 214,814
Combined with 47 49 [30,000]
FY15 OCO
missiles,
returns
production to
MSR.............
TACTICAL MISSILES
4 AMRAAM............. 167 192,873 15,000 167 207,873
Additional [15,000]
captive air
training
missiles........
5 SIDEWINDER......... 227 96,427 227 96,427
6 JSOW............... 0 21,419 0 21,419
7 STANDARD MISSILE... 113 435,352 113 435,352
8 RAM................ 90 80,826 90 80,826
11 STAND OFF PRECISION 27 4,265 27 4,265
GUIDED MUNITIONS
(SOPGM)...........
12 AERIAL TARGETS..... 0 40,792 0 40,792
13 OTHER MISSILE 0 3,335 0 3,335
SUPPORT...........
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
14 ESSM............... 30 44,440 30 44,440
15 ESSM (AP).......... 0 54,462 0 54,462
16 HARM MODS.......... 0 122,298 0 122,298
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
17 WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL 0 2,397 0 2,397
FACILITIES........
18 FLEET SATELLITE 0 39,932 0 39,932
COMM FOLLOW-ON....
ORDNANCE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
19 ORDNANCE SUPPORT 0 57,641 3,668 0 61,309
EQUIPMENT.........
Classified [3,668]
Program.........
TORPEDOES AND
RELATED EQUIP
20 SSTD............... 0 7,380 0 7,380
21 MK-48 TORPEDO...... 8 65,611 8 65,611
22 ASW TARGETS........ 0 6,912 0 6,912
MOD OF TORPEDOES
AND RELATED EQUIP
23 MK-54 TORPEDO MODS. 0 113,219 0 113,219
24 MK-48 TORPEDO ADCAP 0 63,317 0 63,317
MODS..............
25 QUICKSTRIKE MINE... 0 13,254 0 13,254
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
26 TORPEDO SUPPORT 0 67,701 0 67,701
EQUIPMENT.........
27 ASW RANGE SUPPORT.. 0 3,699 0 3,699
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION
28 FIRST DESTINATION 0 3,342 0 3,342
TRANSPORTATION....
GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS
29 SMALL ARMS AND 0 11,937 0 11,937
WEAPONS...........
MODIFICATION OF
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
30 CIWS MODS.......... 0 53,147 0 53,147
31 COAST GUARD WEAPONS 0 19,022 0 19,022
32 GUN MOUNT MODS..... 0 67,980 0 67,980
33 AIRBORNE MINE 0 19,823 0 19,823
NEUTRALIZATION
SYSTEMS...........
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
35 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 149,725 0 149,725
PARTS.............
TOTAL WEAPONS 762 3,154,154 49 48,668 811 3,202,822
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
1 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 101,238 0 101,238
BOMBS.............
2 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, 0 67,289 0 67,289
ALL TYPES.........
3 MACHINE GUN 0 20,340 0 20,340
AMMUNITION........
4 PRACTICE BOMBS..... 0 40,365 0 40,365
5 CARTRIDGES & CART 0 49,377 0 49,377
ACTUATED DEVICES..
6 AIR EXPENDABLE 0 59,651 0 59,651
COUNTERMEASURES...
7 JATOS.............. 0 2,806 0 2,806
8 LRLAP 6" LONG RANGE 0 11,596 0 11,596
ATTACK PROJECTILE.
9 5 INCH/54 GUN 0 35,994 0 35,994
AMMUNITION........
10 INTERMEDIATE 0 36,715 0 36,715
CALIBER GUN
AMMUNITION........
11 OTHER SHIP GUN 0 45,483 0 45,483
AMMUNITION........
12 SMALL ARMS & 0 52,080 0 52,080
LANDING PARTY AMMO
13 PYROTECHNIC AND 0 10,809 0 10,809
DEMOLITION........
14 AMMUNITION LESS 0 4,469 0 4,469
THAN $5 MILLION...
MARINE CORPS
AMMUNITION
15 SMALL ARMS 0 46,848 0 46,848
AMMUNITION........
16 LINEAR CHARGES, ALL 0 350 0 350
TYPES.............
17 40 MM, ALL TYPES... 0 500 0 500
18 60MM, ALL TYPES.... 0 1,849 0 1,849
19 81MM, ALL TYPES.... 0 1,000 0 1,000
20 120MM, ALL TYPES... 0 13,867 0 13,867
22 GRENADES, ALL TYPES 0 1,390 0 1,390
23 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES. 0 14,967 0 14,967
24 ARTILLERY, ALL 0 45,219 0 45,219
TYPES.............
26 FUZE, ALL TYPES.... 0 29,335 0 29,335
27 NON LETHALS........ 0 3,868 0 3,868
28 AMMO MODERNIZATION. 0 15,117 0 15,117
29 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 11,219 0 11,219
MILLION...........
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 0 723,741 0 723,741
OF AMMO, NAVY & MC
SHIPBUILDING AND
CONVERSION, NAVY
OTHER WARSHIPS
1 CARRIER REPLACEMENT 0 1,634,701 0 1,634,701
PROGRAM...........
2 CARRIER REPLACEMENT 0 874,658 0 874,658
PROGRAM (AP)......
3 VIRGINIA CLASS 2 3,346,370 2 3,346,370
SUBMARINE.........
4 VIRGINIA CLASS 0 1,993,740 800,000 0 2,793,740
SUBMARINE (AP)....
Accelerate [800,000]
shipbuilding
funding.........
5 CVN REFUELING 1 678,274 1 678,274
OVERHAULS.........
6 CVN REFUELING 0 14,951 0 14,951
OVERHAULS (AP)....
7 DDG 1000........... 0 433,404 0 433,404
8 DDG-51............. 2 3,149,703 400,000 2 3,549,703
Incremental [400,000]
funding for one
DDG-51..........
10 LITTORAL COMBAT 3 1,356,991 3 1,356,991
SHIP..............
AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS
12 LPD-17............. 1 550,000 1 550,000
13 AFLOAT FORWARD 0 0 97,000 0 97,000
STAGING BASE......
Accelerate [97,000]
shipbuilding
funding.........
15 LHA REPLACEMENT.... 0 277,543 199,000 0 476,543
Accelerate LHA-8 [199,000]
advanced
procurement.....
XX LX (R) AP.......... 0 0 51,000 0 51,000
Accelerate LX (R) [51,000]
XXX LCU Replacement.... 0 0 1 34,000 1 34,000
Accelerate LCU [34,000]
replacement.....
AUXILIARIES, CRAFT
AND PRIOR YR
PROGRAM COST
17 TAO FLEET OILER.... 1 674,190 1 674,190
19 MOORED TRAINING 0 138,200 0 138,200
SHIP (AP).........
20 OUTFITTING......... 0 697,207 0 697,207
21 SHIP TO SHORE 5 255,630 5 255,630
CONNECTOR.........
22 SERVICE CRAFT...... 0 30,014 0 30,014
23 LCAC SLEP.......... 4 80,738 4 80,738
24 YP CRAFT 0 21,838 0 21,838
MAINTENANCE/ROH/
SLEP..............
25 COMPLETION OF PY 0 389,305 0 389,305
SHIPBUILDING
PROGRAMS..........
XX T-ATS(X) Fleet Tug. 0 0 1 75,000 1 75,000
Accelerate T- [75,000]
ATS(X)..........
TOTAL SHIPBUILDING 19 16,597,457 2 1,656,000 21 18,253,457
AND CONVERSION,
NAVY..............
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
SHIP PROPULSION
EQUIPMENT
1 LM-2500 GAS TURBINE 0 4,881 0 4,881
2 ALLISON 501K GAS 0 5,814 0 5,814
TURBINE...........
3 HYBRID ELECTRIC 0 32,906 0 32,906
DRIVE (HED).......
GENERATORS
4 SURFACE COMBATANT 0 36,860 0 36,860
HM&E..............
NAVIGATION
EQUIPMENT
5 OTHER NAVIGATION 0 87,481 0 87,481
EQUIPMENT.........
PERISCOPES
6 SUB PERISCOPES & 0 63,109 0 63,109
IMAGING EQUIP.....
OTHER SHIPBOARD
EQUIPMENT
7 DDG MOD............ 0 364,157 60,000 0 424,157
Restore [60,000]
additional DDG
BMD
modernization
(CNO UPL).......
8 FIREFIGHTING 0 16,089 0 16,089
EQUIPMENT.........
9 COMMAND AND CONTROL 0 2,255 0 2,255
SWITCHBOARD.......
10 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE.... 0 28,571 0 28,571
11 LCC 19/20 EXTENDED 0 12,313 0 12,313
SERVICE LIFE
PROGRAM...........
12 POLLUTION CONTROL 0 16,609 0 16,609
EQUIPMENT.........
13 SUBMARINE SUPPORT 0 10,498 0 10,498
EQUIPMENT.........
14 VIRGINIA CLASS 0 35,747 0 35,747
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
15 LCS CLASS SUPPORT 0 48,399 0 48,399
EQUIPMENT.........
16 SUBMARINE BATTERIES 0 23,072 0 23,072
17 LPD CLASS SUPPORT 0 55,283 0 55,283
EQUIPMENT.........
18 STRATEGIC PLATFORM 0 18,563 0 18,563
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
19 DSSP EQUIPMENT..... 0 7,376 0 7,376
21 LCAC............... 0 20,965 0 20,965
22 UNDERWATER EOD 0 51,652 0 51,652
PROGRAMS..........
23 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 102,498 0 102,498
MILLION...........
24 CHEMICAL WARFARE 0 3,027 0 3,027
DETECTORS.........
25 SUBMARINE LIFE 0 7,399 0 7,399
SUPPORT SYSTEM....
REACTOR PLANT
EQUIPMENT
27 REACTOR COMPONENTS. 0 296,095 0 296,095
OCEAN ENGINEERING
28 DIVING AND SALVAGE 0 15,982 0 15,982
EQUIPMENT.........
SMALL BOATS
29 STANDARD BOATS..... 0 29,982 0 29,982
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
30 OTHER SHIPS 0 66,538 0 66,538
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
EQUIPMENT
31 OPERATING FORCES 0 71,138 0 71,138
IPE...............
OTHER SHIP SUPPORT
32 NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS 0 132,625 0 132,625
33 LCS COMMON MISSION 0 23,500 0 23,500
MODULES EQUIPMENT.
34 LCS MCM MISSION 0 85,151 -55,800 0 29,351
MODULES...........
Procurement in [-55,800]
excess of need
ahead of
satisfactory
testing.........
35 LCS SUW MISSION 0 35,228 0 35,228
MODULES...........
36 REMOTE MINEHUNTING 0 87,627 -65,600 0 22,027
SYSTEM (RMS)......
Procurement in [-65,600]
excess of need
ahead of
satisfactory
testing.........
LOGISTIC SUPPORT
37 LSD MIDLIFE........ 0 2,774 0 2,774
SHIP SONARS
38 SPQ-9B RADAR....... 0 20,551 0 20,551
39 AN/SQQ-89 SURF ASW 0 103,241 0 103,241
COMBAT SYSTEM.....
40 SSN ACOUSTICS...... 0 214,835 20,000 0 234,835
Towed Array- [20,000]
unfunded
requirement.....
41 UNDERSEA WARFARE 0 7,331 0 7,331
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
42 SONAR SWITCHES AND 0 11,781 0 11,781
TRANSDUCERS.......
ASW ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
44 SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC 0 21,119 0 21,119
WARFARE SYSTEM....
45 SSTD............... 0 8,396 0 8,396
46 FIXED SURVEILLANCE 0 146,968 0 146,968
SYSTEM............
47 SURTASS............ 0 12,953 0 12,953
48 MARITIME PATROL AND 0 13,725 0 13,725
RECONNSAISANCE
FORCE.............
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
EQUIPMENT
49 AN/SLQ-32.......... 0 324,726 28,000 0 352,726
SEWIP Block II [28,000]
unfunded
requirement.....
RECONNAISSANCE
EQUIPMENT
50 SHIPBOARD IW 0 148,221 0 148,221
EXPLOIT...........
51 AUTOMATED 0 152 0 152
IDENTIFICATION
SYSTEM (AIS)......
SUBMARINE
SURVEILLANCE
EQUIPMENT
52 SUBMARINE SUPPORT 0 79,954 0 79,954
EQUIPMENT PROG....
OTHER SHIP
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
53 COOPERATIVE 0 25,695 0 25,695
ENGAGEMENT
CAPABILITY........
54 TRUSTED INFORMATION 0 284 0 284
SYSTEM (TIS)......
55 NAVAL TACTICAL 0 14,416 0 14,416
COMMAND SUPPORT
SYSTEM (NTCSS)....
56 ATDLS.............. 0 23,069 0 23,069
57 NAVY COMMAND AND 0 4,054 0 4,054
CONTROL SYSTEM
(NCCS)............
58 MINESWEEPING SYSTEM 0 21,014 0 21,014
REPLACEMENT.......
59 SHALLOW WATER MCM.. 0 18,077 0 18,077
60 NAVSTAR GPS 0 12,359 0 12,359
RECEIVERS (SPACE).
61 AMERICAN FORCES 0 4,240 0 4,240
RADIO AND TV
SERVICE...........
62 STRATEGIC PLATFORM 0 17,440 0 17,440
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
63 OTHER TRAINING 0 41,314 0 41,314
EQUIPMENT.........
AVIATION ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
64 MATCALS............ 0 10,011 0 10,011
65 SHIPBOARD AIR 0 9,346 0 9,346
TRAFFIC CONTROL...
66 AUTOMATIC CARRIER 0 21,281 0 21,281
LANDING SYSTEM....
67 NATIONAL AIR SPACE 0 25,621 0 25,621
SYSTEM............
68 FLEET AIR TRAFFIC 0 8,249 0 8,249
CONTROL SYSTEMS...
69 LANDING SYSTEMS.... 0 14,715 0 14,715
70 ID SYSTEMS......... 0 29,676 0 29,676
71 NAVAL MISSION 0 13,737 0 13,737
PLANNING SYSTEMS..
OTHER SHORE
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
72 DEPLOYABLE JOINT 0 1,314 0 1,314
COMMAND & CONTROL.
74 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I 0 13,600 0 13,600
SYSTEMS...........
75 DCGS-N............. 0 31,809 0 31,809
76 CANES.............. 0 278,991 0 278,991
77 RADIAC............. 0 8,294 0 8,294
78 CANES-INTELL....... 0 28,695 0 28,695
79 GPETE.............. 0 6,962 0 6,962
80 MASF............... 0 290 0 290
81 INTEG COMBAT SYSTEM 0 14,419 0 14,419
TEST FACILITY.....
82 EMI CONTROL 0 4,175 0 4,175
INSTRUMENTATION...
83 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 44,176 0 44,176
MILLION...........
SHIPBOARD
COMMUNICATIONS
84 SHIPBOARD TACTICAL 0 8,722 0 8,722
COMMUNICATIONS....
85 SHIP COMMUNICATIONS 0 108,477 0 108,477
AUTOMATION........
86 COMMUNICATIONS 0 16,613 0 16,613
ITEMS UNDER $5M...
SUBMARINE
COMMUNICATIONS
87 SUBMARINE BROADCAST 0 20,691 0 20,691
SUPPORT...........
88 SUBMARINE 0 60,945 0 60,945
COMMUNICATION
EQUIPMENT.........
SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
89 SATELLITE 0 30,892 0 30,892
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS...........
90 NAVY MULTIBAND 0 118,113 0 118,113
TERMINAL (NMT)....
SHORE
COMMUNICATIONS
91 JCS COMMUNICATIONS 0 4,591 0 4,591
EQUIPMENT.........
92 ELECTRICAL POWER 0 1,403 0 1,403
SYSTEMS...........
CRYPTOGRAPHIC
EQUIPMENT
93 INFO SYSTEMS 0 135,687 0 135,687
SECURITY PROGRAM
(ISSP)............
94 MIO INTEL 0 970 0 970
EXPLOITATION TEAM.
CRYPTOLOGIC
EQUIPMENT
95 CRYPTOLOGIC 0 11,433 0 11,433
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIP.............
OTHER ELECTRONIC
SUPPORT
96 COAST GUARD 0 2,529 0 2,529
EQUIPMENT.........
SONOBUOYS
97 SONOBUOYS--ALL 0 168,763 0 168,763
TYPES.............
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
98 WEAPONS RANGE 0 46,979 0 46,979
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
100 AIRCRAFT SUPPORT 0 123,884 0 123,884
EQUIPMENT.........
103 METEOROLOGICAL 0 15,090 0 15,090
EQUIPMENT.........
104 DCRS/DPL........... 0 638 0 638
106 AIRBORNE MINE 0 14,098 0 14,098
COUNTERMEASURES...
111 AVIATION SUPPORT 0 49,773 0 49,773
EQUIPMENT.........
SHIP GUN SYSTEM
EQUIPMENT
112 SHIP GUN SYSTEMS 0 5,300 0 5,300
EQUIPMENT.........
SHIP MISSILE
SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT
115 SHIP MISSILE 0 298,738 0 298,738
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
120 TOMAHAWK SUPPORT 0 71,245 0 71,245
EQUIPMENT.........
FBM SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
123 STRATEGIC MISSILE 0 240,694 0 240,694
SYSTEMS EQUIP.....
ASW SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
124 SSN COMBAT CONTROL 0 96,040 0 96,040
SYSTEMS...........
125 ASW SUPPORT 0 30,189 0 30,189
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER ORDNANCE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
129 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 0 22,623 0 22,623
DISPOSAL EQUIP....
130 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 9,906 0 9,906
MILLION...........
OTHER EXPENDABLE
ORDNANCE
134 TRAINING DEVICE 0 99,707 0 99,707
MODS..............
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
135 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 2,252 0 2,252
VEHICLES..........
136 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 2,191 0 2,191
TRUCKS............
137 CONSTRUCTION & 0 2,164 0 2,164
MAINTENANCE EQUIP.
138 FIRE FIGHTING 0 14,705 0 14,705
EQUIPMENT.........
139 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 0 2,497 0 2,497
140 AMPHIBIOUS 0 12,517 0 12,517
EQUIPMENT.........
141 POLLUTION CONTROL 0 3,018 0 3,018
EQUIPMENT.........
142 ITEMS UNDER $5 0 14,403 0 14,403
MILLION...........
143 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 1,186 0 1,186
VEHICLES..........
SUPPLY SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
144 MATERIALS HANDLING 0 18,805 0 18,805
EQUIPMENT.........
145 OTHER SUPPLY 0 10,469 0 10,469
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
146 FIRST DESTINATION 0 5,720 0 5,720
TRANSPORTATION....
147 SPECIAL PURPOSE 0 211,714 0 211,714
SUPPLY SYSTEMS....
TRAINING DEVICES
148 TRAINING SUPPORT 0 7,468 0 7,468
EQUIPMENT.........
COMMAND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
149 COMMAND SUPPORT 0 36,433 0 36,433
EQUIPMENT.........
150 EDUCATION SUPPORT 0 3,180 0 3,180
EQUIPMENT.........
151 MEDICAL SUPPORT 0 4,790 0 4,790
EQUIPMENT.........
153 NAVAL MIP SUPPORT 0 4,608 0 4,608
EQUIPMENT.........
154 OPERATING FORCES 0 5,655 0 5,655
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
155 C4ISR EQUIPMENT.... 0 9,929 0 9,929
156 ENVIRONMENTAL 0 26,795 0 26,795
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
157 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 88,453 0 88,453
EQUIPMENT.........
159 ENTERPRISE 0 99,094 0 99,094
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY........
OTHER
160 NEXT GENERATION 0 99,014 0 99,014
ENTERPRISE SERVICE
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
160A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 21,439 0 21,439
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
161 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 328,043 0 328,043
PARTS.............
TOTAL OTHER 0 6,614,715 -13,400 0 6,601,315
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT, MARINE
CORPS
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
1 AAV7A1 PIP......... 0 26,744 0 26,744
2 LAV PIP............ 0 54,879 0 54,879
ARTILLERY AND OTHER
WEAPONS
3 EXPEDITIONARY FIRE 0 2,652 0 2,652
SUPPORT SYSTEM....
4 155MM LIGHTWEIGHT 0 7,482 0 7,482
TOWED HOWITZER....
5 HIGH MOBILITY 0 17,181 0 17,181
ARTILLERY ROCKET
SYSTEM............
6 WEAPONS AND COMBAT 0 8,224 0 8,224
VEHICLES UNDER $5
MILLION...........
OTHER SUPPORT
7 MODIFICATION KITS.. 0 14,467 0 14,467
8 WEAPONS ENHANCEMENT 0 488 0 488
PROGRAM...........
GUIDED MISSILES
9 GROUND BASED AIR 0 7,565 0 7,565
DEFENSE...........
10 JAVELIN............ 0 1,091 0 1,091
11 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW.. 0 4,872 0 4,872
12 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS 0 668 0 668
SYSTEM-HEAVY (AAWS-
H)................
OTHER SUPPORT
13 MODIFICATION KITS.. 0 12,495 140,000 0 152,495
Additional [140,000]
missiles........
COMMAND AND CONTROL
SYSTEMS
14 UNIT OPERATIONS 0 13,109 0 13,109
CENTER............
15 COMMON AVIATION 0 35,147 0 35,147
COMMAND AND
CONTROL SYSTEM (C.
REPAIR AND TEST
EQUIPMENT
16 REPAIR AND TEST 0 21,210 0 21,210
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
17 COMBAT SUPPORT 0 792 0 792
SYSTEM............
COMMAND AND CONTROL
SYSTEM (NON-TEL)
19 ITEMS UNDER $5 0 3,642 0 3,642
MILLION (COMM &
ELEC).............
20 AIR OPERATIONS C2 0 3,520 0 3,520
SYSTEMS...........
RADAR + EQUIPMENT
(NON-TEL)
21 RADAR SYSTEMS...... 0 35,118 0 35,118
22 GROUND/AIR TASK 3 130,661 -1 -32,115 2 98,546
ORIENTED RADAR (G/
ATOR).............
Not meeting [-32,115]
performance reqs
reduce until
technology is
refined.........
23 RQ-21 UAS.......... 4 84,916 4 84,916
INTELL/COMM
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
24 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM 0 9,136 0 9,136
25 INTELLIGENCE 0 29,936 0 29,936
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.
28 DCGS-MC............ 0 1,947 0 1,947
OTHER COMM/ELEC
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
31 NIGHT VISION 0 2,018 0 2,018
EQUIPMENT.........
OTHER SUPPORT (NON-
TEL)
32 NEXT GENERATION 0 67,295 0 67,295
ENTERPRISE NETWORK
(NGEN)............
33 COMMON COMPUTER 0 43,101 0 43,101
RESOURCES.........
34 COMMAND POST 0 29,255 0 29,255
SYSTEMS...........
35 RADIO SYSTEMS...... 0 80,584 0 80,584
36 COMM SWITCHING & 0 66,123 0 66,123
CONTROL SYSTEMS...
37 COMM & ELEC 0 79,486 0 79,486
INFRASTRUCTURE
SUPPORT...........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
37A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 2,803 0 2,803
ADMINISTRATIVE
VEHICLES
38 COMMERCIAL 0 3,538 0 3,538
PASSENGER VEHICLES
39 COMMERCIAL CARGO 0 22,806 0 22,806
VEHICLES..........
TACTICAL VEHICLES
41 MOTOR TRANSPORT 0 7,743 0 7,743
MODIFICATIONS.....
43 JOINT LIGHT 109 79,429 109 79,429
TACTICAL VEHICLE..
44 FAMILY OF TACTICAL 0 3,157 0 3,157
TRAILERS..........
OTHER SUPPORT
45 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 6,938 0 6,938
MILLION...........
ENGINEER AND OTHER
EQUIPMENT
46 ENVIRONMENTAL 0 94 0 94
CONTROL EQUIP
ASSORT............
47 BULK LIQUID 0 896 0 896
EQUIPMENT.........
48 TACTICAL FUEL 0 136 0 136
SYSTEMS...........
49 POWER EQUIPMENT 0 10,792 0 10,792
ASSORTED..........
50 AMPHIBIOUS SUPPORT 0 3,235 0 3,235
EQUIPMENT.........
51 EOD SYSTEMS........ 0 7,666 0 7,666
MATERIALS HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
52 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 33,145 0 33,145
EQUIPMENT.........
53 GARRISON MOBILE 0 1,419 0 1,419
ENGINEER EQUIPMENT
(GMEE)............
GENERAL PROPERTY
57 TRAINING DEVICES... 0 24,163 0 24,163
58 CONTAINER FAMILY... 0 962 0 962
59 FAMILY OF 0 6,545 0 6,545
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT.........
60 FAMILY OF 0 7,533 0 7,533
INTERNALLY
TRANSPORTABLE VEH
(ITV).............
OTHER SUPPORT
62 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 4,322 0 4,322
MILLION...........
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
63 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 8,292 0 8,292
PARTS.............
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, 116 1,131,418 -1 107,885 115 1,239,303
MARINE CORPS......
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
TACTICAL FORCES
1 F-35............... 44 5,260,212 -99,100 44 5,161,112
Efficiencies and [-99,100]
excess cost
growth..........
2 F-35 (AP).......... 0 460,260 0 460,260
TACTICAL AIRLIFT
3 KC-46A TANKER...... 12 2,350,601 -24,000 12 2,326,601
FY15 excess to [-24,000]
need by $24
million due to
program delays..
OTHER AIRLIFT
4 C-130J............. 14 889,154 14 889,154
5 C-130J (AP)........ 0 50,000 0 50,000
6 HC-130J............ 5 463,934 5 463,934
7 HC-130J (AP)....... 0 30,000 0 30,000
8 MC-130J............ 8 828,472 8 828,472
9 MC-130J (AP)....... 0 60,000 0 60,000
MISSION SUPPORT
AIRCRAFT
11 CIVIL AIR PATROL A/ 6 2,617 6 2,617
C.................
OTHER AIRCRAFT
12 TARGET DRONES...... 75 132,028 75 132,028
14 RQ-4............... 0 37,800 0 37,800
15 MQ-9............... 29 552,528 24 480,000 53 1,032,528
Accelerating 24 [480,000]
procurement
schedule to meet
CCDR demand.....
STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT
17 B-2A............... 0 32,458 0 32,458
18 B-1B............... 0 114,119 0 114,119
19 B-52............... 0 148,987 0 148,987
20 LARGE AIRCRAFT 0 84,335 0 84,335
INFRARED
COUNTERMEASURES...
TACTICAL AIRCRAFT
22 F-15............... 0 464,367 249,304 0 713,671
EPAWSS upgrade... [11,600]
F-15C AESA radars 6 [48,000]
F-15D AESA radars 24 [192,500]
ADCP II upgrades. [10,000]
F-15C MIDS JTRS [-6,387]
transfer to
RDT&E...........
F-15E MIDS JTRS [-6,409]
transfer to
RDT&E...........
23 F-16............... 0 17,134 0 17,134
24 F-22A.............. 0 126,152 0 126,152
25 F-35 MODIFICATIONS. 0 70,167 0 70,167
26 INCREMENT 3.2B..... 0 69,325 0 69,325
AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
28 C-5................ 0 5,604 0 5,604
30 C-17A.............. 0 46,997 0 46,997
31 C-21............... 0 10,162 0 10,162
32 C-32A.............. 0 44,464 0 44,464
33 C-37A.............. 0 10,861 0 10,861
TRAINER AIRCRAFT
34 GLIDER MODS........ 0 134 0 134
35 T-6................ 0 17,968 0 17,968
36 T-1................ 0 23,706 0 23,706
37 T-38............... 0 30,604 0 30,604
OTHER AIRCRAFT
38 U-2 MODS........... 0 22,095 0 22,095
39 KC-10A (ATCA)...... 0 5,611 0 5,611
40 C-12............... 0 1,980 0 1,980
42 VC-25A MOD......... 0 98,231 0 98,231
43 C-40............... 0 13,171 0 13,171
44 C-130.............. 0 7,048 123,200 0 130,248
C-130H Electronic [13,500]
Prop Control
System - UPL....
C-130H In-flight [1,500]
Prop Balancing
System - UPL....
C-130H T-56 3.5 [33,200]
Engine Mods.....
Funds added to [75,000]
comply with Sec
134, FY15 NDAA..
45 C-130J MODS........ 0 29,713 0 29,713
46 C-135.............. 0 49,043 0 49,043
47 COMPASS CALL MODS.. 0 68,415 28,700 0 97,115
Modification for [28,700]
restored EC-130H
48 RC-135............. 0 156,165 0 156,165
49 E-3................ 0 13,178 0 13,178
50 E-4................ 0 23,937 0 23,937
51 E-8................ 0 18,001 0 18,001
52 AIRBORNE WARNING 0 183,308 0 183,308
AND CONTROL SYSTEM
53 FAMILY OF BEYOND 0 44,163 0 44,163
LINE-OF-SIGHT
TERMINALS.........
54 H-1................ 0 6,291 0 6,291
55 UH-1N REPLACEMENT.. 0 2,456 0 2,456
56 H-60............... 0 45,731 0 45,731
57 RQ-4 MODS.......... 0 50,022 0 50,022
58 HC/MC-130 0 21,660 0 21,660
MODIFICATIONS.....
59 OTHER AIRCRAFT..... 0 117,767 -2,246 0 115,521
C2ISR TDL [-2,246]
transfer to
COMSEC equipment
60 MQ-1 MODS.......... 0 3,173 0 3,173
61 MQ-9 MODS.......... 0 115,226 0 115,226
63 CV-22 MODS......... 0 58,828 0 58,828
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
64 INITIAL SPARES/ 0 656,242 0 656,242
REPAIR PARTS......
COMMON SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
65 AIRCRAFT 0 33,716 0 33,716
REPLACEMENT
SUPPORT EQUIP.....
POST PRODUCTION
SUPPORT
67 B-2A............... 0 38,837 0 38,837
68 B-52............... 0 5,911 0 5,911
69 C-17A.............. 0 30,108 0 30,108
70 CV-22 POST 0 3,353 0 3,353
PRODUCTION SUPPORT
71 C-135.............. 0 4,490 0 4,490
72 F-15............... 0 3,225 0 3,225
73 F-16............... 0 14,969 0 14,969
74 F-22A.............. 0 971 0 971
76 MQ-9............... 0 5,000 0 5,000
INDUSTRIAL
PREPAREDNESS
77 INDUSTRIAL 0 18,802 0 18,802
RESPONSIVENESS....
WAR CONSUMABLES
78 WAR CONSUMABLES.... 0 156,465 0 156,465
OTHER PRODUCTION
CHARGES
79 OTHER PRODUCTION 0 1,052,814 59,086 0 1,111,900
CHARGES...........
Transfer from [59,086]
RDT&E for NATO
AWACS...........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
79A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 42,503 0 42,503
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 193 15,657,769 24 814,944 217 16,472,713
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
MISSILE REPLACEMENT
EQUIPMENT--BALLIST
IC
1 MISSILE REPLACEMENT 0 94,040 0 94,040
EQ-BALLISTIC......
TACTICAL
3 JOINT AIR-SURFACE 360 440,578 360 440,578
STANDOFF MISSILE..
4 SIDEWINDER (AIM-9X) 506 200,777 506 200,777
5 AMRAAM............. 262 390,112 262 390,112
6 PREDATOR HELLFIRE 3,756 423,016 3,756 423,016
MISSILE...........
7 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 1,942 133,697 1,942 133,697
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES
8 INDUSTR'L 0 397 0 397
PREPAREDNS/POL
PREVENTION........
CLASS IV
9 MM III 0 50,517 0 50,517
MODIFICATIONS.....
10 AGM-65D MAVERICK... 0 9,639 0 9,639
11 AGM-88A HARM....... 0 197 0 197
12 AIR LAUNCH CRUISE 0 25,019 0 25,019
MISSILE (ALCM)....
MISSILE SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
14 INITIAL SPARES/ 0 48,523 0 48,523
REPAIR PARTS......
SPECIAL PROGRAMS
28 SPECIAL UPDATE 0 276,562 0 276,562
PROGRAMS..........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
28A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 893,971 0 893,971
TOTAL MISSILE 6,826 2,987,045 6,826 2,987,045
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............
SPACE PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
SPACE PROGRAMS
1 ADVANCED EHF....... 0 333,366 0 333,366
2 WIDEBAND GAPFILLER 0 53,476 0 53,476
SATELLITES(SPACE).
3 GPS III SPACE 1 199,218 -1 -199,218 0 0
SEGMENT...........
GPS III SV10 -1 [-199,218]
early to need...
4 SPACEBORNE EQUIP 0 18,362 0 18,362
(COMSEC)..........
5 GLOBAL POSITIONING 0 66,135 0 66,135
(SPACE)...........
6 DEF METEOROLOGICAL 0 89,351 -89,351 0 0
SAT PROG(SPACE)...
Cut DMSP #20..... [-89,351]
7 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE 0 571,276 0 571,276
LAUNCH CAPABILITY.
8 EVOLVED EXPENDABLE 5 800,201 5 800,201
LAUNCH VEH(SPACE).
9 SBIR HIGH (SPACE).. 0 452,676 0 452,676
TOTAL SPACE 6 2,584,061 -1 -288,569 5 2,295,492
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
ROCKETS
1 ROCKETS............ 0 23,788 0 23,788
CARTRIDGES
2 CARTRIDGES......... 0 131,102 38,500 0 169,602
Increase to match [38,500]
size of A-10
fleet...........
BOMBS
3 PRACTICE BOMBS..... 0 89,759 0 89,759
4 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 637,181 0 637,181
BOMBS.............
5 MASSIVE ORDNANCE 0 39,690 0 39,690
PENETRATOR (MOP)..
6 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 6,341 374,688 6,341 374,688
MUNITION..........
OTHER ITEMS
7 CAD/PAD............ 0 58,266 0 58,266
8 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE 0 5,612 0 5,612
DISPOSAL (EOD)....
9 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 103 0 103
PARTS.............
10 MODIFICATIONS...... 0 1,102 0 1,102
11 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 3,044 0 3,044
MILLION...........
FLARES
12 FLARES............. 0 120,935 0 120,935
FUZES
13 FUZES.............. 0 213,476 0 213,476
SMALL ARMS
14 SMALL ARMS......... 0 60,097 0 60,097
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 6,341 1,758,843 38,500 6,341 1,797,343
OF AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE.............
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
PASSENGER CARRYING
VEHICLES
1 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 8,834 0 8,834
VEHICLES..........
CARGO AND UTILITY
VEHICLES
2 MEDIUM TACTICAL 0 58,160 0 58,160
VEHICLE...........
3 CAP VEHICLES....... 0 977 0 977
4 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 12,483 0 12,483
MILLION...........
SPECIAL PURPOSE
VEHICLES
5 SECURITY AND 0 4,728 0 4,728
TACTICAL VEHICLES.
6 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 4,662 0 4,662
MILLION...........
FIRE FIGHTING
EQUIPMENT
7 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH 0 10,419 0 10,419
RESCUE VEHICLES...
MATERIALS HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
8 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 23,320 0 23,320
MILLION...........
BASE MAINTENANCE
SUPPORT
9 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV & 0 6,215 0 6,215
CLEANING EQUIP....
10 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 87,781 0 87,781
MILLION...........
COMM SECURITY
EQUIPMENT(COMSEC)
11 COMSEC EQUIPMENT... 0 136,998 2,246 0 139,244
Transfer for Link [2,246]
16 upgrades.....
12 MODIFICATIONS 0 677 0 677
(COMSEC)..........
INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAMS
13 INTELLIGENCE 0 4,041 0 4,041
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
14 INTELLIGENCE COMM 0 22,573 0 22,573
EQUIPMENT.........
15 MISSION PLANNING 0 14,456 0 14,456
SYSTEMS...........
ELECTRONICS
PROGRAMS
16 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 0 31,823 0 31,823
& LANDING SYS.....
17 NATIONAL AIRSPACE 0 5,833 0 5,833
SYSTEM............
18 BATTLE CONTROL 0 1,687 0 1,687
SYSTEM--FIXED.....
19 THEATER AIR CONTROL 0 22,710 0 22,710
SYS IMPROVEMENTS..
20 WEATHER OBSERVATION 0 21,561 0 21,561
FORECAST..........
21 STRATEGIC COMMAND 0 286,980 0 286,980
AND CONTROL.......
22 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN 0 36,186 0 36,186
COMPLEX...........
24 INTEGRATED STRAT 0 9,597 0 9,597
PLAN & ANALY
NETWORK (ISPAN)...
SPCL COMM-
ELECTRONICS
PROJECTS
25 GENERAL INFORMATION 0 27,403 0 27,403
TECHNOLOGY........
26 AF GLOBAL COMMAND & 0 7,212 0 7,212
CONTROL SYS.......
27 MOBILITY COMMAND 0 11,062 19,900 0 30,962
AND CONTROL.......
Additional [19,900]
battlefield air
operations kits
to meet need....
28 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL 0 131,269 0 131,269
SECURITY SYSTEM...
29 COMBAT TRAINING 0 33,606 0 33,606
RANGES............
30 MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 0 5,232 0 5,232
EMERGENCY COMM N..
31 C3 COUNTERMEASURES. 0 7,453 0 7,453
32 INTEGRATED 0 3,976 0 3,976
PERSONNEL AND PAY
SYSTEM............
33 GCSS-AF FOS........ 0 25,515 0 25,515
34 DEFENSE ENTERPRISE 0 9,255 0 9,255
ACCOUNTING AND
MGMT SYSTEM.......
35 THEATER BATTLE MGT 0 7,523 0 7,523
C2 SYSTEM.........
36 AIR & SPACE 0 12,043 0 12,043
OPERATIONS CTR-WPN
SYS...............
37 AIR OPERATIONS 0 24,246 0 24,246
CENTER (AOC) 10.2.
AIR FORCE
COMMUNICATIONS
38 INFORMATION 0 74,621 0 74,621
TRANSPORT SYSTEMS.
39 AFNET.............. 0 103,748 -17,000 0 86,748
Restructure [-17,000]
program.........
41 JOINT 0 5,199 0 5,199
COMMUNICATIONS
SUPPORT ELEMENT
(JCSE)............
42 USCENTCOM.......... 0 15,780 0 15,780
SPACE PROGRAMS
43 FAMILY OF BEYOND 0 79,592 0 79,592
LINE-OF-SIGHT
TERMINALS.........
44 SPACE BASED IR 0 90,190 0 90,190
SENSOR PGM SPACE..
45 NAVSTAR GPS SPACE.. 0 2,029 0 2,029
46 NUDET DETECTION SYS 0 5,095 0 5,095
SPACE.............
47 AF SATELLITE 0 76,673 0 76,673
CONTROL NETWORK
SPACE.............
48 SPACELIFT RANGE 0 113,275 0 113,275
SYSTEM SPACE......
49 MILSATCOM SPACE.... 0 35,495 0 35,495
50 SPACE MODS SPACE... 0 23,435 0 23,435
51 COUNTERSPACE SYSTEM 0 43,065 0 43,065
ORGANIZATION AND
BASE
52 TACTICAL C-E 0 77,538 36,000 0 113,538
EQUIPMENT.........
Increase JTAC [36,000]
training and
rehearsal
simulators per
AF unfunded
priority list...
54 RADIO EQUIPMENT.... 0 8,400 0 8,400
55 CCTV/AUDIOVISUAL 0 6,144 0 6,144
EQUIPMENT.........
56 BASE COMM 0 77,010 0 77,010
INFRASTRUCTURE....
MODIFICATIONS
57 COMM ELECT MODS.... 0 71,800 0 71,800
PERSONAL SAFETY &
RESCUE EQUIP
58 NIGHT VISION 0 2,370 0 2,370
GOGGLES...........
59 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 79,623 0 79,623
MILLION...........
DEPOT PLANT+MTRLS
HANDLING EQ
60 MECHANIZED MATERIAL 0 7,249 0 7,249
HANDLING EQUIP....
BASE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
61 BASE PROCURED 0 9,095 0 9,095
EQUIPMENT.........
62 ENGINEERING AND EOD 0 17,866 0 17,866
EQUIPMENT.........
64 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT. 0 61,850 0 61,850
65 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 30,477 0 30,477
MILLION...........
SPECIAL SUPPORT
PROJECTS
67 DARP RC135......... 0 25,072 0 25,072
68 DCGS-AF............ 0 183,021 0 183,021
70 SPECIAL UPDATE 0 629,371 0 629,371
PROGRAM...........
71 DEFENSE SPACE 0 100,663 0 100,663
RECONNAISSANCE
PROG..............
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
71A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 15,038,333 0 15,038,333
SPARES AND REPAIR
PARTS
73 SPARES AND REPAIR 0 59,863 0 59,863
PARTS.............
TOTAL OTHER 0 18,272,438 41,146 0 18,313,584
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............
PROCUREMENT,
DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DCAA
1 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 1,488 0 1,488
MILLION...........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DCMA
2 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 0 2,494 0 2,494
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DHRA
3 PERSONNEL 0 9,341 0 9,341
ADMINISTRATION....
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DISA
7 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 8,080 10,000 0 18,080
SECURITY..........
Sharkseer [10,000]
increase........
8 TELEPORT PROGRAM... 0 62,789 0 62,789
9 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 9,399 0 9,399
MILLION...........
10 NET CENTRIC 0 1,819 0 1,819
ENTERPRISE
SERVICES (NCES)...
11 DEFENSE INFORMATION 0 141,298 0 141,298
SYSTEM NETWORK....
12 CYBER SECURITY 0 12,732 0 12,732
INITIATIVE........
13 WHITE HOUSE 0 64,098 0 64,098
COMMUNICATION
AGENCY............
14 SENIOR LEADERSHIP 0 617,910 0 617,910
ENTERPRISE........
15 JOINT INFORMATION 0 84,400 0 84,400
ENVIRONMENT.......
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DLA
16 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 0 5,644 0 5,644
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DMACT
17 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 4 11,208 4 11,208
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DODEA
18 AUTOMATION/ 0 1,298 0 1,298
EDUCATIONAL
SUPPORT &
LOGISTICS.........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DSS
20 MAJOR EQUIPMENT.... 0 1,048 0 1,048
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DEFENSE THREAT
REDUCTION AGENCY
21 VEHICLES........... 0 100 0 100
22 OTHER MAJOR 0 5,474 0 5,474
EQUIPMENT.........
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
MISSILE DEFENSE
AGENCY
23 THAAD.............. 30 464,067 30 464,067
24 AEGIS BMD.......... 40 558,916 9 147,765 49 706,681
Increase SM-3 9 [117,880]
Block IB
purchase........
Increase SM-3 9 [2,565]
Block IB
canisters.......
Undifferentiated [27,320]
Block IB test
and evaluation
costs...........
25 AEGIS BMD (AP)..... 0 147,765 -147,765 0 0
Early to need.... [-147,765]
26 BMDS AN/TPY-2 0 78,634 0 78,634
RADARS............
27 AEGIS ASHORE PHASE 0 30,587 0 30,587
III...............
28 IRON DOME.......... 1 55,000 -13,900 1 41,100
Request excess of [-13,900]
requirement.....
XX DAVIDS SLING....... 0 0 150,000 0 150,000
Increase for [150,000]
David's Sling co-
production......
XXX ARROW 3............ 0 0 15,000 0 15,000
Increase for [15,000]
Arrow 3 co-
production......
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
NSA
35 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 37,177 0 37,177
SECURITY PROGRAM
(ISSP)............
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
OSD
36 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 17 46,939 17 46,939
OSD...............
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
TJS
38 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 0 13,027 0 13,027
TJS...............
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
WHS
40 MAJOR EQUIPMENT, 0 27,859 0 27,859
WHS...............
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
40A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 617,757 0 617,757
AVIATION PROGRAMS
41 MC-12.............. 0 63,170 -63,170 0 0
SOCOM requested [-63,170]
realignment.....
42 ROTARY WING 0 135,985 0 135,985
UPGRADES AND
SUSTAINMENT.......
44 NON-STANDARD 0 61,275 0 61,275
AVIATION..........
45 U-28............... 0 0 63,170 0 63,170
SOCOM requested [63,170]
realignment.....
47 RQ-11 UNMANNED 0 20,087 0 20,087
AERIAL VEHICLE....
48 CV-22 MODIFICATION. 0 18,832 0 18,832
49 MQ-1 UNMANNED 0 1,934 0 1,934
AERIAL VEHICLE....
50 MQ-9 UNMANNED 0 11,726 10,000 0 21,726
AERIAL VEHICLE....
MQ-9 capability [10,000]
enhancements....
51 STUASL0............ 0 1,514 0 1,514
52 PRECISION STRIKE 0 204,105 0 204,105
PACKAGE...........
53 AC/MC-130J......... 0 61,368 0 61,368
54 C-130 MODIFICATIONS 0 66,861 -35,449 0 31,412
C-130 TF/TA [-35,449]
adjustments.....
SHIPBUILDING
55 UNDERWATER SYSTEMS. 0 32,521 0 32,521
AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
56 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M 0 174,734 0 174,734
OTHER PROCUREMENT
PROGRAMS
57 INTELLIGENCE 0 93,009 0 93,009
SYSTEMS...........
58 DISTRIBUTED COMMON 0 14,964 0 14,964
GROUND/SURFACE
SYSTEMS...........
59 OTHER ITEMS <$5M... 0 79,149 0 79,149
60 COMBATANT CRAFT 0 33,362 0 33,362
SYSTEMS...........
61 SPECIAL PROGRAMS... 0 143,533 0 143,533
62 TACTICAL VEHICLES.. 0 73,520 0 73,520
63 WARRIOR SYSTEMS 0 186,009 0 186,009
<$5M..............
64 COMBAT MISSION 0 19,693 0 19,693
REQUIREMENTS......
65 GLOBAL VIDEO 0 3,967 0 3,967
SURVEILLANCE
ACTIVITIES........
66 OPERATIONAL 0 19,225 0 19,225
ENHANCEMENTS
INTELLIGENCE......
68 OPERATIONAL 0 213,252 0 213,252
ENHANCEMENTS......
CBDP
74 CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL 0 141,223 0 141,223
SITUATIONAL
AWARENESS.........
75 CB PROTECTION & 0 137,487 0 137,487
HAZARD MITIGATION.
UNDISTRIBUTED
XX USCC CYBER 0 0 75,000 0 75,000
CAPABILITIES......
Cyber [75,000]
capabilities....
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, 92 5,130,853 9 210,651 101 5,341,504
DEFENSE-WIDE......
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND
1 JOINT URGENT 0 99,701 0 99,701
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND..............
TOTAL JOINT URGENT 0 99,701 0 99,701
OPERATIONAL NEEDS
FUND..............
TOTAL PROCUREMENT.. 22,785 106,967,393 100 4,880,184 22,885 111,847,577
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
FIXED WING
3 AERIAL COMMON 5 99,500 5 99,500
SENSOR (ACS) (MIP)
4 MQ-1 UAV........... 2 16,537 2 16,537
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
16 MQ-1 PAYLOAD (MIP). 0 8,700 0 8,700
23 ARL SEMA MODS (MIP) 0 32,000 0 32,000
31 RQ-7 UAV MODS...... 0 8,250 0 8,250
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 7 164,987 7 164,987
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, ARMY
AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE SYSTEM
3 HELLFIRE SYS 270 37,260 270 37,260
SUMMARY...........
TOTAL MISSILE 270 37,260 270 37,260
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF
W&TCV, ARMY
WEAPONS & OTHER
COMBAT VEHICLES
16 MORTAR SYSTEMS..... 0 7,030 0 7,030
21 COMMON REMOTELY 0 19,000 0 19,000
OPERATED WEAPONS
STATION...........
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 0 26,030 0 26,030
OF W&TCV, ARMY....
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL
AMMUNITION
4 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL 0 4,000 0 4,000
TYPES.............
MORTAR AMMUNITION
8 60MM MORTAR, ALL 0 11,700 0 11,700
TYPES.............
9 81MM MORTAR, ALL 0 4,000 0 4,000
TYPES.............
10 120MM MORTAR, ALL 0 7,000 0 7,000
TYPES.............
ARTILLERY
AMMUNITION
12 ARTILLERY 0 5,000 0 5,000
CARTRIDGES, 75MM &
105MM, ALL TYPES..
13 ARTILLERY 0 10,000 0 10,000
PROJECTILE, 155MM,
ALL TYPES.........
15 ARTILLERY 0 2,000 0 2,000
PROPELLANTS, FUZES
AND PRIMERS, ALL..
ROCKETS
17 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, 0 136,340 0 136,340
ALL TYPES.........
OTHER AMMUNITION
19 DEMOLITION 0 4,000 0 4,000
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
21 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES. 0 8,000 0 8,000
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 0 192,040 0 192,040
OF AMMUNITION,
ARMY..............
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
5 FAMILY OF MEDIUM 1,191 243,998 1,191 243,998
TACTICAL VEH
(FMTV)............
9 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE 0 223,276 0 223,276
TACTICAL TRUCK EXT
SERV..............
11 MODIFICATION OF IN 0 130,000 0 130,000
SVC EQUIP.........
12 MINE-RESISTANT 0 393,100 0 393,100
AMBUSH-PROTECTED
(MRAP) MODS.......
COMM--SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
21 TRANSPORTABLE 0 5,724 0 5,724
TACTICAL COMMAND
COMMUNICATIONS....
COMM--BASE
COMMUNICATIONS
51 INSTALLATION INFO 0 29,500 0 29,500
INFRASTRUCTURE MOD
PROGRAM...........
ELECT EQUIP--TACT
INT REL ACT
(TIARA)
57 DCGS-A (MIP)....... 0 54,140 0 54,140
59 TROJAN (MIP)....... 0 6,542 0 6,542
61 CI HUMINT AUTO 0 3,860 0 3,860
REPRTING AND
COLL(CHARCS)......
ELECT EQUIP--
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(EW)
68 FAMILY OF 0 14,847 0 14,847
PERSISTENT
SURVEILLANCE
CAPABILITIE.......
69 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/ 0 19,535 0 19,535
SECURITY
COUNTERMEASURES...
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL SURV.
(TAC SURV)
84 COMPUTER 0 2,601 0 2,601
BALLISTICS: LHMBC
XM32..............
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL C2
SYSTEMS
87 FIRE SUPPORT C2 0 48 0 48
FAMILY............
94 MANEUVER CONTROL 0 252 0 252
SYSTEM (MCS)......
ELECT EQUIP--
AUTOMATION
101 AUTOMATED DATA 0 652 0 652
PROCESSING EQUIP..
CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE
EQUIPMENT
111 BASE DEFENSE 0 4,035 0 4,035
SYSTEMS (BDS).....
COMBAT SERVICE
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
131 FORCE PROVIDER..... 12 53,800 12 53,800
133 CARGO AERIAL DEL & 0 700 0 700
PERSONNEL
PARACHUTE SYSTEM..
MATERIAL HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
159 FAMILY OF FORKLIFTS 0 10,486 0 10,486
OTHER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
169 RAPID EQUIPPING 0 8,500 0 8,500
SOLDIER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.........
TOTAL OTHER 1,203 1,205,596 1,203 1,205,596
PROCUREMENT, ARMY.
JOINT IMPR
EXPLOSIVE DEV
DEFEAT FUND
FORCE TRAINING
3 TRAIN THE FORCE.... 0 7,850 0 7,850
JIEDDO DEVICE
DEFEAT
2 DEFEAT THE DEVICE.. 0 77,600 0 77,600
NETWORK ATTACK
1 ATTACK THE NETWORK. 0 219,550 -4,464 0 215,086
Adjustment due to [-4,464]
low execution in
prior years.....
STAFF AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
4 OPERATIONS......... 0 188,271 -43,807 0 144,464
Maintain prior [-43,807]
year funding
level...........
TOTAL JOINT IMPR 0 493,271 -48,271 0 445,000
EXPLOSIVE DEV
DEFEAT FUND.......
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
OTHER AIRCRAFT
26 STUASL0 UAV........ 3 55,000 3 55,000
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
30 AV-8 SERIES........ 0 41,365 0 41,365
32 F-18 SERIES........ 0 8,000 0 8,000
37 EP-3 SERIES........ 0 6,300 0 6,300
47 SPECIAL PROJECT 0 14,198 0 14,198
AIRCRAFT..........
51 COMMON ECM 0 72,700 0 72,700
EQUIPMENT.........
52 COMMON AVIONICS 0 13,988 0 13,988
CHANGES...........
59 V-22 (TILT/ROTOR 0 4,900 0 4,900
ACFT) OSPREY......
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT
EQUIP & FACILITIES
65 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL 0 943 0 943
FACILITIES........
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 3 217,394 3 217,394
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
WEAPONS
PROCUREMENT, NAVY
TACTICAL MISSILES
10 LASER MAVERICK..... 0 3,344 0 3,344
TOTAL WEAPONS 0 3,344 0 3,344
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
1 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 9,715 0 9,715
BOMBS.............
2 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, 0 11,108 0 11,108
ALL TYPES.........
3 MACHINE GUN 0 3,603 0 3,603
AMMUNITION........
6 AIR EXPENDABLE 0 11,982 0 11,982
COUNTERMEASURES...
11 OTHER SHIP GUN 0 4,674 0 4,674
AMMUNITION........
12 SMALL ARMS & 0 3,456 0 3,456
LANDING PARTY AMMO
13 PYROTECHNIC AND 0 1,989 0 1,989
DEMOLITION........
14 AMMUNITION LESS 0 4,674 0 4,674
THAN $5 MILLION...
MARINE CORPS
AMMUNITION
20 120MM, ALL TYPES... 0 10,719 0 10,719
23 ROCKETS, ALL TYPES. 0 3,993 0 3,993
24 ARTILLERY, ALL 0 67,200 0 67,200
TYPES.............
26 FUZE, ALL TYPES.... 0 3,299 0 3,299
25 DEMOLITION 0 518 0 518
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.............
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 0 136,930 0 136,930
OF AMMO, NAVY & MC
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
CIVIL ENGINEERING
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
135 PASSENGER CARRYING 0 186 0 186
VEHICLES..........
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
160A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 12,000 0 12,000
TOTAL OTHER 0 12,186 0 12,186
PROCUREMENT, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT, MARINE
CORPS
GUIDED MISSILES
10 JAVELIN............ 0 7,679 0 7,679
OTHER SUPPORT
13 MODIFICATION KITS.. 0 10,311 0 10,311
COMMAND AND CONTROL
SYSTEMS
14 UNIT OPERATIONS 0 8,221 0 8,221
CENTER............
OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
18 MODIFICATION KITS.. 0 3,600 0 3,600
COMMAND AND CONTROL
SYSTEM (NON-TEL)
19 ITEMS UNDER $5 0 8,693 0 8,693
MILLION (COMM &
ELEC).............
INTELL/COMM
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
27 RQ-11 UAV.......... 0 3,430 0 3,430
MATERIALS HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
52 PHYSICAL SECURITY 0 7,000 0 7,000
EQUIPMENT.........
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, 0 48,934 0 48,934
MARINE CORPS......
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
OTHER AIRCRAFT
15 MQ-9............... 0 13,500 0 13,500
OTHER AIRCRAFT
44 C-130.............. 0 1,410 0 1,410
56 H-60............... 0 39,300 0 39,300
58 HC/MC-130 0 5,690 0 5,690
MODIFICATIONS.....
61 MQ-9 MODS.......... 0 69,000 0 69,000
TOTAL AIRCRAFT 0 128,900 0 128,900
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE
TACTICAL
6 PREDATOR HELLFIRE 1,811 280,902 1,811 280,902
MISSILE...........
7 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 63 2,520 63 2,520
CLASS IV
10 AGM-65D MAVERICK... 0 5,720 0 5,720
TOTAL MISSILE 1,874 289,142 1,874 289,142
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
CARTRIDGES
2 CARTRIDGES......... 0 8,371 0 8,371
BOMBS
4 GENERAL PURPOSE 0 17,031 0 17,031
BOMBS.............
6 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK 5,953 184,412 5,953 184,412
MUNITION..........
FLARES
12 FLARES............. 0 11,064 0 11,064
FUZES
13 FUZES.............. 0 7,996 0 7,996
TOTAL PROCUREMENT 5,953 228,874 5,953 228,874
OF AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE.............
OTHER PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
SPCL COMM-
ELECTRONICS
PROJECTS
25 GENERAL INFORMATION 0 3,953 0 3,953
TECHNOLOGY........
27 MOBILITY COMMAND 0 2,000 0 2,000
AND CONTROL.......
AIR FORCE
COMMUNICATIONS
42 USCENTCOM.......... 0 10,000 0 10,000
ORGANIZATION AND
BASE
52 TACTICAL C-E 0 4,065 0 4,065
EQUIPMENT.........
56 BASE COMM 0 15,400 0 15,400
INFRASTRUCTURE....
PERSONAL SAFETY &
RESCUE EQUIP
58 NIGHT VISION 0 3,580 0 3,580
GOGGLES...........
59 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 3,407 0 3,407
MILLION...........
BASE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
62 ENGINEERING AND EOD 0 46,790 0 46,790
EQUIPMENT.........
64 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT. 0 400 0 400
65 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 0 9,800 0 9,800
MILLION...........
SPECIAL SUPPORT
PROJECTS
71 DEFENSE SPACE 0 28,070 0 28,070
RECONNAISSANCE
PROG..............
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
71A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 3,732,499 0 3,732,499
TOTAL OTHER 0 3,859,964 0 3,859,964
PROCUREMENT, AIR
FORCE.............
PROCUREMENT,
DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT,
DISA
8 TELEPORT PROGRAM... 0 1,940 0 1,940
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
40A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS 0 35,482 0 35,482
AVIATION PROGRAMS
41 MC-12.............. 0 5,000 0 5,000
AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
56 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M 746,066 35,299 746,066 35,299
OTHER PROCUREMENT
PROGRAMS
61 SPECIAL PROGRAMS... 1 15,160 1 15,160
63 WARRIOR SYSTEMS 50 15,000 50 15,000
<$5M..............
68 OPERATIONAL 3 104,537 3 104,537
ENHANCEMENTS......
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, 746,120 212,418 746,120 212,418
DEFENSE-WIDE......
TOTAL PROCUREMENT.. 755,430 7,257,270 -48,271 755,430 7,208,999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
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)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, ARMY
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 13,018 13,018
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
2 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 239,118 40,000 279,118
..................... Basic research program [40,000]
increase.
3 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 72,603 72,603
INITIATIVES.
4 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY 100,340 100,340
RESEARCH CENTERS.
..................... SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH. 425,079 40,000 465,079
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
5 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY..... 28,314 28,314
6 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC 38,374 38,374
SURVIVABILITY.
7 0602122A TRACTOR HIP.............. 6,879 6,879
8 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY...... 56,884 56,884
9 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 19,243 19,243
TECHNOLOGY.
10 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY....... 45,053 45,053
11 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS 29,428 29,428
TECHNOLOGY.
12 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 27,862 27,862
SIMULATION.
13 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 68,839 68,839
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY.
14 0602618A BALLISTIAG TECHNOLOGY.... 92,801 92,801
15 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND 3,866 3,866
EQUIPMENT DEFEATING
TECHNOLOGY.
16 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 5,487 5,487
PROGRAM.
17 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 48,340 48,340
TECHNOLOGY.
18 0602705A ELECTRONIAG AND 55,301 55,301
ELECTRONIC DEVICES.
19 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY.. 33,807 33,807
20 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS...... 25,068 25,068
21 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING 23,681 23,681
TECHNOLOGY.
22 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 20,850 20,850
TECHNOLOGY.
23 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, 36,160 36,160
COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY.
24 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE 12,656 12,656
TECHNOLOGY.
25 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING 63,409 63,409
TECHNOLOGY.
26 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/ 24,735 24,735
TRAINING TECHNOLOGY.
27 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY.... 35,795 35,795
28 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY....... 76,853 76,853
..................... SUBTOTAL, APPLIED 879,685 879,685
RESEARCH.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
29 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED 46,973 46,973
TECHNOLOGY.
30 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED 69,584 69,584
TECHNOLOGY.
31 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED 89,736 89,736
TECHNOLOGY.
32 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 57,663 57,663
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
33 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 113,071 113,071
AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
34 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION 5,554 5,554
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
35 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND 12,636 12,636
TRAINING ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
37 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE............. 7,502 7,502
38 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING 17,425 17,425
& SIMULATION SYSTEMS.
39 0603020A TRACTOR ROSE............. 11,912 11,912
40 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM-- 27,520 27,520
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
41 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL............. 2,381 2,381
42 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS............. 2,431 2,431
43 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 26,874 26,874
TECHNOLOGY.
44 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET 49,449 49,449
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
45 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE............. 10,999 10,999
46 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE 177,159 -10,000 167,159
COMPUTING MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
..................... Encourage use of [-10,000]
commercial technology.
47 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 13,993 13,993
BARRIER ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
48 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 5,105 5,105
PROGRAM.
49 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED 40,929 40,929
TECHNOLOGY.
50 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 10,727 10,727
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
51 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING 20,145 20,145
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
52 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL 38,163 38,163
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND
SENSOR TECHNOLOGY.
53 0603794A C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY... 37,816 37,816
..................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 895,747 -10,000 885,747
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
54 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE 10,347 10,347
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION.
55 0603308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS 25,061 25,061
INTEGRATION.
56 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 49,636 49,636
BARRIER--ADV DEV.
57 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND 13,426 13,426
TARGET DEFEATING SYS-ADV
DEV.
58 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER 46,749 46,749
AMMUNITION.
60 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 6,258 6,258
SURVIVABILITY.
61 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC 13,472 13,472
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--ADV
DEV.
62 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS 7,292 7,292
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
63 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 8,813 8,813
TECHNOLOGY--DEM/VAL.
65 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND 6,075 6,075
DEVELOPMENT.
67 0603804A LOGISTIAG AND ENGINEER 21,233 21,233
EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV.
68 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV. 31,962 31,962
69 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--ADVANCED 22,194 22,194
DEVELOPMENT.
71 0604100A ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES. 9,805 9,805
72 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 40,917 40,917
INITIATIVES.
73 0604120A ASSURED POSITIONING, 30,058 30,058
NAVIGATION AND TIMING
(PNT).
74 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION 155,361 155,361
CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2-
INTERCEPT (IFPC2).
..................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 498,659 498,659
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
76 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONIAG........ 12,939 12,939
78 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 18,843 18,843
DEVELOPMENT.
79 0604280A JOINT TACTICAL RADIO..... 9,861 9,861
80 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING 8,763 8,763
VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR).
81 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS 4,309 4,309
SYSTEM.
82 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE............. 15,138 15,138
83 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS. 74,128 2,500 76,628
..................... Transfer from WTCV..... [2,500]
85 0604611A JAVELIN.................. 3,945 3,945
87 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL...... 10,076 10,076
88 0604641A TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND 40,374 40,374
VEHICLE (TUGV).
89 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS--ENG 67,582 67,582
DEV.
90 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, 1,763 1,763
AND EQUIPMENT.
91 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING 27,155 27,155
DEVICES--ENG DEV.
92 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, 24,569 24,569
CONTROL AND
INTELLIGENCE--ENG DEV.
93 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION 23,364 23,364
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
94 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT 8,960 8,960
DEVELOPMENT.
95 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE 9,138 9,138
SIMULATIONS (DIS)--ENG
DEV.
96 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL 21,622 21,622
TRAINER (CATT) CORE.
97 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, 99,242 99,242
INTEGRATION AND
EVALUATION.
98 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS-- 21,379 21,379
ENG DEV.
99 0604804A LOGISTIAG AND ENGINEER 48,339 48,339
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
100 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, 2,726 2,726
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS--
ENG DEV.
101 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL 45,412 45,412
BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
102 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER-- 55,215 55,215
ENG DEV.
104 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & 163,643 163,643
CONTROL HARDWARE &
SOFTWARE.
105 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT........ 12,309 12,309
106 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE 15,700 15,700
BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS).
107 0604823A FIREFINDER............... 6,243 6,243
108 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR 18,776 18,776
DEM/VAL.
109 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--EMD... 1,953 1,953
110 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 67,358 67,358
DEVELOPMENT.
111 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 136,011 -50,000 86,011
PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A).
..................... Restructure program.... [-50,000]
112 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE 230,210 230,210
VEHICLE (AMPV).
113 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 13,357 13,357
CENTER (JTNC).
114 0605031A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 18,055 18,055
(JTN).
115 0605032A TRACTOR TIRE............. 5,677 5,677
116 0605035A COMMON INFRARED 77,570 24,000 101,570
COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM).
..................... Army UPL for AH-64 ASE [24,000]
development.
117 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY 18,112 60,000 78,112
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Army UPL for AH-64 ASE [60,000]
development.
118 0605350A WIN-T INCREMENT 3--FULL 39,700 39,700
NETWORKING.
119 0605380A AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 12,987 -6,832 6,155
SYSTEM (JTRS).
..................... Only for SALT program.. [-6,832]
120 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 88,866 88,866
MISSILE (JAGM).
121 0605456A PAC-3/MSE MISSILE........ 2,272 2,272
122 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND 214,099 214,099
MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD).
123 0605625A MANNED GROUND VEHICLE.... 49,247 49,247
124 0605626A AERIAL COMMON SENSOR..... 2 2
125 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES 10,599 10,599
INTEGRATION (MIP).
126 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 32,486 32,486
VEHICLE (JLTV)
ENGINEERING AND
MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
127 0605830A AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT 8,880 8,880
EQUIPMENT.
128 0210609A PALADIN INTEGRATED 152,288 152,288
MANAGEMENT (PIM).
129 0303032A TROJAN--RH12............. 5,022 5,022
130 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 12,686 12,686
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM 2,068,950 29,668 2,098,618
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
131 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR 20,035 20,035
DEVELOPMENT.
132 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS 16,684 16,684
DEVELOPMENT.
133 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 62,580 62,580
134 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER....... 20,853 20,853
135 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL..... 205,145 205,145
136 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION 19,430 19,430
PROGRAM.
138 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND 277,646 277,646
FACILITIES.
139 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST 51,550 51,550
INSTRUMENTATION AND
TARGETS.
140 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY 33,246 33,246
ANALYSIS.
141 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION... 4,760 4,760
142 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO 8,303 8,303
RDT&E ACTIVITIES.
143 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 20,403 20,403
144 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN 10,396 10,396
ITEMS.
145 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL 49,337 49,337
TESTING.
146 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER... 52,694 52,694
147 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD 938 938
COLLABORATION & INTEG.
148 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES... 60,319 60,319
149 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION 28,478 28,478
ACTIVITIES.
150 0605805A MUNITIONS 32,604 -8,000 24,604
STANDARDIZATION,
EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY.
..................... Under execution of [-8,000]
prior year funds.
151 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 3,186 3,186
TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT.
152 0605898A MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D....... 48,955 48,955
..................... SUBTOTAL, RDT&E 1,027,542 -8,000 1,019,542
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
154 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 18,397 18,397
PROGRAM.
155 0603813A TRACTOR PULL............. 9,461 9,461
156 0607131A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 4,945 4,945
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS.
157 0607133A TRACTOR SMOKE............ 7,569 7,569
158 0607135A APACHE PRODUCT 69,862 69,862
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
159 0607136A BLACKHAWK PRODUCT 66,653 66,653
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
160 0607137A CHINOOK PRODUCT 37,407 37,407
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
161 0607138A FIXED WING PRODUCT 1,151 1,151
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
162 0607139A IMPROVED TURBINE ENGINE 51,164 51,164
PROGRAM.
163 0607140A EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES 2,481 2,481
FROM NIE.
164 0607141A LOGISTIAG AUTOMATION..... 1,673 1,673
166 0607665A FAMILY OF BIOMETRIAG..... 13,237 13,237
167 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT 105,816 105,816
IMPROVEMENT.
169 0202429A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT-- 40,565 40,565
COCOM EXERCISE.
171 0203728A JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP 35,719 35,719
OPERATION COORDINATION
SYSTEM (JADOAG).
172 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE 257,167 40,000 297,167
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
..................... Stryker modification [40,000]
and improvement.
173 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM.. 15,445 15,445
175 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 364 364
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
176 0203758A DIGITIZATION............. 4,361 4,361
177 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE 3,154 3,154
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM.
178 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT 35,951 35,951
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
179 0203808A TRACTOR CARD............. 34,686 34,686
180 0205402A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE-- 10,750 10,750
OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV.
181 0205410A MATERIALS HANDLING 402 402
EQUIPMENT.
183 0205456A LOWER TIER AIR AND 64,159 64,159
MISSILE DEFENSE (AMD)
SYSTEM.
184 0205778A GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH 17,527 17,527
ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS).
185 0208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND 20,515 20,515
SYSTEM.
187 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE 12,368 12,368
ACTIVITIES.
188 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS 31,154 31,154
SECURITY PROGRAM.
189 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 12,274 12,274
SYSTEM.
190 0303142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT 9,355 9,355
(SPACE).
191 0303150A WWMCAG/GLOBAL COMMAND AND 7,053 7,053
CONTROL SYSTEM.
193 0305179A INTEGRATED BROADCAST 750 750
SERVICE (IBS).
194 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 13,225 13,225
VEHICLES.
195 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 22,870 22,870
SYSTEMS.
196 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 25,592 25,592
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
199 0305233A RQ-7 UAV................. 7,297 7,297
201 0310349A WIN-T INCREMENT 2-- 3,800 3,800
INITIAL NETWORKING.
202 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL 48,442 48,442
PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES.
9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 4,536 4,536
..................... SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL 1,129,297 40,000 1,169,297
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 6,924,959 91,668 7,016,627
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, NAVY
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 116,196 116,196
INITIATIVES.
2 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 19,126 19,126
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
3 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 451,606 55,000 506,606
..................... Basic research program [55,000]
increase.
..................... SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH. 586,928 55,000 641,928
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
4 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED 68,723 68,723
RESEARCH.
5 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED 154,963 154,963
RESEARCH.
6 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING 49,001 49,001
FORCE TECHNOLOGY.
7 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED 42,551 42,551
RESEARCH.
8 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT 45,056 45,056
APPLIED RESEARCH.
9 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 115,051 115,051
APPLIED RESEARCH.
10 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING 42,252 42,252
ENVIRONMENT APPLIED
RESEARCH.
11 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 6,119 6,119
APPLIED RESEARCH.
12 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED 123,750 18,600 142,350
RESEARCH.
..................... Accelerate undersea [18,600]
warfare research.
13 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 179,686 179,686
APPLIED RESEARCH.
14 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 37,418 37,418
WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH.
..................... SUBTOTAL, APPLIED 864,570 18,600 883,170
RESEARCH.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
15 0603114N POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED 37,093 37,093
TECHNOLOGY.
16 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED 38,044 38,044
TECHNOLOGY.
17 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 34,899 34,899
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
18 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 137,562 137,562
DEMONSTRATION (ATD).
19 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 12,745 12,745
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
20 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 258,860 -10,000 248,860
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Capable manpower, [-10,000]
enablers, and sea
basing.
21 0603680N MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 57,074 57,074
PROGRAM.
22 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION 4,807 4,807
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
23 0603747N UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED 13,748 13,748
TECHNOLOGY.
24 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING 66,041 66,041
EXPERIMENTS AND
DEMONSTRATIONS.
25 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 1,991 1,991
WARFARE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 662,864 -10,000 652,864
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
26 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL 41,832 41,832
APPLICATIONS.
27 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY... 5,404 5,404
28 0603237N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND 3,086 3,086
AND CONTROL.
29 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS......... 11,643 11,643
30 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.. 5,555 5,555
31 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE 3,087 3,087
RECONNAISSANCE.
32 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS 1,636 1,636
TECHNOLOGY.
33 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER 118,588 118,588
MINE COUNTERMEASURES.
34 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO 77,385 77,385
DEFENSE.
35 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS 8,348 8,348
DEVELOPMENT.
36 0603525N PILOT FISH............... 123,246 123,246
37 0603527N RETRACT LARCH............ 28,819 28,819
38 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER.......... 112,678 112,678
39 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL..... 710 710
40 0603553N SURFACE ASW.............. 1,096 1,096
41 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM 87,160 11,000 98,160
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Accelerate unmanned [11,000]
underwater vehicle
development.
42 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL 10,371 10,371
WARFARE SYSTEMS.
43 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED 11,888 11,888
DESIGN.
44 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & 4,332 4,332
FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
45 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER 482,040 482,040
SYSTEMS.
46 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE 25,904 25,904
MACHINERY SYSTEMS.
47 0603576N CHALK EAGLE.............. 511,802 511,802
48 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP 118,416 118,416
(LAG).
49 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION 35,901 35,901
50 0603595N OHIO REPLACEMENT......... 971,393 971,393
51 0603596N LAG MISSION MODULES...... 206,149 206,149
52 0603597N AUTOMATED TEST AND RE- 8,000 8,000
TEST (ATRT).
53 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS... 7,678 7,678
54 0603611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT 219,082 219,082
VEHICLES.
55 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND 623 623
COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM.
56 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 18,260 18,260
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
57 0603658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT... 76,247 76,247
58 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING 4,520 4,520
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
59 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. 20,711 20,711
60 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM...... 47,761 47,761
61 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT... 5,226 5,226
62 0603734N CHALK CORAL.............. 182,771 182,771
63 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC 3,866 3,866
PRODUCTIVITY.
64 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE............ 360,065 360,065
65 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA............ 237,416 237,416
66 0603751N RETRACT ELM.............. 37,944 37,944
67 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN........... 47,312 47,312
68 0603787N SPECIAL PROCESSES........ 17,408 17,408
69 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND 9,359 9,359
DEVELOPMENT.
70 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY... 887 887
71 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 29,448 29,448
TESTING.
72 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH 91,479 91,479
AND LANDING SYSTEMS--DEM/
VAL.
73 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND 67,360 67,360
ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS.
74 0604112N GERALD R. FORD CLASS 48,105 79,100 127,205
NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER
(CVN 78--80).
..................... Full ship shock trials [79,100]
for CVN-78.
75 0604122N REMOTE MINEHUNTING SYSTEM 20,089 20,089
(RMS).
76 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL 18,969 18,969
INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
(TADIRCM).
77 0604279N ASE SELF-PROTECTION 7,874 7,874
OPTIMIZATION.
78 0604292N MH-XX.................... 5,298 5,298
79 0604454N LX (R)................... 46,486 29,000 75,486
..................... Accelerate LX (R)...... [29,000]
80 0604653N JOINT COUNTER RADIO 3,817 3,817
CONTROLLED IED
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(JCREW).
81 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS 9,595 9,595
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
82 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 29,581 29,581
WARFARE (SEW)
ARCHITECTURE/ENGINEERING
SUPPORT.
83 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE 285,849 285,849
WARFARE WEAPON
DEVELOPMENT.
84 0605812M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 36,656 36,656
VEHICLE (JLTV)
ENGINEERING AND
MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
85 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT-- 9,835 9,835
MIP.
86 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 580 580
DEVELOPMENT--MIP.
..................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 5,024,626 119,100 5,143,726
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
87 0603208N TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT. 21,708 21,708
88 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT... 11,101 11,101
89 0604214N AV-8B AIRCRAFT--ENG DEV.. 39,878 39,878
90 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT.... 53,059 53,059
91 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER 21,358 21,358
UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT.
92 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT 4,515 4,515
ENGINEERING.
93 0604221N P-3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM 1,514 1,514
94 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM... 5,875 5,875
95 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM.. 81,553 81,553
96 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE......... 272,149 272,149
97 0604245N H-1 UPGRADES............. 27,235 27,235
98 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS.. 35,763 35,763
99 0604262N V-22A.................... 87,918 87,918
100 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS 12,679 12,679
DEVELOPMENT.
101 0604269N EA-18.................... 56,921 56,921
102 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 23,685 23,685
DEVELOPMENT.
103 0604273N EXECUTIVE HELO 507,093 507,093
DEVELOPMENT.
104 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 411,767 411,767
(NGJ).
105 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 25,071 25,071
SYSTEM--NAVY (JTRS-NAVY).
106 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT 443,433 443,433
SYSTEM ENGINEERING.
107 0604311N LPD-17 CLASS SYSTEMS 747 747
INTEGRATION.
108 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB) 97,002 97,002
109 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE 129,649 129,649
IMPROVEMENTS.
110 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM............. 11,647 11,647
111 0604376M MARINE AIR GROUND TASK 2,778 2,778
FORCE (MAGTF) ELECTRONIC
WARFARE (EW) FOR
AVIATION.
112 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE 23,695 23,695
CONTROL--COUNTER AIR
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
113 0604404N UNMANNED CARRIER LAUNCHED 134,708 -134,708 0
AIRBORNE SURVEILLANCE
AND STRIKE (UCLASS)
SYSTEM.
..................... Excess FY15 funds buy [-134,708]
down FY16 requirements.
114 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER 43,914 43,914
SENSORS.
115 0604503N SSN-688 AND TRIDENT 109,908 109,908
MODERNIZATION.
116 0604504N AIR CONTROL.............. 57,928 57,928
117 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION 120,217 120,217
SYSTEMS.
118 0604522N AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 241,754 241,754
RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM.
119 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN........... 122,556 122,556
120 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL 48,213 12,000 60,213
WARFARE SYSTEM.
..................... Accelerate submarine [12,000]
combat and weapon
system modernization.
121 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ 49,712 49,712
LIVE FIRE T&E.
122 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER 4,096 4,096
RESOURCES.
123 0604580N VIRGINIA PAYLOAD MODULE 167,719 167,719
(VPM).
124 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT......... 15,122 15,122
125 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO 33,738 33,738
DEVELOPMENT.
126 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 8,123 8,123
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
127 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, 7,686 7,686
SIMULATION, AND HUMAN
FACTORS.
128 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON 405 405
SYSTEMS.
129 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT 153,836 153,836
& CONTROL).
130 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE 99,619 99,619
(ENGAGE: HARD KILL).
131 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE 116,798 116,798
(ENGAGE: SOFT KILL/EW).
132 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING. 4,353 4,353
133 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT...... 9,443 9,443
134 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM..... 32,469 32,469
135 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 537,901 -12,500 525,401
(JSF)--EMD.
..................... F-35B Block 4 [-12,500]
development early to
need.
136 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 504,736 -12,500 492,236
(JSF)--EMD.
..................... F-35C Block 4 [-12,500]
development early to
need.
137 0604810M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 59,265 59,265
FOLLOW ON DEVELOPMENT--
MARINE CORPS.
138 0604810N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 47,579 47,579
FOLLOW ON DEVELOPMENT--
NAVY.
139 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 5,914 5,914
DEVELOPMENT.
140 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 89,711 89,711
DEVELOPMENT.
141 0605212N CH-53K RDTE.............. 632,092 632,092
142 0605220N SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR 7,778 7,778
(SSC).
143 0605450N JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND 25,898 25,898
MISSILE (JAGM).
144 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 247,929 247,929
AIRCRAFT (MMA).
145 0204202N DDG-1000................. 103,199 103,199
146 0304231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM-- 998 998
MIP.
147 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 17,785 17,785
SYSTEMS.
148 0305124N SPECIAL APPLICATIONS 35,905 35,905
PROGRAM.
..................... SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM 6,308,800 -147,708 6,161,092
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
149 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR 30,769 30,769
DEVELOPMENT.
150 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS 112,606 112,606
DEVELOPMENT.
151 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 61,234 61,234
152 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND 6,995 6,995
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION.
153 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 4,011 4,011
SUPPORT--NAVY.
154 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES 48,563 48,563
155 0605285N NEXT GENERATION FIGHTER.. 5,000 5,000
157 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION 925 925
SERVICES.
158 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & 78,143 78,143
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
159 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL 3,258 3,258
SUPPORT.
160 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND 76,948 76,948
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT.
161 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT 132,122 132,122
SUPPORT.
162 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION 351,912 351,912
SUPPORT.
163 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND 17,985 17,985
EVALUATION CAPABILITY.
164 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 5,316 5,316
WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT.
165 0605867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/ 6,519 6,519
RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT.
166 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE 13,649 13,649
SUPPORT.
..................... SUBTOTAL, MANAGEMENT 955,955 955,955
SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
174 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS 107,039 107,039
SYSTEM SUPPORT.
175 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY 46,506 46,506
PROGRAM.
176 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC 3,900 800 4,700
WARFARE DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Accelerate combat rapid [800]
attack weapon.
177 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC 16,569 16,569
COMMUNICATIONS.
178 0203761N RAPID TECHNOLOGY 18,632 18,632
TRANSITION (RTT).
179 0204136N F/A-18 SQUADRONS......... 133,265 133,265
181 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS 62,867 62,867
(TACTICAL).
182 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT.......... 36,045 36,045
183 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK 25,228 25,228
MISSION PLANNING CENTER
(TMPC).
184 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE 54,218 54,218
SYSTEM.
185 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL 11,335 11,335
SUPPORT UNITS
(DISPLACEMENT CRAFT).
186 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED 80,129 80,129
RADAR (G/ATOR).
187 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING 39,087 39,087
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
188 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT 1,915 1,915
SUPPORT.
189 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 46,609 46,609
READINESS SUPPORT.
190 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT......... 52,708 52,708
191 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS...... 149,997 149,997
192 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM 24,460 24,460
INTEGRATION.
193 0205632N MK-48 ADCAP.............. 42,206 5,500 47,706
..................... Accelerate torpedo [5,500]
upgrades.
194 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS.... 117,759 117,759
195 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER 101,323 101,323
SYSTEMS.
196 0206313M MARINE CORPS 67,763 67,763
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
197 0206335M COMMON AVIATION COMMAND 13,431 13,431
AND CONTROL SYSTEM
(CAC2S).
198 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND 56,769 56,769
COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS
SYSTEMS.
199 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT 20,729 20,729
SERVICES SUPPORT.
200 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ 13,152 13,152
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
SYSTEMS (MIP).
201 0206629M AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT 48,535 48,535
VEHICLE.
202 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES.... 76,016 76,016
203 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 32,172 32,172
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
208 0303109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 53,239 53,239
(SPACE).
209 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT 21,677 21,677
NETWORK ENTERPRISE
SERVICES (CANES).
210 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS 28,102 28,102
SECURITY PROGRAM.
211 0303150M WWMCAG/GLOBAL COMMAND AND 294 294
CONTROL SYSTEM.
213 0305160N NAVY METEOROLOGICAL AND 599 599
OCEAN SENSORS-SPACE
(METOC).
214 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 6,207 6,207
PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES.
215 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 8,550 8,550
VEHICLES.
216 0305205N UAS INTEGRATION AND 41,831 41,831
INTEROPERABILITY.
217 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 1,105 1,105
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
218 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 33,149 33,149
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
219 0305220N RQ-4 UAV................. 227,188 227,188
220 0305231N MQ-8 UAV................. 52,770 52,770
221 0305232M RQ-11 UAV................ 635 635
222 0305233N RQ-7 UAV................. 688 688
223 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL 4,647 4,647
UAS (STUASL0).
224 0305239M RQ-21A................... 6,435 6,435
225 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR 49,145 49,145
DEVELOPMENT.
226 0305242M UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS 9,246 9,246
(UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP).
227 0305421N RQ-4 MODERNIZATION....... 150,854 150,854
228 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION 4,757 4,757
SUPPORT.
229 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON- 24,185 24,185
IF).
231 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY 4,321 4,321
(MARITECH).
231A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 1,252,185 1,252,185
..................... SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL 3,482,173 6,300 3,488,473
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 17,885,916 41,292 17,927,208
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, AF
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 329,721 45,000 374,721
..................... Basic research program [45,000]
increase.
2 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 141,754 141,754
INITIATIVES.
3 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER 13,778 13,778
RESEARCH INITIATIVES.
..................... SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH. 485,253 45,000 530,253
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
4 0602102F MATERIALS................ 125,234 -10,000 115,234
..................... Nanostructured and [-10,000]
biological materials.
5 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE 123,438 123,438
TECHNOLOGIES.
6 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 100,530 100,530
APPLIED RESEARCH.
7 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION..... 182,326 182,326
8 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS........ 147,291 147,291
9 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY......... 116,122 116,122
10 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS... 99,851 99,851
11 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY 115,604 115,604
TECHNOLOGY.
12 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION 164,909 164,909
SCIENCES AND METHODS.
13 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER 42,037 42,037
RESEARCH.
..................... SUBTOTAL, APPLIED 1,217,342 -10,000 1,207,342
RESEARCH.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
14 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR 37,665 37,665
WEAPON SYSTEMS.
15 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND 18,378 18,378
TECHNOLOGY (S&T).
16 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE 42,183 42,183
SENSORS.
17 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/ 100,733 100,733
DEMO.
18 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND 168,821 168,821
POWER TECHNOLOGY.
19 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT 47,032 47,032
TECHNOLOGY.
20 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT 54,897 54,897
TECHNOLOGY.
21 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE 12,853 12,853
SYSTEM (MSSS).
22 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 25,448 25,448
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
23 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS 48,536 48,536
TECHNOLOGY.
24 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS 30,195 30,195
TECHNOLOGY.
25 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 42,630 42,630
PROGRAM.
26 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE 46,414 46,414
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
..................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 675,785 675,785
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
27 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED 5,032 5,032
DEVELOPMENT.
29 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. 4,070 4,070
30 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION 21,790 21,790
TECHNOLOGY.
31 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND 4,736 4,736
DEVELOPMENT.
33 0603830F SPACE SECURITY AND 30,771 30,771
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
34 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL 39,765 39,765
BALLISTIC MISSILE--DEM/
VAL.
36 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE........ 1,246,228 -460,000 786,228
..................... Delayed EMD contract [-460,000]
award.
37 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER...... 3,512 3,512
38 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED 54,637 54,637
TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM
(HDBTDS) PROGRAM.
40 0604422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON. 76,108 76,108
44 0604857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE 6,457 13,500 19,957
SPACE.
..................... Increase to match [13,500]
previous year funding
level.
45 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM.. 246,514 246,514
46 0605230F GROUND BASED STRATEGIC 75,166 75,166
DETERRENT.
49 0207110F NEXT GENERATION AIR 8,830 8,830
DOMINANCE.
50 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG- 14,939 14,939
RANGE RADAR (3DELRR).
51 0305164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL 142,288 142,288
POSITIONING SYSTEM (USER
EQUIPMENT) (SPACE).
52 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS 81,732 15,000 96,732
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
..................... Increase USCC Cyber [15,000]
Operations Technology
Development.
..................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 2,062,575 -431,500 1,631,075
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
55 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE 929 929
DEVELOPMENT.
56 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS 60,256 60,256
ENTERPRISE.
57 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY 5,973 5,973
EQUIPMENT.
58 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB 32,624 32,624
(SDB)--EMD.
59 0604421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS..... 24,208 24,208
60 0604425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 32,374 32,374
SYSTEMS.
61 0604426F SPACE FENCE.............. 243,909 243,909
62 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC 8,358 8,358
ATTACK.
63 0604441F SPACE BASED INFRARED 292,235 292,235
SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD.
64 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE 40,154 40,154
DEVELOPMENT.
65 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS............. 2,506 2,506
66 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT..... 57,678 57,678
67 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS..... 8,187 8,187
68 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES... 15,795 15,795
69 0604800F F-35--EMD................ 589,441 -25,000 564,441
..................... F-35A Block 4 [-25,000]
development early to
need.
71 0604853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH 84,438 84,438
VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE)--
EMD.
72 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF 36,643 36,643
WEAPON.
73 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION.. 142,551 142,551
74 0605213F F-22 MODERNIZATION 140,640 140,640
INCREMENT 3.2B.
75 0605214F GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS 3,598 3,598
FUZE DEVELOPMENT.
76 0605221F KC-46.................... 602,364 -200,000 402,364
..................... Schedule delay and [-200,000]
availability of
unobligated prior year
funds.
77 0605223F ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING.. 11,395 11,395
78 0605229F AGAR HH-60 156,085 156,085
RECAPITALIZATION.
80 0605431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM 228,230 228,230
(SPACE).
81 0605432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE).. 72,084 72,084
82 0605433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM 56,343 56,343
(SPACE).
83 0605458F AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER 47,629 47,629
10.2 RDT&E.
84 0605931F B-2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT 271,961 271,961
SYSTEM.
85 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS 212,121 212,121
MODERNIZATION.
86 0207171F F-15 EPAWSS.............. 186,481 29,500 215,981
..................... NRE for ADCPII upgrade. [28,000]
..................... Flight test support.... [1,500]
87 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION 18,082 18,082
TRAINING.
88 0305176F COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER 993 993
LOCATOR.
89 0307581F NEXTGEN JSTARS........... 44,343 44,343
91 0401319F PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT 102,620 102,620
REPLACEMENT (PAR).
92 0701212F AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEMS... 14,563 14,563
..................... SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM 3,847,791 -195,500 3,652,291
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
93 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR 23,844 23,844
DEVELOPMENT.
94 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT..... 68,302 68,302
95 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE... 34,918 34,918
97 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST 10,476 10,476
& EVALUATION.
98 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION 673,908 673,908
SUPPORT.
99 0605860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH 21,858 21,858
PROGRAM (SPACE).
100 0605864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP). 28,228 28,228
101 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION 40,518 40,518
AND MODERNIZATION--TEST
AND EVALUATION SUPPORT.
102 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT-- 27,895 27,895
TEST AND EVALUATION
SUPPORT.
103 0606017F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND 16,507 16,507
MATURATION.
104 0606116F SPACE TEST AND TRAINING 18,997 18,997
RANGE DEVELOPMENT.
106 0606392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER 185,305 185,305
(SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE.
107 0308602F ENTEPRISE INFORMATION 4,841 4,841
SERVICES (EIS).
108 0702806F ACQUISITION AND 15,357 15,357
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
109 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING... 1,315 1,315
111 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES. 2,315 2,315
..................... SUBTOTAL, MANAGEMENT 1,174,584 1,174,584
SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
112 0603423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM 350,232 350,232
III--OPERATIONAL CONTROL
SEGMENT.
113 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE 10,465 10,465
FLIGHT TRAINING.
114 0604445F WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE... 24,577 24,577
117 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL 69,694 -45,400 24,294
AND PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS).
..................... Restructure program.... [-45,400]
118 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 26,718 26,718
EXECUTIVE AGENCY.
119 0605278F HC/MC-130 RECAP RDT&E.... 10,807 10,807
121 0101113F B-52 SQUADRONS........... 74,520 74,520
122 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE 451 451
MISSILE (ALCM).
123 0101126F B-1B SQUADRONS........... 2,245 2,245
124 0101127F B-2 SQUADRONS............ 108,183 108,183
125 0101213F MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS...... 178,929 178,929
126 0101313F STRAT WAR PLANNING 28,481 28,481
SYSTEM--USSTRATCOM.
127 0101314F NIGHT FIST--USSTRATCOM... 87 87
128 0101316F WORLDWIDE JOINT STRATEGIC 5,315 5,315
COMMUNICATIONS.
131 0105921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO 8,090 8,090
STRATCOM--SPACE
ACTIVITIES.
132 0205219F MQ-9 UAV................. 123,439 123,439
134 0207131F A-10 SQUADRONS........... 0 16,200 16,200
..................... Sustain avionics [16,200]
software development.
135 0207133F F-16 SQUADRONS........... 148,297 148,297
136 0207134F F-15E SQUADRONS.......... 179,283 12,796 192,079
..................... Transfer from [12,796]
procurement.
137 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE 14,860 14,860
SUPPRESSION.
138 0207138F F-22A SQUADRONS.......... 262,552 262,552
139 0207142F F-35 SQUADRONS........... 115,395 115,395
140 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES.... 43,360 43,360
141 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 46,160 46,160
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
143 0207224F COMBAT RESCUE AND 412 412
RECOVERY.
144 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE--PARARESCUE 657 657
145 0207247F AF TENCAP................ 31,428 31,428
146 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS 1,105 1,105
PROCUREMENT.
147 0207253F COMPASS CALL............. 14,249 14,249
148 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 103,942 103,942
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
149 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE 12,793 12,793
STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM).
150 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS 21,193 21,193
CENTER (AOC).
151 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING 559 559
CENTER (CRC).
152 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND 161,812 161,812
CONTROL SYSTEM (AWAAG).
153 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL 6,001 6,001
SYSTEMS.
155 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE 7,793 7,793
SYSTEM ACTIVITIES.
156 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL 12,465 12,465
PARTY-MOD.
157 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK. 1,681 1,681
159 0207452F DCAPES................... 16,796 16,796
161 0207590F SEEK EAGLE............... 21,564 21,564
162 0207601F USAF MODELING AND 24,994 24,994
SIMULATION.
163 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION 6,035 6,035
CENTERS.
164 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND 4,358 4,358
EXERCISES.
165 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS. 55,835 55,835
167 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 12,874 12,874
OPERATIONS.
168 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 7,681 7,681
OPERATIONS.
171 0301017F GLOBAL SENSOR INTEGRATED 5,974 5,974
ON NETWORK (GSIN).
177 0301400F SPACE SUPERIORITY 13,815 13,815
INTELLIGENCE.
178 0302015F E-4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE 80,360 80,360
OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC).
179 0303001F FAMILY OF ADVANCED BLOS 3,907 3,907
TERMINALS (FAB-T).
180 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 75,062 75,062
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK (MEECN).
181 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS 46,599 46,599
SECURITY PROGRAM.
183 0303142F GLOBAL FORCE MANAGEMENT-- 2,470 2,470
DATA INITIATIVE.
186 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT 112,775 112,775
ENTERPRISE.
189 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC 4,235 4,235
MANAGEMENT (GATM).
192 0305110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK 7,879 7,879
(SPACE).
193 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE.......... 29,955 29,955
194 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, 21,485 21,485
APPROACH, AND LANDING
SYSTEM (ATCALS).
195 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS........... 2,515 2,515
198 0305128F SECURITY AND 472 472
INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES.
199 0305145F ARMS CONTROL 12,137 12,137
IMPLEMENTATION.
200 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT 361 361
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
ACTIVITIES.
203 0305173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST 3,162 3,162
AND EVALUATION CENTER.
204 0305174F SPACE INNOVATION, 1,543 1,543
INTEGRATION AND RAPID
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
205 0305179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST 7,860 7,860
SERVICE (IBS).
206 0305182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM 6,902 6,902
(SPACE).
207 0305202F DRAGON U-2............... 34,471 34,471
209 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 50,154 50,154
SYSTEMS.
210 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE 13,245 13,245
SYSTEMS.
211 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 22,784 22,784
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
212 0305219F MQ-1 PREDATOR A UAV...... 716 716
213 0305220F RQ-4 UAV................. 208,053 208,053
214 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC 21,587 21,587
COLLABORATIVE TARGETING.
215 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK 43,986 43,986
EXECUTIVE AGENT (CDL EA).
216 0305238F NATO AGS................. 197,486 -59,086 138,400
..................... Transfer from [-59,086]
procurement for NATO
AWACS.
217 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS 28,434 28,434
ENTERPRISE.
218 0305265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT.... 180,902 180,902
220 0305614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM..... 81,911 81,911
221 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION.. 3,149 3,149
222 0305913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM 14,447 14,447
(SPACE).
223 0305940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 20,077 20,077
OPERATIONS.
225 0308699F SHARED EARLY WARNING 853 853
(SEW).
226 0401115F C-130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON... 33,962 33,962
227 0401119F C-5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS 42,864 42,864
(IF).
228 0401130F C-17 AIRCRAFT (IF)....... 54,807 54,807
229 0401132F C-130J PROGRAM........... 31,010 31,010
230 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR 6,802 6,802
COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM).
231 0401219F KC-10S................... 1,799 1,799
232 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT 48,453 48,453
AIRLIFT.
233 0401318F CV-22.................... 36,576 36,576
235 0408011F SPECIAL TACTIAG / COMBAT 7,963 7,963
CONTROL.
236 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON- 1,525 1,525
IF).
237 0708610F LOGISTIAG INFORMATION 112,676 -31,000 81,676
TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT).
..................... Program growth......... [-31,000]
238 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS 12,657 12,657
DEVELOPMENT.
239 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING.... 1,836 1,836
240 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL 121 121
ACTIVITIES.
241 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY 5,911 5,911
AGENCY.
242 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION 3,604 3,604
PROGRAM.
243 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION. 4,598 4,598
244 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND 1,103 1,103
ANALYSIS AGENCY.
246 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 101,840 101,840
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
246A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 12,780,142 165,000 12,945,142
..................... Three program increases [165,000]
..................... SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL 17,010,339 58,510 17,068,849
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 26,473,669 -533,490 25,940,179
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
.....................
..................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, DW
..................... BASIC RESEARCH
1 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH 38,436 38,436
INITIATIVE.
2 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 333,119 333,119
3 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH 42,022 42,022
INITIATIVES.
4 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL 56,544 56,544
RESEARCH SCIENCE.
5 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE 49,453 49,453
EDUCATION PROGRAM.
6 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK 25,834 25,834
COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY
INSTITUTIONS.
7 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 46,261 46,261
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
..................... SUBTOTAL, BASIC RESEARCH. 591,669 591,669
.....................
..................... APPLIED RESEARCH
8 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS 19,352 19,352
TECHNOLOGY.
9 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY.... 114,262 114,262
10 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY 51,026 51,026
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
11 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE 48,226 -15,000 33,226
ADVANCEMENT OF S&T
PRIORITIES.
..................... General program [-15,000]
decrease.
12 0602303E INFORMATION & 356,358 356,358
COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY.
14 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE 29,265 29,265
DEFENSE.
15 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 208,111 208,111
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
16 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH.. 13,727 13,727
18 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY...... 314,582 -5,000 309,582
..................... Multi-azimuth defense [-5,000]
fast intercept round
engagement system.
19 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL 220,115 -10,000 210,115
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Decrease in program [-10,000]
growth.
20 0602716E ELECTRONIAG TECHNOLOGY... 174,798 174,798
21 0602718BR WEAPONS OF MASS 155,415 155,415
DESTRUCTION DEFEAT
TECHNOLOGIES.
22 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 8,824 8,824
INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED
RESEARCH.
23 1160401BB SOF TECHNOLOGY 37,517 37,517
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... SUBTOTAL, APPLIED 1,751,578 -30,000 1,721,578
RESEARCH.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
24 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED 25,915 25,915
TECHNOLOGY.
26 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 71,171 71,171
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
27 0603133D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE 21,782 21,782
TESTING.
28 0603160BR COUNTERPROLIFERATION 290,654 290,654
INITIATIVES--PROLIFERATI
ON PREVENTION AND DEFEAT.
30 0603176C ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 12,139 12,139
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.
31 0603177C DISCRIMINATION SENSOR 28,200 28,200
TECHNOLOGY.
32 0603178C WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY....... 45,389 30,000 75,389
..................... Fiber laser prototype [20,000]
development.
..................... Divert attitude control [10,000]
tech to support MOKV.
33 0603179C ADVANCED C4ISR........... 9,876 9,876
34 0603180C ADVANCED RESEARCH........ 17,364 17,364
35 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS 18,802 18,802
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
36 0603264S AGILE TRANSPORTATION FOR 2,679 2,679
THE 21ST CENTURY (AT21)--
THEATER CAPABILITY.
37 0603274C SPECIAL PROGRAM--MDA 64,708 64,708
TECHNOLOGY.
38 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE 185,043 185,043
SYSTEMS.
39 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND 126,692 126,692
TECHNOLOGY.
40 0603288D8Z ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS..... 14,645 -5,000 9,645
..................... General program [-5,000]
decrease.
41 0603289D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 59,830 59,830
ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS.
42 0603294C COMMON KILL VEHICLE 46,753 20,000 66,753
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Increase for Multiple [20,000]
Object Kill Vehicle.
43 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 140,094 140,094
DEFENSE PROGRAM--
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
44 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH............ 118,666 118,666
45 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED 43,966 43,966
TECHNOLOGY.
46 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY 141,540 -10,000 131,540
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
..................... General program [-10,000]
decrease.
47 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS 6,980 6,980
CAPABILITIES.
50 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE 157,056 157,056
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
51 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES 33,515 33,515
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
52 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTIAG R&D 16,543 16,543
TECHNOLOGY
DEMONSTRATIONS.
53 0603713S DEPLOYMENT AND 29,888 29,888
DISTRIBUTION ENTERPRISE
TECHNOLOGY.
54 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL 65,836 65,836
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
55 0603720S MICROELECTRONIAG 79,037 79,037
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
AND SUPPORT.
56 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM 9,626 9,626
57 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONIAG 79,021 79,021
TECHNOLOGIES.
58 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND 201,335 201,335
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
59 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE 452,861 -20,000 432,861
TECHNOLOGY.
..................... Decrease to reduce [-20,000]
inefficiency.
60 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY........ 257,127 257,127
61 0603769SE DISTRIBUTED LEARNING 10,771 10,771
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
62 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 15,202 15,202
INSTITUTE.
63 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL 90,500 -20,000 70,500
PROJECTS.
..................... Program decrease....... [-20,000]
66 0603833D8Z ENGINEERING SCIENCE & 18,377 18,377
TECHNOLOGY.
67 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE 82,589 82,589
& TECHNOLOGY.
68 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY 37,420 37,420
CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT.
69 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS............. 42,488 42,488
70 1160402BB SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 57,741 57,741
DEVELOPMENT.
..................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 3,229,821 -5,000 3,224,821
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT AND
PROTOTYPES
71 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 31,710 31,710
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P.
73 0603600D8Z WALKOFF.................. 90,567 90,567
74 0603714D8Z ADVANCED SENSORS 15,900 4,000 19,900
APPLICATION PROGRAM.
..................... Increase to match [4,000]
previous year funding
level.
75 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY 52,758 52,758
TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION
PROGRAM.
76 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 228,021 228,021
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT.
77 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 1,284,891 1,284,891
MIDCOURSE DEFENSE
SEGMENT.
78 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 172,754 172,754
DEFENSE PROGRAM--DEM/VAL.
79 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 233,588 233,588
SENSORS.
80 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS.... 409,088 409,088
81 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS--MDA.... 400,387 400,387
82 0603892C AEGIS BMD................ 843,355 843,355
83 0603893C SPACE TRACKING & 31,632 31,632
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
84 0603895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 23,289 23,289
SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS.
85 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 450,085 450,085
COMMAND AND CONTROL,
BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND
COMMUNICATI.
86 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 49,570 49,570
JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT.
87 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE 49,211 49,211
INTEGRATION & OPERATIONS
CENTER (MDIOC).
88 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH......... 9,583 9,583
89 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR 72,866 72,866
(SBX).
90 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE 102,795 166,000 268,795
PROGRAMS.
..................... Increase for Arrow/ [166,000]
David's Sling.
91 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 274,323 274,323
TEST.
92 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 513,256 513,256
TARGETS.
93 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING.... 10,129 10,129
94 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE........ 10,350 10,350
95 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 1,518 10,000 11,518
CORROSION PROGRAM.
..................... Program Increase....... [10,000]
96 0604115C TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 96,300 96,300
INITIATIVES.
97 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 469,798 469,798
TECHNOLOGIES.
98 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 3,129 3,129
(DOD) UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
SYSTEM (UAS) COMMON
DEVELOPMENT.
103 0604826J JOINT C5 CAPABILITY 25,200 25,200
DEVELOPMENT, INTEGRATION
AND INTEROPERABILITY
ASSESSMENTS.
105 0604873C LONG RANGE DISCRIMINATION 137,564 137,564
RADAR (LRDR).
106 0604874C IMPROVED HOMELAND DEFENSE 278,944 20,000 298,944
INTERCEPTORS.
..................... Redesigned kill vehicle [20,000]
development.
107 0604876C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 26,225 26,225
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT
TEST.
108 0604878C AEGIS BMD TEST........... 55,148 55,148
109 0604879C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 86,764 86,764
SENSOR TEST.
110 0604880C LAND-BASED SM-3 (LBSM3).. 34,970 34,970
111 0604881C AEGIS SM-3 BLOCK IIA CO- 172,645 172,645
DEVELOPMENT.
112 0604887C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 64,618 64,618
MIDCOURSE SEGMENT TEST.
114 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC 2,660 2,660
TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM.
115 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE 963 963
..................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 6,816,554 200,000 7,016,554
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.....................
..................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION
116 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 8,800 8,800
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD.
117 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE 78,817 10,000 88,817
CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT.
..................... CPGS development and [10,000]
flight test.
118 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 303,647 303,647
DEFENSE PROGRAM--EMD.
119 0604764K ADVANCED IT SERVICES 23,424 23,424
JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE
(AITS-JPO).
120 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL 14,285 14,285
INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM (JTIDS).
121 0605000BR WEAPONS OF MASS 7,156 7,156
DESTRUCTION DEFEAT
CAPABILITIES.
122 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 12,542 12,542
DEVELOPMENT.
123 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL 191 191
SECURITY INITIATIVE.
124 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY 3,273 3,273
PROGRAM.
125 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT 5,962 5,962
INITIATIVES.
126 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS 13,412 13,412
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
127 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND 2,223 2,223
INTEGRATION.
128 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY INTIATIVES 31,660 31,660
(DAI)--FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
129 0605090S DEFENSE RETIRED AND 13,085 13,085
ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM
(DRAS).
130 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC 7,209 7,209
PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES.
131 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 15,158 -10,000 5,158
SYSTEM.
..................... Early to need.......... [-10,000]
132 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY 4,414 4,414
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
(EEIM).
..................... SUBTOTAL, SYSTEM 545,258 0 545,258
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.....................
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
133 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS 5,581 5,581
REPORTING SYSTEM (DRRS).
134 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS 3,081 3,081
ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT.
135 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND 229,125 229,125
EVALUATION INVESTMENT
DEVELOPMENT (CTEIP).
136 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND 28,674 28,674
EVALUATIONS.
138 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT 45,235 45,235
TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC).
139 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, 24,936 24,936
SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS.
141 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND 35,471 35,471
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO).
144 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING...... 37,655 -5,000 32,655
..................... Reducing reporting and [-5,000]
inefficiencies.
145 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 3,015 3,015
SUPPORT--OSD.
146 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL 5,287 5,287
SECURITY.
147 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND 5,289 5,289
INFORMATION INTEGRATION.
148 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD 2,120 2,120
(INTELLIGENCE).
149 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 102,264 102,264
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
158 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION 2,169 2,169
RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL
BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER.
159 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 13,960 13,960
ANALYSIS.
160 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL 51,775 51,775
INFORMATION CENTER
(DTIC).
161 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD 9,533 9,533
ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND
EVALUATION.
162 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND 17,371 17,371
EVALUATION.
163 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D....... 71,571 71,571
164 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM 4,123 4,123
ASSESSMENTS.
165 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS 1,946 1,946
SECURITY INITIATIVE
(DOSI).
166 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL 7,673 7,673
SUPPORT.
169 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION 10,413 10,413
OPERATIONS (IO)
CAPABILITIES.
170 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY 971 971
DECEPTION PROGRAM OFFICE
(DMDPO).
171 0305193D8Z CYBER INTELLIGENCE....... 6,579 6,579
173 0804767D8Z COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT 43,811 43,811
AND TRAINING
TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2)--
MHA.
174 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ--MDA....... 35,871 35,871
176 0903230D8W WHS--MISSION OPERATIONS 1,072 1,072
SUPPORT - IT.
176A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 49,500 49,500
..................... SUBTOTAL, MANAGEMENT 856,071 -5,000 851,071
SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
178 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY 7,929 7,929
SYSTEM (ESS).
179 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL 1,750 1,750
OUTREACH (RIO) AND
PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
INFORMATION MANA.
180 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN 294 294
ASSISTANCE SHARED
INFORMATION SYSTEM
(OHASIS).
181 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS 22,576 22,576
AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT.
182 0607310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: OPERATIONAL 1,901 1,901
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
183 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY 8,474 8,474
COOPERATION MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-
TSCMIS).
184 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 33,561 33,561
DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT).
186 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID 3,061 3,061
SYSTEM (PDAS).
187 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY..... 64,921 64,921
189 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION 3,645 3,645
INFORMATION SHARING.
193 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND 963 963
SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT.
194 0302019K DEFENSE INFO 10,186 10,186
INFRASTRUCTURE
ENGINEERING AND
INTEGRATION.
195 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS-- 36,883 36,883
DAG.
196 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL 13,735 13,735
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK (MEECN).
197 0303135G PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE 6,101 6,101
(PKI).
198 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT 43,867 43,867
INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI).
199 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS 8,957 8,957
SECURITY PROGRAM.
200 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS 146,890 146,890
SECURITY PROGRAM.
201 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND 21,503 21,503
CONTROL SYSTEM.
202 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM 20,342 20,342
ORGANIZATION.
203 0303170K NET-CENTRIC ENTERPRISE 444 444
SERVICES (NCES).
205 0303610K TELEPORT PROGRAM......... 1,736 1,736
206 0304210BB SPECIAL APPLICATIONS FOR 65,060 65,060
CONTINGENCIES.
210 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE 2,976 2,976
215 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS...... 4,182 4,182
216 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY........... 18,130 18,130
218 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 5,302 5,302
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
221 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 3,239 3,239
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
225 0305327V INSIDER THREAT........... 11,733 11,733
226 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE 2,119 2,119
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
PROGRAM.
234 0708011S INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS.. 24,605 24,605
235 0708012S LOGISTIAG SUPPORT 1,770 1,770
ACTIVITIES.
236 0902298J MANAGEMENT HQ--OJAG...... 2,978 2,978
237 1105219BB MQ-9 UAV................. 18,151 5,000 23,151
..................... MQ-9 capability [5,000]
enhancements.
238 1105232BB RQ-11 UAV................ 758 758
240 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS......... 173,934 17,207 191,141
..................... ISR payload technology [2,000]
improvements.
..................... C-130 TF/TA Program [15,207]
Adjustment.
241 1160405BB INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS 6,866 6,866
DEVELOPMENT.
242 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS. 63,008 63,008
243 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS.......... 25,342 25,342
244 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS......... 3,401 3,401
245 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES.... 3,212 3,212
246 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS......... 63,597 63,597
247 1160489BB GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE 3,933 3,933
ACTIVITIES.
248 1160490BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS 10,623 10,623
INTELLIGENCE.
248A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 3,564,272 3,564,272
..................... SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL 4,538,910 22,207 4,561,117
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.....................
..................... UNDISTRIBUTED
xx xxxxx DEFENSE WIDE CYBER 0 200,000 200,000
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT.
..................... Assess all major weapon [200,000]
systems for cyber
vulnerability.
xxx xxxxxx UCAS-D DEVELOPMENT AND 0 725,000 725,000
FOLLOW ON PROTOTYPING.
..................... Supports continued [725,000]
efforts on UCAS-D and
follow on prototyping.
x xxxxx TECHNOLOGY OFFSET 0 400,000 400,000
INITIATIVE.
..................... Supports innovative [400,000]
technology development.
..................... SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED.. 0 1,325,000 1,325,000
.....................
..................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 18,329,861 1,507,207 19,837,068
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
.....................
..................... OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL,
DEFENSE
..................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
1 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND 76,838 76,838
EVALUATION.
2 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND 46,882 46,882
EVALUATION.
3 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST 46,838 46,838
ACTIVITIES AND ANALYSES.
..................... SUBTOTAL, MANAGEMENT 170,558 170,558
SUPPORT.
.....................
..................... TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST & 170,558 170,558
EVAL, DEFENSE.
.....................
..................... TOTAL RDT&E.............. 69,784,963 1,106,677 70,891,640
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4202. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of
Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
Line Program Element Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, ARMY
...................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
60 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 1,500 1,500
SURVIVABILITY.
...................... SUBTOTAL, ADVANCED 1,500 1,500
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 1,500 1,500
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, NAVY
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
231A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 35,747 35,747
...................... SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL 35,747 35,747
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 35,747 35,747
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, AF
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
133 0205671F JOINT COUNTER RCIED 300 300
ELECTRONIC WARFARE.
246A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 16,800 16,800
...................... SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL 17,100 17,100
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 17,100 17,100
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
......................
...................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
TEST & EVAL, DW
...................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
248A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS...... 137,087 137,087
...................... SUBTOTAL, OPERATIONAL 137,087 137,087
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
......................
...................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 137,087 137,087
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
......................
...................... TOTAL RDT&E.............. 191,434 191,434
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 1,094,429 -1,094,429 0
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [-1,094,429]
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 68,873 68,873
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 508,008 508,008
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 763,300 -763,300 0
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [-763,300]
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 1,054,322 -1,054,322 0
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [-1,054,322]
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 1,546,129 -1,546,129 0
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [-1,546,129]
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 3,158,606 -3,158,606 0
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [-3,158,606]
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 438,909 438,909
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 1,214,116 77,200 1,291,316
Readiness funding increase........................ [77,200]
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 7,616,008 10,500 7,626,508
Readiness funding increase........................ [10,500]
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 2,617,169 34,000 2,651,169
Kwajalein facilities restoration.................. [34,000]
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS............. 421,269 421,269
130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................ 164,743 164,743
170 COMBATANT COMMANDS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT........... 448,633 -12,357 436,276
Streamlining of Army Combatant Commands Direct [-12,357]
Mission Support..................................
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 21,114,514 -7,507,443 13,607,071
MOBILIZATION
180 STRATEGIC MOBILITY.................................. 401,638 401,638
190 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS........................... 261,683 261,683
200 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS............................. 6,532 6,532
SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION.............................. 669,853 669,853
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
210 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 131,536 131,536
220 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 47,843 47,843
230 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING........................... 42,565 42,565
240 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.............. 490,378 490,378
250 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 981,000 33,200 1,014,200
Readiness funding increase........................ [33,200]
260 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 940,872 940,872
270 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 230,324 230,324
280 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 603,519 603,519
290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 491,922 491,922
300 EXAMINING........................................... 194,079 194,079
310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 227,951 227,951
320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 161,048 161,048
330 JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS............... 170,118 170,118
SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING................... 4,713,155 33,200 4,746,355
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 485,778 485,778
360 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES........................... 813,881 813,881
370 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES......................... 714,781 714,781
380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT............................... 322,127 322,127
390 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 384,813 384,813
400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 1,781,350 1,781,350
410 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 292,532 292,532
420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 375,122 375,122
430 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT............................... 1,119,848 -4,500 1,115,348
Army outreach reduction........................... [-4,500]
440 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES.............................. 225,358 225,358
450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 239,755 239,755
460 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS............ 223,319 223,319
470 INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS................. 469,865 469,865
480 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS...................... 40,521 40,521
480A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,120,974 25,500 1,146,474
Additional SOUTHCOM ISR and intel support......... [20,000]
Readiness increase................................ [5,500]
xx UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 -238,451 -238,451
Streamlining of Army Management Headquarters...... [-238,451]
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................ 8,610,024 -217,451 8,392,573
UNDISTRIBUTED
xx UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT........... 0 -281,500 -281,500
Foreign currency adjustment....................... [-281,500]
xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS..................... 0 -260,100 -260,100
Bulk fuel savings................................. [-260,100]
SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED............................. 0 -541,600 -541,600
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY................. 35,107,546 -8,233,294 26,874,252
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 16,612 16,612
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 486,531 486,531
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 105,446 105,446
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 516,791 516,791
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 87,587 87,587
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 348,601 348,601
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 81,350 81,350
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 59,574 32,400 91,974
Readiness funding increase........................ [32,400]
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 570,852 570,852
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 245,686 245,686
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS............. 40,962 40,962
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 2,559,992 32,400 2,592,392
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 10,665 10,665
140 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 18,390 18,390
150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 14,976 14,976
160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 8,841 8,841
170 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 52,928 52,928
xx UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 -6,011 -6,011
Streamlining of Army Reserve Management [-6,011]
Headquarters.....................................
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................ 105,800 -6,011 99,790
UNDISTRIBUTED
xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS..................... 0 -7,600 -7,600
Bulk fuel savings................................. [-7,600]
SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED............................. 0 -7,600 -7,600
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES............. 2,665,792 18,789 2,684,581
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 709,433 709,433
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES............................ 167,324 167,324
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 741,327 741,327
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 88,775 7,700 96,475
ARNG border security enhancement.................. [7,700]
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 32,130 32,130
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 943,609 52,600 996,209
Readiness funding increase........................ [39,600]
ARNG border security enhancement.................. [13,000]
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 703,137 703,137
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 84,066 84,066
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE....................... 166,848 22,500 189,348
Readiness funding increase........................ [22,500]
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 1,022,970 1,022,970
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 673,680 673,680
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS............. 954,574 954,574
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 6,287,873 82,800 6,370,673
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 6,570 6,570
140 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 59,629 -250 59,379
Reduction to National Guard Heritage Paintings.... [-250]
150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 68,452 68,452
160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT................................. 8,841 8,841
170 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 283,670 -11,500 272,170
Reduction to Army Marketing Program............... [-11,500]
180 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 2,942 2,942
xx UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 -26,631 -26,631
Streamlining of Army National Guard Management [-26,631]
Headquarters.....................................
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................ 430,104 -38,381 391,723
UNDISTRIBUTED
xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS..................... 0 -25,300 -25,300
Bulk fuel savings................................. [-25,300]
SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED............................. 0 -25,300 -25,300
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG................. 6,717,977 19,119 6,737,096
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 4,940,365 -4,940,365 0
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA..... [-4,940,365]
020 FLEET AIR TRAINING.................................. 1,830,611 1,830,611
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES...... 37,225 37,225
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT................... 103,456 103,456
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT................................. 376,844 13,900 390,744
Readiness funding increase........................ [13,900]
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 897,536 -897,536 0
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [-897,536]
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 33,201 33,201
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 544,056 5,300 549,356
Readiness funding increase........................ [5,300]
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS................... 4,287,658 -4,287,658 0
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [-4,287,658]
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 787,446 787,446
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.............................. 5,960,951 -5,960,951 0
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [-5,960,951]
120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT....................... 1,554,863 1,554,863
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS............................... 704,415 704,415
140 ELECTRONIC WARFARE.................................. 96,916 96,916
150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE...................... 192,198 192,198
160 WARFARE TACTICS..................................... 453,942 453,942
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY............ 351,871 351,871
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 1,186,847 1,186,847
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE............................... 123,948 123,948
200 DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................ 2,443 2,443
210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................ 98,914 98,914
220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT......... 73,110 -5,483 67,628
Streamlining of Navy Combatant Commanders Direct [-5,483]
Mission Support..................................
230 CRUISE MISSILE...................................... 110,734 110,734
240 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE............................. 1,206,736 1,206,736
250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................. 141,664 141,664
260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE................................. 523,122 523,122
270 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT........................ 371,872 371,872
280 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.............................. 896,061 896,061
290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 2,220,423 2,220,423
300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 4,472,468 14,000 4,486,468
Funding increase for Behavioral Counseling........ [14,000]
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 34,581,896 -16,058,793 18,523,103
MOBILIZATION
310 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE....................... 422,846 422,846
320 AIRCRAFT ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.................. 6,464 500 6,964
Readiness funding increase........................ [500]
330 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS...................... 361,764 361,764
340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS............... 69,530 69,530
350 INDUSTRIAL READINESS................................ 2,237 2,237
360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT................................. 21,823 21,823
SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION.............................. 884,664 500 885,164
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
370 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 149,375 149,375
380 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 9,035 9,035
390 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS..................... 156,290 156,290
400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 653,728 653,728
410 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 8,171 8,171
420 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 168,471 168,471
430 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 196,048 196,048
440 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 234,233 234,233
450 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 137,855 137,855
460 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 77,257 77,257
470 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 47,653 47,653
SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING................... 1,838,116 1,838,116
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
480 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 923,771 923,771
490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS.................................. 13,967 13,967
500 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 120,812 120,812
510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 350,983 350,983
520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 265,948 265,948
530 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 335,482 335,482
550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 197,724 197,724
570 PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND DESIGN.................... 274,936 274,936
580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................. 1,122,178 1,122,178
590 HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SUPPORT............. 48,587 48,587
600 COMBAT/WEAPONS SYSTEMS.............................. 25,599 25,599
610 SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS................ 72,768 72,768
620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE......................... 577,803 577,803
680 INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND AGENCIES............. 4,768 4,768
680A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 560,754 560,754
xx UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 -209,823 -209,823
Streamlining of Navy Management Headquarters...... [-209,823]
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................ 4,896,080 -209,823 4,686,257
UNDISTRIBUTED
xx UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT........... 0 -59,900 -59,900
Foreign currency adjustment....................... [-59,900]
xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS..................... 0 -482,300 -482,300
Bulk fuel savings................................. [-482,300]
SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED............................. 0 -542,200 -542,200
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY................. 42,200,756 -16,810,316 25,390,440
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.................................. 931,079 -931,079 0
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [-931,079]
020 FIELD LOGISTICS..................................... 931,757 -931,757 0
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [-931,757]
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 227,583 227,583
040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING............................. 86,259 86,259
050 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION............ 746,237 746,237
060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 2,057,362 1,200 2,058,562
Readiness funding increase for Criminal [1,200]
Investigative Equipment..........................
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 4,980,277 -1,861,636 3,118,641
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
070 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 16,460 16,460
080 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 977 977
090 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 97,325 97,325
100 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 40,786 40,786
110 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 347,476 347,476
120 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 164,806 164,806
130 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 39,963 39,963
140 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 23,397 23,397
SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING................... 731,190 731,190
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 37,386 37,386
160 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 358,395 358,395
180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................. 76,105 76,105
180A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 45,429 45,429
xx UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 -32,588 -32,588
Streamlining of Marine Corps Management [-32,588]
Headquarters.....................................
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................ 517,315 -32,588 484,727
UNDISTRIBUTED
xx UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT........... 0 -19,800 -19,800
Foreign currency adjustment....................... [-19,800]
xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS..................... 0 -17,000 -17,000
Bulk fuel savings................................. [-17,000]
SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED............................. 0 -36,800 -36,800
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS......... 6,228,782 -1,931,024 4,297,758
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 563,722 563,722
020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE............................ 6,218 6,218
030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 82,712 82,712
040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 326 326
050 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 13,436 13,436
070 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 557 557
090 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS............................... 14,499 14,499
100 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 117,601 117,601
120 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.............................. 29,382 29,382
130 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 48,513 48,513
140 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 102,858 102,858
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 979,824 979,824
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 1,505 1,505
160 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 13,782 13,782
170 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 3,437 3,437
180 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................. 3,210 3,210
xx UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 -1,386 -1,386
Streamlining of Navy Reserve Management [-1,386]
Headquarters.....................................
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................ 21,934 -1,386 20,548
UNDISTRIBUTED
xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS..................... 0 -39,700 -39,700
Bulk fuel savings................................. [-39,700]
SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED............................. 0 -39,700 -39,700
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES............. 1,001,758 -41,086 960,672
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES.................................... 97,631 97,631
020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 18,254 18,254
030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 28,653 28,653
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 111,923 111,923
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 256,461 256,461
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
050 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 924 924
060 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 10,866 10,866
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 8,785 8,785
xx UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 -1,473 -1,473
Streamlining of Marine Corps Reserve Management [-1,473]
Headquarters.....................................
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................ 20,575 -1,473 19,102
UNDISTRIBUTED
xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS..................... 0 -1,000 -1,000
Bulk fuel savings................................. [-1,000]
SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED............................. 0 -1,000 -1,000
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE........... 277,036 -2,473 274,563
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 3,336,868 -3,336,868 0
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [-3,336,868]
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES........................... 1,897,315 -1,897,315 0
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [-1,897,315]
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)...... 1,797,549 -40,300 1,757,249
Cancel transition of A-10 to F-15E training....... [-78,000]
Readiness increase................................ [37,700]
040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 6,537,127 -6,537,127 0
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [-6,537,127]
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 1,997,712 1,997,712
060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 2,841,948 2,841,948
070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING........................ 930,341 930,341
080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS....................... 924,845 924,845
100 LAUNCH FACILITIES................................... 271,177 271,177
110 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS............................... 382,824 382,824
120 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT......... 900,965 -15,380 885,586
Streamlining of Air Force Combatant Commanders [-15,380]
Direct Mission Support...........................
130 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS................ 205,078 -41,000 164,078
Cutting Joint Enabling Capabilities Command....... [-41,000]
xxx CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 907,496 16,800 924,296
Increase One Program.............................. [20,000]
Unjustified increase.............................. [-3,200]
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 22,931,245 -11,851,190 11,080,055
MOBILIZATION
140 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.................................. 2,229,196 2,229,196
150 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS........................... 148,318 148,318
160 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 1,617,571 -1,617,571 0
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [-1,617,571]
170 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 259,956 259,956
180 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 708,799 708,799
SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION.............................. 4,963,840 -1,617,571 3,346,269
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
190 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 92,191 92,191
200 RECRUIT TRAINING.................................... 21,871 21,871
210 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC).............. 77,527 77,527
220 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 228,500 228,500
230 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 772,870 772,870
240 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 359,304 43,100 402,404
Readiness increase for RPA training............... [43,100]
250 FLIGHT TRAINING..................................... 710,553 710,553
260 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.................. 228,252 228,252
270 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 76,464 76,464
280 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 375,513 375,513
290 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 79,690 79,690
300 EXAMINING........................................... 3,803 3,803
310 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION.................... 180,807 180,807
320 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING..................... 167,478 167,478
330 JUNIOR ROTC......................................... 59,263 59,263
SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING................... 3,434,086 43,100 3,477,186
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
340 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS................................ 1,141,491 1,141,491
350 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES........................ 862,022 -10,000 852,022
Acquisition Management Adjustment................. [-10,000]
360 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 61,745 61,745
370 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 298,759 298,759
380 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 1,108,220 -12,000 1,096,220
Reduce IT procurement............................. [-12,000]
390 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 689,797 -20,700 669,097
DEAMS reduction-Funding ahead of need............. [-20,700]
400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 498,053 498,053
410 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES........................ 900,253 900,253
420 CIVIL AIR PATROL.................................... 25,411 25,411
450 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT............................... 89,148 89,148
450A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,187,859 -4,900 1,182,959
Unjustified increase.............................. [-4,900]
xx UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 -276,203 -276,203
Streamlining of Air Force Management Headquarters. [-276,203]
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................ 6,862,758 -323,803 6,538,955
UNDISTRIBUTED
xx Restore EC-130 Compass Call......................... 0 27,300 27,300
Costs associated with preventing divestiture of EC- [27,300]
130..............................................
x Restore A-10........................................ 0 235,300 235,300
Costs associated with preventing divestiture of A- [235,300]
10 fleet.........................................
xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS..................... 0 -618,300 -618,300
Bulk fuel savings................................. [-618,300]
UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT........... 0 -137,800 -137,800
Foreign currency adjustment....................... [-137,800]
SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED............................. 0 -493,500 -493,500
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............ 38,191,929 -14,242,964 23,948,965
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 1,779,378 1,779,378
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 226,243 226,243
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 487,036 487,036
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 109,342 109,342
050 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 373,707 373,707
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 2,975,706 2,975,706
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
060 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 53,921 53,921
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 14,359 14,359
080 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC).............. 13,665 13,665
090 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP)................ 6,606 6,606
xx UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 -2,116 -2,116
Costs associated with preventing divestiture of A- [2,500]
10 fleet.........................................
Streamlining of Air Force Reserve Management [-4,616]
Headquarters.....................................
SUBTOTAL, ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES 88,551 -2,116 86,435
UNDISTRIBUTED
xxxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS..................... 0 -101,100 -101,100
Bulk fuel savings................................. [-101,100]
SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED............................. 0 -101,100 -101,100
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE........... 3,064,257 -103,216 2,961,041
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS................................. 3,526,471 3,526,471
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 740,779 2,600 743,379
ARNG border security enhancement.................. [2,600]
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 1,763,859 1,763,859
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 288,786 288,786
050 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 582,037 582,037
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 6,901,932 2,600 6,904,532
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES
060 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 23,626 23,626
070 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING.......................... 30,652 30,652
xx UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 -3,015 -3,015
Streamlining of Air National Guard Management [-3,015]
Headquarters.....................................
xxx UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 42,200 42,200
Costs associated with preventing divestiture of A- [42,200]
10 fleet.........................................
SUBTOTAL, ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES 54,278 39,185 93,463
UNDISTRIBUTED
xxxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS..................... 0 -162,600 -162,600
Bulk fuel savings................................. [-162,600]
SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED............................. 0 -162,600 -162,600
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG.................. 6,956,210 -120,815 6,835,395
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF............................... 485,888 20,000 505,888
Middle East Assurance Initiative.................. [20,000]
020 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.................. 534,795 -4,000 530,795
DOD Rewards reduction-funding ahead of need....... [-4,000]
030 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES......... 4,862,368 4,862,368
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 5,883,051 16,000 5,899,051
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
040 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY...................... 142,659 142,659
050 NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY......................... 78,416 78,416
060 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND RECRUITING.. 354,372 354,372
SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING................... 575,447 575,447
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
070 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS............................. 160,320 160,320
090 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY....................... 570,177 570,177
100 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.................. 1,374,536 1,374,536
110 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY.................... 642,551 642,551
120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.................. 1,282,755 10,000 1,292,755
Sharkseer increase................................ [10,000]
140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY....................... 26,073 26,073
150 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY............................ 366,429 366,429
160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.............................. 192,625 192,625
180 DEFENSE PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING AGENCY................. 115,372 115,372
190 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY................. 524,723 -7,000 517,723
Reduction to Combating Terrorism Fellowship....... [-7,000]
200 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE............................ 508,396 508,396
230 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.......... 33,577 33,577
240 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY..................... 415,696 415,696
260 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY............ 2,753,771 30,250 2,784,021
Impact Aid........................................ [30,000]
School lunches for territories.................... [250]
270 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.............................. 432,068 432,068
290 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT....................... 110,612 -53,100 57,512
Guam outside the fence infastructure.............. [-20,000]
Defense industry adjustment....................... [-33,100]
300 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.................. 1,388,285 -9,500 1,378,785
BRAC 2017 Planning and Support.................... [-10,500]
OSD fleet architecture study...................... [1,000]
310 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE 83,263 83,263
ACTIVITIES.........................................
320 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES.................... 621,688 621,688
320A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 14,379,428 14,379,428
xx UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... 0 -897,552 -897,552
Streamlining of Department of Defense Management [-897,552]
Headquarters.....................................
SUBTOTAL, ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES 25,982,345 -926,902 25,055,443
UNDISTRIBUTED
xx UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT........... 0 -51,900 -51,900
Foreign currency adjustment....................... [-51,900]
xxx UNDISTRIBUTED BULK FUEL SAVINGS..................... 0 -36,000 -36,000
Bulk fuel savings................................. [-36,000]
SUBTOTAL, UNDISTRIBUTED............................. 0 -87,900 -87,900
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE....... 32,440,843 -998,802 31,442,041
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF
010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, DEFENSE... 14,078 14,078
SUBTOTAL, US COURT OF APPEALS FOR ARMED FORCES, DEF. 14,078 14,078
OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID
010 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID....... 100,266 100,266
SUBTOTAL, OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC 100,266 100,266
AID................................................
COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT
010 FORMER SOVIET UNION (FSU) THREAT REDUCTION.......... 358,496 358,496
SUBTOTAL, COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT...... 358,496 358,496
DOD ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND
010 ACQ WORKFORCE DEV FD................................ 84,140 84,140
SUBTOTAL, DOD ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND 84,140 84,140
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY
040 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY..................... 234,829 234,829
SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY........... 234,829 234,829
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY
050 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY..................... 292,453 292,453
SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY........... 292,453 292,453
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE
060 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE................ 368,131 368,131
SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE...... 368,131 368,131
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE
070 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE.................. 8,232 8,232
SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE........ 8,232 8,232
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES
080 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES....... 203,717 203,717
SUBTOTAL, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED 203,717 203,717
SITES..............................................
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS.................. 1,664,342 1,664,342
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..................... 176,517,228 -42,446,082 134,071,146
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 257,900 1,094,429 1,352,329
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [1,094,429]
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS................................ 1,110,836 763,300 1,874,136
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [763,300]
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 261,943 1,054,322 1,316,265
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [1,054,322]
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 22,160 1,546,129 1,568,289
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [1,546,129]
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 1,119,201 3,158,606 4,277,807
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [3,158,606]
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS....................... 117,881 117,881
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 50,000 50,000
140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES............................... 4,500,666 4,500,666
150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM............... 10,000 10,000
160 RESET............................................... 1,834,777 1,834,777
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 9,285,364 7,616,786 16,902,150
MOBILIZATION
190 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS........................... 40,000 40,000
SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION.............................. 40,000 40,000
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
350 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 529,891 529,891
380 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT............................... 5,033 5,033
420 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 100,480 100,480
450 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.............................. 154,350 154,350
480A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,267,632 1,267,632
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................ 2,057,386 2,057,386
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY................. 11,382,750 7,616,786 18,999,536
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 2,442 2,442
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT...................... 813 813
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 779 779
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 20,525 20,525
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 24,559 24,559
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES............. 24,559 24,559
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS...................................... 1,984 1,984
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.............................. 4,671 4,671
060 AVIATION ASSETS..................................... 15,980 15,980
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 12,867 12,867
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT............................. 23,134 23,134
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS............. 1,426 1,426
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 60,062 60,062
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 783 783
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................ 783 783
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG................. 60,845 60,845
AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND
MINISTRY OF DEFENSE
010 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 2,214,899 2,214,899
030 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................ 182,751 182,751
040 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 281,555 281,555
SUBTOTAL, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE....................... 2,679,205 2,679,205
MINISTRY OF INTERIOR
060 SUSTAINMENT......................................... 901,137 901,137
080 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION........................ 116,573 116,573
090 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS............................. 65,342 65,342
SUBTOTAL, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR...................... 1,083,052 1,083,052
TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND.............. 3,762,257 3,762,257
IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
010 IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND........................... 715,000 715,000
SUBTOTAL, IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND................. 715,000 715,000
TOTAL IRAQ TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND..................... 715,000 715,000
SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND
010 SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND.......................... 600,000 600,000
SUBTOTAL, SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND................ 600,000 600,000
TOTAL SYRIA TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND.................... 600,000 600,000
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 358,417 4,943,665 5,302,082
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [4,940,365]
Readiness funding increase........................ [3,300]
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES...... 110 110
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT................... 4,513 4,513
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT................................. 126,501 126,501
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 75,897 914,536 990,433
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [897,536]
Readiness funding increase........................ [17,000]
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 2,770 2,770
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.................................. 34,101 34,101
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS................... 1,184,878 4,287,658 5,472,536
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [4,287,658]
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.................. 16,663 16,663
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.............................. 1,922,829 5,960,951 7,883,780
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [5,960,951]
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS............................... 33,577 33,577
160 WARFARE TACTICS..................................... 26,454 26,454
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY............ 22,305 22,305
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 513,969 513,969
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE............................... 10,007 10,007
250 IN-SERVICE WEAPONS SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................. 60,865 60,865
260 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE................................. 275,231 275,231
290 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION.......... 7,819 7,819
300 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 61,422 61,422
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 4,738,328 16,106,810 20,845,138
MOBILIZATION
340 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS............... 5,307 5,307
360 COAST GUARD SUPPORT................................. 160,002 160,002
SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION.............................. 165,309 165,309
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
400 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 44,845 44,845
SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING................... 44,845 44,845
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
480 ADMINISTRATION...................................... 2,513 2,513
490 EXTERNAL RELATIONS.................................. 500 500
510 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......... 5,309 5,309
520 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT............................. 1,469 1,469
550 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 156,671 156,671
580 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.................. 8,834 8,834
620 NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE......................... 1,490 1,490
680A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 6,320 6,320
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................ 183,106 183,106
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY................. 5,131,588 16,106,810 21,238,398
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.................................. 353,133 931,079 1,284,212
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [931,079]
020 FIELD LOGISTICS..................................... 259,676 931,757 1,191,433
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [931,757]
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 240,000 240,000
060 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 16,026 16,026
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 868,835 1,862,836 2,731,671
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
110 TRAINING SUPPORT.................................... 37,862 37,862
SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING................... 37,862 37,862
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION.......................... 43,767 43,767
180A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 2,070 2,070
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................ 45,837 45,837
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS......... 952,534 1,862,836 2,815,370
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS................. 4,033 4,033
020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE............................ 60 60
030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 20,300 20,300
100 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES............................... 7,250 7,250
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 31,643 31,643
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES............. 31,643 31,643
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES.................................... 2,500 2,500
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.............................. 955 955
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 3,455 3,455
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE........... 3,455 3,455
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES............................... 1,505,738 3,333,368 4,839,106
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [3,336,868]
Retain Current A-10 Fleet......................... [-1,400]
Unjustified Increase.............................. [-2,100]
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES........................... 914,973 1,887,615 2,802,588
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [1,897,315]
Unjustified Increase.............................. [-14,000]
Readiness funding increase........................ [4,300]
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS)...... 31,978 31,978
040 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 1,192,765 6,537,127 7,729,892
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [6,537,127]
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION. 85,625 85,625
060 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 917,269 917,269
070 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING........................ 30,219 30,219
080 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS....................... 174,734 174,734
100 LAUNCH FACILITIES................................... 869 869
110 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS............................... 5,008 5,008
120 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT......... 100,190 100,190
xxx CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 22,893 22,893
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 4,982,261 11,758,110 16,740,371
MOBILIZATION
140 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.................................. 2,995,703 2,995,703
150 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS........................... 108,163 108,163
160 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 511,059 1,617,571 2,128,630
Transfer base requirement to OCO due to BCA....... [1,617,571]
180 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 4,642 4,642
SUBTOTAL, MOBILIZATION.............................. 3,619,567 1,617,571 5,237,138
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
190 OFFICER ACQUISITION................................. 92 92
240 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING.......................... 11,986 11,986
SUBTOTAL, TRAINING AND RECRUITING................... 12,078 12,078
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
340 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS................................ 86,716 86,716
380 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 3,836 3,836
400 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS.......................... 165,348 165,348
410 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES........................ 204,683 -63,000 141,683
Reduction to the Office of Security Cooperation in [-63,000]
Iraq.............................................
450 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT............................... 61 61
450A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 15,463 15,463
SUBTOTAL, ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES................ 476,107 -63,000 413,107
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE............ 9,090,013 13,312,681 22,402,694
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE................................... 51,086 51,086
050 BASE SUPPORT........................................ 7,020 7,020
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 58,106 58,106
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE........... 58,106 58,106
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS.......................... 19,900 19,900
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 19,900 19,900
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG.................. 19,900 19,900
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF............................... 9,900 9,900
030 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES......... 2,345,835 2,345,835
SUBTOTAL, OPERATING FORCES.......................... 2,355,735 2,355,735
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
090 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY....................... 18,474 18,474
120 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.................. 29,579 29,579
140 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY....................... 110,000 110,000
160 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.............................. 5,960 5,960
190 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY................. 1,677,000 -100,000 1,577,000
Reduction from Coalition Support Funds............ [-100,000]
260 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY............ 73,000 73,000
300 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.................. 106,709 106,709
320 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES.................... 2,102 2,102
320A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS................................. 1,427,074 1,427,074
SUBTOTAL, ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES. 3,449,898 -100,000 3,349,898
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE....... 5,805,633 -100,000 5,705,633
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE..................... 37,638,283 38,799,113 76,437,396
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS................... 130,491,227 -1,254,500 129,236,727
Military Personnel Underexecution............... [-987,200]
Additional support for the National Guard's [21,700]
Operation Phalanx..............................
Reduction for anticipated cost of TRICARE [-85,000]
consolidation..................................
TRICARE program improvement initiatives......... [15,000]
Financial literacy improvement.................. [85,000]
Reduction from Foreign Currency Gains, Army..... [-65,200]
Reduction from Foreign Currency Gains, Navy..... [-81,400]
Reduction from Foreign Currency Gains, Marine [-27,000]
Corps..........................................
Reduction from Foreign Currency Gains, Air Force [-130,400]
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS......... 130,491,227 -1,254,500 129,236,727
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS
MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND CONTRIBUTIONS. 6,243,449 6,243,449
SUBTOTAL, MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH FUND 6,243,449 0 6,243,449
CONTRIBUTIONS......................................
TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL........................... 136,734,676 -1,254,500 135,480,176
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2016 Request Senate Change Senate Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS................... 3,204,758 0 3,204,758
SUBTOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS......... 3,204,758 0 3,204,758
TOTAL, MILITARY PERSONNEL........................... 3,204,758 0 3,204,758
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
020 SUPPLY MANAGEMENT--ARMY......................... 50,432 50,432
SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............ 50,432 50,432
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
010 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS.......................... 62,898 62,898
SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE....... 62,898 62,898
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
030 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA).................. 45,084 45,084
SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE.... 45,084 45,084
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA
020 WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA...................... 1,154,154 1,154,154
SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA............ 1,154,154 1,154,154
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND...................... 1,312,568 1,312,568
NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND
040 POST DELIVERY AND OUTFITTING.................... 15,456 15,456
060 LG MED SPD RO/RO MAINTENANCE.................... 124,493 124,493
070 DOD MOBILIZATION ALTERATIONS.................... 8,243 8,243
080 TAH MAINTENANCE................................. 27,784 27,784
090 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT........................ 25,197 25,197
100 READY RESERVE FORCE............................. 272,991 272,991
SUBTOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND......... 474,164 474,164
TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND............. 474,164 474,164
CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
01 CHEM DEMILITARIZATION--O&M...................... 139,098 139,098
SUBTOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE............... 139,098 139,098
RDT&E
02 CHEM DEMILITARIZATION--RDT&E.................... 579,342 579,342
SUBTOTAL, RDT&E................................. 579,342 579,342
PROCUREMENT
03 CHEM DEMILITARIZATION--PROC..................... 2,281 2,281
SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT........................... 2,281 2,281
TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION....... 720,721 720,721
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES
010 DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 739,009 22,000 761,009
DEFENSE........................................
SOUTHCOM Operational support.................. [30,000]
Transfer to Demand Reduction Program.......... [-8,000]
SUBTOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG 739,009 22,000 761,009
ACTIVITIES.....................................
DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM
020 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM................... 111,589 8,000 119,589
Expanded drug testing......................... [8,000]
SUBTOTAL, DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM......... 111,589 8,000 119,589
TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 850,598 30,000 880,598
DEF............................................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
010 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL................. 310,459 310,459
SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............. 310,459 310,459
RDT&E
020 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL................. 4,700 -2,600 2,100
Funding ahead of need......................... [-2,600]
SUBTOTAL, RDT&E................................. 4,700 -2,600 2,100
PROCUREMENT
030 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL................. 1,000 -1,000 0
Funding ahead of need......................... [-1,000]
SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT........................... 1,000 -1,000 0
TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........... 316,159 -3,600 312,559
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
010 IN-HOUSE CARE................................... 9,082,298 9,082,298
020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE............................. 14,892,683 14,892,683
030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT..................... 2,415,658 -10,290 2,405,368
Reduction of funds related to Combating [-10,290]
Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB) project.
040 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.......................... 1,677,827 1,677,827
050 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES........................... 327,967 327,967
060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING.......................... 750,614 750,614
070 BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS.................. 1,742,893 1,742,893
xx UNDISTRIBUTED FOREIGN CURRENCY ADJUSTMENT....... 0 -36,400 -36,400
Foreign currency adjustment................... [-36,400]
SUBTOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE............... 30,889,940 -46,690 30,843,250
RDT&E
090 R&D RESEARCH.................................... 10,996 10,996
100 R&D EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT...................... 59,473 -3,150 56,323
Reduction of funds related to Combating [-3,150]
Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB) project.
110 R&D ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT........................ 231,356 -3,100 228,256
Reduction of funds related to Combating [-3,100]
Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (CARB) project.
120 R&D DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION.................... 103,443 103,443
130 R&D ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT..................... 515,910 515,910
140 R&D MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT...................... 41,567 41,567
150 R&D CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT.................... 17,356 17,356
SUBTOTAL, RDT&E................................. 980,101 -6,250 973,851
PROCUREMENT
160 PROC INITIAL OUTFITTING......................... 33,392 33,392
170 PROC REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION................ 330,504 330,504
180 PROC THEATER MEDICAL INFORMATION PROGRAM........ 1,494 1,494
190 PROC IEHR....................................... 7,897 7,897
SUBTOTAL, PROCUREMENT........................... 373,287 373,287
TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM.................... 32,243,328 -52,940 32,190,388
TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 35,917,538 -26,540 35,890,998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2016 Senate
Line Item Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
020 TRANSPORTATION OF FALLEN HEROES................. 2,500 2,500
SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE....... 2,500 2,500
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
030 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY (DLA).................. 86,350 86,350
SUBTOTAL, WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE.... 86,350 86,350
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND...................... 88,850 88,850
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG ACTIVITIES
010 DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 186,000 186,000
DEFENSE........................................
SUBTOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER DRUG 186,000 186,000
ACTIVITIES.....................................
TOTAL, DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 186,000 186,000
DEF............................................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
010 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL................. 10,262 10,262
SUBTOTAL, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............. 10,262 10,262
TOTAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.......... 10,262 10,262
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
010 IN-HOUSE CARE................................... 65,149 65,149
020 PRIVATE SECTOR CARE............................. 192,210 192,210
030 CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT..................... 9,460 9,460
060 EDUCATION AND TRAINING.......................... 5,885 5,885
SUBTOTAL, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE............... 272,704 272,704
TOTAL, DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................... 272,704 272,704
COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND
COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND
090 COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND.............. 2,100,000 -1,100,000 1,000,000
Request excess to need........................ [-1,100,000]
SUBTOTAL, COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND.... 2,100,000 -1,100,000 1,000,000
TOTAL, COUNTERTERRORISM PARTNERSHIPS FUND....... 2,100,000 -1,100,000 1,000,000
UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE
UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE
xxx UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE.......... 0 300,000 300,000
Provides assistance to Ukraine................ [300,000]
SUBTOTAL, UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE 0 300,000 300,000
TOTAL, UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE INITIATIVE... 0 300,000 300,000
TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATION....................... 2,657,816 -800,000 1,857,816
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Senate
Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request Senate Change Authorized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
MILCON, ARMY
MILCON, ARMY ALASKA Fort Greely Physical Readiness Training 7,800 7,800
Facility.
MILCON, ARMY CALIFORNIA Concord Pier....................... 98,000 98,000
MILCON, ARMY COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado Rotary Wing Taxiway........ 5,800 5,800
MILCON, ARMY GEORGIA Fort Gordon Command and Control 90,000 90,000
Facility.
MILCON, ARMY GERMANY Grafenwoehr Vehicle Maintenance Shop... 51,000 51,000
MILCON, ARMY GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA Guantanamo Bay Unaccompanied Personnel 0 76,000 76,000
Housing.
MILCON, ARMY MARYLAND Fort Meade Access Control Point-Reece 0 19,500 19,500
Road.
MILCON, ARMY MARYLAND Fort Meade Access Control Point-Mapes 0 15,000 15,000
Road.
MILCON, ARMY NEW YORK Fort Drum, New York NCO Academy Complex........ 19,000 19,000
MILCON, ARMY NEW YORK U.S. Military Academy Waste Water Treatment Plant 70,000 70,000
MILCON, ARMY OKLAHOMA Fort Sill Reception Barracks Complex 56,000 56,000
Ph2.
MILCON, ARMY OKLAHOMA Fort Sill Training Support Facility.. 13,400 13,400
MILCON, ARMY TEXAS Corpus Christi Powertrain Facility 85,000 85,000
(Infrastructure/Metal).
MILCON, ARMY TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Homeland Defense Operations 43,000 -43,000 0
Center.
MILCON, ARMY VIRGINIA Fort Lee Training Support Facility.. 33,000 33,000
MILCON, ARMY VIRGINIA Joint Base Myer- Instruction Building....... 37,000 -37,000 0
Henderson
MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Host Nation Support........ 36,000 36,000
Locations
MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Minor Construction......... 25,000 25,000
Locations
MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design........ 73,245 73,245
Locations
MILCON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Prior Year Unobligated 0 -52,000 -52,000
Locations Amounts.
SUBTOTAL, MILCON, ARMY 743,245 -21,500 721,745
....................... .......................
MIL CON, NAVY
MIL CON, NAVY ARIZONA Yuma Aircraft Maint. Facilities 50,635 50,635
& Apron (So. CALA).
MIL CON, NAVY BAHRAIN ISLAND SW Asia Mina Salman Pier 37,700 37,700
Replacement.
MIL CON, NAVY BAHRAIN ISLAND SW Asia Ship Maintenance Support 52,091 52,091
Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, Raw Water Pipeline 44,540 -44,540 0
California Pendleton to Fallbrook.
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, Pendleton Ops Center....... 0 25,000 25,000
California
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Coronado Coastal Campus Utilities... 4,856 4,856
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Lemoore F-35C Hangar Modernization 56,497 56,497
and Addition.
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Lemoore F-35C Training Facilities.. 8,187 8,187
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Lemoore RTO and Mission Debrief 7,146 7,146
Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Miramar KC-130J Enlisted Air Crew 0 11,200 11,200
Trainer.
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Point Mugu E-2C/D Hangar Additions and 19,453 19,453
Renovations.
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Point Mugu Triton Avionics and Fuel 2,974 2,974
Systems Trainer.
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA San Diego LCS Support Facility....... 37,366 37,366
MIL CON, NAVY CALIFORNIA Twentynine Palms, Microgrid Expansion........ 9,160 9,160
California
MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Jacksonville Fleet Support Facility 8,455 8,455
Addition.
MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Jacksonville Triton Mission Control 8,296 8,296
Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Mayport LCS Mission Module 16,159 16,159
Readiness Center.
MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Pensacola A-School Unaccopanied 18,347 18,347
Housing (Corry Station).
MIL CON, NAVY FLORIDA Whiting Field T-6B JPATS Training 10,421 10,421
Operations Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY GEORGIA Albany Ground Source Heat Pumps... 7,851 7,851
MIL CON, NAVY GEORGIA Kings Bay Industrial Control System 8,099 8,099
Infrastructure.
MIL CON, NAVY GEORGIA Townsend Townsend Bombing Range 48,279 -5,000 43,279
Expansion Phase 2.
MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Live-Fire Training Range 125,677 125,677
Complex (NW Field).
MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Municipal Solid Waste 10,777 10,777
Landfill Closure.
MIL CON, NAVY GUAM Joint Region Marianas Sanitary Sewer System 45,314 45,314
Recapitalization.
MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Barking Sands PMRF Power Grid 30,623 30,623
Consolidation.
MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor- UEM Interconnect Sta C to 6,335 6,335
Hickam Hickam.
MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor- Welding School Shop 8,546 8,546
Hickam Consolidation.
MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Airfield Lighting 26,097 26,097
Modernization.
MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Bachelor Enlisted Quarters. 68,092 68,092
MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII Kaneohe Bay P-8A Detachment Support 12,429 12,429
Facilities.
MIL CON, NAVY HAWAII MCB Hawaii LHD Pad Conversions MV22 0 12,800 12,800
Landing Pads.
MIL CON, NAVY ITALY Sigonella P-8A Hangar and Fleet 62,302 62,302
Support Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY ITALY Sigonella Triton Hangar and Operation 40,641 40,641
Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY JAPAN Camp Butler Military Working Dog 11,697 11,697
Facilities (Camp Hansen).
MIL CON, NAVY JAPAN Iwakuni E-2D Operational Trainer 8,716 8,716
Complex.
MIL CON, NAVY JAPAN Iwakuni Security Modifications-- 9,207 9,207
CVW5/MAG12 HQ.
MIL CON, NAVY JAPAN Kadena AB Aircraft Maint. Shelters & 23,310 23,310
Apron.
MIL CON, NAVY JAPAN Yokosuka Child Development Center... 13,846 13,846
MIL CON, NAVY MARYLAND Patuxent River Unaccompanied Housing...... 40,935 40,935
MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune Range Safety Improvements.. 0 19,400 19,400
MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North Simulator Integration/Range 54,849 54,849
Carolina Control Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Marine Air Field Security 0 23,300 23,300
Corps Air Station Improvements.
MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Marine KC130J Enlsited Air Crew 4,769 4,769
Corps Air Station Trainer Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA Cherry Point Marine Unmanned Aircraft System 29,657 29,657
Corps Air Station Facilities.
MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA New River Operational Trainer 3,312 3,312
Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY NORTH CAROLINA New River Radar Air Traffic Control 4,918 4,918
Facility Addition.
MIL CON, NAVY POLAND RedziKowo Base AEGIS Ashore Missile 51,270 51,270
Defense Complex.
MIL CON, NAVY SOUTH CAROLINA Parris Island Range Safety Improvements & 27,075 27,075
Modernization.
MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Dam Neck Maritime Surveillance 23,066 23,066
System Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Norfolk Communications Center...... 75,289 75,289
MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Norfolk Electrical Repairs to Piers 44,254 44,254
2,6,7, and 11.
MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Norfolk MH60 Helicopter Training 7,134 7,134
Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Portsmouth Waterfront Utilities....... 45,513 45,513
MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Quantico ATFP Gate.................. 5,840 5,840
MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Quantico Electrical Distribution 8,418 8,418
Upgrade.
MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Quantico Embassy Security Guard BEQ 43,941 43,941
& Ops Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY VIRGINIA Quantico TBS Fire Station 0 17,200 17,200
Replacement.
MIL CON, NAVY WASHINGTON Bangor WRA Land/Water Interface... 34,177 34,177
MIL CON, NAVY WASHINGTON Bremerton Dry Dock 6 Modernization & 22,680 22,680
Utility Improve..
MIL CON, NAVY WASHINGTON Indian Island Shore Power to Ammunition 4,472 4,472
Pier.
MIL CON, NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MCON Design Funds.......... 91,649 91,649
Locations
MIL CON, NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 22,590 22,590
Locations Construction.
SUBTOTAL, MIL CON, NAVY 1,605,929 59,360 1,665,289
....................... .......................
MILCON, AIR FORCE
MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A Flight Sim/Alter 37,000 37,000
Squad Ops/AMU Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE ALASKA Eielson AFB Rpr Central Heat & Power 34,400 34,400
Plant Boiler Ph3.
MILCON, AIR FORCE ARIZONA Davis-Monthan AFB HC-130J AGE Covered Storage 4,700 4,700
MILCON, AIR FORCE ARIZONA Davis-Monthan AFB HC-130J Wash Rack.......... 12,200 12,200
MILCON, AIR FORCE ARIZONA Luke AFB Communications Facility.... 0 21,000 21,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE ARIZONA Luke AFB F-35A ADAL Fuel Offload 5,000 5,000
Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE ARIZONA Luke AFB F-35A Aircraft Maintenance 13,200 13,200
Hangar/Sq 3.
MILCON, AIR FORCE ARIZONA Luke AFB F-35A Bomb Build-Up 5,500 5,500
Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE ARIZONA Luke AFB F-35A Sq Ops/AMU/Hangar/Sq 33,000 33,000
4.
MILCON, AIR FORCE COLORADO U.S. Air Force Academy Front Gates Force 10,000 10,000
Protection Enhancements.
MILCON, AIR FORCE FLORIDA Cape Canaveral Afs Range Communications 21,000 21,000
Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE FLORIDA Eglin AFB F-35A Consolidated HQ 8,700 8,700
Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE FLORIDA Hurlburt Field ADAL 39 Information 14,200 14,200
Operations Squad Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE GREENLAND Thule AB Thule Consolidation Ph 1... 41,965 41,965
MILCON, AIR FORCE GUAM Joint Region Marianas APR--Dispersed Maint Spares 19,000 19,000
& SE Storage Fac.
MILCON, AIR FORCE GUAM Joint Region Marianas APR--Installation Control 22,200 22,200
Center.
MILCON, AIR FORCE GUAM Joint Region Marianas APR--South Ramp Utilities 7,100 7,100
Phase 2.
MILCON, AIR FORCE GUAM Joint Region Marianas PRTC Roads................. 2,500 2,500
MILCON, AIR FORCE HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor- F-22 Fighter Alert Facility 46,000 46,000
Hickam
MILCON, AIR FORCE JAPAN Yokota AB C-130J Flight Simulator 8,461 8,461
Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE KANSAS McConnell AFB Air Traffic Control Tower.. 0 11,200 11,200
MILCON, AIR FORCE KANSAS McConnell AFB KC-46A ADAL Deicing Pads... 4,300 4,300
MILCON, AIR FORCE LOUISIANA Barksdale AFB Consolidated Communications 0 20,000 20,000
Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE MARYLAND Fort Meade CYBERCOM Joint Operations 86,000 86,000
Center, Increment 3.
MILCON, AIR FORCE MISSOURI Whiteman AFB Consolidated Stealth Ops & 29,500 29,500
Nuclear Alert Fac.
MILCON, AIR FORCE MONTANA Malmstrom AFB Tactical Response Force 19,700 19,700
Alert Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE NEBRASKA Offutt AFB Dormitory (144 RM)......... 21,000 21,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE NEVADA Nellis AFB F-35A Airfield Pavements... 31,000 31,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE NEVADA Nellis AFB F-35A Live Ordnance Loading 34,500 34,500
Area.
MILCON, AIR FORCE NEVADA Nellis AFB F-35A Munitions Maintenance 3,450 3,450
Facilities.
MILCON, AIR FORCE NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB Construct AT/FP Gate-- 7,800 7,800
Portales.
MILCON, AIR FORCE NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB Marshalling Area ARM/DE-ARM 3,000 3,000
Pad D.
MILCON, AIR FORCE NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB Fixed Ground Control....... 0 3,200 3,200
MILCON, AIR FORCE NEW MEXICO Kirtland AFB Space Vehicles Component 12,800 12,800
Development Lab.
MILCON, AIR FORCE NEW YORK Fort Drum, New York ASOS Expansion............. 0 6,000 6,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE NIGER Agadez Construct Airfield and Base 50,000 50,000
Camp.
MILCON, AIR FORCE NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB Air Traffic Control Tower/ 17,100 17,100
Base Ops Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE OKLAHOMA Altus AFB Dormitory (120 RM)......... 18,000 18,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC-46A FTU ADAL Fuel Cell 10,400 10,400
Maint Hangar.
MILCON, AIR FORCE OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB Air Traffic Control Tower.. 12,900 12,900
MILCON, AIR FORCE OKLAHOMA Tinker AFB KC-46A Depot Maintenance 37,000 37,000
Dock.
MILCON, AIR FORCE OMAN Al Musannah AB Airlift Apron.............. 25,000 25,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE SOUTH DAKOTA Ellsworth AFB Dormitory (168 RM)......... 23,000 23,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio BMT Classrooms/Dining 35,000 35,000
Facility 3.
MILCON, AIR FORCE TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio BMT Recruit Dormitory 5.... 71,000 71,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Croughton RAF Consolidated SATCOM/Tech 36,424 36,424
Control Facility.
MILCON, AIR FORCE UNITED KINGDOM Croughton RAF JIAC Consolidation--Ph 2... 94,191 94,191
MILCON, AIR FORCE UTAH Hill AFB F-35A Flight Simulator 5,900 5,900
Addition Phase 2.
MILCON, AIR FORCE UTAH Hill AFB F-35A Hangar 40/42 21,000 21,000
Additions and AMU.
MILCON, AIR FORCE UTAH Hill AFB Hayman Igloos.............. 11,500 11,500
MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED Classified Location Long Range Strike Bomber... 77,130 77,130
MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED Classified Location Munitions Storage.......... 3,000 3,000
MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Prior Year Unobligated 0 -50,000 -50,000
Locations Amounts.
MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design........ 89,164 89,164
Locations
MILCON, AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Unspecified Minor Military 22,900 22,900
Locations Construction.
MILCON, AIR FORCE WYOMING F. E. Warren AFB Weapon Storage Facility.... 95,000 95,000
SUBTOTAL, MILCON, AIR FORCE 1,354,785 11,400 1,366,185
....................... .......................
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE ALABAMA Fort Rucker Fort Rucker ES/PS 46,787 46,787
Consolidation/Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE ALABAMA Maxwell AFB Maxwell ES/MS Replacement/ 32,968 32,968
Renovation.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE ARIZONA Fort Huachuca JITC Buildings 52101/52111 3,884 3,884
Renovations.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, SOF Combat Service Support 10,181 10,181
California Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, SOF Performance Resiliency 10,371 10,371
California Center-West.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF Logistics Support Unit 47,218 47,218
One Ops Fac. #2.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CALIFORNIA Fresno Yosemite IAP ANG Replace Fuel Storage and 10,700 10,700
Distrib. Facilities.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado SOF Language Training 8,243 8,243
Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE CONUS CLASSIFIED Classified Location Operations Support Facility 20,065 20,065
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE DELAWARE Dover AFB Construct Hydrant Fuel 21,600 21,600
System.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonier, Djibouti Construct Fuel Storage & 43,700 43,700
Distrib. Facilities.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE FLORIDA Hurlburt Field SOF Fuel Cell Maintenance 17,989 17,989
Hangar.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE FLORIDA MacDill AFB SOF Operational Support 39,142 39,142
Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GEORGIA Moody AFB Replace Pumphouse and Truck 10,900 10,900
Fillstands.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GERMANY Garmisch Garmisch E/MS-Addition/ 14,676 14,676
Modernization.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GERMANY Grafenwoehr Grafenwoehr Elementary 38,138 38,138
School Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GERMANY Rhine Ordnance Barracks Medical Center Replacement 85,034 85,034
Incr 5.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GERMANY Spangdahlem AB Construct Fuel Pipeline.... 5,500 5,500
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GERMANY Spangdahlem AB Medical/Dental Clinic 34,071 34,071
Addition.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE GERMANY Stuttgart-Patch Patch Elementary School 49,413 49,413
Barracks Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE HAWAII Kaneohe Bay Medical/Dental Clinic 122,071 122,071
Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE HAWAII Schofield Barracks Behavioral Health/Dental 123,838 123,838
Clinic Addition.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE JAPAN Kadena AB Airfield Pavements......... 37,485 37,485
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE KENTUCKY Fort Campbell, Kentucky SOF Company HQ/Classrooms.. 12,553 12,553
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE KENTUCKY Fort Knox Fort Knox HS Renovation/MS 23,279 23,279
Addition.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Campus Feeders Phase 2 33,745 33,745
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW Recapitalize Building 34,897 34,897
#2 Incr 1.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NEVADA Nellis AFB Replace Hydrant Fuel System 39,900 39,900
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB Construct Pumphouse and 20,400 20,400
Fuel Storage.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB SOF Squadron Operations 11,565 11,565
Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB SOF ST Operational Training 13,146 13,146
Facilities.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NEW YORK West Point West Point Elementary 55,778 55,778
School Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North SOF Combat Service Support 14,036 14,036
Carolina Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune, North SOF Marine Battalion 54,970 54,970
Carolina Company/Team Facilities.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg Butner Elementary School 32,944 32,944
Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF 21 STS Operations 16,863 16,863
Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Battalion Operations 38,549 38,549
Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Indoor Range........... 8,303 8,303
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Intelligence Training 28,265 28,265
Center.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF Special Tactics 43,887 43,887
Facility (PH 2).
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE OHIO Wright-Patterson AFB Satellite Pharmacy 6,623 6,623
Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE OREGON Klamath Falls IAP Replace Fuel Facilities.... 2,500 2,500
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE PENNSYLVANIA Philadelphia Replace Headquarters....... 49,700 -49,700 0
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE POLAND RedziKowo Base Aegis Ashore Missile 169,153 169,153
Defense System Complex.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE SOUTH CAROLINA Fort Jackson Pierce Terrace Elementary 26,157 26,157
School Replacement.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE SPAIN Rota Rota ES and HS Additions... 13,737 13,737
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE TEXAS Fort Bliss Hospital Replacement Incr 7 239,884 239,884
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Ambulatory Care Center 61,776 61,776
Phase 4.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir Construct Visitor Control 5,000 5,000
Center.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir Replace Ground Vehicle 4,500 4,500
Fueling Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley- Replace Fuel Pier and 28,000 28,000
Eustis Distribution Facility.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE VIRGINIA Joint Expeditionary SOF Applied Instruction 23,916 23,916
Base Little Creek-- Facility.
Story
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Contingency Construction... 10,000 10,000
Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ECIP Design................ 10,000 10,000
Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Energy Conservation 150,000 150,000
Locations Investment Program.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Exercise Related Minor 8,687 8,687
Locations Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design........ 118,632 118,632
Locations
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 23,676 23,676
Locations Construction.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Prior year savings, 0 -120,000 -120,000
Locations including rescoped medical
facility at Fort Knox.
MIL CON, DEF-WIDE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning & Design.......... 31,772 31,772
Locations
SUBTOTAL, MIL CON, DEF-WIDE 2,300,767 -169,700 2,131,067
....................... .......................
MILCON, ARNG
MILCON, ARNG ALABAMA Camp Foley Vehicle Maintenance Shop... 0 4,500 4,500
MILCON, ARNG CONNECTICUT Camp Hartell Ready Building (CST-WMD)... 11,000 11,000
MILCON, ARNG DELAWARE Dagsboro National Guard Vehicle 10,800 10,800
Maintenance Shop.
MILCON, ARNG FLORIDA Palm Coast National Guard Readiness 18,000 18,000
Center.
MILCON, ARNG GEORGIA Fort Stewart Tactical Aerial Unmanned 0 6,800 6,800
Systems.
MILCON, ARNG ILLINOIS Sparta Basic 10M-25M Firing Range 1,900 1,900
(Zero).
MILCON, ARNG KANSAS Salina Automated Combat Pistol/MP 2,400 2,400
Firearms Qual Cour.
MILCON, ARNG KANSAS Salina Modified Record Fire Range. 4,300 4,300
MILCON, ARNG MARYLAND Easton National Guard Readiness 13,800 13,800
Center.
MILCON, ARNG MISSISSIPPI Gulfport Aviation Classification and 0 40,000 40,000
Repair.
MILCON, ARNG NEVADA Reno National Guard Vehicle 8,000 8,000
Maintenance Shop Add/A.
MILCON, ARNG OHIO Camp Ravenna Modified Record Fire Range. 3,300 3,300
MILCON, ARNG OREGON Salem National Guard/Reserve 16,500 16,500
Center Bldg Add/Alt (J.
MILCON, ARNG PENNSYLVANIA Fort Indiantown Gap Training Aids Center....... 16,000 16,000
MILCON, ARNG VERMONT North Hyde Park National Guard Vehicle 7,900 7,900
Maintenance Shop Addit.
MILCON, ARNG VIRGINIA Richmond National Guard/Reserve 29,000 29,000
Center Building (JFHQ).
MILCON, ARNG WASHINGTON Yakima Enlisted Barracks, 19,000 19,000
Transient Training.
MILCON, ARNG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design........ 20,337 20,337
Locations
MILCON, ARNG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 15,000 15,000
Locations Construction.
SUBTOTAL, MILCON, ARNG 197,237 51,300 248,537
....................... .......................
MILCON, ANG
MILCON, ANG ALABAMA Dannelly Field TFI--Replace Squadron 7,600 7,600
Operations Facility.
MILCON, ANG CALIFORNIA Moffett Field Replace Vehicle Maintenance 6,500 6,500
Facility.
MILCON, ANG COLORADO Buckley Air Force Base ASE Maintenance and Storage 5,100 5,100
Facility.
MILCON, ANG CONNECTICUT Bradley Ops and Deployment Facility 0 6,300 6,300
MILCON, ANG FLORIDA Cape Canaveral Afs Space Control Facility..... 0 6,100 6,100
MILCON, ANG GEORGIA Savannah/Hilton Head C-130 Squadron Operations 9,000 9,000
IAP Facility.
MILCON, ANG HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor- F-22 Composite Repair 0 9,700 9,700
Hickam Facility.
MILCON, ANG IOWA Des Moines Map Air Operations Grp/CYBER 6,700 6,700
Beddown-Reno Blg 430.
MILCON, ANG KANSAS Smokey Hill ANG Range Range Training Support 2,900 2,900
Facilities.
MILCON, ANG LOUISIANA New Orleans Replace Squadron Operations 10,000 10,000
Facility.
MILCON, ANG MAINE Bangor IAP Add to and Alter Fire Crash/ 7,200 7,200
Rescue Station.
MILCON, ANG NEW HAMPSHIRE Pease International Bidg Mo KC-46 Fuselage 0 1,500 1,500
Trade Port Trainer.
MILCON, ANG NEW HAMPSHIRE Pease International KC-46A ADAL Flight 2,800 2,800
Trade Port Simulator Bldg 156.
MILCON, ANG NEW JERSEY Atlantic City IAP Fuel Cell and Corrosion 10,200 10,200
Control Hangar.
MILCON, ANG NEW YORK Niagara Falls IAP Remotely Piloted Aircraft 7,700 7,700
Beddown Bldg 912.
MILCON, ANG NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte/Douglas IAP Replace C-130 Squadron 9,000 9,000
Operations Facility.
MILCON, ANG NORTH DAKOTA Hector IAP Intel Targeting Facilities. 7,300 7,300
MILCON, ANG OKLAHOMA Will Rogers World Medium Altitude Manned ISR 7,600 7,600
Airport Beddown.
MILCON, ANG OREGON Klamath Falls IAP Replace Fire Crash/Rescue 7,200 7,200
Station.
MILCON, ANG WEST VIRGINIA Yeager Airport Force Protection--Relocate 3,900 3,900
Coonskin Road.
MILCON, ANG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design........ 5,104 5,104
Locations
MILCON, ANG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Unspecified Minor 7,734 7,734
Locations Construction.
SUBTOTAL, MILCON, ANG 123,538 23,600 147,138
....................... .......................
MILCON, ARMY R
MILCON, ARMY R CALIFORNIA Miramar Army Reserve Center........ 24,000 24,000
MILCON, ARMY R FLORIDA MacDill AFB AR Center/AS Facility...... 55,000 55,000
MILCON, ARMY R MISSISSIPPI Starkville Army Reserve Center........ 9,300 9,300
MILCON, ARMY R NEW YORK Orangeburg Organizational Maintenance 4,200 4,200
Shop.
MILCON, ARMY R PENNSYLVANIA Conneaut Lake DAR Highway Improvement.... 5,000 5,000
MILCON, ARMY R PUERTO RICO Fort Buchanan Access Control Point....... 0 10,200 10,200
MILCON, ARMY R VIRGINIA Fort AP Hill Equipment Concentration.... 0 24,000 24,000
MILCON, ARMY R WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design........ 9,318 9,318
Locations
MILCON, ARMY R WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Unspecified Minor 6,777 6,777
Locations Construction.
SUBTOTAL, MILCON, ARMY R 113,595 34,200 147,795
....................... .......................
MIL CON, NAVY RES
MIL CON, NAVY RES NEVADA Fallon NAVOPSPTCEN Fallon......... 11,480 11,480
MIL CON, NAVY RES NEW YORK Brooklyn Reserve Center Storage 2,479 2,479
Facility.
MIL CON, NAVY RES VIRGINIA Dam Neck Reserve Training Center 18,443 18,443
Complex.
MIL CON, NAVY RES WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MCNR Planning & Design..... 2,208 2,208
Locations
MIL CON, NAVY RES WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MCNR Unspecified Minor 1,468 1,468
Locations Construction.
SUBTOTAL, MIL CON, NAVY RES 36,078 36,078
....................... .......................
MILCON, AF RES
MILCON, AF RES CALIFORNIA March AFB Satellite Fire Station..... 4,600 4,600
MILCON, AF RES FLORIDA Patrick AFB Aircrew Life Support 3,400 3,400
Facility.
MILCON, AF RES GEORGIA Dobbins Fire Station/Security 0 10,400 10,400
Complex.
MILCON, AF RES OHIO Youngstown Indoor Firing Range........ 9,400 9,400
MILCON, AF RES TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio Consolidate 433 Medical 9,900 9,900
Facility.
MILCON, AF RES WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Planning and Design........ 13,400 13,400
Locations
MILCON, AF RES WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide Unspecified Minor Military 6,121 6,121
Locations Construction.
SUBTOTAL, MILCON, AF RES 46,821 10,400 57,221
....................... .......................
NATO SEC INV PRGM
NATO SEC INV PRGM WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED NATO Security NATO Security Investment 120,000 120,000
Investment Program Program.
SUBTOTAL, NATO SEC INV PRGM 120,000 120,000
....................... .......................
TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 6,641,995 -940 6,641,055
....................... .......................
FAMILY HOUSING
FAM HSG CON, ARMY
FAM HSG CON, ARMY FLORIDA Camp Rudder Family Housing Replacement 8,000 8,000
Construction.
FAM HSG CON, ARMY GERMANY Wiesbaden Army Airfield Family Housing Improvements 3,500 3,500
FAM HSG CON, ARMY ILLINOIS Rock Island Family Housing Replacement 20,000 20,000
Construction.
FAM HSG CON, ARMY KOREA Camp Walker Family Housing New 61,000 61,000
Construction.
FAM HSG CON, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Family Housing P & D....... 7,195 7,195
Locations
SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG CON, ARMY 99,695 99,695
....................... .......................
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings................ 25,552 25,552
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leased Housing............. 144,879 144,879
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance of Real 75,197 75,197
Locations Property Facilities.
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account......... 48,515 48,515
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Military Housing 22,000 22,000
Locations Privitization Initiative.
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous.............. 840 840
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services................... 10,928 10,928
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities.................. 65,600 65,600
Locations
SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG O&M, ARMY 393,511 393,511
....................... .......................
FAM HSG CON, N/MC
FAM HSG CON, N/MC VIRGINIA Wallops Island Construct Housing Welcome 438 438
Center.
FAM HSG CON, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Design..................... 4,588 4,588
Locations
FAM HSG CON, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Improvements............... 11,515 11,515
Locations
SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG CON, N/MC 16,541 16,541
....................... .......................
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account........ 17,534 17,534
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing.................... 64,108 64,108
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance of Real 99,323 99,323
Locations Property.
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account......... 56,189 56,189
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous Account...... 373 373
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Privatization Support Costs 28,668 28,668
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services Account........... 19,149 19,149
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, N/MC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities Account.......... 67,692 67,692
Locations
SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG O&M, N/MC 353,036 353,036
FAM HSG CON, AF
FAM HSG CON, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Improvements............... 150,649 150,649
Locations
FAM HSG CON, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Planning and Design........ 9,849 9,849
Locations
SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG CON, AF 160,498 160,498
FAM HSG O&M, AF
FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account........ 38,746 38,746
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Housing Privatization...... 41,554 41,554
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing.................... 28,867 28,867
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance................ 114,129 114,129
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account......... 52,153 52,153
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Miscellaneous Account...... 2,032 2,032
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services Account........... 12,940 12,940
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities Account.......... 40,811 40,811
Locations
SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG O&M, AF 331,232 331,232
....................... .......................
FAM HSG O&M, DW
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Furnishings Account........ 4,203 4,203
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Leasing.................... 51,952 51,952
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Maintenance of Real 1,448 1,448
Locations Property.
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Management Account......... 388 388
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Services Account........... 31 31
Locations
FAM HSG O&M, DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide Utilities Account.......... 646 646
Locations
SUBTOTAL, FAM HSG O&M, DW 58,668 58,668
....................... .......................
TOTAL FAMILY HOUSING 1,413,181 1,413,181
....................... .......................
DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE
DOD BRAC--ARMY
DOD BRAC--ARMY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Base Realignment and 29,691 29,691
Closure, Army Closure.
SUBTOTAL, DOD BRAC--ARMY 29,691 29,691
....................... .......................
DOD BRAC--NAVY
DOD BRAC--NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & Base Realignment & Closure. 118,906 118,906
Closure, Navy
DOD BRAC--NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-100: Planing, Design 7,787 7,787
Locations and Management.
DOD BRAC--NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-101: Various Locations. 20,871 20,871
Locations
DOD BRAC--NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-138: NAS Brunswick, ME. 803 803
Locations
DOD BRAC--NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-157: MCSA Kansas City, 41 41
Locations MO.
DOD BRAC--NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-172: NWS Seal Beach, 4,872 4,872
Locations Concord, CA.
DOD BRAC--NAVY WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-84: JRB Willow Grove & 3,808 3,808
Locations Cambria Reg AP.
SUBTOTAL, DOD BRAC--NAVY 157,088 157,088
....................... .......................
DOD BRAC--AIR FORCE
DOD BRAC--AIR FORCE WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DoD BRAC Activities--Air 64,555 64,555
Locations Force.
SUBTOTAL, DOD BRAC--AIR FORCE 64,555 64,555
....................... .......................
TOTAL DEFENSE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE 251,334 251,334
....................... .......................
TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, FAMILY HOUSING, AND BRAC 8,306,510 -940 8,305,570
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL
SECURITY PROGRAMS
SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4701. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate
Program FY 2016 Request Senate Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Summary By Appropriation
Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies
Appropriation Summary:
Energy Programs
Nuclear Energy...................................... 135,161 135,161
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National nuclear security administration:
Weapons activities................................ 8,846,948 180,000 9,026,948
Defense nuclear nonproliferation.................. 1,940,302 5,000 1,945,302
Naval reactors.................................... 1,375,496 0 1,375,496
Federal salaries and expenses..................... 402,654 0 402,654
Total, National nuclear security administration..... 12,565,400 185,000 12,750,400
Environmental and other defense activities:
Defense environmental cleanup..................... 5,527,347 -451,797 5,075,550
Other defense activities.......................... 774,425 0 774,425
Total, Environmental & other defense activities..... 6,301,772 -451,797 5,849,975
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities............... 18,867,172 -266,797 18,600,375
Total, Discretionary Funding.............................. 19,002,333 -266,797 18,735,536
Nuclear Energy
Idaho sitewide safeguards and security.................. 126,161 126,161
Used nuclear fuel disposition........................... 9,000 9,000
Total, Nuclear Energy..................................... 135,161 0 135,161
Weapons Activities
Directed stockpile work
Life extension programs
B61 Life extension program.......................... 643,300 643,300
W76 Life extension program.......................... 244,019 244,019
W88 Alt 370......................................... 220,176 220,176
W80-4 Life extension program........................ 195,037 195,037
Total, Life extension programs........................ 1,302,532 0 1,302,532
Stockpile systems
B61 Stockpile systems............................... 52,247 52,247
W76 Stockpile systems............................... 50,921 50,921
W78 Stockpile systems............................... 64,092 64,092
W80 Stockpile systems............................... 68,005 68,005
B83 Stockpile systems............................... 42,177 42,177
W87 Stockpile systems............................... 89,299 89,299
W88 Stockpile systems............................... 115,685 115,685
Total, Stockpile systems.............................. 482,426 0 482,426
Weapons dismantlement and disposition
Operations and maintenance.......................... 48,049 48,049
Stockpile services
Production support.................................. 447,527 447,527
Research and development support.................... 34,159 34,159
R&D certification and safety........................ 192,613 192,613
Management, technology, and production.............. 264,994 264,994
Total, Stockpile services............................. 939,293 0 939,293
Nuclear material commodities
Uranium sustainment................................. 32,916 32,916
Plutonium sustainment............................... 174,698 174,698
Tritium sustainment................................. 107,345 107,345
Domestic uranium enrichment......................... 100,000 100,000
Total, Nuclear material commodities................... 414,959 0 414,959
Total, Directed stockpile work.......................... 3,187,259 0 3,187,259
Research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E)
Science
Advanced certification.............................. 50,714 50,714
Primary assessment technologies..................... 98,500 98,500
Dynamic materials properties........................ 109,000 109,000
Advanced radiography................................ 47,000 47,000
Secondary assessment technologies................... 84,400 84,400
Total, Science........................................ 389,614 0 389,614
Engineering
Enhanced surety..................................... 50,821 50,821
Weapon systems engineering assessment technology.... 17,371 17,371
Nuclear survivability............................... 24,461 24,461
Enhanced surveillance............................... 38,724 10,000 48,724
Program increase.................................. [10,000]
Total, Engineering ................................... 131,377 10,000 141,377
Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield
Ignition............................................ 73,334 73,334
Support of other stockpile programs................. 22,843 22,843
Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support.... 58,587 58,587
Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion............ 4,963 4,963
Joint program in high energy density laboratory 8,900 8,900
plasmas............................................
Facility operations and target production........... 333,823 333,823
Undistributed....................................... 0 0
Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield..... 502,450 0 502,450
Advanced simulation and computing..................... 623,006 623,006
Response Capabilities Program......................... 0 20,000 20,000
Supports flexible design capability for national [20,000]
labs...............................................
Nonnuclear Readiness Campaign......................... 0 0
Advanced manufacturing
Additive manufacturing.............................. 0 0
Component manufacturing development................. 112,256 112,256
Processing technology development................... 17,800 17,800
Total, Advanced manufacturing......................... 130,056 0 130,056
Total, RDT&E............................................ 1,776,503 30,000 1,806,503
Readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF)
Operating
Program readiness................................... 75,185 75,185
Material recycle and recovery....................... 173,859 173,859
Containers.......................................... 0 0
Storage............................................. 40,920 40,920
Maintenance and repair of facilities................ 0 0
Recapitalization.................................... 104,327 104,327
Total, Operating...................................... 394,291 0 394,291
Construction:
Albuquerque Complex upgrades project................ 0 0
15-D-613 Emergency Operations Center, Y-12.......... 0 0
15-D-612 Emergency Operations Center, LLNL.......... 0 0
15-D-611 Emergency Operations Center, SNL........... 0 0
15-D-301 HE Science & Engineering Facility, PX...... 0 0
15-D-302, TA-55 Reinvestment project, Phase 3, LANL. 18,195 18,195
12-D-301 TRU waste facilities, LANL................. 0 0
11-D-801 TA-55 Reinvestment project Phase 2, LANL... 3,903 3,903
07-D-220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility 11,533 11,533
upgrade project, LANL..............................
07-D-220-04 Transuranic liquid waste facility, LANL. 40,949 40,949
06-D-141 PED/Construction, Uranium Capabilities 430,000 430,000
Replacement Project Y-12...........................
04-D-125 Chemistry and metallurgy replacement 155,610 155,610
project, LANL......................................
Total, Construction................................... 660,190 0 660,190
Total, Readiness in technical base and facilities....... 1,054,481 0 1,054,481
Secure transportation asset
Operations and equipment.............................. 146,272 146,272
Program direction..................................... 105,338 105,338
Total, Secure transportation asset...................... 251,610 0 251,610
Nuclear counterterrorism incident response.............. 0 0
Counterterrorism and Counterproliferation Programs...... 0 0
Infrastructure and safety
Operations of facilities
Kansas City Plant................................... 100,250 100,250
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.............. 70,671 70,671
Los Alamos National Laboratory...................... 196,460 196,460
Nevada National Security Site....................... 89,000 89,000
Pantex.............................................. 58,021 58,021
Sandia National Laboratory.......................... 115,300 115,300
Savannah River Site................................. 80,463 80,463
Y-12 National security complex...................... 120,625 120,625
Total, Operations of facilities....................... 830,790 0 830,790
Safety operations..................................... 107,701 107,701
Maintenance........................................... 227,000 227,000
Recapitalization...................................... 257,724 150,000 407,724
Increase to support deferred maintenance............ [150,000]
Construction:
16-D-621 Substation replacement at TA-3, LANL....... 25,000 25,000
15-D-613 Emergency Operations Center, Y-12.......... 17,919 17,919
Total, Construction................................... 42,919 0 42,919
Total, Infrastructure and safety........................ 1,466,134 150,000 1,616,134
Site stewardship
Environmental projects and operations................. 0 0
Nuclear materials integration......................... 17,510 17,510
Minority serving institution partnerships program..... 19,085 19,085
Total, Site stewardship................................. 36,595 0 36,595
Defense nuclear security
Operations and maintenance............................ 619,891 619,891
Construction:
14-D-710 Device assembly facility argus installation 13,000 13,000
project, NV........................................
Total, Defense nuclear security......................... 632,891 0 632,891
Information technology and cybersecurity................ 157,588 157,588
Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 283,887 283,887
Domestic uranium enrichment............................. 0 0
Total, Weapons Activities................................. 8,846,948 180,000 9,026,948
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
Global threat reduction initiative.................... 0 0
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D
Global material security............................ 426,751 426,751
Material management and minimization................ 311,584 311,584
Nonproliferation and arms control................... 126,703 126,703
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation R&D................ 419,333 419,333
Nonproliferation Construction:
99-D-143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication 345,000 345,000
Facility, SRS....................................
Analysis of Alternatives.......................... 0 5,000 5,000
Assess alternatives to MOX...................... [5,000]
Total, Nonproliferation construction................ 345,000 5,000 350,000
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs...... 1,629,371 5,000 1,634,371
Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 94,617 94,617
Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program.. 234,390 234,390
Use of prior-year balances.............................. -18,076 -18,076
Subtotal, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ............. 1,940,302 5,000 1,945,302
Rescission.............................................. 0 0
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................... 1,940,302 5,000 1,945,302
Naval Reactors
Naval reactors operations and infrastructure............ 445,196 445,196
Naval reactors development.............................. 444,400 444,400
Ohio replacement reactor systems development............ 186,800 186,800
S8G Prototype refueling................................. 133,000 133,000
Program direction....................................... 45,000 45,000
Construction:
15-D-904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3............. 900 900
15-D-903 KL Fire System Upgrade....................... 600 600
15-D-902 KS Engineroom team trainer facility.......... 3,100 3,100
14-D-902 KL Materials characterization laboratory 30,000 30,000
expansion, KAPL......................................
14-D-901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, 86,000 86,000
NRF..................................................
10-D-903, Security upgrades, KAPL..................... 500 500
Total, Construction..................................... 121,100 0 121,100
Total, Naval Reactors..................................... 1,375,496 0 1,375,496
Federal Salaries And Expenses
Program direction....................................... 402,654 402,654
Total, Office Of The Administrator........................ 402,654 0 402,654
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Closure sites:
Closure sites administration.......................... 4,889 4,889
Hanford site:
River corridor and other cleanup operations:
River corridor and other cleanup operations......... 196,957 196,957
Central plateau remediation:
Central plateau remediation......................... 555,163 555,163
Richland community and regulatory support........... 14,701 14,701
Construction:
15-D-401 Containerized sludge removal annex, RL..... 77,016 77,016
Total, Hanford site..................................... 843,837 0 843,837
Idaho National Laboratory:
Idaho cleanup and waste disposition................... 357,783 357,783
Idaho community and regulatory support................ 3,000 3,000
Total, Idaho National Laboratory........................ 360,783 0 360,783
NNSA sites
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory................ 1,366 1,366
Nevada................................................ 62,385 62,385
Sandia National Laboratories.......................... 2,500 2,500
Los Alamos National Laboratory........................ 188,625 20,000 208,625
Accelerate cleanup of transuranic waste............. [20,000]
Construction:
15-D-406 Hexavalent chromium D & D (Vl-Lanl-0030)... 0
Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites.................. 254,876 20,000 274,876
Oak Ridge Reservation:
OR Nuclear facility D & D
OR Nuclear facility D & D........................... 75,958 75,958
Construction:
14-D-403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment Facility... 6,800 6,800
Total, OR Nuclear facility D & D...................... 82,758 0 82,758
U233 Disposition Program.............................. 26,895 26,895
OR cleanup and disposition:
OR cleanup and disposition.......................... 60,500 60,500
Construction:
15-D-405--Sludge Buildout......................... 0 0
Total, OR cleanup and disposition..................... 60,500 0 60,500
OR reservation community and regulatory support......... 4,400 4,400
Solid waste stabilization and disposition
Oak Ridge technology development................. 2,800 2,800
Total, Oak Ridge Reservation............................ 177,353 0 177,353
Office of River Protection:
Waste treatment and immobilization plant
01-D-416 A-D/ORP-0060 / Major construction.......... 595,000 595,000
01-D-16E Pretreatment facility...................... 95,000 95,000
Total, Waste treatment and immobilization plant....... 690,000 0 690,000
Tank farm activities
Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition. 649,000 649,000
Construction:
15-D-409 Low Activity Waste Pretreatment System, 75,000 75,000
Hanford..........................................
Total, Tank farm activities........................... 724,000 0 724,000
Total, Office of River protection....................... 1,414,000 0 1,414,000
Savannah River sites:
Savannah River risk management operations............. 386,652 386,652
SR community and regulatory support................... 11,249 11,249
Radioactive liquid tank waste:
Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 581,878 581,878
disposition........................................
Construction:
15-D-402--Saltstone Disposal Unit #6.............. 34,642 34,642
05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah 194,000 194,000
River............................................
Total, Construction................................. 228,642 0 228,642
Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste.................. 810,520 0 810,520
Total, Savannah River site.............................. 1,208,421 0 1,208,421
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Waste isolation pilot plant........................... 212,600 212,600
Construction:
15-D-411 Safety significant confinement 23,218 23,218
ventilation system, WIPP.......................
15-D-412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP.................... 7,500 7,500
Total, Construction............................... 30,718 0 30,718
Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.................. 243,318 0 243,318
Program direction....................................... 281,951 281,951
Program support......................................... 14,979 14,979
Safeguards and Security:
Oak Ridge Reservation................................. 17,228 17,228
Paducah............................................... 8,216 8,216
Portsmouth............................................ 8,492 8,492
Richland/Hanford Site................................. 67,601 67,601
Savannah River Site................................... 128,345 128,345
Waste Isolation Pilot Project......................... 4,860 4,860
West Valley........................................... 1,891 1,891
Technology development.................................. 14,510 14,510
Use of prior-year balances.............................. 0 0
Subtotal, Defense environmental cleanup................... 5,055,550 20,000 5,075,550
Uranium enrichment D&D fund contribution................ 471,797 -471,797 0
Requires industry match authorization that will not be [-471,797]
forthcoming..........................................
Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup...................... 5,527,347 -451,797 5,075,550
Other Defense Activities
Specialized security activities......................... 221,855 221,855
Environment, health, safety and security
Environment, health, safety and security.............. 120,693 120,693
Program direction..................................... 63,105 63,105
Total, Environment, Health, safety and security......... 183,798 0 183,798
Enterprise assessments
Enterprise assessments................................ 24,068 24,068
Program direction..................................... 49,466 49,466
Total, Enterprise assessments........................... 73,534 0 73,534
Office of Legacy Management
Legacy management..................................... 154,080 154,080
Program direction..................................... 13,100 13,100
Total, Office of Legacy Management...................... 167,180 0 167,180
Defense-related activities
Defense related administrative support
Chief financial officer............................... 35,758 35,758
Chief information officer............................. 83,800 83,800
Management............................................ 3,000 3,000
Total, Defense related administrative support........... 122,558 0 122,558
Office of hearings and appeals.......................... 5,500 5,500
Subtotal, Other defense activities........................ 774,425 0 774,425
Total, Other Defense Activities........................... 774,425 0 774,425
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Energy national security programs (sec. 4701)
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Departmental Recommendations
On April 28, 2015, Senator McCain, with concurrence by
Senator Reed, introduced by request the Administration's
proposed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016. This bill--S.1118--was introduced for the purpose of
placing the Administration's proposals before Congress and the
public without expressing the views of Senators McCain or Reed
on the substance of those proposals. In accordance with past
practice, the committee reported an original bill rather than
acting on S.1118.
Committee Action
The committee vote to report the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 passed by roll call
vote, 22-4, as follows: In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe,
Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst,
Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz, McCaskill, Manchin,
Shaheen, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Kaine, King, and Heinrich.
Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, Gillibrand, and Hirono.
The other 16 roll call votes on motions and amendments to
the bill which were considered during the course of the full
committee markup are as follows:
1. MOTION: To conduct full committee markup of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 in closed
session because of classified and proprietary information
expected to be discussed.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 17-9
In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker,
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Reed,
Nelson, Manchin, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and King
Opposed: Senators Ayotte, Ernst, Lee, Cruz, McCaskill,
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, and Heinrich
2. MOTION: To include a provision for the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau to take into account the actual number of
members of the Army National Guard in each State when
allocating full-time operational support duty personnel.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 19-7
In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker,
Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Tillis, Lee, Graham, Cruz,
McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Kaine, and
King
Opposed: Senators Ernst, Sullivan, Reed, Nelson, Donnelly,
Hirono, and Heinrich
3. MOTION: To include a provision that would require the
Department of Defense: to provide current and evidence-based
standards of care regarding contraception methods and
counseling to all health care providers employed by the
Department; to ensure service women have access to
comprehensive contraception counseling prior to deployment and
throughout their military careers; and to require the Secretary
of Defense to establish a uniform, standard curriculum to be
used in family planning education programs for all members of
the Armed Forces
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 14-12
In favor: Senators Ayotte, Fischer, Reed, Nelson,
McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly,
Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Cotton,
Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, and Cruz
4. MOTION: Motion to strike a provision that would modify
the waiver and exception of section 1608 of the fiscal year
2015 National Defense Authorization Act and replace with a
provision that would add a special rule to section 1608 of the
fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 15-11
In Favor: Senators McCain, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds,
Ernst, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz, McCaskill, Manchin,
Shaheen, Gillibrand, and Blumenthal
Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Tillis, Reed,
Nelson, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
5. MOTION: To strike the provision in the chairman's mark
that would require the Secretary of Defense to certify certain
matters before transferring to a foreign country detainees held
at Guantanamo Bay.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12-14
In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin,
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King,
and Heinrich
Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte,
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham,
and Cruz
6. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the
transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to countries on
which the State Department has issued a threat warning.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13-13
In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Ayotte,
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham,
and Cruz
Opposed: Senators Wicker, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin,
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King,
and Heinrich
7. MOTION: To include a provision to prohibit the
construction of domestic detention facilities or to transfer
detainees held at Guantanamo to the United States until the
Secretary of Defense submits a plan and Congress approves the
plan.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 19-7
In favor: Senators McCain, Wicker, Rounds, Tillis,
Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin,
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King,
and Heinrich
Opposed: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Ayotte, Fischer,
Cotton, Ernst, and Cruz
8. MOTION: To include a provision that would prohibit the
expenditure of funds in fiscal years 2016 through 2020 to
dismantle a nuclear weapon of the United States, unless that
nuclear weapon was retired before September 30, 2008, or is
being dismantled pursuant to a nuclear arms reduction treaty.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13-13
In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker,
Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Lee, Graham,
and Cruz
Opposed: Senators Tillis, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin,
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King,
and Heinrich
9. MOTION: To strike a provision that would amend Section
10106 of title 10, United States Code, by specifying the Army
National Guard as the primary combat reserve of the Army.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 13-13
In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker,
Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz, Gillibrand,
and Donnelly
Opposed: Senators Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Reed, Nelson,
McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King,
and Heinrich
10. MOTION: A provision to eliminate the 4 year, 7.5% per
year reduction to HQ and administrative support costs and
replace with a 1 year 3.75% reduction and request for a plan
for what, if anything, should be done in the out years.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 10-16
In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte,
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham,
Cruz, McCaskill, and Manchin
11. MOTION: To exempt certain service members from impact
of changes proposed to the calculation of the basic allowance
for housing.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 9-17
In favor: Senators Ayotte, Rounds, Cruz, Shaheen,
Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Kaine, and Heinrich
Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker,
Fischer, Cotton, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Reed,
Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Hirono, and King.
12. MOTION: To include a provision that would require the
Secretary of Defense to certify that Congress has received the
written MOU between the United States and any country to which
a detainee at Guantanamo is transferred and to include a
provision to require the Secretary of Defense to report on
previous MOUs between the United States and countries to which
Guantanamo detainees have been transferred.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 17-9
In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker,
Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee,
Graham, Cruz, McCaskill, Gillibrand, and Heinrich
Opposed: Senators Reed, Nelson, Manchin, Shaheen,
Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and King.
13. MOTION: To strike a provision requiring a GAO
assessment of the potential costs and benefits for privatizing
the Department of Defense commissaries and a provision
requiring a Department of Defense plan on privatization of the
Defense Commissary System and to replace them with a modified
provision that would require a GAO assessment of the potential
costs and benefits from privatizing Department of Defense
commissaries.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 11-15
In favor: Senators Inhofe, Sessions, Rounds, Sullivan,
Graham, Nelson, Gillibrand, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and
Heinrich
Opposed: Senators McCain, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton,
Ernst, Tillis, Lee, Cruz, Reed, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen,
Blumenthal, and King
14. MOTION: To limit the obligation of $38 billion of
overseas contingency operation funding unless the discretionary
caps are increased for defense and non-defense in equal
amounts, or an equal amount of emergency funding is provided to
non-defense spending.
VOTE: Failed by roll call vote 12-14
In favor: Senators Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin,
Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King,
and Heinrich
Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte,
Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham,
and Cruz
15. MOTION: To transfer up to $38 billion of overseas
contingency operation funding to base budget if an act is
passed that increases spending for defense and non-defense in a
proportionally equal manner.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 23-3
In favor: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer,
Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Graham, Reed, Nelson,
McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly,
Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
Opposed: Senators Sessions, Lee, and Cruz
16. MOTION: A sense of the Senate that sequestration is a
harmful way to budget and that sequestration relief should
increase spending for defense and non-defense in equal amounts,
and that increase should be offset by changes in mandatory and
discretionary spending, and revenues.
VOTE: Passed by roll call vote 16-10
In favor: Senators Ayotte, Rounds, Tillis, Graham, Reed,
Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal,
Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, and Heinrich
Opposed: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, Wicker,
Fischer, Cotton, Ernst, Sullivan, Lee, and Cruz
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget
Office cost estimate on this legislation because it was not
available at the time the report was filed. It will be included
in material presented during Senate floor debate on the
legislation.
Regulatory Impact
Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the
bill be included in the report on the bill. The committee finds
that there is no regulatory impact in the case of the National
Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2016.
Changes in Existing Law
Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of
the Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law
made by certain portions of the bill have not been shown in
this section of the report because, in the opinion of the
committee, it is necessary to dispense with showing such
changes in order to expedite the business of the Senate and
reduce the expenditure of funds.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
----------
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. REED
This bill includes many provisions which improve our
national security and provide the necessary training, equipment
and support our men and women in uniform deserve. However, I
was ultimately unable to vote for this bill because it
continues an unsustainable approach to our national security
and economic future that must be addressed.
Our national defense decisions should be based on actual
needs, not on arbitrary spending caps or budget gimmicks.
The President's Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for the
defense was $38 billion above the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA)
spending caps.
The President requested this $38 billion be authorized and
appropriated as part of the annual base budget. The requested
also contained $50.9 billion for overseas contingency
operations (OCO) pursuant to the Office of Management and
Budget's standards for additional funding. For some time now,
the President, Secretary Carter, Secretary Hagel, Secretary
Panetta, and Secretary Gates have implored Congress to end the
damaging effects of the Budget Control Act's harmful sequester
and spending caps.
However, the Chairman's mark, following the lead of the
Senate Republican's Budget Resolution, does not clearly address
the BCA's destructive impacts. Instead, it turns to a gimmick.
This mark transfers $39.3 billion from the base budget to the
OCO budget, for a total of $90.2 billion in OCO, but a base
budget conveniently below BCA levels in order to avoid
triggering automatic reductions through sequestration.
This transfer from base to OCO raises several concerns:
First, adding funds to OCO does not solve, and actually
complicates, the Department of Defense's (DOD) budgetary
problems. Defense budgeting needs to be based on our long-term
military strategy, which requires DOD to focus at least five
years into the future. A one year plus up to OCO does not
provide DOD with the certainty and stability it needs when
building its five year budget. As General Dempsey, Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs, testified, ``we need to fix the base budget .
. . we won't have the certainty we need'' if there is a year-
by-year OCO fix. Defense Secretary Carter added that raising
OCO does not allow the Defense Department to plan ``efficiently
or strategically.'' This instability undermines the morale of
our troops and their families--who want to know their futures
are planned for more than one year at a time--and the
confidence of our defense industry partners we rely on to
provide the best technologies available to our troops.
Second, the transfer does not provide additional funds for
the many domestic agencies which are also critical to our
national security. We cannot defend our homeland without the
FBI, funded through the Department of Justice, or TSA, ICE and
the Coast Guard, funded through the Department of Homeland
Security. Furthermore, without adequate support for the State
Department, danger to our troops increases. As retired Marine
Corps General Mattis said, ``If you don't fund the State
Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.'' In
addition, failing to provide BCA cap relief to non-DOD
departments and agencies would also shortchange veterans who
receive employment services, transition assistance, and
housing/homeless support.
Third, moving funding from the base budget to OCO has no
impact on reducing the deficit. OCO and emergency funding are
outside budget caps for a reason--they provide for ongoing
military operations or to respond to other unforeseen events
like natural disasters. To transfer funds into these accounts
to skirt the law is not fiscally responsible or honest
accounting.
During the markup, I offered an amendment to address these
concerns. My amendment would have fully authorized the
President's Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request, but prohibit the
obligation or expenditure of the $39.3 billion moved to OCO by
the Chairman's mark until BCA caps are raised or eliminated for
all agencies, defense and non-defense, or similar emergency
funding is also provided for domestic agencies. Unfortunately,
my amendment failed on a 14-12 vote.
I commend the leadership of Chairman McCain for completing
the markup of this bill. I stand ready to work with my
colleagues to find a bipartisan solution to the BCA caps and
sequestration which are risking harm to all agencies and
functions of our government. Our men and women in uniform and
those they protect deserve a resolution to this problem.
Jack Reed.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. INHOFE
I voted in favor of the Fiscal Year 2016 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) approved by the Senate Armed Services
Committee. This year's National Defense Authorization Act
contains many provisions that will maintain our military's
capabilities, restore its readiness, and support our military
families. While I have long advocated for an end to
sequestration to our national security, the president has not
shown a willingness to come to the table with realistic plans
to stop his disarming of America. The committee instead moved
forward with providing necessary funding by utilizing the
overseas contingency operations (OCO) account in order to meet
our military's basic readiness needs. While the use of OCO in
this manner does not provide a long-term solution to the
ongoing defense spending shortfalls, given the growing
worldwide threats, it far outweighs the damage that would have
been done to our nation's security next year under current
budget caps.
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
The committee included a provision that again prevents Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) next year. I support this
provision. The United States has reduced force size and
capability to unacceptable levels. Our naval fleet is at a
historically low level of ships; our Air Force is the smallest
in its history; and our Army may shrink to a force not seen
since before World War II. We must have the infrastructure to
support growing and rebuilding our military to the size and
capability required to provide for this nation's security.
Additionally, the defense community should not bear the near-
term costs of a BRAC round in this tough economic climate for
savings that will not be realized for another 20 years.
Commissaries
I disagree with legislation contained in this bill that
directs the Department of Defense to privatize military
commissaries on a minimum of five major bases and sets into
motion the potential for all commissaries to be privatized.
This will be done without an assessment, and it ignores
recommendations made by the Military Compensation and
Retirement Modernization Commission in January. The commissary
benefit is the most utilized service the military offers its
members, and 95 percent of service members and their families
use the commissaries for the purchase of household goods in
order to achieve needed savings in their family budgets. Before
making any changes to military commissaries, Congress must
understand the potential impact of these changes, to include
privatization, on the overall system and our military. The FY15
NDAA required the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of
the management, food, and pricing options for the commissary
system utilizing an independent organization experienced in
grocery retail analysis. The committee expects to receive a
report in September 2015. The statute, however, did not require
an analysis to determine whether privatization would be a
viable option for commissary operations. Congress should
consider the information from the Department of Defense report
due in September, the recommendations of the Military
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission, the
recommendations being prepared by the Department of Defense on
the commission's recommendations, and the results of an
analysis on privatization before making any changes to the
commissary system. To do otherwise, would break faith with our
service members and their families.
Guantanamo Bay
My greatest disappointment in the bill is the inclusion of
language that would allow the closure of the detention center
at Guantanamo Bay (GTMO), Cuba, and the eventual transfer of
GTMO detainees to the United States. Members from many states
have voiced concern with housing these terrorists in their
states, especially now that ISIL has demonstrated the ability
to call up sleeper cells to attack locations here in our
country. Furthermore, I disagree with those who think that
closing the detention facility at GTMO will end the propaganda
campaign being waged by our enemies. The propaganda war will
simply shift to whatever facility these terrorists are brought
to in the U.S., allowing them to engage in a whole new
propaganda campaign against `GTMO North.' The terrorists
created GTMO's image, not actions at GTMO. The attacks leading
up to, including on and after 9/11, were not the result of
holding detainees at GTMO. Moving these terrorists held at GTMO
to the United States will not stop future terrorist attacks
against our homeland. We are at war; these are war criminals
and need to be handled accordingly. The President continues to
want to deal with this threat through law enforcement. Law
enforcement alone is not enough to protect us. Furthermore, the
risk of a terrorist's release in the U.S., or elsewhere, and
the security risk to those living near the location selected to
house these terrorists is too great in my opinion.
Military Force Structure
Finally, I am disappointed we did not prioritize sustaining
the size of our military force structure, particularly our
Army. The threats we face are outpacing our ability to deter
and confront them as a result of the massive cuts associated
with sequestration. I believe we are sacrificing too much
capability at a time when we should be maintaining our current
structure and capabilities in these uncertain times. We have
been wrong in the past when it comes to assumptions regarding
the size of our forces and the capabilities required to protect
this country. Despite the increased funding in this bill due to
OCO, we are on the road to repeat the same mistakes that will
take years to fix.
James M. Inhofe.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MS. AYOTTE
The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) voted
overwhelmingly to approve its version of the fiscal year (FY)
2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), building once
again on its well-deserved reputation of bipartisan support for
our men and women in uniform. While this bill and associated
report are not perfect, they include several praiseworthy
components, including provisions related to the A-10 and the
service of military families. Despite these positive provisions
in the bill, I remain deeply concerned about the impact of the
Budget Control Act's discretionary defense spending caps on our
nation's ability to defend itself and its interests.
A-10
I am pleased that the SASC, the House Armed Services
Committee, and the full House of Representatives have again
rejected the Air Force's dangerous and misguided proposal to
prematurely divest the A-10.
The bill passed by SASC on a strong and bipartisan basis
would prohibit the Air Force from retiring, preparing to
retire, or placing in storage or on backup aircraft inventory
status any A-10 aircraft before December 31, 2016. The
legislation would prohibit any significant reductions in A-10
unit manning levels before that date. The legislation would
also require the Secretary of the Air Force to commission an
independent assessment of the required capabilities or mission
platform to eventually replace the A-10 and its uniquely
effective close air support (CAS) capabilities.
Soldiers, special operators, and Joint Terminal Attack
Controllers (JTACs) consistently say that the A-10 is the Air
Force's best CAS aircraft and that it provides CAS capabilities
that no other current aircraft can. They also say that if the
Air Force were permitted to prematurely divest the A-10 before
an equally capable replacement reaches full operational
capability, the quality of CAS available to our ground forces
will decline and Americans will be killed and injured
unnecessarily. That is why I have fought, and will continue to
fight, to oppose the premature divestment of the A-10.
If there were any lingering doubt about the continued
lethality, survivability, effectiveness, or relevance of the A-
10, one only need to look to Iraq and Syria where the A-10 is
taking the fight to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
(ISIL).
With A-10s fighting ISIL in the Middle East, assuring
allies in Europe, and deterring aggression on the Korean
peninsula, now is not the time to divest the Air Force's most
combat-effective and cost-efficient CAS aircraft.
If the Air Force decides to ignore the clear and consistent
will of the overwhelming majority of soldiers, special
operators, and JTACs, I will continue to stand with them in
opposition to the Air Force's plans to prematurely divest the
A-10.
Instead of engaging in an annual battle over the future of
the A-10, I welcome the opportunity to work with the Air Force
to begin to identify the required capabilities and mission
platform that could eventually replace the A-10. Once an
equally capable platform reaches full operational capability, I
will be among the first to support the retirement of the A-10.
Military Families Serve Too
Americans who step forward to defend our country deserve
great credit for their uniquely honorable, difficult, and
important service to our country. We are safe and free because
of the bravery and sacrifice of service members and veterans.
However, as we honor our troops and veterans, we also must not
forget that military families serve too--often making serious
career and personal sacrifices on behalf of our country and
their loved ones in uniform.
On March 3, 2015, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
General Martin Dempsey testified that ``Those who defend this
Nation and the families who support them remain our most
valuable national treasure and our competitive advantage.''
As General Dempsey's statement suggests, when honoring our
service members, we must also not forget the family members who
make their service possible.
Anyone who has served in the military, been married to a
service member, or even attended a military retirement ceremony
understands that a successful military career depends greatly
on the support and sacrifice of military families. A career in
the military often involves frequent moves and long separations
that present unique and tremendous challenges for military
families.
The service and sacrifice of military families not only
deserve recognition and respect, but military families are also
a critical component of military readiness. It is difficult for
a mother, father, husband, or wife serving in the military to
focus on training and their mission if they are worried about
the well-being of their spouse or children.
Perhaps that is why, on March 10, 2015, the Commandant of
the United States Marine Corps, General Joseph Dunford,
testified that ``A key element in our overall readiness is
family readiness. The family members of our Marines are very
much a part of the Marine Corps family. Their sacrifices and
support are not taken for granted.''
However, current laws and regulations fail to fully reflect
the sacrifices of military families or their importance to
military readiness. Under current laws and regulations, the
military members who sit as juries in courts martial are
sometimes confronted with the undesirable dilemma of either
supporting justice or a military family--but not both.
In rare and tragic cases, a military family that has
sacrificed in support of their service member suffers when the
service member commits misconduct after reaching retirement
eligibility. In some of these cases, the jury must choose
either to impose a just sentence that will take the retirement
benefits a family was counting on, or give an unjustly weak
sentence to spare the innocent family. When the jury chooses
justice for the service member, the innocent family is often
left with nothing.
For these reasons, I am proud that that the version of the
National Defense Authorization Act passed by SASC includes the
amendment I introduced, along with Senator Gillibrand, which
would make transitional benefits available to innocent,
retirement-eligible military family members in instances when
the service member forfeits those benefits due to a court
martial.
I am also pleased that the bill passed by the committee
includes my Sense of Congress language that recognizes the
valuable service of military families and emphasizes the view
of the committee that military juries should not have to choose
between a fair sentence and protecting military families.
I am pleased that the committee recognized the principle
that innocent military families who serve and sacrifice
alongside their service member should receive transitional
benefits. That same rationale suggests that a military family
that sacrifices for years alongside a service member should not
be deprived of the retirement benefits they helped earn and
have come to rely on.
That is why I also introduced an amendment with Senator
Gillibrand that would have provided access to the portion of
retirement benefits a family member would have received in a
divorce settlement had the service member not forfeited them.
I look forward to working in a bipartisan manner with my
colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives, as well
as with the Department of Defense, to ensure that our laws and
military regulations fully reflect the fact that military
families serve too.
Defense Sequestration: A Serious Threat to Our National Security
The protection of American national security interests
require that the United States maintain sufficient military
strength to assure our allies, deter our adversaries, and when
necessary, decisively defeat our enemies.
Sound national security strategy is based on a clear-eyed
assessment of our interests, the threats to those interests,
and the means required to protect those interests from the most
likely and most dangerous threats.
Unfortunately, the gap is growing between the military we
need and the military we have.
Any objective analysis of global events demonstrates that
the world is becoming more dangerous. From ISIS's terror in
Iraq and Syria, to Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapons
capability, to Putin's aggression in Ukraine, to China's
bullying of its neighbors in the east and south China Seas, now
is not the time to cut American military strength.
As Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
testified February 26, 2015, ``. . . in my 50-plus years in the
intelligence business, I don't know of a time that has been
more beset by challenges and crises around the world. I worry a
lot about the safety and security of this country for a lot of
reasons.''
In light of these growing threats and with American troops
in harm's way, one would expect the U.S. to be building its
military capabilities and capacities. Instead, Congress and the
administration have not made the tough decisions necessary to
eliminate the defense sequestration budget caps.
While there is no question that the Department of Defense
must work harder to serve as a better steward of our tax
dollars, Americans should have no doubt that defense
sequestration represents a dangerous and irresponsible policy
that will leave our troops ill-prepared, our allies in doubt,
our enemies emboldened, and our citizens less safe.
As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin
Dempsey testified on March 3, 2015, ``. . . with threats
proliferating, resources declining, and sequestration just
months away, our ability to assure our allies is in question
and our advantages over our adversaries are shrinking.''
As someone who voted against the Budget Control Act and has
worked to end defense sequestration, I will continue to work in
a bipartisan manner to end defense sequestration once and for
all to ensure the federal government fulfills its preeminent
responsibility of protecting the American people.
Kelly Ayotte.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. TILLIS
Mr. Chairman and Senator Reed, I have the privilege of
representing America's Global Response Force, the XVIII ABN
Corps and the 82nd ABN Division. As Senator Reed knows from his
long service in the Division, the 82nd is the most decorated
combat unit in the armed forces--it is America's Guard of
Honor. General Colin Powell famously said, ``There is nothing
that gets a bad guy's attention quicker than knowing the 82nd
ABN is flying straight for his nose.'' But to put it bluntly,
the Air Force wants to take the ``air'' out of ``airborne''. In
2012 the Air Force decided to de-activate the Reserve Air Wing
at Pope Army Airfield at Fort Bragg and eliminate on-site daily
support for training for XVIII ABN Corps, 82nd ABN and USASOC.
The 440th Air Wing at Pope Field consists of 8-12 C-130 Hs
Last year this committee required the Air Force to produce
a report on the C-130 fleet during which time the Air Force was
required to maintain its wings at Pope and Little Rock for one
year--the report came out in April, the committee expected it
last December. The Congress was to be given time to respond.
Unfortunately the Air Force began dismantling the Wing at
Pope long before the report was produced and in direct
opposition to this Committee's instructions.
When asked about this, the Air Force said, ``Congress said
nothing about us taking away pilots and maintainers, we are
leaving the Aircraft''.
The Chairman's mark is full of behaviors like this:
including Air Force refusal to heed the recommendations of the
National Commission on the Air Force and the SECAF's refusal to
cut the size of AF headquarters.
I have repeatedly asked the Air Force for documentation as
to the impact on Airborne and Special Operations training the
departure of dedicated Air Force Wings will have. The Air Force
and the Army Staff have consistently produced statistics about
planes needed to ``deploy'' Fort Bragg troops which because of
the volume have to come from across the country. It has not
produced figures as to the effect of the removal of the Pope
planes on the day to day training of Airborne and Special
Operations forces.
The USAF Reserve said that planes at Pope were a
``luxury''. When I asked if the commanders of XVIII ABN Corps
and 82nd ABN had been consulted, I was told that the Air Force
does not consult with Army three stars.
The Chief of Staff of the Air Force said that the Air Force
needed to maintain C-130s at Minneapolis, Youngstown and
Pittsburgh for important missions. With all due respect is
there any mission at Pittsburgh, Youngstown and Minneapolis
that is as important as supporting Airborne and Special
Operations units.
In the last three months, senior commanders at Fort Bragg
have taken the extraordinary step of delivering public remarks
noting that Airborne and Special Operations leadership were not
consulted about the Air Force decision and that the loss of on-
site planes will severely hamper their ability to train and
meet requirements of emergency contingencies.
The Pope planes provide between 25-40% of all Airborne and
SOF daily training missions.
Last year they dropped 50% of the 82nd ABN's chutes. The
440th AW provides 100% of 18 ASOG (Air Force) training--Air
Force Special Operations Group
Even as a cost savings device the transfer of 8-12 planes
out of Pope makes no sense, as planes will have to be flown in
(often on a voluntarily basis if they are Reserve units) from
around the country and those units will have to go on TDY
orders, etc. This also does not provide for the moving to the
left effects of weather grounding planes that would have to fly
into Pope from as far away as Washington State. As the XVIII
ABN Corps Commander said, the downstream effects will be
problematic.
Joint Airborne/Air Transportability Training (JA/ATT)
From FY 2010 through FY 14 the 440th AW provided 507
JAATT's (Missions/Contract's) with 668 C-130 Tails used. Of the
507 Missions, 128 were ``Add-on'' missions that the 440th by
virtue of being here was able to help support. We were able to
fill local priority shortfalls 29 times during this time frame.
The 440th on average, flies 89% of all of its JAATT's for
locally assigned units on Fort Bragg. Over the five year time
span, the 440th has a 95% mission effective rate due to the
ability to generate spare aircraft to support the missions. The
unfunded spares were utilized for local missions 146 times
creating a 28.80% spare utilization rate helping allow 42,635
Paratroopers to be air dropped for locally assigned units on
Fort Bragg.
Air Force's Own Air Mobility Command Talking Points noted
``The loss of 440AW does remove the 4 tails a week
available for opportune training Ft Bragg has utilized outside
of the JA/ATT process . . . As MAF fleets get smaller & re-
balanced between the Active & Reserve, JA/ATT planning/
scheduling will have to become more efficient IOT maximize
effectiveness of the USAF airlift platforms made available . .
. this is a fundamental change that has to occur even if the C-
130s at Pope AAF were never part of the FY15 President's
Budget.''
The Air Force's own scheduling system can't handle the
requirements at Fort Bragg if the Pope planes go away.
This amendment is simple. It stops the movement of C-130 H
units from one facility of the Department of Defense for one
year until certification is provided by the Secretary of the
Air Force, after certification by the senior commanders of the
United States Airborne and Special Operations Forces certify
that the departure of such aircraft does not impact the
training requirements of their units.
There are new commanders at Fort Bragg. This gives them the
time to evaluate the impact of the movement of C-130s in and
out of Fort Bragg.
If the actual combat commanders certify that this should
happen--and I am not talking about Pentagon bureaucrats and the
Army Staff--then we should all be satisfied with their
judgement.
Thom Tillis.
[all]