[House Report 115-200]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 115-200
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
----------
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 2810
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
July 6, 2017.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 115-200
_______________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 2810
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
July 6, 2017.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-108 WASHINGTON : 2017
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Fifteenth Congress
WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina ADAM SMITH, Washington
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
ROB BISHOP, Utah JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JOHN GARAMENDI, California
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia JACKIE SPEIER, California
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
MO BROOKS, Alabama RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
PAUL COOK, California SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
SAM GRAVES, Missouri A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma RO KHANNA, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
MATT GAETZ, Florida
DON BACON, Nebraska
JIM BANKS, Indiana
LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
Jenness B. Simler, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Purpose of the Legislation....................................... 1
Rationale for the Committee Bill................................. 2
Hearings......................................................... 6
Committee Position............................................... 6
Explanation of the Committee Amendments.......................... 6
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations.................. 7
Summary of Discretionary Authorizations in the Bill.............. 7
Budget Authority Implication..................................... 7
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS................. 8
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 8
Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 8
Items of Special Interest.................................. 8
Health and Usage Monitoring Systems...................... 8
Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 8
Items of Special Interest.................................. 8
Lethal Miniature Aerial Missile Systems.................. 8
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army..... 9
Items of Special Interest.................................. 9
Armored brigade combat team modernization................ 9
M240B medium machine gun inventory assessment............ 11
Small arms magazine procurement.......................... 11
Small arms production industrial base.................... 12
Vehicle active protection systems........................ 12
Procurement of Ammunition, Army.............................. 13
Items of Special Interest.................................. 13
Ammunition production base support....................... 13
Clean disposal of conventional munitions................. 13
Other Procurement, Army...................................... 13
Items of Special Interest.................................. 13
Army land mobile radio acquisition....................... 13
Army personal dosimeters................................. 14
Heavy Equipment Transport System modernization strategy.. 14
Personnel and cargo parachute acquisition and management. 14
Rough Terrain Container Handler recapitalization......... 15
Small unit support vehicle recapitalization strategy..... 15
Tactical network review.................................. 16
Vehicle medical kits..................................... 16
Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 17
Items of Special Interest.................................. 17
EA-18G ALQ-99 tactical jamming system modernization...... 17
Implications of a 355-ship Navy on Naval and Marine Corps
Aviation force structure requirements.................. 17
Maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
capabilities demonstration............................. 17
MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft system.................... 18
MV-22 upgrades........................................... 19
Naval aircraft physiological episodes.................... 19
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps............. 20
Items of Special Interest.................................. 20
Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance...................... 20
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 21
Items of Special Interest.................................. 21
America-class amphibious assault ships................... 21
Columbia-class submarine program......................... 21
Guided missile patrol boats.............................. 22
High-pressure Cold Spray repair.......................... 22
Increased standardization and commonality for U.S. Navy
shipbuilding programs.................................. 22
Littoral Combat Ships capability enhancements............ 23
Propeller shafts......................................... 23
Protection of Navy ships against High-Altitude
Electromagnetic Pulse.................................. 24
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 24
Items of Special Interest.................................. 24
A-10 to F-16 transition at Fort Wayne, Indiana........... 24
A-10 wing replacement program............................ 24
B-52 modernization....................................... 25
Bomber modernization..................................... 25
C-130H Aircraft Modernization Program Increments 1 and 2. 26
C-130H propulsion systems upgrades....................... 26
E-8C Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System... 27
EC-130 Compass Call cross deck........................... 27
F-15C capability, capacity, and recapitalization......... 28
F-16 radar modernization................................. 29
F-22 increment 3.2B upgrade.............................. 29
F-35 Lightning II aircraft program....................... 30
Implications of increased Army, Navy, and Marine Corps
force structure on Air Force airlift, air refueling
tanker, and Navy sealift force structure requirements.. 32
MQ-9 modernization and upgrades.......................... 32
Next generation ejection seat acquisition................ 33
RC-135S Cobra Ball....................................... 34
Reporting on air traffic control avionics upgrades for
Air Force aircraft..................................... 34
RQ-4 and universal payload adapter integration........... 35
Wide-area motion imagery intelligence capability......... 35
Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 36
Items of Special Interest.................................. 36
MC-12 modernization initiatives.......................... 36
Modernization of UH-60A/L aircraft bound for Afghanistan
Aviation Forces........................................ 36
Standard data link requirement for the Department of
Defense................................................ 37
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 38
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 38
Section 101--Authorization of Appropriations............... 38
Subtitle B--Army Programs.................................... 38
Section 111--Report on Acceleration of Increment 2 of the
Warfighter Information Network-Tactical.................. 38
Subtitle C--Navy Programs.................................... 38
Section 121--Aircraft Carriers............................. 38
Section 122--Procurement Authority for Icebreaker Vessels.. 38
Section 123--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Procurement of Icebreaker Vessels........................ 39
Section 124--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Virginia
Class Submarine Program.................................. 39
Section 125--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Arleigh
Burke Class Destroyers and Associated Systems............ 39
Section 126--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer............................ 39
Section 127--Extensions of Authorities Relating to
Construction of Certain Vessels.......................... 40
Section 128--Multiyear Procurement Authority for V-22
Osprey Aircraft.......................................... 40
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs............................... 40
Section 131--Streamlining Acquisition of Intercontinental
Ballistic Missile Security Capability.................... 40
Section 132--Limitation on Selection of Single Contractor
for C-130H Avionics Modernization Program Increment 2.... 40
Section 133--Limitation on Availability of Funds for EC-
130H Compass Call Recapitalization Program............... 41
Section 134--Cost-Benefit Analysis of Upgrades to MQ-9
Reaper Aircraft.......................................... 41
Subtitle E--Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters.... 41
Section 141--Authority for Procurement of Economic Order
Quantities for the F-35 Aircraft Program................. 41
Section 142--Limitation on Demilitarization of Certain
Cluster Munitions........................................ 41
Section 143--Reinstatement of Requirement to Preserve
Certain C-5 Aircraft..................................... 42
Section 144--Requirement That Certain Aircraft and Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles Use Specified Standard Data Link......... 42
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............ 42
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army............ 42
Items of Special Interest.................................. 42
Acoustic threat detection technology..................... 42
AN/VVR-4 Laser Detecting Set............................. 43
Army counter-improvised explosive device technology...... 43
Army Network Integration Evaluations and Joint
Warfighting Assessments................................ 43
Army warfighter technology programs...................... 44
Civil Support Team Information Management System......... 44
Cold Temperature and Arctic Protective System development 45
Enhanced lightweight hard armor and combat helmet
research and development............................... 45
Future Vertical Lift..................................... 46
High Bandwidth Tethered Unmanned Air Systems Technology.. 46
High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle external fire
suppression systems.................................... 46
Improved Turbine Engine Program.......................... 47
Improved vehicle camouflage systems and next generation
signature management................................... 47
Integrated Air and Missile Defense command and control
capabilities........................................... 48
Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile hardware and software
integration and test capability........................ 49
Lightweight metal matrix composite technology for combat
and tactical vehicles.................................. 49
M4 Carbine Free Floating Rail Technology................. 49
Material development, characterization, and computational
modeling............................................... 50
Mobile protected firepower............................... 50
Multi-function explosive material detection technology... 51
Open Campus.............................................. 51
Rapid integration for emerging threats against missile
system networks........................................ 51
Remote weapon system development and integration for
tactical and ground combat vehicles.................... 52
Report on heavy and Stryker brigade combat team wireless
intercommunication systems............................. 52
Short range air defense advanced development............. 53
Software Based Mesh Network for Tactical Communications.. 53
Soldier Enhancement Program.............................. 54
Soldier Power development................................ 54
Testing and evaluation of supercavitating ammunition..... 54
Underwater munitions disposal and waterjet technology
development............................................ 55
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy............ 55
Items of Special Interest.................................. 55
Academic partnerships for undersea technology............ 55
Advanced capability for 81mm and 120mm mortar development 56
Airborne anti-submarine warfare systems.................. 56
Amphibious Combat Vehicle engineering and manufacturing
development............................................ 57
Automated Testing Technologies........................... 57
Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range modernization.... 58
F/A-18 noise reduction research.......................... 58
Incremental development of Next Generation Jammer........ 59
Littoral Combat Ship immersive virtual ship environment.. 59
Marine and hydrokinetic technology....................... 59
Marine Corps and Navy small unmanned aircraft system and
capability development................................. 60
Marine Corps female body armor........................... 61
Marine Corps Group 5 unmanned aircraft systems
experimentation initiative............................. 61
Maritime Strike Tomahawk................................. 62
Modification to independent review of F/A-18
physiological episodes and corrective actions as
required by section 237 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017................. 62
MQ-25 Unmanned Air System................................ 63
Naval energetic materials roadmap........................ 64
Passive rocket propelled grenade armor protection
technology............................................. 64
Scalable energy and chemical conversion system........... 64
Torpedo defense.......................................... 65
Workforce management at Navy test ranges................. 66
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force....... 66
Items of Special Interest.................................. 66
Adaptive engine transition program....................... 66
Advanced laser technologies for coating removal, surface
restoration, and repair................................ 66
Advanced pilot training program.......................... 67
Air Force dual-mode missile testing and evaluation....... 68
Air Force test and evaluation support.................... 68
Assessment of Air Force Test Center...................... 69
Battlefield airborne communications node program......... 69
Educational Partnership Agreements....................... 69
F135 aircraft engine component improvement program....... 70
High-efficiency heat exchangers.......................... 70
High-speed, anti-radiation missile targeting system pod
block upgrade program.................................. 70
Hypoxia research collaboration........................... 71
Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System
Recapitalization program............................... 71
Light Attack Aircraft Experiment Report.................. 72
Metals Affordability Initiative.......................... 72
Remote and stand-off detection of weapons of mass
destruction threats.................................... 73
Reusable hypersonic vehicle structure.................... 73
Robust electrical power system for aircraft.............. 73
Technology transition efforts............................ 74
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide.... 74
Items of Special Interest.................................. 74
Accumulation of section 219 funds........................ 74
Additive manufactured parts.............................. 75
Briefing on improving overseas security from UAS threats
and existing authorities to use countermeasures........ 75
Common Analytical Laboratory System...................... 76
Cyber Grand Challenge.................................... 76
Defense genomics research and training................... 76
Department of Defense laboratories and engineering
centers................................................ 77
Deployable assured position, navigation, and timing
systems................................................ 77
Energy storage modules................................... 78
Enhancement of test and evaluation through modeling and
simulation............................................. 78
Explosive Ordnance Disposal equipment technology upgrades 78
Historically black colleges and universities and minority
serving institutions................................... 79
Joint Electronic Warfare wargaming....................... 79
Joint U.S. Forces Korea Portal and Integrated Threat
Recognition program.................................... 80
Latent and delayed-onset effects of traumatic brain
injury................................................. 80
Light field display technology........................... 80
Low-power, long-endurance radar for force protection..... 81
Machine learning......................................... 81
Medical simulation research.............................. 81
Non-lethal directed energy technologies.................. 82
Overseas waste disposal technology development........... 82
Pilot program on modernization and fielding of
electromagnetic spectrum warfare systems and electronic
warfare capabilities................................... 82
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics........ 83
Small turbine engines.................................... 83
Space-based debris remediation in Low Earth Orbit........ 83
Sterilization and inspection of medical instruments...... 84
Success metrics of the Defense Innovation Unit Experiment
(DIUx)................................................. 84
System for reviewing and monitoring industrial base
transactions........................................... 85
Training ranges for electronic warfare experimentation... 85
Trusted microelectronics supply.......................... 86
U.S. Special Operations Command SOFWERX initiative....... 87
Weapons and munitions science and technology roadmap..... 87
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 88
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 88
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations............... 88
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations.............................................. 88
Section 211--Cost Controls for Presidential Aircraft
Recapitalization Program................................. 88
Section 212--Capital Investment Authority.................. 88
Section 213--Modification of Authority to Award Prizes for
Advanced Technology Achievements......................... 88
Section 214--Critical Technologies for Columbia Class
Submarine................................................ 89
Section 215--Joint Hypersonics Transition Office........... 89
Section 216--Hypersonic Airbreathing Weapons Capabilities.. 89
Section 217--Limitation on Availability of Funds for MQ-25
Unmanned Air System...................................... 89
Section 218--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Contract Writing Systems................................. 89
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 90
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 90
Budget Request Adjustments................................... 90
Advanced Adversarial Air Training.......................... 90
Civil Air Patrol........................................... 91
Ship Repair in the Western Pacific......................... 91
Energy Issues................................................ 91
Energy Resiliency for Mission Assurance.................... 91
Energy Resilience of Overseas Military Installations....... 92
Logistics and Sustainment Issues............................. 92
Army Contracting Command Reachback Functions............... 92
Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives for the
Military Departments..................................... 93
Improving Asset Tracking and In-Transit Visibility......... 93
Inventory Management and Demand Planning Software Pilot
Program.................................................. 94
Joint Minimum Standards for Protective Covers.............. 95
Logistics Management Business Systems Modernization........ 95
Opportunities to Consolidate Printing Services............. 96
Report on Operation of the Transportation Working Capital
Fund..................................................... 96
Revising Depot Carryover Calculations...................... 97
Readiness Issues............................................. 98
Advanced Adversarial Air Training Program.................. 98
Advanced Foreign Language Proficiency...................... 98
Alternative-Source F/A-18 Depot-Level Maintenance.......... 99
Counter-UAS Briefing....................................... 99
Expediting the Security Clearance Process.................. 100
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Budget Display................. 101
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Organization and Support to
Operational Plans........................................ 101
Joint Force Training and Exercises......................... 102
Military Mission Line Moratorium........................... 102
NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center F/A-18 Chase Aircraft 103
Naval Shipyard Development Plans........................... 104
Readiness of Coastal Riverine Forces....................... 106
Remotely Piloted Aircraft Training Strategy................ 107
Report on Army Aviation Restructure Initiative............. 107
Report on Military Training for Rotary-Wing Aviation....... 107
Report on Multi-Domain Battle Concept...................... 108
Report on Unit-Level Training Costs to Build Full-Spectrum
Readiness................................................ 109
Small Arms Weapons Simulation Training..................... 110
Training for Air Force Combined Air Operations Center
Personnel................................................ 111
Training Range Inventory, Capacity, and Configuration in
Europe................................................... 111
Undergraduate Pilot Training............................... 112
Other Matters................................................ 113
Combatant Command Policies on Open-Air Burn Pits........... 113
Consideration of the Domestic Textile Industrial Base in
Contracting for Uniforms................................. 113
Dioxin-Based Herbicides Review Related to Guam............. 113
Ensuring Proper Fitting of Athletic Footwear............... 114
Environmental Restoration.................................. 114
Fabric and Membrane Technology for Footwear................ 115
Flame-Resistant Military Uniform Postures.................. 116
Former Naval Weapons Industrial Plant Bethpage............. 116
Guam Micronesian Kingfisher Recovery Habitat............... 117
Personal Protection Equipment Awards Program............... 117
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances................................. 117
Recurrent Flooding and Sea Level Rise...................... 119
Standard-Issue Garments for Women.......................... 119
Water Quality Trading...................................... 119
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 120
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 120
Section 301--Authorization of Appropriations............... 120
Subtitle B--Energy and Environment........................... 120
Section 311--Codification of and Improvements to Department
of Defense Clearinghouse to Coordinate Department Review
of Applications for Certain Projects That May Have
Adverse Impact on Military Operations and Readiness...... 120
Section 312--Energy Performance Goals and Master Plan...... 120
Section 313--Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of
Stipulated Penalty in Connection with Umatilla Chemical
Depot, Oregon............................................ 121
Section 314--Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of
Stipulated Penalty in Connection with Longhorn Army
Ammunition Plant, Texas.................................. 121
Section 315--Department of Defense Cleanup and Removal of
Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant Associated with the Prinz
Eugen.................................................... 121
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment........................ 121
Section 321--Reauthorization of Multi-Trades Demonstration
Project.................................................. 121
Section 322--Guidance Regarding Use of Organic Industrial
Base..................................................... 121
Subtitle D--Reports.......................................... 121
Section 331--Quarterly Reports on Personnel and Unit
Readiness................................................ 121
Section 332--Biennial Report on Core Depot-Level
Maintenance and Repair Capability........................ 122
Section 333--Annual Report on Personnel, Training, and
Equipment Needs of Non-Federalized National Guard........ 122
Section 334--Annual Report on Military Working Dogs Used by
the Department of Defense................................ 122
Section 335--Annual Briefings on Army Explosive Ordnance
Disposal................................................. 122
Section 336--Report on Effects of Climate Change on
Department of Defense.................................... 122
Subtitle E--Other Matters.................................... 122
Section 341--Explosive Safety Board........................ 122
Section 342--Department of Defense Support for Military
Service Memorials and Museums that Highlight the Role of
Women in the Armed Forces................................ 122
Section 343--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Advanced Skills Management Software System of the Navy... 123
Section 344--Cost-Benefit Analysis of Uniform
Specifications for Afghan Military or Security Forces.... 123
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 123
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 123
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 123
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces............... 123
Section 402--Revisions in Permanent Active Duty End
Strength Minimum Levels.................................. 124
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 124
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............ 124
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in
Support of the Reserves.................................. 124
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual
Status).................................................. 125
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2018 Limitation on Number of Non-
Dual Status Technicians.................................. 125
Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized
To Be on Active Duty for Operational Support............. 125
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 126
Section 421--Military Personnel............................ 126
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 126
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 126
Bystander Intervention Training............................ 126
Comptroller General Report on Race Data in the Military
Justice System........................................... 126
Digital Transformation of the Recruiting Process........... 127
Female Propensity to Serve in the Armed Forces............. 127
Gender Double Standards.................................... 128
Gender Integration of United States Marine Corps Basic
Recruit Training......................................... 128
GI Bill Benefit Review..................................... 129
Military Child Custody Protections......................... 129
Military Officer Diversity................................. 129
Military Service Academy Applications and Reserve Officer
Training Corps Scholarship Programs...................... 130
Pilot Shortage Assessment.................................. 130
Pre-Command Audit Training Course.......................... 130
Provision of Services at Department of Defense-Run Child
Development Centers (CDC)................................ 131
Report on the Feasibility of Establishing a Military Family
Service Corps............................................ 131
Review of Resourcing of Trial Defense Services............. 132
Review of the Court Martial Appeals Process................ 132
Social Media Policy for Recruits........................... 132
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 133
Subtitle A--Regular and Reserve Component Management......... 133
Section 501--Modification of Requirements Relating to
Conversion of Certain Military Technician (Dual Status)
Positions to Civilian Positions.......................... 133
Section 502--Pilot Program on Use of Retired Senior
Enlisted Members of the Army National Guard as Army
National Guard Recruiters................................ 133
Section 503--Equal Treatment of Orders to Serve on Active
Duty under Section 12304a and 12304b of Title 10, United
States Code.............................................. 134
Section 504--Direct Employment Pilot Program for Members of
the National Guard and Reserve........................... 134
Subtitle B--General Service Authorities and Correction of
Military Records......................................... 134
Section 511--Consideration of Additional Medical Evidence
by Boards for the Correction of Military Records and
Liberal Consideration of Evidence Relating to Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury...... 134
Section 512--Public Availability of Information Related to
Disposition of Claims Regarding Discharge or Release of
Members of the Armed Forces when the Claims Involve
Sexual Assault........................................... 134
Section 513--Pilot Program on Use of Video Teleconferencing
Technology by Boards for the Correction of Military
Records and Discharge Review Boards...................... 134
Section 514--Inclusion of Specific Email Address Block on
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD
Form 214)................................................ 135
Section 515--Provision of Information on Naturalization
Through Military Service................................. 135
Subtitle C--Military Justice and Other Legal Issues.......... 135
Section 521--Clarifying Amendments Related to the Uniform
Code of Military Justice Reform by the Military Justice
Act of 2016.............................................. 135
Section 522--Minimum Confinement Period Required for
Conviction of Certain Sex-Related Offenses Committed by
Members of the Armed Forces.............................. 135
Section 523--Prohibition on Wrongful Broadcast or
Distribution of Intimate Visual Images................... 135
Section 524--Information for the Special Victims' Counsel
or Victims' Legal Counsel................................ 135
Section 525--Special Victims' Counsel Training Regarding
the Unique Challenges Often Faced by Male Victims of
Sexual Assault........................................... 136
Section 526--Garnishment to Satisfy Judgement Rendered for
Physically, Sexually, or Emotionally Abusing a Child..... 136
Section 527--Inclusion of Information in Annual SAPRO
Reports regarding Military Sexual Harassment and
Incidents Involving Nonconsensual Distribution of Private
Sexual Images............................................ 136
Section 528--Inclusion of Information in Annual SAPRO
Reports regarding Sexual Assaults Committed by a Member
of the Armed Forces against the Member's Spouse or Other
Family Member............................................ 136
Section 529--Notification of Members of the Armed Forces
Undergoing Certain Administrative Separations of
Potential Eligibility for Veterans Benefits.............. 136
Section 530--Consistent Access to Special Victims' Counsel
for Former Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces..... 136
Subtitle D--Member Education, Training, Resilience, and
Transition............................................... 137
Section 541--Prohibition on Release of Military Service
Academy Graduates to Participate in Professional
Athletics................................................ 137
Section 542--ROTC Cyber Institutes at the Senior Military
Colleges................................................. 137
Section 543--Lieutenant Henry Ossian Flipper Leadership
Scholarship Program...................................... 137
Subtitle E--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family
Readiness Matters........................................ 137
Section 551--Continuation of Authority to Assist Local
Educational Agencies That Benefit Dependents of Members
of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian
Employees................................................ 137
Section 552--Education for Dependents of Certain Retired
Members of the Armed Forces.............................. 137
Section 553--Codification of Authority to Conduct Family
Support Programs for Immediate Family Members of Members
of the Armed Forces Assigned to Special Operations Forces 138
Section 554--Reimbursement for State Licensure and
Certification Costs of a Spouse of a Member of the Armed
Forces Arising from Relocation to Another State.......... 138
Subtitle F--Decorations and Awards........................... 138
Section 561--Replacement of Military Decorations at the
Request of Relatives of Deceased Members of the Armed
Forces................................................... 138
Section 562--Congressional Defense Service Medal........... 138
Section 563--Limitations on Authority to Revoke Certain
Military Decorations Awarded to Members of the Armed
Forces................................................... 138
Subtitle G--Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters.......... 139
Section 571--Expansion of United States Air Force Institute
of Technology Enrollment Authority to Include Civilian
Employees of the Homeland Security Industry.............. 139
Section 572--Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.......... 139
Section 573--Voter Registration............................ 139
Section 574--Sense of Congress regarding Section 504 of
Title 10, United States Code, on Existing Authority of
the Department of Defense to Enlist Individuals, Not
Otherwise Eligible for Enlistment, Whose Enlistment Is
Vital to the National Interest........................... 139
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.............. 139
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 139
Local Purchasing Contracts for the Defense Commissary
Agency................................................... 139
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Assessment................. 140
Reserve Component Benefits Parity Under 12304b Mobilization
Authority................................................ 140
Review of Department of Defense Debt Collection Practices.. 141
Service Member Financial Planning.......................... 141
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 142
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 142
Section 601--Annual Adjustment of Basic Monthly Pay........ 142
Section 602--Limitation on Basic Allowance for Housing
Modification Authority for Members of the Uniformed
Services Residing in Military Housing Privatization
Initiative Housing....................................... 142
Section 603--Housing Treatment for Certain Members of the
Armed Forces, and Their Spouses and Other Dependents,
Undergoing a Permanent Change of Station Within the
United States............................................ 142
Section 604--Per Diem Allowance Policies................... 142
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 143
Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces............... 143
Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities for Health Care Professionals.... 143
Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus
Authorities for Nuclear Officers......................... 143
Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
Title 37 Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and
Bonus Authorities........................................ 143
Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to
Payment of Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays....... 144
Section 616--Reimbursement for State Licensure and
Certification Costs of a Member of the Armed Forces
Arising from Separation from the Armed Forces............ 144
Section 617--Increase in Maximum Amount of Aviation Bonus
for 12-Month Period of Obligated Service................. 144
Section 618--Technical and Clerical Amendments Relating to
2008 Consolidation of Certain Special Pay Authorities.... 144
Subtitle C--Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor
Benefits................................................. 145
Section 621--Findings and Sense of Congress regarding the
Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance..................... 145
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 145
Section 631--Land Conveyance Authority, Army and Air Force
Exchange Service Property, Dallas, Texas................. 145
Section 632--Advisory Boards regarding Military
Commissaries and Exchanges............................... 145
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS................................ 145
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 145
Educational Opportunities for Certified Registered Nurse
Anesthetists............................................. 145
Force of the Future Pilot Program on Cryopreservation of
Gametes.................................................. 145
Improving Access to Para Health Professional Extenders..... 146
Medical Blood Volume Diagnostics........................... 146
Medical Simulation and Training with First Responders...... 146
Military Caregivers........................................ 147
Military Family Wellness and Suicide Prevention............ 147
Motion Sickness Research................................... 147
Opioid--Chronic Pain and Recruiting........................ 148
Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine.......................... 148
Personnel Policies regarding Members of the Armed Forces
Infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)......... 148
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder............................. 149
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury
Research Initiatives..................................... 150
Promising Burn Therapies................................... 150
TRICARE Pharmacy Pilot Program............................. 150
Use of Data Analytics within the Defense Medical
Surveillance System for Complex Epidemiology and
Pathology Research....................................... 151
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 151
Subtitle A--TRICARE and Other Health Care Benefits........... 151
Section 701--Physical Examinations for Members of a Reserve
Component Who Are Separating from the Armed Forces....... 151
Section 702--Mental Health Examinations Before Members
Separate from the Armed Forces........................... 151
Section 703--Provision of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for
Certain Members of the Armed Forces...................... 152
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration....................... 152
Section 711--Clarification of Roles of Commanders of
Military Medical Treatment Facilities and Surgeons
General.................................................. 152
Section 712--Maintenance of Inpatient Capabilities of
Military Medical Treatment Facilities Located Outside the
United States............................................ 152
Section 713--Regular Update of Prescription Drug Pricing
Standards Under TRICARE Retail Pharmacy Program.......... 152
Section 714--Residency Requirements for Podiatrists........ 152
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 152
Section 721--One Year Extension of Pilot Program for
Prescription Drug Acquisition Cost Parity in the TRICARE
Pharmacy Benefits Program................................ 152
Section 722--Pilot Program on Health Care Assistance System 153
Section 723--Research of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy.. 153
Section 724--Sense of Congress on Eligibility of Victims of
Acts of Terror for Evaluation and Treatment at Military
Treatment Facilities..................................... 153
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS.............................................. 153
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 153
Accuracy of Pricing in Responses to Letters of Request for
Pricing and Availability in Foreign Military Sales....... 153
Best Value Criteria for Complex Acquisitions and
Information Technology................................... 153
Collecting Historical Data on Rescinded Solicitations...... 154
Congressional Notification for Direct Commercial Sales..... 155
Other Transaction Consortia................................ 155
Outcome-Based Services Contracts........................... 156
Procurement Technical Assistance Centers................... 156
Report on Commercial Acquisition Transparency.............. 156
Review of Implementation of Online Marketplace Procurement. 157
Reviews of Acquisition Statute and the Federal Acquisition
Regulation............................................... 157
Should-Cost Analysis Methodology and Transparency.......... 158
Soldier and Marine Equipment Requirements.................. 158
Technical Exchanges on Independent Research and Development
Projects................................................. 159
Transparency in Department of Defense Contract Negotiations 160
Vendor Vetting Process and Guidance........................ 160
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 161
Subtitle A--Defense Acquisition Streamlining and Transparency 161
Part I--Acquisition System Streamlining..................... 161
Section 801--Procurement through Online Marketplaces....... 161
Section 802--Performance of Incurred Cost Audits........... 162
Section 803--Modifications to Cost or Pricing Data and
Reporting Requirements................................... 163
Part II--Early Investments in Acquisition Programs.......... 164
Section 811--Requirement to Emphasize Reliability and
Maintainability in Weapon System Design.................. 164
Section 812--Licensing of Appropriate Intellectual Property
to Support Major Weapon Systems.......................... 164
Section 813--Management of Intellectual Property Matters
within the Department of Defense......................... 165
Section 814--Improvement of Planning for Acquisition of
Services................................................. 165
Section 815--Improvements to Test and Evaluation Processes
and Tools................................................ 166
Part III--Acquisition Workforce Improvements................ 167
Section 821--Enhancements to the Civilian Program
Management Workforce..................................... 167
Section 822--Improvements to the Hiring and Training of the
Acquisition Workforce.................................... 167
Section 823--Extension and Modifications to Acquisition
Demonstration Project.................................... 168
Section 824--Acquisition Positions in the Offices of the
Secretaries of the Military Departments.................. 168
Part IV--Transparency Improvements.......................... 169
Section 831--Transparency of Defense Business System Data.. 169
Section 832--Major Defense Acquisition Programs: Display of
Budget Information....................................... 169
Section 833--Enhancements to Transparency in Test and
Evaluation Processes and Data............................ 170
Subtitle B--Streamlining of Defense Acquisition Statutes and
Regulations.............................................. 170
Section 841--Modifications to the Advisory Panel on
Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations....... 170
Section 842--Extension of Maximum Duration of Fuel Storage
Contracts................................................ 171
Section 843--Exception for Business Operations from
Requirement to Accept $1 Coins........................... 171
Section 844--Repeal of Expired Pilot Program............... 171
Subtitle C--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities,
Procedures, and Limitations.............................. 171
Section 851--Limitation on Unilateral Definitization....... 171
Section 852--Codification of Requirements Pertaining to
Assessment, Management, and Control of Operating and
Support Costs for Major Weapon Systems................... 172
Section 853--Use of Program Income by Eligible Entities
That Carry Out Procurement Technical Assistance Programs. 172
Section 854--Amendment to Sustainment Reviews.............. 172
Section 855--Clarification to Other Transaction Authority.. 172
Section 856--Clarifying the Use of Lowest Price Technically
Acceptable Source Selection Process...................... 172
Section 857--Amendment to Nontraditional and Small
Contractor Innovation Prototyping Program................ 173
Section 858--Modification to Annual Meeting Requirement of
Configuration Steering Boards............................ 173
Section 859--Change to Definition of Subcontract in Certain
Circumstances............................................ 173
Section 860--Amendment Relating to Applicability of
Inflation Adjustments.................................... 173
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 173
Section 861--Exemption from Design-Build Selection
Procedures............................................... 173
Section 862--Requirement That Certain Ship Components Be
Manufactured in the National Technology and Industrial
Base..................................................... 174
Section 863--Procurement of Aviation Critical Safety Items. 174
Section 864--Milestones and Timelines for Contracts for
Foreign Military Sales................................... 174
Section 865--Notification Requirement for Certain Contracts
for Audit Services....................................... 174
Section 866--Training in Acquisition of Commercial Items... 175
Section 867--Notice of Cost-Free Federal Procurement
Technical Assistance in Connection with Registration of
Small Business Concerns on Procurement Websites of the
Department of Defense.................................... 175
Section 868--Comptroller General Report on Contractor
Business System Requirements............................. 175
Section 869--Standard Guidelines for Evaluation of
Requirements for Services Contracts...................... 175
Section 870--Temporary Limitation on Aggregate Annual
Amount Available for Contract Services................... 175
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 175
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 175
Subtitle A--Organization and Management of the Department of
Defense Generally........................................ 175
Section 901--Responsibility of the Chief Information
Officer of the Department of Defense for Risk Management
Activities regarding Supply Chain for Information
Technology Systems....................................... 175
Section 902--Repeal of Office of Corrosion Policy and
Oversight................................................ 176
Section 903--Designation of Corrosion Control and
Prevention Executives for the Military Departments....... 176
Section 904--Maintaining Civilian Workforce Capabilities to
Sustain Readiness, the All Volunteer Force, and
Operational Effectiveness................................ 176
Subtitle B--Designation of the Navy and Marine Corps......... 176
Section 911--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as
the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.............. 176
Section 912--Conforming Amendments to Title 10, United
States Code.............................................. 176
Section 913--Other Provisions of Law and Other References.. 177
Section 914--Effective Date................................ 177
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 177
Section 921--Transition of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense to Reflect Establishment of Positions of Under
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, and
Chief Management Officer................................. 177
Section 922--Extension of Deadlines for Reporting and
Briefing Requirements for Commission on the National
Defense Strategy for the United States................... 177
Section 923--Briefing on Force Management Level Policy..... 178
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 178
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 178
Counter-Drug Activities...................................... 178
Narcotics Flow to the United States from Central and South
America.................................................. 178
National Guard Counterdrug Schools......................... 178
Peace in Colombia.......................................... 179
Venezuela Security and Stability........................... 179
Other Matters................................................ 180
Assessment of Culture and Accountability in Special
Operations Forces........................................ 180
Botulinum Toxin Type A Countermeasures..................... 180
Combat Helmets for Female Service Members.................. 181
Comptroller General Assessment of Emerging Threats of High
National Security Consequence............................ 181
Defense Department 501(c)3 Coordination and Strategy....... 182
Department of Defense Overmatch Strategy................... 182
Disposal of Excess Agriculture-Related Equipment........... 182
High-Altitude Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance Capacity, Capability, and Force Structure. 182
National Biodefense Strategy............................... 183
National Guard CBRN Enterprise Report...................... 183
National Guard Use of Department of Defense Issued Unmanned
Aircraft Systems for Domestic Operations................. 184
Navy Reserve F/A-18 Aircraft............................... 185
Next Generation Immersive Cockpit Systems.................. 185
Overseas Posture and Permanently Stationed Forces.......... 186
Report on the National Security Implications of Ukraine's
Arbitration Proceedings against Russia under Annex VII of
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea...... 187
Requirement for Notification of Modifications Made to
Presidential Policy Guidance for Direct Action Against
Terrorist Targets........................................ 188
Ring Wheel Drive........................................... 188
Special Operations Forces Demand, Priorities, and Over-
Reliance................................................. 188
Strategy to Counter Unconventional and Hybrid Warfare
Threats.................................................. 189
U.S. Efforts to Train, Advise, Assist, and Equip the Iraqi
Counterterrorism Service and the Iraqi Special Operations
Forces................................................... 189
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 190
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 190
Section 1001--General Transfer Authority................... 190
Section 1002--Preparation of Consolidated Corrective Action
Plan and Implementation of Centralized Reporting System.. 190
Section 1003--Additional Requirements Relating to
Department of Defense Audits............................. 190
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards...................... 190
Section 1011--National Defense Sealift Fund................ 190
Section 1012--National Defense Sealift Fund: Construction
of National Icebreaker Vessels........................... 190
Section 1013--Use of National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund for
Multiyear Procurement of Certain Critical Components..... 190
Section 1014--Restrictions on the Overhaul and Repair of
Vessels in Foreign Shipyards............................. 191
Section 1015--Availability of Funds for Retirement or
Inactivation of Ticonderoga-Class Cruisers or Dock
Landing Ships............................................ 191
Section 1016--Policy of the United States on Minimum Number
of Battle Force Ships.................................... 191
Subtitle C--Counterterrorism................................. 191
Section 1021--Termination of Requirement to Submit Annual
Budget Justification Display for Department of Defense
Combating Terrorism Program.............................. 191
Section 1022--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Transfer or
Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the United States....... 191
Section 1023--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................................................ 191
Section 1024--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Transfer or
Release of Individuals Detained at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Certain Countries...... 192
Section 1025--Biannual Report on Support of Special
Operations to Combat Terrorism........................... 192
Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations........ 192
Section 1031--Limitation on Expenditure of Funds for
Emergency and Extraordinary Expenses for Intelligence and
Counter-Intelligence Activities and Representation
Allowances............................................... 192
Section 1032--Modifications to Humanitarian Demining
Assistance Authorities................................... 192
Section 1033--Prohibition on Charge of Certain Tariffs on
Aircraft Traveling through Channel Routes................ 192
Section 1034--Limitation on Divestment of U-2 or RQ-4
Aircraft................................................. 192
Section 1035--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Retirement of
Legacy Maritime Mine Countermeasures Platforms........... 193
Section 1036--Restriction on Use of Certain Funds Pending
Solicitation of Bids for Western Pacific Dry Dock........ 193
Section 1037--National Guard Flyovers of Public Events..... 193
Section 1038--Transfer of Funds to World War I Centennial
Commission............................................... 193
Section 1039--Rule of Construction Regarding Use of
Department of Defense Funding of a Border Wall........... 193
Subtitle E--Studies and Reports.............................. 193
Section 1051--Elimination of Reporting Requirements
Terminated After November 25, 2017, Pursuant to Section
1080 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016................................................ 193
Section 1052--Report on Department of Defense Arctic
Capability and Resource Gaps............................. 194
Section 1053--Review and Assessment of Department of
Defense Personnel Recovery and Nonconventional Assisted
Recovery Mechanisms...................................... 194
Section 1054--Mine Warfare Readiness Inspection Plan and
Report................................................... 194
Section 1055--Report on Civilian Casualties from Department
of Defense Strikes....................................... 194
Section 1056--Reports on Infrastructure and Capabilities of
Lajes Field, Portugal.................................... 194
Section 1057--Report on Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex
Modernization............................................ 194
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 194
Section 1061--Technical, Conforming, and Clerical
Amendments............................................... 194
Section 1062--Workforce Issues for Relocation of Marines to
Guam..................................................... 194
Section 1063--Protection of Second Amendment Rights of
Military Families........................................ 195
Section 1064--Transfer of Surplus Firearms to Corporation
for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety.. 195
Section 1065--National Guard Accessibility to Department of
Defense Issued Unmanned Aircraft......................... 195
Section 1066--Sense of Congress Regarding Aircraft Carriers 195
Section 1067--Notice to Congress of Terms of Department of
Defense Settlement Agreements............................ 195
Section 1068--Sense of Congress Recognizing the United
States Navy Seabees...................................... 196
Section 1069--Recognition of the United States Special
Operations Command....................................... 196
Section 1070--Sense of Congress Regarding World War I...... 196
Section 1071--Findings and Sense of Congress Regarding the
National Guard Youth Challenge Program................... 196
Section 1072--Sense of Congress Regarding National Purple
Heart Recognition Day.................................... 196
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS............................. 196
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 196
Accelerated Promotion Program.............................. 196
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 197
Section 1101--Extension of Direct Hire Authority for
Domestic Defense Industrial Base Facilities and Major
Range and Test Facilities Base........................... 197
Section 1102--Extension of Authority to Provide Voluntary
Separation Incentive Pay for Civilian Employees of the
Department of Defense.................................... 197
Section 1103--Additional Department of Defense Science and
Technology Reinvention Laboratories...................... 197
Section 1104--One-Year Extension of Authority to Waive
Annual Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation
on Pay for Federal Civilian Employees Working Overseas... 197
Section 1105--Appointment of Retired Members of the Armed
Forces to Positions In or Under the Department of Defense 197
Section 1106--Direct Hire Authority for Financial
Management Experts in the Department of Defense Workforce 197
Section 1107--Extension of Authority for Temporary
Personnel Flexibilities for Domestic Defense Industrial
Base Facilities and Major Range and Test Facilities Base
Civilian Personnel....................................... 198
Section 1108--One-Year Extension of Temporary Authority to
Grant Allowances, Benefits, and Gratuities to Civilian
Personnel on Official Duty in a Combat Zone.............. 198
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS................... 198
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 198
Assessment of Freedom of Navigation Operations in the South
China Sea................................................ 198
Attacks on U.S. Armed Forces Personnel by Partner Nation
Security Forces.......................................... 198
Briefing on the Role of the Russian Military in Influence
Operations Targeting Democratic Elections and Disruption
of Military Alliances and Partnerships................... 199
Countering Russian Aggression.............................. 200
Counterterrorism Effectiveness Research.................... 200
Critical Shortfalls in the Indo-Asia-Pacific Region........ 201
Cultural Preservation in Armed Conflict.................... 201
Defense Support to the Global Engagement Center Mission.... 202
Department of Defense Briefing on Crisis Response in Africa 203
DTRA International Countering WMD-Program.................. 203
Forward-Stationed Combat Aviation Brigade in South Korea... 203
Global Engagement Center................................... 204
Global Theater Security Cooperation Management Information
System................................................... 204
Impact of Foreign Laws on U.S. Defense Contractors......... 205
Implementation of Strategy to Prevent and Respond to
Gender-Based Violence.................................... 205
Improvements to Transparency in the Technology Release
Process in Foreign Military Sales........................ 206
Independent Security Cooperation Evaluation Office......... 206
NATO Defense Weapon System Development Cooperation......... 206
Non-lethal Weapons for European Theater Contingencies...... 207
Plan to Enhance Imagery Sharing with Allies in the Asia-
Pacific Region........................................... 207
Report on Impact of Outsourcing on the U.S. Defense
Industrial Base.......................................... 208
Security Cooperation Assessment, Monitoring, and Evaluation 208
Security Cooperation Reform................................ 209
Support for Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program.......... 209
Support for Other Departments and Agencies of the United
States Government that Advance Department of Defense
Security Cooperation Objectives.......................... 209
Timor Sea Maritime Developments............................ 210
U.S. Civilian Contractors in Iraq.......................... 210
U.S. National Security Threats in Africa................... 210
Utilizing Unmanned Aircraft Systems for International
Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief.............. 211
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 212
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training.......................... 212
Section 1201--One-Year Extension of Logistical Support for
Coalition Forces Supporting Certain United States
Military Operations...................................... 212
Section 1202--Modification to Special Defense Acquisition
Fund..................................................... 212
Section 1203--Modification to Ministry of Defense Advisor
Authority................................................ 212
Section 1204--Modification of Authority to Build Capacity
of Foreign Security Forces............................... 212
Section 1205--Extension and Modification of Authority on
Training for Eastern European National Military Forces in
the Course of Multilateral Exercises..................... 213
Section 1206--Extension of Participation in and Support of
the Inter-American Defense College....................... 213
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan..... 213
Section 1211--Extension of Authority to Transfer Defense
Articles and Provide Defense Services to the Military and
Security Forces of Afghanistan........................... 213
Section 1212--Report on United States Strategy in
Afghanistan.............................................. 213
Section 1213--Extension and Modification of Authority for
Reimbursement of Certain Coalition Nations for Support
Provided to United States Military Operations............ 213
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Syria, Iraq, and Iran........ 214
Section 1221--Report on United States Strategy in Syria.... 214
Section 1222--Extension and Modification of Authority to
Provide Assistance to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant........................................... 214
Section 1223--Extension and Modification of Authority to
Support Operations and Activities of the Office of
Security Cooperation in Iraq............................. 215
Section 1224--Sense of Congress on Threats Posed by the
Government of Iran....................................... 215
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation....... 216
Section 1231--Extension of Limitation on Military
Cooperation between the United States and the Russian
Federation............................................... 216
Section 1232--Prohibition on Availability of Funds Relating
to Sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea..... 216
Section 1233--Statement of Policy on the Russian Federation 216
Section 1234--Modification and Extension of Ukraine
Security Assistance Initiative........................... 216
Section 1235--Limitation on Availability of Funds Relating
to Implementation of the Open Skies Treaty............... 217
Section 1236--Sense of Congress on Importance of Nuclear
Capabilities of NATO..................................... 217
Section 1237--Sense of Congress on Support for Georgia..... 217
Section 1238--Sense of Congress on Support for Estonia,
Latvia, and Lithuania.................................... 217
Subtitle E--Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty
Preservation Act of 2017................................. 218
Section 1241--Short Title.................................. 218
Section 1242--Findings..................................... 218
Section 1243--Compliance Enforcement regarding Russian
Violations of the INF Treaty............................. 218
Section 1244--Development of INF Range Ground-Launched
Missile System........................................... 218
Section 1245--Notification Requirement Related to Russian
Federation Development of Noncompliant Systems and United
States Actions Regarding Material Breach of INF Treaty by
the Russian Federation................................... 219
Section 1246--Limitation on Availability of Funds to Extend
the Implementation of the New START Treaty............... 219
Section 1247--Review of RS-26 Ballistic Missile............ 219
Section 1248--Definitions.................................. 220
Subtitle F--Fostering Unity Against Russian Aggression Act of
2017..................................................... 220
Section 1251--Short Title.................................. 220
Section 1252--Findings and Sense of Congress............... 220
Section 1253--Strategy to Counter Threats by the Russian
Federation............................................... 220
Section 1254--Strategy to Increase Conventional Precision
Strike Weapon Stockpiles in the United States European
Command's Areas of Responsibility........................ 220
Section 1255--Plan to Counter the Military Capabilities of
the Russian Federation................................... 220
Section 1256--Plan to Increase Cyber and Information
Operations, Deterrence, and Defense...................... 221
Section 1257--Sense of Congress on Enhancing Maritime
Capabilities............................................. 221
Section 1258--Plan to Reduce the Risks of Miscalculation
and Unintended Consequences that Could Precipitate a
Nuclear War.............................................. 221
Section 1259--Definitions.................................. 221
Subtitle G--Matters Relating to the Indo-Asia-Pacific Region. 221
Section 1261--Sense of Congress on the Indo-Asia-Pacific
Region................................................... 221
Section 1262--Report on Strategy to Prioritize United
States Defense Interests in the Indo-Asia-Pacific Region. 221
Section 1263--Assessment of United States Force Posture and
Basing Needs in the Indo-Asia-Pacific Region............. 222
Section 1264--Extended Deterrence Commitment to the Asia-
Pacific Region........................................... 222
Section 1265--Authorization of Appropriations to Meet
United States Financial Obligations under Compact of Free
Association with Palau................................... 222
Section 1266--Sense of Congress Reaffirming Security
Commitments to the Governments of Japan and South Korea
and Trilateral Cooperation between the United States,
Japan, and South Korea................................... 222
Section 1267--Sense of Congress on Freedom of Navigation
Operations in the South China Sea........................ 223
Section 1268--Sense of Congress on Strengthening the
Defense of Taiwan........................................ 223
Section 1269--Sense of Congress on the Association on
Southeast Asian Nations.................................. 223
Section 1270--Sense of Congress on Reaffirming the
Importance of the United States-Australia Defense
Alliance................................................. 223
Subtitle H--Other Matters.................................... 223
Section 1271--NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of
Excellence............................................... 223
Section 1272--NATO Strategic Communications Center of
Excellence............................................... 224
Section 1273--Security and Stability Strategy for Somalia.. 224
Section 1274--Assessment of Global Theater Security
Cooperation Management Information System................ 224
Section 1275--Future Years Plan for the European Deterrence
Initiative............................................... 224
Section 1276--Extension of Authority to Enter into
Agreements with Participating Countries in the American,
British, Canadian, and Australian Armies' Program........ 225
Section 1277--Security Strategy for Yemen.................. 225
Section 1278--Limitation on Transfer of Excess Defense
Articles That Are High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled
Vehicles................................................. 225
Section 1279--Department of Defense Program to Protect
United States Students Against Foreign Agents............ 226
Section 1280--Extension of United States-Israel Anti-Tunnel
Cooperation Authority.................................... 226
Section 1281--Anticorruption Strategy...................... 226
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION......................... 226
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 226
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Funds.................................................... 226
Section 1302--Funding Allocations.......................... 227
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 227
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 227
Assessment of the Realignment of the Joint Improvised-
Threat Defeat Organization under the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency......................................... 227
Beryllium Supply Chain..................................... 228
Fiscal Stability of the National Defense Stockpile......... 228
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 229
Subtitle A--Military Programs................................ 229
Section 1401--Working Capital Funds........................ 229
Section 1402--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction,
Defense.................................................. 229
Section 1403--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense-Wide................................. 229
Section 1404--Defense Inspector General.................... 229
Section 1405--Defense Health Program....................... 229
Section 1406--National Defense Sealift Fund................ 229
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 229
Section 1411--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...................... 229
Section 1412--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed
Forces Retirement Home................................... 230
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS....................................... 230
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 230
National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Account..... 230
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 231
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 231
Section 1501--Purpose and Treatment of Certain
Authorizations of Appropriations......................... 231
Section 1502--Procurement.................................. 231
Section 1503--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.. 231
Section 1504--Operation and Maintenance.................... 231
Section 1505--Military Personnel........................... 231
Section 1506--Working Capital Funds........................ 231
Section 1507--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense-Wide................................. 231
Section 1508--Defense Inspector General.................... 232
Section 1509--Defense Health Program....................... 232
Subtitle B--Financial Matters................................ 232
Section 1511--Treatment as Additional Authorizations....... 232
Section 1512--Special Transfer Authority................... 232
Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters.......... 232
Section 1521--Afghanistan Security Forces Fund............. 232
Section 1522--Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Fund.......... 232
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS... 233
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 233
Space Activities............................................. 233
Overview on National Security Space Organization........... 233
Certification of Reusable Launch Vehicles for National
Security Space Missions.................................. 235
Commercial Geospatial Intelligence......................... 235
Comptroller General Review of Hosted Payloads.............. 236
Global Positioning System.................................. 236
Multi-Band Satellite Communications Terminals.............. 236
Outer Space Cooperation with Japan......................... 237
Reliance on Global Positioning System for Defense of the
Homeland................................................. 237
Responsive Launch.......................................... 238
Small Satellite Technology Development..................... 238
Space Commercial Antenna Service........................... 239
Space Security............................................. 239
Space Situational Awareness and Battle Management Command
and Control.............................................. 240
Use of Surplus Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Motors
for Commercial Space Launches............................ 241
Missile Defense Programs..................................... 241
Hypersonic Defense......................................... 241
Improving Ground Testing of the Ground-Based Midcourse
Defense System........................................... 241
Low Cost Missile Defense Initiative........................ 242
National Missile Defense Policy Change and Adversary
Reactions................................................ 242
Plan to Assess the Acquisition of Missile Defense Targets.. 243
Sea-Based X-Band Radar..................................... 243
Nuclear Forces............................................... 244
Briefing on Commonality Related to the Ground-Based
Strategic Deterrent Program.............................. 244
Briefing on the 3+2 Strategy and Interoperable Warhead 1
(IW-1)................................................... 244
Comptroller General Review of Nuclear Forces Readiness
During Recapitalization and Transition................... 245
Continuation of Nuclear Command, Control and Communications
Acquisition Assessments by the Government Accountability
Office................................................... 246
Countering Threats from Unmanned Aircraft Systems.......... 246
Future of Nuclear Deterrence and the Joint Strategic
Deterrence Review Process................................ 247
Nuclear Assurance and Deterrence Science, Technology,
Innovation, and Collaboration............................ 247
Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications Systems
Modernization............................................ 248
Nuclear Security Collaboration and Harmonization........... 248
Office of the Secretary of Defense Oversight and
Organization for the Nuclear Deterrence Mission.......... 249
Remote Visual Assessment System at Minuteman III Launch
Facilities............................................... 249
Report on Ground Based Strategic Deterrent and Minuteman
III...................................................... 250
Status of Infrastructure Supporting NATO Nuclear Deterrence
Mission.................................................. 251
Cyber-Related Matters........................................ 252
Assessment of Effectiveness of Cyber Reporting............. 252
Assessment of Third-Party Cybersecurity Risk............... 252
Cloud Computing............................................ 253
Comply-to-Connect Policy................................... 254
Comptroller General Assessment of Cyber Training........... 254
Cyber Hardening............................................ 254
Cyber Training and Talent Management....................... 255
Cyber Vulnerability Disclosure Program..................... 256
Data Protection............................................ 256
Evaluation of Commercial Cyber Threat Information Sources.. 257
Implementation of Recommendations by Defense Science Board
Task Force on Cyber Deterrence and Cyber Supply Chain.... 257
Persistent Training Environment............................ 258
Report on Army Network Security Consolidation.............. 258
Unified Platform........................................... 259
Weapon System Cyber Vulnerabilities........................ 259
Intelligence Matters......................................... 260
Defense Clandestine Service................................ 260
European Deterrence Initiative Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance....................................... 260
Improving Analytic Automation.............................. 260
Intelligence Simulation Center............................. 261
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Capability
Imbalance................................................ 261
Joint Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
Management............................................... 262
Report on National Intelligence Program and Military
Intelligence Program Integration Against Hard Targets.... 264
Review by Comptroller General of the United States of the
General Defense Intelligence Program..................... 265
Secure Compartmented Information Facility Standardization.. 265
Strengthening Intelligence Input to Milestone Decisions.... 266
Threat Awareness Programs.................................. 266
Underground Facility Targeting Capabilities................ 267
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 267
Subtitle A--Management and Organization of Space Programs.... 267
Section 1601--Establishment of Space Corps in the
Department of the Air Force.............................. 267
Section 1602--Establishment of Subordinate Unified Command
of the United States Strategic Command................... 268
Subtitle B--Space Activities................................. 268
Section 1611--Codification, Extension, and Modification of
Limitation on Construction on United States Territory of
Satellite Positioning Ground Monitoring Stations of
Foreign Governments...................................... 268
Section 1612--Foreign Commercial Satellite Services:
Cybersecurity Threats and Launches....................... 268
Section 1613--Extension of Pilot Program on Commercial
Weather Data............................................. 269
Section 1614--Conditional Transfer of Acquisition and
Funding Authority of Certain Weather Missions to National
Reconnaissance Office.................................... 269
Section 1615--Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
Modernization and Sustainment of Assured Access to Space. 269
Section 1616--Commercial Satellite Communications
Pathfinder Program....................................... 270
Section 1617--Demonstration of Backup and Complementary
Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Capabilities of
Global Positioning System................................ 270
Section 1618--Enhancement of Positioning, Navigation, and
Timing Capacity.......................................... 270
Section 1619--Establishment of Space Flag Training Event... 271
Section 1620--Report on Operational and Contingency Plans
for Loss or Degradation of Space Capabilities............ 271
Section 1621--Limitation on Availability of Funding for
Joint Space Operations Center Mission System............. 272
Section 1622--Limitation on Availability of Funds Relating
to the Advanced Extremely High Frequency Program......... 272
Subtitle C--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related
Activities............................................... 272
Section 1631--Security Clearances for Facilities of Certain
Contractors.............................................. 272
Section 1632--Extension of Authority to Engage in Certain
Commercial Activities.................................... 272
Section 1633--Submission of Audits of Commercial Activity
Funds.................................................... 272
Section 1634--Clarification of Annual Briefing on the
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
Requirements of the Combatant Commands................... 272
Section 1635--Review of Support Provided by Defense
Intelligence Elements to Acquisition Activities of the
Department............................................... 273
Section 1636--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Certain Offensive Counterintelligence Activities......... 273
Section 1637--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for
Certain Relocation Activities for NATO Intelligence
Fusion Center............................................ 273
Section 1638--Establishment of Chairman's Controlled
Activity within Joint Staff for Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance......................... 273
Section 1639--Sense of Congress and Report on Geospatial
Commercial Activities for Basic and Applied Research and
Development.............................................. 274
Section 1640--Department of Defense Counterintelligence
Polygraph Program........................................ 274
Section 1641--Security Clearance for Dual-Nationals........ 274
Section 1642--Suspension or Revocation of Security
Clearances Based on Unlawful or Inappropriate Contacts
with Representatives of a Foreign Government............. 274
Subtitle D--Cyberspace-Related Matters....................... 274
Section 1651--Notification Requirements for Sensitive
Military Cyber Operations and Cyber Weapons.............. 274
Section 1652--Modification to Quarterly Cyber Operations
Briefings................................................ 275
Section 1653--Cyber Scholarship Program.................... 275
Section 1654--Plan to Increase Cyber and Information
Operations, Deterrence, and Defense...................... 275
Section 1655--Report on Termination of Dual-Hat Arrangement
for Commander of the United States Cyber Command......... 275
Subtitle E--Nuclear Forces................................... 276
Section 1661--Notifications Regarding Dual-Capable F-35A
Aircraft................................................. 276
Section 1662--Oversight of Delayed Acquisition Programs by
Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command,
Control, and Communications System....................... 276
Section 1663--Establishment of Nuclear Command and Control
Intelligence Fusion Center............................... 276
Section 1664--Security of Nuclear Command, Control, and
Communications System from Commercial Dependencies....... 277
Section 1665--Oversight of Aerial-Layer Programs by Council
on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control,
and Communications System................................ 277
Section 1666--Security Classification Guide for Programs
Relating to Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications
and Nuclear Deterrence................................... 278
Section 1667--Evaluation and Enhanced Security of Supply
Chain for Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications
and Continuity of Government Programs.................... 278
Section 1668--Limitation on Pursuit of Certain Command and
Control Concept.......................................... 279
Section 1669--Procurement Authority for Certain Parts of
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Fuzes................. 279
Section 1670--Sense of Congress on Importance of
Independent Nuclear Deterrent of United Kingdom.......... 280
Section 1671--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for
Mobile Variant of Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent
Missile.................................................. 280
Section 1672--Report on Impacts of Nuclear Proliferation... 280
Subtitle F--Missile Defense Programs......................... 280
Section 1681--Administration of Missile Defense and Defeat
Programs................................................. 280
Section 1682--Preservation of the Ballistic Missile Defense
Capacity of the Army..................................... 281
Section 1683--Modernization of Army Lower Tier Air and
Missile Defense Sensor................................... 281
Section 1684--Enhancement of Operational Test and
Evaluation of Ballistic Missile Defense System........... 281
Section 1685--Defense of Hawaii from North Korean Ballistic
Missile Attack........................................... 282
Section 1686--Aegis Ashore Anti-Air Warfare Capability..... 283
Section 1687--Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense System,
Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Program Codevelopment
and Coproduction, and Arrow 3 Testing.................... 283
Section 1688--Review of Proposed Ground-Based Midcourse
Defense System Contract.................................. 284
Section 1689--Sense of Congress and Plan for Development of
Space-Based Sensor Layer for Ballistic Missile Defense... 285
Section 1690--Sense of Congress and Plan for Development of
Space-Based Ballistic Missile Intercept Layer............ 285
Section 1691--Limitation on Availability of Funds for
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Element of the Ballistic
Missile Defense System................................... 285
Section 1692--Conventional Prompt Global Strike Weapon
System................................................... 286
Section 1693--Determination of Location of Continental
United States Interceptor Site........................... 286
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 286
Section 1695--Protection of Certain Facilities and Assets
from Unmanned Aircraft................................... 286
Section 1696--Use of Commercial Items in Distributed Common
Ground Systems........................................... 286
Section 1697--Independent Assessment of Costs Relating to
Ammonium Perchlorate..................................... 286
Section 1698--Limitation and Business Case Analysis
Regarding Ammonium Perchlorate........................... 286
Section 1699--Industrial Base for Large Solid Rocket Motors
and Related Technologies................................. 287
Section 1699A--Pilot Program on Enhancing Information
Sharing for Security of Supply Chain..................... 287
Section 1699B--Commission to Assess the Threat to the
United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attacks and
Events................................................... 288
Section 1699C--Pilot Program on Electromagnetic Spectrum
Mapping.................................................. 288
TITLE XVII--MATTERS RELATING TO SMALL BUSINESS PROCUREMENT....... 288
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 288
Subtitle A--Improving Transparency and Clarity for Small
Businesses............................................... 288
Section 1701--Improving Reporting on Small Business Goals.. 288
Section 1702--Uniformity in Procurement Terminology........ 289
Section 1703--Responsibilities of Commercial Market
Representatives.......................................... 289
Section 1704--Responsibilities of Business Opportunity
Specialists.............................................. 289
Subtitle B--Women's Business Programs........................ 289
Section 1711--Office of Women's Business Ownership......... 289
Section 1712--Women's Business Center Program.............. 289
Section 1713--Matching Requirements under Women's Business
Center Program........................................... 289
Subtitle C--SCORE Program.................................... 290
Section 1721--SCORE Reauthorization........................ 290
Section 1722--SCORE Program................................ 290
Section 1723--Online Component............................. 290
Section 1724--Study and Report on the Future Role of the
SCORE Program............................................ 290
Section 1725--Technical and Conforming Amendments.......... 290
Subtitle D--Small Business Development Centers Improvements.. 290
Section 1731--Use of Authorized Entrepreneurial Development
Programs................................................. 290
Section 1732--Marketing of Services........................ 291
Section 1733--Data Collection.............................. 291
Section 1734--Fees from Private Partnerships and
Cosponsorships........................................... 291
Section 1735--Equity for Small Business Development Centers 291
Section 1736--Confidentiality Requirements................. 291
Section 1737--Limitation on Award of Grants to Small
Business Development Centers............................. 291
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous.................................... 292
Section 1741--Modification of Past Performance Pilot
Program to Include Consideration of Past Performance with
Allies of the United States.............................. 292
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 292
PURPOSE........................................................ 292
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW.......... 292
Section 2001--Short Title.................................. 292
Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts
Required To Be Specified by Law.......................... 293
Section 2003--Effective Date............................... 293
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............................ 293
SUMMARY........................................................ 293
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 293
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 293
Army Power Projection Platforms............................ 294
Pohakuloa Training Area.................................... 294
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 294
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 294
Section 2102--Family Housing............................... 294
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 295
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........ 295
Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2014 Project......................... 295
Section 2106--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2015 Project......................... 295
Section 2107--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal
Year 2014 Project........................................ 295
Section 2108--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2015 Projects....................................... 295
Section 2109--Additional Authority to Carry Out Certain
Fiscal Year 2000, 2005, 2006, and 2007 Projects.......... 295
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION........................... 296
SUMMARY........................................................ 296
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 296
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 296
Assessment of Department of Defense Equities for Operation
and Maintenance of the George P. Coleman Memorial Bridge,
Yorktown, VA............................................. 297
Red Hill Bulk Underground Fuel Storage Facility............ 297
Requirements for Munitions and Explosives of Concern
Clearance on Guam........................................ 298
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 299
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 299
Section 2202--Family Housing............................... 299
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 299
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........ 299
Section 2205--Extension of Authorizations for Certain
Fiscal Year 2014 Projects................................ 299
Section 2206--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2015 Projects....................................... 300
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION..................... 300
SUMMARY........................................................ 300
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 300
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 300
Air Force Dormitory Master Plan............................ 302
Lincoln Laboratory Recapitalization........................ 303
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 303
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 303
Section 2302--Family Housing............................... 303
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 303
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force... 303
Section 2305--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2017 Projects........................ 303
Section 2306--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2015 Projects....................................... 304
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION............... 304
SUMMARY........................................................ 304
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 304
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 304
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 306
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 306
Section 2402--Authorized Energy Resiliency and Conservation
Projects................................................. 306
Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense
Agencies................................................. 306
Section 2404--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2017 Project......................... 306
Section 2405--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2014 Projects....................................... 306
Section 2406--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2015 Projects....................................... 307
TITLE XXV--INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS................................ 307
SUMMARY........................................................ 307
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 307
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 307
Infrastructure Capabilities, Capacity, and Investments..... 307
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 308
Subtitle A--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
Investment Program....................................... 308
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 308
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........ 308
Subtitle B--Host Country In-Kind Contributions............... 308
Section 2511--Republic of Korea Funded Construction
Projects................................................. 308
Section 2512--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2017 Projects........................ 308
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 308
SUMMARY........................................................ 308
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 308
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 308
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 310
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorizations of
Appropriations........................................... 310
Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction
and Land Acquisition Projects............................ 310
Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 310
Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps
Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition Projects....... 311
Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction
and Land Acquisition Projects............................ 311
Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 311
Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National
Guard and Reserve........................................ 311
Subtitle B--Other Matters.................................... 311
Section 2611--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2015 Project......................... 311
Section 2612--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2014 Projects....................................... 311
Section 2613--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 2015 Projects....................................... 312
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES............. 312
OVERVIEW....................................................... 312
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 312
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 312
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 312
Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base
Realignment and Closure Activities Funded Through
Department of Defense Base Closure Account............... 312
Section 2702--Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Round..................... 312
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS........... 313
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 313
Air Training Ranges in the Department of Defense........... 313
Aircraft Stationing, Basing, and Laydown Process........... 314
Collaboration with Federal Aviation Administration on
Unmanned Aerial Systems.................................. 315
Efficient and Integrated Military Installations............ 315
Enhanced Use Leases........................................ 316
Financial Institutions on Military Installations........... 316
Infrastructure Master Plan for Defense Laboratory and
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Infrastructure........................................... 317
Overseas Infrastructure and Facility Investments........... 317
Railroads for National Defense............................. 318
Sentinel Landscapes Partnership Program.................... 318
Sustainment and Recapitalization of Utilities.............. 319
Use of Federal Facilities by Contractors................... 319
Veteran Apprenticeship Programs and Military Construction.. 320
Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure........................ 320
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 321
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing.................................................. 321
Section 2801--Elimination of Written Notice Requirement for
Military Construction Activities and Reliance on
Electronic Submission of Notifications and Reports....... 321
Section 2802--Modification of Thresholds Applicable to
Unspecified Minor Construction Projects.................. 321
Section 2803--Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority to
Use Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction
Projects Outside the United States....................... 321
Section 2804--Use of Operation and Maintenance Funds for
Military Construction Projects to Replace Facilities
Damaged or Destroyed by Natural Disasters or Terrorism
Incidents................................................ 321
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 322
Section 2811--Elimination of Written Notice Requirement for
Military Real Property Transactions and Reliance on
Electronic Submission of Notifications and Reports....... 322
Section 2812--Clarification of Applicability of Fair Market
Value Consideration in Grants of Easements on Military
Lands for Rights-of-Way.................................. 322
Section 2813--Criteria for Exchanges of Property at
Military Installations................................... 322
Section 2814--Prohibiting Use of Updated Assessment of
Public Schools on Department of Defense Installations to
Supersede Funding of Certain Projects.................... 322
Section 2815--Requirements for Window Fall Prevention
Devices in Military Family Housing....................... 322
Section 2816--Authorizing Reimbursement of States for Costs
of Suppressing Wildfires Caused by Department of Defense
Activities on State Lands; Restoration of Lands of Other
Federal Agencies for Damage Caused by Department of
Defense Vehicle Mishaps.................................. 323
Section 2817--Prohibiting Collection of Additional Amounts
from Members Living in Units Under Military Housing
Privatization Initiative................................. 323
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances................................. 323
Section 2821--Land Exchange, Naval Industrial Reserve
Ordnance Plant, Sunnyvale, California.................... 323
Section 2822--Land Conveyance, Naval Ship Repair Facility,
Guam..................................................... 323
Section 2823--Lease of Real Property to the United States
Naval Academy Alumni Association and Naval Academy
Foundation at United States Naval Academy, Annapolis,
Maryland................................................. 323
Section 2824--Land Conveyance, Natick Soldier Systems
Center, Massachusetts.................................... 324
Section 2825--Imposition of Additional Conditions on Land
Conveyance, Castner Range, Fort Bliss, Texas............. 324
Section 2826--Land Conveyance, Wasatch-Cache National
Forest, Rich County, Utah................................ 324
Section 2827--Land Conveyance, Former Missile Alert
Facility known as Quebec-01, Laramie County, Wyoming..... 324
Subtitle D--Military Land Withdrawals........................ 324
Section 2831--Indefinite Duration of Certain Military Land
Withdrawals and Reservations and Improved Management of
Withdrawn and Reserved Lands............................. 324
Section 2832--Temporary Segregation from Public Land Laws
of Property Subject to Proposed Military Land Withdrawal;
Temporary Use Permits and Transfers of Small Parcels of
Land between Departments of Interior and Military
Departments; More Efficient Surveying of Lands........... 325
Subtitle E--Military Memorials, Monuments, and Museums....... 325
Section 2841--Modification of Prohibition on Transfer of
Veterans Memorial Objects to Foreign Governments without
Specific Authorization in Law............................ 325
Section 2842--Recognition of the National Museum of World
War II Aviation.......................................... 325
Section 2843--Principal Office of Aviation Hall of Fame.... 325
Subtitle F--Shiloh National Military Park.................... 325
Section 2851--Short Title.................................. 325
Section 2852--Definitions.................................. 325
Section 2853--Areas to Be Added to Shiloh National Military
Park..................................................... 326
Section 2854--Establishment of Affiliated Area............. 326
Section 2855--Private Property Protection.................. 326
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 326
Section 2861--Modification of Department of Defense
Guidance on Use of Airfield Pavement Markings............ 326
Section 2862--Authority of Chief Operating Officer of Armed
Forces Retirement Home to Acquire and Lease Property..... 326
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 326
SUMMARY........................................................ 326
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 327
Explanation of Funding Adjustments......................... 327
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 329
Section 2901--Authorized Army Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 329
Section 2902--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Project...................................... 329
Section 2903--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 329
Section 2904--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
Land Acquisition Project................................. 329
Section 2905--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 329
Section 2906--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal
Year 2015 Projects....................................... 329
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................................... 330
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 330
OVERVIEW....................................................... 330
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 330
National Nuclear Security Administration..................... 330
Overview................................................... 330
Weapons Activities......................................... 330
Advanced simulation and computing........................ 330
Analysis of alternatives for unobligated enriched uranium 330
Beryllium................................................ 331
Defense nuclear security................................. 331
Nuclear Survivability.................................... 332
Secure transportation asset and mobile guardian
transporter............................................ 333
Single-point failures in the nuclear security enterprise. 333
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation........................... 334
Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program
and emergency preparedness............................. 334
Nuclear detection and verification efforts............... 334
Naval Reactors............................................. 335
Naval Reactors program................................... 335
Federal Salaries and Expenses.............................. 335
Comptroller General review of support service contracts.. 335
Environmental and Other Defense Activities................... 336
Overview................................................... 336
Defense Environmental Cleanup.............................. 336
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.............................. 336
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 337
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 337
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration..... 337
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup................ 337
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities..................... 337
Section 3104--Nuclear Energy............................... 337
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations.............................................. 337
Section 3111--Nuclear Security Enterprise Infrastructure
Recapitalization and Repair.............................. 337
Section 3112--Incorporation of Integrated Surety
Architecture in Transportation........................... 338
Section 3113--Cost Estimates for Life Extension Program and
Major Alteration Projects................................ 339
Section 3114--Budget Requests and Certification regarding
Nuclear Weapons Dismantlement............................ 339
Section 3115--Improved Information Relating to Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development Program 339
Section 3116--Research and Development of Advanced Naval
Reactor Fuel Based on Low-Enriched Uranium............... 340
Section 3117--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for
Programs in Russian Federation........................... 340
Section 3118--National Nuclear Security Administration Pay
and Performance System................................... 341
Section 3119--Disposition of Weapons-Usable Plutonium...... 341
Section 3120--Modification of Minor Construction Threshold
for Plant Projects....................................... 341
Section 3121--Design Competition........................... 341
Section 3122--Department of Energy Counterintelligence
Polygraph Program........................................ 342
Section 3123--Security Clearance for Dual-Nationals
Employed by National Nuclear Security Agency............. 342
Subtitle C--Plans and Reports................................ 342
Section 3131--Modification of Certain Reporting
Requirements............................................. 342
Section 3132--Assessment of Management and Operating
Contracts of National Security Laboratories.............. 342
Section 3133--Evaluation of Classification of Certain
Defense Nuclear Waste.................................... 343
Section 3134--Report on Critical Decision-1 on Material
Staging Facility Project................................. 343
Section 3135--Modification to Stockpile Stewardship,
Management, and Responsiveness Plan...................... 343
Section 3136--Improved Reporting for Anti-Smuggling
Radiation Detection Systems.............................. 343
Section 3137--Annual Selected Acquisition Reports on
Certain Hardware Relating to Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation......................................... 344
Section 3138--Assessment of Design Trade Options of W80-4
Warhead.................................................. 344
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 344
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 344
Section 3201--Authorization................................ 344
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................ 344
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 344
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 344
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.............................. 344
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 344
National Security Multi-Mission Vessel................... 344
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 345
Section 3501--Authorization of the Maritime Administration. 345
Section 3502--Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946.............. 345
Section 3503--Maritime Security Fleet Program; Restriction
on Operation for New Entrants............................ 345
Section 3504--Codification of Sections Relating to
Acquisition, Charter, and Requisition of Vessels......... 345
Section 3505--Assistance for Small Shipyards............... 345
Section 3506--Report on Sexual Assault Victim Recovery in
the Coast Guard.......................................... 345
Section 3507--Centers of Excellence........................ 346
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES....................................... 346
Section 4001--Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables... 346
Summary of National Defense Authorizations for Fiscal Year
2018..................................................... 347
National Defense Budget Authority Implication.............. 352
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT........................................... 354
Section 4101--Procurement.................................. 354
Section 4102--Procurement for Overseas Contingency
Operations............................................... 401
Section 4103--Procurement for Overseas Contingency
Operations for Base Requirements......................... 419
TITLE XLII--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION.......... 420
Section 4201--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.. 420
Section 4202--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
for Overseas Contingency Operations...................... 460
Section 4203--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
for Overseas Contingency Operations for Base Requirements 461
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 465
Section 4301--Operation and Maintenance.................... 465
Section 4302--Operation and Maintenance for Overseas
Contingency Operations................................... 486
Section 4303--Operation and Maintenance for Overseas
Contingency Operations for Base Requirements............. 497
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL................................... 500
Section 4401--Military Personnel........................... 501
Section 4402--Military Personnel for Overseas Contingency
Operations............................................... 501
Section 4403--Military Personnel for Overseas Contingency
Operations for Base Requirements......................... 501
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.................................. 502
Section 4501--Other Authorizations......................... 502
Section 4502--Other Authorizations for Overseas Contingency
Operations............................................... 505
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION................................ 507
Section 4601--Military Construction........................ 507
Section 4602--Military Construction for Overseas
Contingency Operations................................... 521
TITLE XLVII--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS..... 523
Section 4701--Department of Energy National Security
Programs................................................. 523
Department of Defense Authorization Request...................... 536
Communications from Other Committees............................. 537
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 550
Statement Required by the Congressional Budget Act............... 551
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 551
Advisory of Earmarks............................................. 551
Oversight Findings............................................... 551
General Performance Goals and Objectives......................... 551
Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 553
Federal Advisory Committee Statement............................. 553
Applicability to the Legislative Branch.......................... 553
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 553
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 553
Committee Votes.................................................. 553
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 563
Additional Views................................................. 566
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 115-200
======================================================================
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
_______
July 6, 2017.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Thornberry, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2810]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 2810) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2018 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, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of the
bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the
reported bill.
The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment
to the text of the bill.
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
The bill would: (1) authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2018 for procurement and for research, development, test,
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2018 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working
capital funds; (3) authorize for fiscal year 2018 the personnel
strength for each Active Duty component of the military
departments, and the personnel strength for the Selected
Reserve for each Reserve Component of the Armed Forces; (4)
modify various elements of compensation for military personnel
and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel
actions in the defense establishment; (5) authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for military construction
and family housing; (6) authorize appropriations for Overseas
Contingency Operations; (7) authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2018 for the Department of Energy national security
programs; and (8) authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018
for the Maritime Administration.
RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL
H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018, is a key mechanism through which Congress
fulfills one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States,
which grants Congress the power to provide for the common
defense, to raise and support an Army, to provide and maintain
a Navy, and to make rules for the government and regulation of
the land and naval forces. Rule X of the House of
Representatives provides the House Committee on Armed Services
with jurisdiction over the Department of Defense generally and
over the military application of nuclear energy. The committee
bill includes the large majority of the findings and
recommendations resulting from its oversight activities,
conducted through hearings, briefings, and roundtable
discussions with Department of Defense and Department of Energy
civilian and military officials, intelligence analysts, outside
experts, and industry representatives, and informed by the
experience gained over the previous decades of the committee's
existence.
The committee believes that America's global military
capabilities and commitments have undergirded peace, security,
and economic prosperity, and underwritten an international
world order and American interests. However, the committee also
recognizes that others seek to threaten such security and
prosperity. The committee further acknowledges that the U.S.
Armed Forces have been under an unrelenting pace of operations.
In fact, in testimony given to the committee on June 12, 2017,
the Secretary of Defense described forces affecting the
readiness of the military, noting ``The first force we must
recognize is 16 years of war. This period represents the
longest continuous stretch of armed conflict in our Nation's
history. In more than a quarter century since the end of the
Cold War, our country has deployed large-scale forces in active
operations for more months than we have been at peace.''
The provisions contained in the committee bill reinforce
the committee's belief that America's military strength and its
global posture and presence will continue to be necessary to
deter aggression, to reassure U.S. allies and partners, and to
exercise global influence. Further, the committee bill would
make much needed and overdue investments in the men and women
in uniform as well as their equipment and training, as they
face an uncertain a global threat environment.
Reforming the Department of Defense
The committee continues to believe that reform of the
Department of Defense is needed to improve the military's
agility and the speed at which it can address an increasingly
complex security environment and unprecedented technological
challenges. Reforms also ensure effective and efficient use of
taxpayer dollars. The bill reflects three major reform
initiatives undertaken by the committee in H.R. 2810: (1)
acquisition reform, (2) data management reform, and (3)
statutory streamlining.
Furthermore, in the area of defense healthcare, the
committee refines the reforms of the Military Health System
initiated in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) by maintaining emphasis on the
readiness of the force. To accomplish this goal, H.R. 2810
builds on the importance of these efforts by focusing on a
Military Health System that reduces costs, improves the
delivery of health care services at military medical treatment
facilities and enhances readiness of health professionals
supporting the war fighter.
In the area of military justice and sexual assault
prevention and response, the committee recognizes the
significant changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice
contained in last year's bill. Therefore, H.R. 2810 includes
limited clarifying and technical amendments designed to refine
last year's reforms. In addition, it includes a provision that
would prohibit the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images,
including cases in which the images were initially obtained
with consent. The bill also contains improvements to sexual
assault prevention and response, including a provision that
would require special victims counsel to receive training on
the unique challenges often faced by male sexual assault
victims.
Readiness of the Force and Rebuilding the Military
The committee recognizes that while the Department's
missions and requirements have increased, its resources have
decreased and readiness has suffered. The Vice Chief of Staff
of the Army testified that, ``In total, only about two thirds
of the Army's initial critical formations--the formations we
would need at the outset of a major conflict--are at acceptable
levels of readiness to conduct sustained ground combat in a
full spectrum environment against a highly lethal hybrid threat
or near-peer adversary. Stated more strategically, based on
current readiness levels, the Army can only accomplish Defense
Planning Guidance Requirements at high military risk.'' The
Assistant Commandant of the MarineCorps testified, ``Current
readiness shortfalls require additional operations and
maintenance resources, and we have exhausted our internal
options. Additional resources would facilitate exercises and
training and correct repair parts shortfalls, while
specifically addressing aviation specific operations and
maintenance funding.'' The other military service chiefs have
expressed similar sentiments. These undeniable readiness
shortfalls in the military services led Secretary of Defense
James N. Mattis to testify before the committee that, after
returning to the Pentagon ``. . . I have been shocked by what
I've seen with our readiness to fight.''
To begin to address the decline in readiness and initiate
the rebuilding of the military, the bill would include more
than $2.9 billion in additional funds for ship and aircraft
depot maintenance; aviation training and readiness; and long-
neglected facilities sustainment, restoration, and
modernization accounts, all of which were identified as
unfunded requirements by the military services. The bill would
also fully resource U.S. Special Operations Command, provide
additional resources for unfunded requirements to counter
global terrorism threats, and provide resources to accelerate
capabilities to support counterterrorism analytic tools.
Procurement of modernized systems is key to addressing the
readiness of the force. Many legacy systems can no longer be
maintained and adversary systems are increasingly able to
challenge such platforms. H.R. 2810 responds to numerous
unfunded, yet critical, modernization requirements identified
by the military services, including in the areas of air
dominance, strike fighter capability gaps, rotorcraft for
ground forces, Navy cruiser modernization, surface combatants,
shortfalls in war reserves for critical munitions, and
accelerating full spectrum capability within the Army's ground
forces.
The committee bill authorizes the total budget request
funding level for the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) nuclear weapons activities and defense
nuclear nonproliferation program, including critical efforts to
modernize the nuclear weapons stockpile and to tackle the
multibillion dollar backlog in deferred maintenance of NNSA
facilities.
The committee recognizes that the cyber domain of modern
warfare continues to grow in scope and sophistication.
Therefore, H.R. 2810 fully funds the budget request for cyber
operations and prioritizes the readiness of the cyber mission
forces. The committee increases funding to U.S. Cyber Command
by 16 percent, and enhances the Department's defensive and
offensive cyberspace capabilities. The bill also addresses
military service unfunded requirements for cyber warfare by
providing additional funding to close these critical gaps.
The committee remains focused on assuring access to space,
given the military's dependence on the capabilities provided
from satellites. Thus, the bill would authorize funds for the
development of a new American engine to replace the Russian-
made RD-180 by 2019; ensure the maintenance and modernization
of existing national security space launch capabilities; and,
ensure funding of national security space-related modifications
of commercial launch vehicles, instead of funding the
development of new space launch vehicles. In light of the
criticality of space as a new warfighting domain, the bill
would establish a space corps within the Air Force and elevate
U.S. Space Command to a subunified command under U.S. Strategic
Command.
In the area of ballistic missile defense, the bill would
authorize significant additional resources to meet combatant
command shortfalls, and service unfunded requirements for
missile defense interceptor inventories around the globe. The
bill would also require the Director of the Missile Defense
Agency (MDA) to begin the development of a space-based sensor
layer for ballistic missile defense; give the U.S. Army a
deadline to develop a modernization schedule that acceptably
meets warfighter requirements for a replacement to the legacy
Patriot air and missile defense radar system; require the
Secretary of Defense to transfer acquisition authority for
operational missile defense programs from the Director of MDA
to a military service by the time the President's budget is
submitted for fiscal year 2020; and prevent the Army from
retiring GEM-T interceptors from its inventory until the
Secretary of the Army submits an evaluation of the Army's
ability to meet warfighter requirements and operational needs
without such interceptors.
The bill also includes provisions that would advance
hypersonic weapons research, development, and transitional
efforts within the Department, and require weapons and
munitions science and technology roadmaps, including naval
energetics, to ensure focused developmental efforts of critical
weapon systems.
Resources for Warfighters and Families
The committee believes that caring for the troops and their
families is the essential foundation of readiness. H.R. 2810
builds upon the bipartisan work of the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel in providing the troops the benefits they need,
deserve, and have earned. As always, the committee's approach
is guided by a determination to maintain the viability and
readiness of the All-Volunteer Force while ensuring that the
Government does not break faith with U.S. service members,
retirees, their family members, and survivors.
H.R. 2810 would authorize a fully funded, by-law pay raise
for all U.S. service members at 2.4 percent. The bill would
also begin to grow military end strength, by increasing the
active duty Army by 10,000 to 486,000, the Army National Guard
by 4,000 to 347,000, the Army Reserve by 3,000 to 202,000 in
fiscal year 2018.
H.R. 2810 would grant permanency to family support programs
within U.S. Special Operations Command. This important and
proven pilot program now merits codification and permanency to
ensure continued support and care for families of Special
Operations Forces.
The bill also contains important provisions that would
provide further protection to former service members, including
those who have been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder or Traumatic Brain Injury as a result of combat or
sexual assault in the military.
National Defense Strategy
The committee remains concerned about the absence of a
clear and cohesive strategy concerning national security
priorities in places of conflict, including in the Syrian Arab
Republic, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Republic of
Yemen, and the Federal Republic of Somalia, and the provisions
contained in the committee bill would require the Department of
Defense to provide additional details on efforts in those
countries. At the same time, the committee notes the importance
of disrupting and dismantling terrorist groups that threaten
U.S. interests and provides funds necessary to train and equip
partner forces, including the Iraqi Security Forces, which
combat the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and other
terrorist groups across the Middle East, Africa, and Central
Asia.
The committee remains concerned about the Islamic Republic
of Iran's malign military activities, and H.R. 2810 would
express the committee's view that the United States should
counter such activities, ensure that the U.S. military
maintains a capable posture in the Arabian Gulf to deter and
respond to Iranian aggression, strengthen ballistic missile
defense capabilities, ensure freedom of navigation at the Bab
al Mandab Strait and the Strait of Hormuz, and counter Iranian
efforts to illicitly proliferate weapons.
The committee has also focused on the Department's efforts
to deter aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine
and other allies and partners in Europe. The committee supports
a significant increase in European Deterrence Initiative
funding above the fiscal year 2017 request, including funding
for heel-to-toe rotations of U.S. forces, pre-positioning of
equipment in Europe, and building up necessary Air Force
infrastructure. The bill would also provide $150.0 million for
the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative to enhance the
defense of Ukraine and to deter further Russian aggression.
The committee supports the Department of Defense in
strengthening U.S. military posture and capabilities in the
Indo-Asia-Pacific region. To aid in its oversight, H.R. 2810
would require the Department of Defense to provide a strategy
on United States defense objectives and priorities in the Indo-
Asia-Pacific region and an assessment of U.S. force posture and
basing needs. Additionally, it would reaffirm U.S. extended
deterrence commitments to Japan and the Republic of Korea and
condemn any assertion that limits the right of freedom of
navigation and overflight in the South China Sea. It would
express a sense of Congress in strengthening security
cooperation with allies and partners, including Japan, the
Republic of Korea, Taiwan, Australia, and with regional
institutions such as the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations.
The committee also supports the Department of Defense in
countering instability and strengthening capabilities of U.S.
partners in Africa. To aid in its oversight, H.R. 2810 would
require the president to provide a strategy on United States
objectives and priorities in the Federal Republic of Somalia.
HEARINGS
Committee consideration of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 results from posture and
budget-related hearings that began on February 1, 2017, and
that were completed on June 12, 2017. The full committee
conducted 8 hearing and the 6 subcommittees conducted a total
of 31 sessions during this time period. Additionally, over the
past year, the committee conducted numerous policy and program
oversight hearings, including hearings in support of its reform
initiatives, to inform its development of the legislative
proposals contained in this Act.
COMMITTEE POSITION
On June 28, 2017, the Committee on Armed Services held a
markup session to consider H.R. 2810. The committee ordered the
bill H.R. 2810, as amended, favorably reported to the House of
Representatives by a recorded vote of 60-1, a quorum being
present.
EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 2810. The title of
the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the
bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as
amended.
RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS
The bill does not provide budget authority. This bill
authorizes appropriations; subsequent appropriations acts will
provide budget authority. However, the committee strives to
adhere to the recommendations as issued by the Committee on the
Budget as it relates to the jurisdiction of this committee.
The bill addresses the following categories in the
Department of Defense budget: procurement; research,
development, test, and evaluation; operation and maintenance;
military personnel; working capital funds; and military
construction and family housing. The bill also addresses the
Armed Forces Retirement Home, Department of Energy National
Security Programs, the Naval Petroleum Reserve, and the
Maritime Administration.
Active Duty and Reserve personnel strengths authorized in
this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military
personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of
the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide
authorization of specific dollar amounts for military
personnel.
SUMMARY OF DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE BILL
The President requested discretionary budget authority of
$659.8 billion for programs within the jurisdiction of the
committee for fiscal year 2018. Of this amount, $574.6 billion
was requested for ``base'' Department of Defense programs,
$64.6 billion was requested for Overseas Contingency Operations
requirements covering the entire fiscal year, $20.5 billion was
requested for Department of Energy national security programs
and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and $0.2
billion was requested for defense-related activities associated
with the Maritime Administration.
The committee recommends an overall discretionary
authorization of $688.3 billion in fiscal year 2018. The base
committee authorization of $613.8 billion is a $70.4 billion
increase above the levels provided for in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328).
The authorization provided in title XV totals $74.6 billion for
Overseas Contingency Operations, of which $10.0 billion is
authorized in support of base budget requirements.
The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in
division D of this report summarizes the committee's
recommended discretionary authorizations by appropriation
account for fiscal year 2018 and compares these amounts to the
President's request.
BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
The President's total request for the national defense
budget function (050) in fiscal year 2018 is $675.8 billion, as
estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. In addition to
funding for programs addressed in this bill, the total 050
request includes discretionary funding for national defense
programs not in the committee's jurisdiction, discretionary
funding for programs that do not require additional
authorization in fiscal year 2018, and mandatory programs.
The table preceding the detailed program adjustments in
division D of this report details changes to the budget request
for all aspects of the national defense budget function.
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Items of Special Interest
Health and Usage Monitoring Systems
In the committee report (H. Rept. 113-446) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, the
committee directed the Secretary of the Army review the
potential for integrating and demonstrating a Next Generation
Health Monitoring System (NGHMS) for UH-72 light utility
helicopters. The NGHMS could enable early warning for failing
platform systems, reduce emergency maintenance demands, provide
predictable platform maintenance schedules, reduce cost and
should increase readiness.
The committee notes the Army is currently evaluating NGHMS
systems and most recently conducted a critical design review in
February 2017. The committee understands that preliminary test
and evaluation have demonstrated promising results. Given these
encouraging results with light utility rotorcraft, the
committee believes there could be potential for integrating
NGHMS on ground combat vehicles, in particular the Stryker
Combat Vehicle, to help with improving maintenance and
readiness.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by September 15, 2017, that provides the status and available
results of the UH-72 NGHMS testing; the Army's plan for
procuring and integrating NGHMS into the UH-72 fleet to include
any detailed description of the planned changes to the UH-72
aircraft maintenance construct, expected efficiencies and
estimated annual cost savings, as well as any potential for
application on ground combat vehicles.
Missile Procurement, Army
Items of Special Interest
Lethal Miniature Aerial Missile Systems
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the
committee noted the effectiveness of the Lethal Miniature
Aerial Missile System (LMAMS) currently fielded in the U.S.
Central Command (CENTCOM) theater of operations, and supported
the potential distribution of this capability across Army
infantry units. The LMAMS is a single man-portable/operable,
lightweight, beyond-line-of-sight, precision-guided, loitering
aerial missile system capable of locating and engaging obscured
and/or fleeting enemy targets who otherwise cannot be engaged
by typical direct fire weapon systems.
The committee notes the Army requested a total of $63.5
million for 655 LMAMS as part of the fiscal year 2017 Overseas
Contingency Operations request to address joint urgent
operational needs in CENTCOM's area of operations. The
committee understands the LMAMS Capability Development Document
has completed initial Army staff review, is currently being
revised by the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Maneuver
Center of Excellence, and will then be considered by the Army
Requirements Oversight Council for transition to a program of
record. While the committee fully supports the Army's request
from fiscal year 2017 and the budget request for fiscal year
2018, the committee requires additional details regarding the
Army's long-term acquisition strategy for LMAMS.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by November 1, 2017, on the Army's long-term plan for LMAMS, to
include current analysis of LMAMS operational performance to
date, current fielding strategy, as well as projected funding
requests across the Future Years Defense Program.
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Items of Special Interest
Armored brigade combat team modernization
The committee understands that Budget Control Act of 2011
(Public Law 112-25) funding levels have reduced buying power,
disrupted modernization plans, and reduced the Army's
capability advantage over near-peer, high-end competitors. The
committee notes that Army modernization funding declined 74
percent from 2008-2015 as a result of the drawdown from two
wars and the imposition of the budget caps by Public Law 112-
25. Perhaps most significant is that research and development
(R&D) funding has been reduced by 50 percent, and appears to be
concentrated in the later stages of R&D at the prototyping and
system design and development stages, which are the precursors
to fielding new capabilities. The Vice Chief of Staff of the
Army stated, in testimony before the House Committee on Armed
Services, that today's Army is ``out-ranged, outgunned, and
outdated; and on our present course, the U.S. Army will not be
sufficiently modern to deter and defeat potential enemies.''
The committee is concerned that the tactical overmatch that
U.S. ground forces have enjoyed for decades is being
diminished, or in some cases, no longer exists.
The committee believes the consequences of reduced
modernization funding are most dramatic with respect to ground
combat vehicle modernization. While the Army has definitive
plans in place for Army aviation modernization, and has worked
to establish mature acquisition strategies using multiyear
procurement contracts for aviation platforms, the same cannot
be said for ground combat vehicle modernization. The committee
believes there is an immediate need for a more accelerated
ground combat vehicle modernization strategy that should
include the development of a next generation infantry fighting
vehicle and main battle tank, while also looking for ways to
accelerate needed upgrades for legacy combat vehicles in the
near term to address immediate threats.
The committee understands the armored brigade combat team
(ABCT), which is comprised of Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting
vehicles, M109A7 Paladin self-propelled artillery, M113 Armored
Personnel Carriers, Armored Multipurpose Vehicles, M88 Improved
Recovery Vehicles, Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, and other
systems is the only full-spectrum force in the Army's force
structure. Over the past several National Defense Authorization
Acts, the committee has noted concerns regarding the reduction
of active ABCTs and the Army's ability to have sufficient
numbers of fully ready active ABCTs to meet combatant commander
steady-state and contingency plan requirements. The committee
has also taken action to prevent further reductions in ABCT
force structure, and prevent any production breaks in the
combat vehicle industrial base. Given the return of armored
units to the European theater, as well as the Army's plans to
increase ABCT capacity, the committee believes that these
actions have been validated.
However, the committee remains concerned about the
stability of ABCT modernization funding in fiscal year 2018 and
beyond, and encourages the Army to fully modernize at least one
ABCT per year. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army,
in consultation with the Chief of Staff of the Army, to provide
a report to the House Committee on Armed Services and the
Senate Committee on Armed Services by April 5, 2018, on the
Army's plan for executing its ground combat vehicle
modernization strategy. Elements of the report should include:
the Army's combat vehicle modernization priorities over the
next 5 and 10 years; the extent to which those priorities can
be supported at current funding levels within a relevant time
period; the extent to which additional funds are required to
support such priorities; detail how the Army is balancing and
resourcing these priorities with efforts to rebuild and sustain
readiness and increase force structure capacity over this same
time period; and explain how the Army is balancing its near-
term modernization efforts with an accelerated long-term
strategy for acquiring next generation combat vehicle
capabilities.
The committee also directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services by May 1, 2018, on the Comptroller General's
preliminary assessment of the Army's report on the ground
combat vehicle modernization strategy. The committee further
directs the Comptroller General to provide a report on the
Comptroller General's final assessment to the House Committee
on Armed Services at a date to be determined at the time of the
briefing. The Comptroller General's review should focus in
particular on how the Army has developed its modernization
priorities for the next 5 years, and examine how the Army is
balancing and resourcing these priorities with efforts to
rebuild and sustain readiness and increase force structure
capacity over this time period. Additionally, the review should
evaluate the extent to which the Army has balanced its near-
term modernization efforts with its long-term strategy for
acquiring new capabilities.
M240B medium machine gun inventory assessment
The committee has concerns regarding the Army's inventory
of M240B medium machine guns due to the Army's lack of detailed
information regarding the condition of the weapons within that
inventory. The committee understands the Army has achieved the
procurement objective for the M240 medium machine gun, and that
current M240 acquisition and sustainment strategies rely on
piecemeal replacement of individual parts instead of new
production. The committee is concerned about the impact of this
strategy on the industrial base, and the potential to eliminate
a critical production line that would be difficult and costly
to reestablish at a later date. The committee also notes that
M240 requirements could potentially increase as a result of the
Army increasing end-strength levels and growing additional
armored brigade combat teams. The committee believes the Army
needs to clearly demonstrate the operational viability of its
M240B inventory.
In light of these concerns, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to conduct an assessment of the health
and operational viability of the Army's M240B inventory. The
committee further directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
a briefing on the findings of this assessment to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by January 17, 2018. This briefing shall
include, at a minimum: a detailed review of the Army's current
M240B inventory, to include the number of systems that are
operationally ready, the number of systems that require repair,
and the number of systems that should be taken out of inventory
and replaced; a description of the full cost to repair and
refurbish an M240B machine gun, to include parts procurement,
labor, logistics, and sustainment costs; a description of the
current contracted cost to procure new production M240B machine
guns; and a detailed comparison of the timelines associated
with repair and refurbishment efforts, and those required to
replace systems with new weapons.
Small arms magazine procurement
The committee understands the Enhanced Performance Magazine
(EPM) is the latest upgrade of the 30 round 5.56mm magazine
used in Army and Marine Corps rifles and carbines that resulted
from the introduction of the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round
(EPR). The EPR, while providing a number of significant
performance enhancements over the original general purpose M855
ammunition, to include improved lethality, contributed to a
reduction in system level reliability under certain conditions.
The committee understands the EPM mitigates the system
reliability issues that resulted from using the EPR in Army
weapons. However, the committee has been informed by the Marine
Corps that in some Marine Corps unique weapons, such as the M27
Infantry Automatic Rifles and M16A4 rifles, reliability
concerns remain. The committee further understands that, as a
result of these concerns, that the Marine Corps conducted
further reliability testing on additional commercial polymer
magazines, and that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has
approved the decision to field a different magazine than the
EPM. The committee understands that as of now the Army will
replace all legacy magazines with the EPM, and the Marine Corps
will replace all legacy magazines with their qualified polymer
magazine.
The committee has long supported small arms modernization,
and notes that the Program Executive Office-Soldier through the
Soldier Enhancement Program (SEP) is currently evaluating
alternative magazines to the EPM, to include polymer magazines
used by the Marine Corps. The committee expects the Army to
leverage Marine Corps test and evaluation data and any other
available Department of Defense data to the maximum extent
possible to shorten the overall evaluation timeline which the
committee understands could take up to 6-12 months. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September
29, 2017, with an update on the status of the Army's SEP
evaluation.
Small arms production industrial base
The committee notes that the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383)
repealed section 2473 of title 10, United States Code, which
required the Department of Defense to only procure certain
small arms repair parts and components from a limited number of
industry sources that the Department had identified as
comprising the small arms production industrial base (SAPIB).
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with senior military services acquisition
executives, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services by January 15, 2018, on the state of the small
arms production industrial base. At a minimum, the briefing
should identify critical small arms systems and items; describe
the Department's strategy for preserving a stable SAPIB in the
areas of development, production, maintenance, and competitive
contracting; describe the results of increased use of small
business set-asides, as well as organic depot activities on
quality, delivery, competition, engineering, and research and
development investments and capability.
Vehicle active protection systems
The committee is encouraged by the Army's expedited Non-
Developmental Item (NDI) vehicle active protection systems
(APS) risk reduction strategy, and notes the current program
remains on cost and on schedule. In the committee report (H.
Rept. 114-537) accompanying the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee noted this strategy
will allow the Army to better address the evolving threats
posed by the growing proliferation of anti-tank guided missiles
and rocket-propelled grenades. The committee is also aware of
the importance of vehicle APS capabilities for forward-deployed
units, specifically those units in the U.S. European Command
area of operations. The committee understands this risk
reduction effort installs and characterizes three different NDI
APS solutions on Abrams main battle tanks, Bradley fighting
vehicles, and Stryker combat vehicle platforms. The committee
believes the outcomes of these characterization tests and
evaluations will allow the Army to assess integration and
performance risks, and should provide the necessary information
to make an informed decision regarding the transition of these
NDI solutions to a future program of record. The committee
understands this characterization effort will be completed in
calendar year 2017. Should the outcomes of these
characterization tests prove favorable, the committee expects
the Army to proceed forward with an accelerated procurement
strategy for this critical capability that is consistent with
acquisition reform principles and maximizes use of all
available acquisition authorities.
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
Items of Special Interest
Ammunition production base support
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
committee was concerned that despite a commitment by the Army
to maintain steady-state funding of $250.0 million for
ammunition industrial base upgrades, significant safety,
environmental, and operational discrepancies exist among the
Army ammunition plants (AAPs), in particular the four largest
AAPs. This could require investments exceeding what is
currently in the Army's long-term modernization plan for the
ammunition industrial base. The committee remains concerned
about this discrepancy between documented need and planned
investment. These committee concerns are further amplified by
the recent explosion that occurred at the Lake City AAP. The
committee understands the explosion caused significant damage
to the primer production area and that, as a result of the
explosion, the Army was forced to stop all production of small
caliber ammunition production for an indefinite amount of time
until safety inspections can be completed.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by November
1, 2017, on the Army's 2025 Ammunition Industrial Base
strategic plan.
Clean disposal of conventional munitions
The committee continues to support the use of technologies
like those deployed at Camp Minden as a cleaner and safer
alternative to the open burning of munitions. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by January 31, 2018, on the
use of cost-competitive technologies that minimize waste
generation and air emissions to dispose of stockpiles of
conventional munitions awaiting demilitarization, as directed
by section 314 of the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense
Authorization.
Other Procurement, Army
Items of Special Interest
Army land mobile radio acquisition
The committee is aware of the Army's effort to secure
upgraded communications infrastructure on U.S. military
installations, specifically land mobile radios (LMRs), and its
progress towards meeting this requirement. However, the
committee is concerned that delays in fielding enhanced secure
infrastructure could lead to risks to force protection, as well
as to public safety. The committee encourages the Army to
consider an expedited timeline for LMR upgrades across U.S.
military bases, if additional resources become available.
Army personal dosimeters
The committee is aware that the Department of the Army is
investing in the Joint Personnel Dosimeter-Individual, an
advanced radiological dosimeter that will replace legacy
dosimetry systems. Personal dosimeters are essential tools for
tracking radiological exposure throughout a service member's
career, and provide important diagnostic data as the service
member seeks medical care during and after Active Duty service.
To ensure service members are provided with the best possible
tracking data for radiological exposure, the committee urges
the Army to ensure production requirements and schedules are
met to provide Active Duty and Reserve Components the ability
to track radiological exposure.
Heavy Equipment Transport System modernization strategy
The committee encourages the Army to continue development
and procurement of a heavy equipment trailer solution to be
used as part of the Heavy Equipment Transport System (HETS) for
current and future combat vehicles. The committee notes the
current heavy equipment transport (HET) trailer is rated for 70
tons, but the most modernized M1A2 Abrams main battle tank
configuration, the M1A2 SEPv3, will weigh in excess of 80 tons.
The committee understands the current HET trailer will be
unable to transport modernized M1A2 SEPv3 tanks, or future M1A2
SEPv4 configurations. The committee believes the Army will
require a more capable means of transport organic to the
service. The committee encourages the Army to begin to plan and
resource the modification of all 192 existing HET trailers, as
well as develop ways to accelerate the new Enhanced HETS
developmental program.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December
1, 2017, on the Army's strategy for upgrading current HETS and
HET trailers.
Personnel and cargo parachute acquisition and management
The committee is concerned that the military services
appear to lack a comprehensive and resourced plan to upgrade
military personnel parachutes, parachute support equipment, and
guided cargo parachutes. The committee understands both the
Army and Marine Corps are pursuing high glide parachutes that
will allow a parachutist to cover a substantial horizontal
distance. However, this capability is not currently fully
operational because the Army and Marine Corps have not procured
complete parachute systems. While the military has the
parachute, it does not have oxygen equipment with sufficient
capacity to allow the full use of the high glide canopy.
Additionally, the committee understands that the Army and
Marine Corps have not procured guided cargo parachutes with the
same glide capability as the personnel parachute. Finally, the
committee notes that the Army has assigned responsibility for
the acquisition of guided cargo parachutes and personnel
parachutes to different program executive offices. The
committee is concerned that this organizational structure could
fragment responsibility for integrating the capabilities of all
systems involved in airborne missions.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2018, that examines (1) whether the Army and Marine Corps have
a valid requirement for high glide canopies, and if so, whether
each service has an integrated plan to procure all associated
equipment required to use the high glide features; (2) whether
the Army's decision to divide parachutes between two different
program offices hinders or enhances integration of their
capabilities; and (3) whether the Army and Marine Corps have a
plan and contracts that will allow for the improvement of
parachutes over the life cycle of the equipment.
Rough Terrain Container Handler recapitalization
The committee is concerned that the budget request does not
include funding for the Rough Terrain Container Handler (RTCH),
a material handling equipment system considered vital and
critical to Department of Defense expeditionary logistics. The
committee understands the RTCH system, along with other
material handling equipment logistic systems, provides
strategic capability to set the theater, strategic agility to
the joint force, and maintains freedom of movement and action
during sustained and high tempo operations at the end of
extended lines of communication in austere environments. The
committee is concerned by the number of RTCH systems that are
combat worn, and notes there is neither a formal reset and
recapitalization program for these systems, nor a long-term
strategy to modernize a fleet that entered service in 2001.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to develop plans to recapitalize and modernize RTCH
systems and other material handling equipment systems in a
timely manner, and encourages the Army to resource this effort
across the Future Years Defense Program. The committee further
directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2017, on this
recapitalization strategy.
Small unit support vehicle recapitalization strategy
The committee understands the Army's family of small unit
support vehicle (SUSV) fleet is used by Army units that train
and operate in extreme cold weather conditions, and that this
vehicle provides those units with unique capabilities not found
elsewhere in the Army. In addition, while the committee is
aware of the Army's effort to refurbish some of the fleet, the
committee notes that legacy SUSVs are beyond their economic
useful life and have become increasingly difficult to maintain.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
committee required a briefing on the potential requirement for
a replacement to the SUSV fleet. The briefing indicated the
Army National Guard has established an SUSV overhaul program;
however, this overhaul does not provide any additional
capability.
The committee remains concerned regarding the capability
and capacity of the Army's SUSV fleet, and therefore directs
the Secretary of the Army to conduct a business case analysis
(BCA) to determine whether the Army should develop or procure a
replacement for the small unit support vehicle designated SUSV.
The BCA should include the following elements:
(1) an analysis of how the SUSV fleet will be affected if a
replacement for the vehicle is not developed or procured;
(2) an explanation of the costs associated with
refurbishing the SUSV fleet;
(3) a description of specific requirements for a new SUSV
vehicle and whether there is a vehicle available that would
meet such requirements;
(4) an analysis that compares the costs and benefits of the
procuring of a new SUSV to the costs and benefits of
refurbishing the SUSV fleet; and
(5) recommendations for the most cost-effective approach to
addressing the needs of the SUSV fleet.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2018, on the results of the BCA.
Tactical network review
The committee understands that the Army is evaluating all
of the tactical network components to reduce vulnerabilities
and focus on capability gaps to ensure that the Army's end-to-
end network is resilient, interoperable, and secure. The
committee notes that this review will cover the lower and upper
tactical internet that make up the Army's tactical network. The
committee also notes that software-defined radios and various
waveforms are among two of the components that comprise the
lower tactical internet that support soldiers at the tactical
level. The committee understands the Army's network review
should allow for the rapid introduction of other new
capabilities, including advances in satellite communications,
cyber protection, and electronic warfare, as well as assured
positioning, navigation, and timing technology and other
technologies that enable assured communications. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by September 29, 2017, that
details the network study results and the Army's recommended
way ahead.
Vehicle medical kits
The committee understands there have been significant
advances made in emergency medical treatment for combat
casualties, and notes that during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the
military services, as a result of a joint urgent operational
need from U.S. Central Command, fielded a standardized vehicle
medical kit called the warrior aid and litter kit (WALK), to
complement the capabilities already provided as part of the
improved first aid kit and the combat lifesaver bag. The
committee notes there is no official program of record for the
WALK, and it is unclear to the committee as to how the Army
would provide standardized vehicle medical kits for future
contingency operations.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2018, on the advisability and feasibility of providing a
standardized vehicle medical kit for combat and tactical
vehicles.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Items of Special Interest
EA-18G ALQ-99 tactical jamming system modernization
The committee notes that the EA-18G is the Navy's primary
tactical aircraft platform dedicated to the dominance of the
radio frequency spectrum in support of contingency and training
operations requiring electronic warfare support. The EA-18G
currently accomplishes this mission with the ALQ-99 tactical
jamming system, but certain legacy transmitters of this system
have not been upgraded, resulting in unsatisfactory reliability
and increased risk to fulfilling contingency operation
requirements. The Navy's Next Generation Jammer program is
planned to eventually replace legacy ALQ-99 equipment, and is
currently scheduled to be fielded incrementally starting with
initial operational capability being declared in 2021, and full
operational capability projected for some time during the 2035
timeframe.
Therefore, the committee supports the continued sustainment
of legacy ALQ-99 equipment, and expects the Navy to continue
upgrading ALQ-99 transmitters, particularly bands 5 and 6 of
the ALQ-99 legacy system that have not been upgraded, with
solid state technologies in order to mitigate risk pertaining
to low reliability and potential failures in flight.
Implications of a 355-ship Navy on Naval and Marine Corps Aviation
force structure requirements
The committee notes that the Navy's most recent Force
Structure Assessment indicates a need to increase Navy force
structure to 355 ships, which includes a 12th aircraft carrier.
The committee also notes that this greater fleet size may in
turn impact Navy and Marine Corps Aviation force structure
requirements.
Consequently, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than September 30, 2018, or 12 months after
the issuance of a new National Defense Strategy, whichever date
is earlier. The briefing should provide estimates as to the
number of Navy and Marine Corps aircraft by series and type
needed to achieve the objectives of the National Defense
Strategy and to complement the capability resident in a 355-
ship Navy with 12 aircraft carriers. The briefing shall also
include the following elements: (1) a detailed explanation of
the strategy and associated force sizing and shaping
constructs, associated scenarios and assumptions used to
conduct the analysis; and (2) quantification of risk using
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff risk management
classifications.
Maritime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities
demonstration
The budget request contained $15.2 million in PE 63782N for
mine and expeditionary warfare advanced technology program, but
contained no funding for the MS-177A maritime enhanced sensor
demonstration program.
The committee notes that the Navy has the opportunity to
leverage a $300.0 million Air Force investment in the MS-177A
sensor, which is meant to improve maritime target detection and
long-range imaging and could significantly reduce procurement
costs and expedite fielding. The committee is aware that PACOM
identified the MS-177A in its classified fiscal year 2018
integrated priority list for consideration in meeting mission
gaps. The committee believes that having an organic Navy MS-
177A demonstration in the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) area of
responsibility could help the Navy to assess the full range of
anti-surface unit warfare and anti-submarine warfare
capabilities, as well as gather needed intelligence against
threats in the PACOM strategic environment. Specifically, this
could allow the Navy to address, validate, and fill current
PACOM maritime intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance
mission gaps in a timely manner. The MS-117A could also improve
the Navy organic capability to conduct standoff anti-surface
unit warfare intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and
long-range positive identification of targets.
The committee recommends $38.7 million, an increase of
$23.5 million, in PE 63782N to procure one MS-177A sensor for
the maritime enhanced sensor demonstration program.
MQ-4C Triton unmanned aircraft system
The committee recognizes that the Navy's MQ-4C Triton will
be a forward-deployed, land-based, remotely piloted aircraft
system that provides persistent maritime intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability using a
mission payload that will eventually be able to collect
information in the signals and imagery intelligence
disciplines. Given the MQ-4C combination of long endurance and
advanced sensors, it will provide robust ISR support in meeting
combatant commanders' requirements in the maritime domain.
Although the MQ-4C program has had its share of cost, schedule,
and execution challenges over the years, the committee fully
supports the program, and acknowledges that it will be a
critical component and integral capability both for the Navy
and the intelligence community as a whole.
The MQ-4C is integral to recapitalization of the Navy's
maritime patrol and reconnaissance force (P-3C and EP-3E), and
will be complementary to the capability provided by the P-8A
patrol aircraft. The committee understands that a fleet of 68
MQ-4C aircraft is planned to support five separate lines of
high-altitude airborne ISR capability to provide real-time ISR
information to a variety of operational and tactical users.
However, the committee is unclear as to how the Navy plans to
support mission execution and subsequent tasking, collection,
processing, exploitation, and dissemination (TCPED) processes
of these ISR missions when ISR collection taskings may occur
outside the traditional naval employment constructs of aircraft
carrier strike group deployments and operations.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than November 15, 2017, on MQ-4C mission execution
and TCPED processes. The briefing should include:
(1) a framework description of the manning, equipping, and
training requirements for the MQ-4C system;
(2) a description of the baseline architecture of the
mission support infrastructure required to support MQ-4C
operations;
(3) how the Navy plans to support and execute the TCPED
processes;
(4) how the Navy plans to support flying operations from
either line-of-sight or beyond-line-of-sight locations;
(5) how many aircraft the Navy plans to dedicate annually
to the ISR Global Force Management Allocation Process of the
Department of Defense; and (6) how many hours of collection the
MQ-4C will be able to provide annually in each of the
intelligence disciplines for combatant commanders.
MV-22 upgrades
The committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps
included the Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force En-
route Command, Control, Communications, and Computer Urgent
Universal Need (SPMAGTF En-route C4 UUN) in his unfunded
priorities for fiscal year 2017. The SPMAGTF En-route C4 UUN
provides a communications capability to maintain tactical
situation awareness of events ongoing in a target area, while
Marines are en route to the target destination in an MV-22
aircraft. The committee further notes that in fiscal year 2017,
the budget planned for fiscal year 2018 for the SPMAGTF En-
route C4 UUN included $3.3 million for research, development,
test, and evaluation; $42.1 million in Procurement, Marine
Corps; $14.4 million for Operations and Maintenance, Marine
Corps; and $171.4 million for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The
committee supports the SPMAGTF En-route UUN, and expects that
the Department of the Navy will execute the programmed funding
for fiscal year 2018.
The committee understands that the majority of maintenance
man-hours (MMH) conducted on the MV-22 are for components and
wiring internal to the nacelle, and that high vibration and
external environmental factors such as sand, dust, and water,
have led to significantly more maintenance required on the
nacelle than expected. According to aviation officials in the
Department of the Navy, nacelle wiring alone accounts for 35
percent of MMH on the nacelles for MV-22. The committee also
understands that recent aircraft incidents and failure to meet
time on wing requirements for the engine have led to a need to
improve the performance of the engine inlet system, and that
high failure rates of infrared suppressor (IRS) components
drive excessive MMH and contribute to low aircraft
availability. Accordingly, the committee believes the
Department of the Navy should pursue a common nacelle structure
with options for changeable engine inlet systems, improved IRS,
and optimized nacelle wiring. The committee believes that the
Department of the Navy could develop the common nacelle with
nacelle improvements by fiscal year 2019 and have testing
complete by fiscal year 2020.
Naval aircraft physiological episodes
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
committee noted its concern with the increasing rates of
physiological episodes (PEs) experienced by F/A-18 pilots over
the previous 5 years. At the committee's recommendation, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328) included a provision that required the Secretary
of the Navy to establish an independent review team to review
the Navy's data on, and mitigation efforts related to, the
increase in F/A-18 physiological episodes since January 1,
2009, and to report to the congressional defense committees on
its findings by December 1, 2017. The committee understands
that the Department of the Navy has engaged personnel assigned
to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to conduct
this review, and expects that the Department of the Navy will
submit the report on time.
To continue its oversight of naval aircraft physiological
episodes, the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces held
a hearing on Naval Strike Fighter Issues and Concerns on March
28, 2017. At that hearing, Navy witnesses testified that the PE
rate per 100,000 hours increased in the F/A-18A through D, F/A-
18E/F, and EA-18G each year from 2012 to 2016. Also at that
hearing, the committee requested PE data for the T-45C, and
Navy witnesses testified that the PE rate per 100,000 hours had
also increased each year since 2012. Within a few days of the
March 28, 2017, hearing, the committee notes that a high
percentage of T-45C pilots at the three T-45C flying locations
opted not to fly the T-45C due to safety concerns with the
aircraft's oxygen system, and the Department of the Navy
suspended student training due to these concerns. The committee
views these events as a serious readiness issue if student
training continues to be suspended, which will result in fewer
of the aircraft carrier qualified pilots and naval flight
officers necessary to conduct fighter, attack, and electronic
combat missions. The committee notes that the Department of the
Navy has established a physiological episode team to evaluate
these events, and has undertaken actions to address these
occurrences and mitigate their effects, while considering this
issue as its highest aviation safety priority.
The committee will continue to closely monitor PEs in naval
aircraft, and expects the Department of the Navy to
aggressively take actions to determine the root cause of these
events, determine mitigation procedures, and to budget for the
modifications for each aircraft necessary to lower the rate of
PEs in naval aircraft.
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
Items of Special Interest
Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance
The committee continues to support development of the
Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance (ALaMO), a guided 57 mm
projectile, with fire-and-forget capability that requires no
Littoral Combat Ship fire control system changes, to counter
the growing threats posed by small boat swarms, unmanned aerial
systems, and other emerging threats. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by August 30, 2017, on
achieving low rate of initial production in 2019. The briefing
should also include, but not be limited to, an evaluation of
the current funding profile of this program across the Future
Years Defense Program, as well as potential courses of action
to accelerate or streamline the current program strategy.
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Items of Special Interest
America-class amphibious assault ships
The committee is concerned that the Navy program of record
for America-class amphibious assault ships (LHA-
9) would result in a break in production of 7 years following
delivery of LHA-8, thereby accruing significant additional
costs at both the shipyard and the supply chain. The committee
believes the optimal schedule would be to begin construction of
LHA-9 in 2020. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services by March 1, 2018, that provides an assessment of
the cost savings and other benefits of accelerating LHA-9 to
2020 compared to 2024, assuming LHA-9 is identical to LHA-8.
Columbia-class submarine program
The committee continues to exercise specific oversight on
the progress and challenges facing the Navy's Columbia-class acquisition program and the
replacement to the Ohio-class ballistic missile
submarines, which are scheduled to begin retirement in 2027.
The committee notes the Department of Defense and the Navy
consider the Columbia-class acquisition among the
highest priorities in order to meet sea-based strategic
deterrence requirements in the future threat environment
through the 2080s. The magnitude of the program's estimated
cost, expected to exceed $267.0 billion over its life cycle, as
well as the aggressive schedule on which the Navy and its
shipbuilders plan to complete the submarine's technology
development and design, and start constructing the new class,
among other issues, will be subjects of continued interest and
concern to the committee.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to assess the Navy's Columbia-
class acquisition and submit a report to the congressional
defense committees by March 1, 2018, that includes an analysis
of the following:
(1) technology development including activities in support
of the submarine's nuclear propulsion system;
(2) progress of shipbuilder design products;
(3) program cost estimates;
(4) approved acquisition strategy and use of expanded
authorities including cross-program material procurement, early
structural fabrication, and advance construction;
(5) industrial base capacity to meet the Navy's plans and
requirements; and
(6) construction readiness and feasibility of achieving on-
time submarine delivery to meet Navy operational requirements.
Guided missile patrol boats
The committee recognizes that as the Navy continues to
refine its distributed lethality concept, one component could
be the incorporation of patrol boats equipped with guided
missiles. As described in the 2017 Surface Force Strategy, one
distinguishing component of the distributed lethality concept
is increasing lethality at the unit level in order to reduce
the susceptibility of higher end warships. Another key
characteristic is the employment of adaptive force packages
that allow operational commanders the ability to scale force
capabilities based on the threat. The low cost of fielding
combined with the ability to quickly disperse them make patrol
boats an ideal platform in achieving these two distinguishing
characteristics. Patrol boat units equipped with a variety of
offensive capabilities, including short- and long-range anti-
ship cruise missiles, would provide an operational commander
the ability to inject increased levels of uncertainty and
complexity into an adversary's planning. As the Navy concludes
the planned production of the MK VI Patrol Boat and initiates
the start of the PB(X) program, there are opportunities to
leverage stable production lines that could rapidly field a
patrol boat that is ideally suited to support the distributed
lethality concept. Therefore, the committee strongly encourages
the Navy to pursue an offensive capability, including guided
missiles, which can be incorporated on patrol boats in support
of surface warfare operations.
High-pressure Cold Spray repair
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
utilizing high-pressure Cold Spray repair, a solid-state metal
deposition technology that is capable of reapplying metal to
highly worn or corroded metal surfaces without damaging the
base metal. The committee understands this technology would
restore the strength and serviceability of parts that
previously would require replacement. The committee notes this
technology is capable of portable, hand-held, high-pressure
operation and has been used by the Department of the Navy to
achieve cost savings for the repair of critical components.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy
to expand the use of this technology for the development of new
repair processes for additional Navy components.
Increased standardization and commonality for U.S. Navy shipbuilding
programs
The committee recognizes the importance of maintaining a
robust shipbuilding budget to support increasing demands and
commitments being placed upon the U.S. Navy. The committee also
recognizes that steps need to be taken to continually reduce
the cost of shipbuilding so that the U.S. Navy can maximize the
number of ships being built under the current and projected
fiscal constraints. Since a large portion of the cost
associated with shipbuilding resides in the subcontracted
systems, subsystems, and components provided by the
shipbuilding supplier industrial base, it is important to help
this industrial base reduce the cost of its products that
support these major shipbuilding programs.
As many of these suppliers are small- to mid-sized
companies, it is incumbent upon the U.S. Navy and the
shipbuilding prime contractors to explore ways that help reduce
the costs of these products without placing additional stress
on this supplier base. The committee encourages the U.S. Navy
to address alternate approaches to the shipbuilding process
that would alleviate the more onerous and costly processes that
increase the cost of these ships. The committee also encourages
the U.S. Navy and major shipbuilding prime contractors to
explore additional levels of standardization and commonality
across shipbuilding programs and across major shipbuilding
prime contractors to realize significant potential cost
savings.
Littoral Combat Ships capability enhancements
The committee believes that the Littoral Combat Ship and
the Frigate will continue to play a critical role in the mix of
warships necessary for Distributed Maritime Operations and
believe the Navy should begin Frigate construction as soon as
possible. To better expand Frigate capabilities, the committee
notes that the Chief of Naval Operations initiated an
Independent Review Team to assess Frigate requirements. The
committee further notes that the Navy intends to leverage the
proposed capabilities of the original Frigate program while
adding: increased air warfare capability in both self-defense
and escort roles; enhanced survivability; and increased
electromagnetic maneuver warfare. The committee supports the
Navy's intent to increase the lethality and survivability of
the Frigate and further supports backfit options that will
provide appropriate enhancements to the existing Littoral
Combat Ships. In fiscal year 2019, the committee also believes
that additional forward fit options for the fiscal year 2019
Littoral Combat Ships should be pursued. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to prepare a report
to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2018 that
details a transition plan to include forward fit options for
the fiscal year 2019 Littoral Combat Ships and backfit options
for the existing fleet. Specifically, this report should
include an assessment of the following elements: deploying an
over-the-horizon weapons system; expanding electronic warfare
capabilities to include SEWIP Block II or SEWIP Lite; enhancing
survivability attributes; and expanding use of unmanned aerial
vehicles or unmanned underwater vehicles.
Propeller shafts
The committee recognizes that title III of the Defense
Production Act (Public Law 81-774) provides the Department of
Defense with an important tool to ensure the timely creation
and availability of domestic production capabilities for
technologies that have the potential for wide-ranging impact on
the operational capabilities and technological superiority of
U.S. defense systems. The committee supports the Defense
Production Act title III program and recognizes its importance
to preserving key capabilities throughout the U.S. defense
industrial base.
The committee notes the importance of the segments of the
defense industrial base where limited numbers of suppliers
provide materiel that is critical to readiness of the force.
The committee further notes that the industrial segment
responsible for the manufacturing and refurbishment of
propeller shafts for the Navy's surface and submarine fleet
faces considerable strain from high demand from Naval Supply
Systems Command and Naval Sea Systems Command. Accordingly, the
committee supports the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, as manager for the
Defense Production Act title III program, working with the
Secretary of the Navy to ensure that this and other areas of
the defense industrial base are maintained and enhanced.
Protection of Navy ships against High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse
The committee notes that the High-Altitude Electromagnetic
Pulse (HEMP) protection for military surface ships became an
official Department of Defense interface standard when it was
issued on January 25, 2016, as a result of the Department's
interest in system survivability of warships to HEMP. MIL-STD-
4023 establishes performance metrics, test protocols, and
hardness margin levels for protection of military surface ships
that must function when subjected to the HEMP environment.
The committee believes that the only reliable method to
assure a ship will survive a HEMP event is to test the ship
with physical, realistic simulations of the HEMP environment.
Such assurance can be technically justified by evaluating the
ship's resistance to a simulated, threat-representative HEMP
environment and monitoring for any undesired effects.
Incorporating guidance of MIL-STD-4023 combined with the active
testing of ships using a threat level simulator can achieve a
high-confidence, low-risk assurance that the Navy warships can
survive the nuclear weapon-generated threat of HEMP
environments.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Items of Special Interest
A-10 to F-16 transition at Fort Wayne, Indiana
The committee notes that section 134 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) included a subsection that authorizes the Secretary of the
Air Force to carry out the transition of the A-10 aircraft unit
at Fort Wayne Air National Guard Base, Indiana, to an F-16
aircraft unit, as described by the Secretary in the Force
Structure Actions map submitted in support of the budget
request for fiscal year 2017. The committee understands that
the Secretary of the Air Force has not yet planned for or
announced this transfer, and encourages the Secretary to
execute this transfer as soon as possible. The committee
remains concerned about the status of other A-10 and F-16
basing decisions for the Active Duty Air Force, Air Force
Reserve, and Air National Guard.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by September 1, 2017, on an update of A-10 and F-16
basing decisions for the Active Duty Air Force, Air Force
Reserve, and Air National Guard.
A-10 wing replacement program
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
committee noted its belief that the Department of the Air Force
continues to suffer from capacity shortfalls in its fighter
aircraft fleets. The committee further believes that
sustainment of the 283-aircraft A-10 fleet helps to meet the
Department of the Air Force fighter aircraft capacity
requirements, and notes that the A-10 aircraft has been
recently deployed in support of both Operations Inherent
Resolve and Atlantic Resolve. To sustain the A-10 fleet, the
committee understands that all 283 A-10 aircraft require wing
replacement, but the committee notes that the Department of the
Air Force has procured wing replacement for only 173 A-10
aircraft.
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department of the
Air Force to program the necessary funds to accelerate wing
replacement for the remaining 110 A-10 aircraft.
B-52 modernization
The committee notes that the nation's ability to meet its
long-range strike requirements may be placed at increased risk
by the aging B-52 fleet, which averages more than 60 years old.
The committee also notes that the B-21 is not expected to
achieve initial operational capability until the mid-2020s and
that the Air Force is considering plans to retire certain
bomber fleets over the next few decades while keeping the B-52
through 2040 and possibly longer. Consequently, there is a
pressing need to upgrade the B-52 bomber fleet with new
engines, ground mapping radar, and self-protection electronic
warfare capabilities to meet future long-range strike
requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by February 6, 2018, on its modernization plan for the
B-52 aircraft fleet. The briefing should include:
(1) re-engine options, including utilizing authorities
pursuant to section 2371b of title 10, United States Code,
third-party financing, and traditional procurement;
(2) plans to upgrade the ground mapping radar;
(3) electronic self-defense options; and
(4) an integration timeline that best takes advantage of
scheduled depot throughput.
Bomber modernization
The committee notes that the Air Force has not released its
bomber vector. This document is expected to describe the future
of the current bomber fleets. It is also expected to detail
when the new B-21 long range strike bomber will transition with
the existing bomber force and identify which aircraft will be
retired. The committee is uncertain that the bomber
modernization plan is informed by the bomber vector. The
committee is concerned that modernization programs with
procurement delivery dates in the early to mid-2020s are not
properly coordinated, and as such, bomber investment strategies
across the Future Years Defense Program appear to lack
justification. The committee expects the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide the bomber vector to the committee upon its
completion to better assist the committee with its oversight
responsibilities for bomber programs.
The committee recommends a general Air Force reduction of
$195.9 million for bomber modernization programs.
C-130H Aircraft Modernization Program Increments 1 and 2
The committee supports the C-130H Avionics Modernization
Program (AMP) Increments 1 and 2 and encourages the Air Force
to upgrade all 172 C-130H aircraft in the most expeditious and
cost-effective way to meet military requirements. However, the
committee is concerned that an over-reliance on military
specification solutions could potentially delay completion of
AMP Increments 1 and 2, despite the availability of commercial
off-the-shelf (COTS) and non-developmental item (NDI)
technologies, such as glass cockpit and autopilot systems
available and in use on C-130 derivative aircraft today.
The committee encourages the Air Force to maximize efforts
to procure COTS and NDI solutions to the maximum extent
possible, while meeting the requirements for AMP Increments 1
and 2. The committee also encourages all efforts to meet the
intent of section 2377 of title 10, United States Code, and the
tenets of the Department of Defense Better Buying Power (BBP)
3.0 policy.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by January 15, 2018, that outlines Air Force efforts
to leverage COTS and NDI solutions for the C-130H AMP Increment
1 and 2 programs. The briefing shall include the following
elements:
(1) a detailed explanation of how the Air Force considered
section 2377 of title 10, United States Code, and Department of
Defense BBP 3.0 during the definition of the technical
requirements and acquisition strategies for AMP Increments 1
and 2;
(2) examples of incentives made to offerors for accelerated
and cost-capped implementation for C-130 AMP Increment 1 and 2;
(3) where military specification standards were selected
for C-130 AMP Increment 1 and 2, a comparison of such standards
and COTS standards; and
(4) where military specification standards were selected
for C-130 AMP Increment 1 and 2, a comparison of operation and
support costs for such standards and COTS standards.
C-130H propulsion systems upgrades
The budget request contained no funds for C-130H propulsion
systems upgrades.
The committee continues to support the upgrade of C-130H
aircraft with the T56 3.5 engine enhancement, NP2000 8-bladed
propeller and the inflight propeller balancing system. The
committee notes that the Air National Guard (ANG) is currently
testing the T56 3.5 engine enhancement and preliminary test
results have exceeded expectations for fuel savings and
performance gained. The committee understands the ANG expects
to issue a full test report in the summer of 2018 to be
followed with a business case analysis for upgrading the entire
fleet of C-130H aircraft. The committee is aware that only 8 of
172 C-130H aircraft are programmed to receive these upgrades
across the Future Years Defense Program. The committee expects
the Air Force to include the necessary funds to accelerate C-
130H upgrades in future base budgets.
The committee recommends $146.6 million for the C-130H
propulsion systems upgrade program.
E-8C Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System
The committee acknowledges that the E-8C Joint Surveillance
Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) is a proven Air Force
Battle Management Command and Control platform enabled by
leveraging its extremely capable active radar system that
provides invaluable moving target indicator (MTI) intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) targeting information to
multiple users both on the ground and in airborne attack
platforms. The demand for MTI capability within each geographic
combatant commander's area of responsibility far exceeds what
JSTARS can currently provide due to its limited fleet size and
strained crew resources. The committee also notes that the
current fleet of 16 E-8C aircraft has issues and challenges the
Air Force must successfully navigate to maintain viability
until the current fleet of E-8C aircraft is replaced by the
JSTARS Recapitalization program beginning in the late 2020s.
Despite these issues and challenges, the committee is confident
that the Secretary of the Air Force can develop a successful
legacy JSTARS to JSTARS Recapitalization transition plan that
would not prematurely retire E-8C aircraft, reassign crews or
maintenance personnel, or otherwise create an MTI ISR
capability gap or capacity deficit greater than what existing
levels of aircraft should be providing currently.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than November 1, 2017, that describes, in
detail, a strategy to sufficiently address manning,
sustainment, modernization, and viability deficiencies that
would resolve capability gaps, shortfalls, and deficiencies of
the E-8C fleet of aircraft. The briefing should include a
strategy that addresses right-sizing and balancing unit manning
among the Total Force; maintaining proficient and current
aircrews to meet operational requirements; resolving
obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing sources of parts and
supply; necessary mission system upgrades and operational
enhancements across the E-8C fleet to keep the aircraft viable
and relevant until the JSTARS Recapitalization aircraft is
fielded; standardizing existing aircraft capabilities in areas
such as imagery servers and the Automated Information System; a
forward-deployed basing construct that would enable E-8C
aircraft to operate simultaneously while deployed, if needed,
from three forward-deployed locations while on temporary duty
supporting a combatant commander's command and control or
moving target indicator intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance requirements; and, the associated cost, budget,
and timeline required to implement the strategy.
Finally, the committee also directs the Secretary of the
Air Force to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than March 1, 2019, that explains in
detail all aspects of how and when the Air Force will
transition from legacy JSTARS aircraft capability to JSTARS
Recapitalization aircraft capability.
EC-130 Compass Call cross deck
Last year, the committee received a letter from the U.S.
Air Force requesting a technical adjustment to the fiscal year
2017 budget request and authorization for a new start program
to re-host the EC-130H Compass Call mission equipment onto a
new platform identified as the EC-37B. At the time, the U.S.
Air Force stated that there was only one aircraft option that
met requirements and did not require development and/or further
certification work. This aircraft was identified as the
Gulfstream G550 Conformal Airborne Early Warning airframe.
Earlier this year, the committee was notified that the
acquisition strategy had changed and the Air Force no longer
planned to make the selection as to which aircraft would re-
host the mission equipment. In a letter dated February 1, 2017,
the Air Force stated its intention to contract with a lead
system integrator (LSI) and delegate the aircraft selection to
the LSI. The letter claims that ``after extensive analysis, we
have determined that the most efficient, expedient, and cost
effective means to acquire Compass Call capability is through a
lead systems integrator approach.''
However, in testimony before the Subcommittee on Seapower
and Projection Forces on May 25, 2017, Air Force officials
stated that they yet again changed their acquisition strategy.
The committee understands the Air Force now intends to contract
with a systems integrator, not an LSI, in contravention to what
was stated in letters from both the Acting Secretary of the Air
Force and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Acquisition. While the committee supports the Air
Force's need to accelerate fielding a replacement aircraft for
the Compass Call mission that meets its requirement, it is not
clear that the Air Force is pursuing a coherent acquisition
strategy.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision
that would restrict the Secretary of the Air Force from
obligating or expending funds until 30 days after the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
certifies that the acquisition strategy conforms to law,
follows appropriate guidelines, and adheres to best practices.
F-15C capability, capacity, and recapitalization
The committee notes that during the hearing on March 22,
2017, titled ``The Current State of the U.S. Air Force,''
before the Subcommittee on Readiness of the House Committee on
Armed Services, Air Force witnesses testified that the
Department of the Air Force is likely to decide during fiscal
year 2019 budget deliberations whether or not to proceed with
an option of divesting F-15C aircraft from the Air Force
inventory and replacing those aircraft with upgraded F-16
aircraft.
The committee notes that the Air Force is executing a
service life extension program to upgrade the F-15C with an
improved radar and missile warning system, as well as airframe
structural enhancements. The committee strongly supports the
Eagle Passive Active Warning and Survivability System (EPAWSS)
modernization program for the F-15C fleet. The committee
recalls that the Air Force has previously stated a requirement
to extend the service life of the F-15C aircraft fleet to fill
the air superiority mission capacity gap created by the
truncation of the F-22 procurement program to only 187
aircraft. Similarly, the committee also recalls that the Air
Force planned to keep the F-15C viable until the Air Force's
next-generation air dominance aircraft is fielded to avoid a
capacity gap in the air superiority mission area. Additionally,
the committee is unaware of any warfighting analysis within the
Department of Defense that would validate replacing F-15C
capability and capacity with upgraded F-16 aircraft to fulfill
requirements of the air superiority mission area. The committee
does not understand how the Air Force would grow to its desired
number of 60 fighter squadrons by retiring a significant number
of F-15C aircraft and replacing those with aircraft already in
the Air Force inventory. As well, the committee is concerned
such a decision would exacerbate the substantial personnel
shortage that currently exists within the F-16 maintenance
enterprise by having to retrain and qualify F-15C personnel to
maintain F-16 aircraft.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than February 28, 2018, that provides
detailed information on the following: the Air Force's weapon
system sustainment and service-life plan for the F-15C
aircraft, to include EPAWSS integration; when and with which
material option(s) the Air Force plans to recapitalize air
superiority mission capability provided by modernized F-15C
aircraft, without incurring a reduction in capacity, if the F-
15C is retired; how and when the Air Force plans to grow, and
with which aircraft, to 60 fighter squadrons; any analysis
completed by the Department of Defense that validates that the
air superiority mission capability and capacity provided by a
modernized F-15C can be supplanted with an upgraded F-16; and
forecasted mission transition plans for locations and units
that currently possess or support F-15C aircraft, personnel,
operations, or maintenance activities if F-15C aircraft are
retired.
F-16 radar modernization
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-102) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the
committee noted the joint operational urgent need (JOUN) that
specifically required an active electronically scanned array
(AESA) radar upgrade to the F-16 aircraft that perform the
aerospace alert control mission, and the committee supported
taking all appropriate steps to meet that JUON as soon as
possible. For fiscal year 2017, the committee notes that the
Department of the Air Force F-16 program includes $216.5
million for 72 AESA radars and $15.0 million for F-16 AESA
radar development. The committee further notes that the budget
request includes $2.9 million for AESA radar procurement, $40.8
million for AESA radar development, and the committee
understands that the budget request also includes $14.4 million
for procurement of six F-16 AESA radars as initial procurement
spares.
The committee continues to view the procurement and
development of the AESA radar upgrade to the F-16 aircraft that
perform the aerospace alert control mission as a national
security priority, and expects the Department of the Air Force
will fully execute its planned procurement and development for
fiscal years 2017 and 2018.
F-22 increment 3.2B upgrade
The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force
plans to upgrade 143 F-22 aircraft with the increment 3.2B
upgrade. The increment 3.2B upgrade provides the F-22 aircraft
with the most advanced air superiority capabilities including
the AIM-9X missile, AIM-120D missile, electronic protection,
and in-flight data link enhancements. The committee understands
that the Department of the Air Force F-22 inventory includes 34
Block 20-configured F-22 aircraft which are used for training
pilots upgrading to the F-22 aircraft, and believes those 34 F-
22 aircraft should also be configured with the increment 3.2B
upgrade.
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Department of the
Air Force to program the necessary funds to configure the 34
Block 20-configured F-22 aircraft with the increment 3.2B
upgrade, and believes that such an upgrade will improve F-22
pilot training, improve F-22 inventory capability, and
standardize F-22 configurations for more efficient maintenance
and parts replacement.
F-35 Lightning II aircraft program
The committee continues to support the F-35 Lightning II
program. The F-35 Lightning II aircraft is the Department of
Defense's largest acquisition program, which will eventually
deliver 2,443 F-35 aircraft to the Departments of the Navy and
Air Force. The committee notes the Department of Defense has
taken delivery of over 285 F-35 aircraft. The committee
believes that the F-35 will form the backbone of U.S. air
combat superiority for decades to come, replacing or
complementing the legacy tactical fighter fleets of the Air
Force, Navy, and Marine Corps with a dominant, multirole,
fifth-generation aircraft capable of projecting U.S. power and
deterring potential adversaries. The committee notes that, for
the F-35 program's international partners and foreign military
sales customers, the F-35 will become a cornerstone for future
coalition operations and will enhance the strength of our
security alliances.
The committee understands the F-35 Lightning II program is
approximately 90 percent through its system development and
demonstration (SDD) phase, which is planned to be completed not
later than the second quarter of fiscal year 2018 and will
provide capabilities required by the Departments of the Navy
and Air Force in a final software block known as block 3F. At a
hearing held by the House Committee on Armed Services'
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces on February 16,
2017, the F-35 program executive officer (PEO) testified that
the F-35 program is making solid progress as it grows and
accelerates. The committee notes that looking beyond completion
of the SDD phase of the F-35 program, the follow-on effort,
known as the follow-on modernization (FOM) or block 4 program,
is moving forward and will be executed as a continuation of the
F-35 program with full transparency and reporting on cost,
schedule, and performance as if it were a new program. The
committee fully supports development and delivery of a FOM
software increment that will provide vitally important
additional combat capabilities such as advanced electronic
protection, nuclear weapon delivery, and additional air-to-
ground precision munitions. The committee believes that the FOM
is critical to improve the F-35's warfighting capabilities to
keep pace with rapidly maturing adversary threat aircraft and
integrated air defense systems, and expects that the FOM
engineering, manufacturing, and development contract award will
take place as scheduled in late 2018.
The committee is aware the budget request for SDD is $231.0
million over the previous year's projection for SDD in fiscal
year 2018, and that this additional amount is necessary due to
delays in software development, the need to address problems
found during testing, and funding reductions in prior years.
The committee also notes that both the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation and the Government
Accountability Office have estimated that significant
additional funding beyond the amount requested may be necessary
to finish the SDD phase of the program, and that the difference
between their estimates and the F-35 joint program office
estimates are due in large part to different assumptions about
flight test efficiency and duration.
The committee supports completion of the SDD phase and
delivery of full block 3F software capability as soon as
possible. However, the committee is concerned that, if
remaining SDD activities do take longer and cost more than
planned, the joint program office may recommend termination of
the SDD phase, and transfer of unfinished or incomplete
capabilities could be deferred into the FOM portion of the
program. While the committee understands that deferral of some
minor capabilities may be appropriate and low-risk, the
committee does not support premature termination of the SDD
phase if combat capabilities critical to the military services
are not completed. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees, not later than January 30, 2018, that
provides an updated estimate of the cost and time necessary to
complete the SDD phase, a list of any block 3F capabilities
planned for deferral to the FOM phase, and the impact of any
such deferred capabilities on the FOM phase of the program.
The committee continues to support increased F-35 aircraft
production rates to address fighter aircraft capability and
capacity shortfalls in both the Departments of the Navy and Air
Force. The committee notes that at a hearing held by the
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces on July 13, 2016,
entitled ``Future Air Dominance and the Role of Fifth
Generation Fighters,'' the Commander of the Air Combat Command
testified that, to address capability and capacity shortfalls
in the Department of the Air Force, the desired F-35A
production rate is 60 aircraft per year. The committee believes
that full-rate production in fiscal year 2021 would require an
annual procurement rate of 80 F-35As, 36 F-35Bs, and 30 F-35Cs.
The committee expects the Department of Defense to invest in
the tooling necessary to accelerate these future F-35
production rates.
The committee is also aware that the Department of Defense
has recently reached a successful agreement with the F-35 prime
contractor that achieves lower unit costs for low-rate initial
production (LRIP) lot 10. Further, the committee notes the
testimony of the F-35 PEO at the February 16, 2017, hearing
informed the committee that the then President-elect had a
conversation with the F-35 PEO, prior to the conclusion of the
lot 10 negotiations, where the President-elect sought more
information about the F-35 and its affordability. The F-35 PEO
also noted that the conversation with the President-elect
resulted in tasks to the F-35 Program Office to determine what
actions are currently being taken to ensure the affordability
of the F-35, and how the Department of Defense can be assured
that F-35s are procured at the best value. The committee
commends the actions taken by the administration and the F-35
PEO to negotiate lower unit costs and continued cost savings
for F-35 aircraft.
To continue the trend of decreasing unit F-35 procurement
costs, the committee notes that the Department of Defense
submitted a request for authorization to enter into contracts
for economic order quantities of material and equipment for use
in F-35 procurement contracts, to be awarded during fiscal
years 2019 and 2020, so that the Department of Defense can
execute a block buy contracting strategy. The committee
understands that such a block buy contracting strategy would
generate cost savings of approximately $2.0 billion.
Accordingly, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a
provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
enter into one or more contracts, beginning with the fiscal
year 2018 program year, for the procurement of economic order
quantities for material and equipment for the F-35 program, to
be used in F-35 procurement contracts in fiscal years 2019 and
2020.
Implications of increased Army, Navy, and Marine Corps force structure
on Air Force airlift, air refueling tanker, and Navy sealift
force structure requirements
The committee notes that the administration intends to
increase Army, Navy, and Marine Corps force structure and that
the last mobility capability and requirements study was
completed in 2013. With this greater force structure, the
committee is concerned about the anticipated impact on Air
Force airlift and air refueling tanker and Navy sealift force
structure.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to carry out a mobility capability and requirements study and
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than September 30, 2018, or 12 months after the issue of
a new National Defense Strategy, whichever date is earlier. The
study should estimate the number of airlift aircraft, tanker
aircraft, and sealift ships needed to meet the combatant
commander requirements. The briefing shall include the
following elements:
(1) a detailed explanation of the strategy and associated
force sizing and shaping constructs, associated scenarios, and
assumptions used to conduct the analysis;
(2) estimate of risk based on Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff risk management classifications; and
(3) implications of operations in contested areas with
regard to the Civil Reserve Air Fleet.
MQ-9 modernization and upgrades
The committee notes that the Air Force relies heavily upon
its MQ-9 fleet of remotely piloted aircraft to support global
combatant commander requirements for both steady-state and
contingency operations. As a result of the extensive use of the
MQ-9 platform for operations, many aircraft are reaching the
end of their designed service life sooner than expected. The
committee notes that in the fiscal year 2017 President's budget
request, the Air Force proposed a new effort to retrofit and
upgrade 166 MQ-9 aircraft to a Block 5 configuration. The
committee also notes that while the Block 5 upgrade increases
the mission capability of the aircraft by modernizing avionics
and mission systems, the upgrade does not address structural or
fatigue issues of the MQ-9 aircraft that could extend the
designed service life of the aircraft. The committee
understands that the Air Force could forgo the option of
continued Block 5 upgrades to existing MQ-9 aircraft, and could
pursue an option to participate in development and procurement
of the MQ-9B aircraft. The committee also understands that the
MQ-9B system plans to leverage both the current MQ-9 aircraft
and the Advanced Cockpit Ground Control Station as points of
departure for MQ-9B systems design, and that hardware,
software, and structural upgrades will be included in MQ-9B
aircraft to improve structural fatigue and damage tolerance
over the current MQ-9 baseline aircraft. However, the committee
currently lacks the required information to make an informed
determination as to which effort the Air Force should pursue.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision
that would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Air Force, to conduct a cost-benefit
analysis (CBA) that compares upgrading MQ-9 Reaper aircraft to
a Block 5 configuration versus proceeding with procurement of
MQ-9B aircraft. The committee expects the CBA to explain in
detail all assumptions that underpin the CBA, and to weigh and
analyze factors in the CBA such as investment cost, schedule,
risk, open-architecture design, capability, capacity, mission
systems configuration within the MQ-9 enterprise, manpower
requirements, sustainment, logistics, and life-cycle cost or
cost-avoidance.
Next generation ejection seat acquisition
The committee notes that section 146(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-
66) required a report by the Secretary of the Air Force on
various aspects of the health and safety risks associated with
ejection seats. That report confirmed that, with increased use
of helmet-mounted devices, the risks of death or serious injury
increases, and increases even more for lighter weight aircrew.
The committee also notes that the Joint Explanatory Statement
to Accompany the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(Committee Print No. 4) stated that the Air Force should
establish a program for increasing the ejection safety and
reliability of the Air Force's fighter and bomber aircraft.
Subsequently the Air Force established the Next Generation
Escape System (NGES) program of record, and is currently in the
market research phase of its next acquisition endeavor to
upgrade and modernize ejection seats for aircraft currently in
the Air Force inventory. The committee also recognizes that
there are a limited number of ejection seat manufacturers
qualified to meet Department of Defense egress requirements for
high-performance military aircraft.
Concerning the acquisition of NGES, the committee expects
the Secretary of the Air Force to design and execute an
acquisition strategy that enables fair, open, equitable, and
objective consideration of ejection seat technologies. The
committee encourages the Air Force to also take into account
industrial base considerations that will preserve sufficient
access to ejection seat technology for future programs. The
committee also expects that any ejection seat proposal assessed
during source selection processes will be evaluated in
accordance with established Department of Defense policies,
regulations, and instructions governing the acquisition of
egress systems for military aircraft.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force, and a representative from the office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services not later than September 1, 2017, that explains
in detail the acquisition strategy for NGES and how the
committee's aforementioned considerations related to the
acquisition strategy will be implemented. Finally, the
committee is dissatisfied with the slow pace the Air Force has
given this issue since it was initially addressed by the
committee over 3 years ago, and expects the Secretary of the
Air Force to demonstrate more urgency in providing modernized
and safer egress systems for Air Force aircrews.
RC-135S Cobra Ball
The committee notes that the collection of information
associated with foreign ballistic missile programs remains a
priority for the Department of Defense. For many years, the RC-
135S Cobra Ball program has served a vital role by providing
unique and highly responsive collection on numerous high-
priority missions. As one of the smallest aircraft inventories
in the Department of the Air Force, the three aircraft of the
RC-135S fleet struggle to balance routine and depot maintenance
schedules against operations and training requirements. The
committee remains concerned that the Department's ability to
conduct responsive technical collection against high-priority
items of interest is constrained by the small size of the RC-
135S enterprise which must compete fulfilling requirements for
operations, training, and maintenance.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than December 1, 2017, on modernization and
upgrades to RC-135S aircraft and training facilities.
Specifically, the briefing should include what actions the
Secretary will take to complete the modernization and upgrade
of the remaining two RC-135S aircraft to the newest baseline
standard for mission systems and software, as well as what
actions the Secretary will take to field an RC-135S ground-
based mission trainer to reduce reliance on mission aircraft
and increase operational availability of RC-135S aircraft for
world-wide deployments.
Reporting on air traffic control avionics upgrades for Air Force
aircraft
The committee notes that the Air Force is upgrading the
avionics of its entire fleet to make the tracking of military
aircraft by air traffic control facilities more secure and to
comply with Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic
Management Surveillance mandates which go into effect on
January 1, 2020.
The committee is aware that the Air Force is combining the
acquisition of Identification, Friend or Foe Mode 5 and
Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast-Out capable avionics
and the supporting software in an effort to reduce overall
costs. The committee is concerned that the Air Force will not
fully meet the January 1, 2020, mandate, which could seriously
impact operational capability of the force.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than February 15, 2018, that addresses the
following elements:
(1) operational and training impacts of non-compliant
aircraft;
(2) mitigation efforts to minimize training and operational
disruptions;
(3) plans to bring aircraft into compliance by aircraft
series and type;
(4) challenges to bringing all aircraft into compliance;
and
(5) steps taken to ensure cost effectiveness of avionics
upgrades.
RQ-4 and universal payload adapter integration
The budget request contained $86.7 million for RQ-4 post-
production charges, but contained no funding for integration of
the universal payload adapter.
The committee notes that the RQ-4 Global Hawk is the
Department of Defense's only remotely piloted, high-altitude,
long-endurance, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
(ISR) system that provides complementary capability alongside
the U-2. The RQ-4 system provides critical support to deployed
forces around the world, including providing critical
communications to forward-deployed ground forces and essential
ISR information to the intelligence community. The RQ-4 also
provides support to homeland defense and disaster response
operations that could not be achieved using other medium-
altitude remotely piloted aircraft that are unable to operate
in the high-altitude flight environment. The committee notes
that integrating the universal payload adapter on the RQ-4
fleet will ensure greater interoperability and flexibility
alongside the U-2, as it would enable employment of an array of
ISR sensors, including select U-2 sensors, in support of
combatant commander high-altitude ISR requirements.
Therefore, the committee recommends $105.0 million, an
increase of $18.3 million, for RQ-4 post-production charges to
support continued modifications to existing RQ-4 aircraft and
integration of the universal payload adapter.
Wide-area motion imagery intelligence capability
The budget request contained $4.5 million in PE 35206F for
development of airborne reconnaissance systems, and $321.1
million for MQ-9 unmanned aircraft system (UAS) modifications,
but contained no funding for continued development or
procurement of wide-area motion imagery (WAMI) beyond line-of
sight (BLOS) capabilities.
The committee notes that persistent, near real-time day and
night WAMI capability is considered by operational commanders
to be a critical beyond line-of-sight intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance capability for numerous combat
units. WAMI capability has been deployed in support of combat
operations in Afghanistan since 2010 and in Iraq since 2015;
however, despite the invaluable capability that WAMI capability
provides, the Air Force has only been able to provide four
steady-state UAS lines of WAMI capability. The committee
understands that last year, the Department of Defense validated
a U.S. Central Command Joint Urgent Operational Need Statement
that requires the further development and procurement of WAMI
BLOS capabilities for forward-deployed operations.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $17.3 million in PE
35206F, an increase of $12.8 million, for development of WAMI
BLOS processor upgrades to enable enhanced data management and
integration of multi-intelligence WAMI technologies, automatic
target recognition, correlation and tracking information, and
near-vertical direction finding capabilities. The committee
recommends $326.3 million for MQ-9 UAS modifications, an
increase of $5.2 million, to complete the purchase of the 10th
pod set for which partial funding was authorized by the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328).
Additionally, the committee directs the Vice Chairman of
the Joints Chief of Staff (VCJCS), utilizing the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council process, to provide a report to
the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2018, that
determines the quantity of steady-state operational combat UAS
lines that would be required to provide WAMI BLOS capabilities
to meet airborne signals and imagery intelligence requirements
for all of the geographic combatant commanders. The committee
expects the VCJCS to seek input from all geographic combatant
commanders, and to also provide an explanation of underpinning
assumptions and risk analysis for the final derived
requirement.
Finally, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 1, 2018, that describes in detail the life-
cycle weapon system sustainment and modernization strategy for
maintaining an enduring WAMI capability for the geographic
combatant commanders.
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
Items of Special Interest
MC-12 modernization initiatives
The budget request contained $5.8 million in Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force, for MC-12 aircraft modernization
initiatives.
The committee is aware of a capability and modernization
gap with the MC-12W fleet of aircraft currently being flown by
Air National Guard units when compared to those being flown by
Active Components. The committee notes these critical
capability gaps are found in tactical data links, signals
intelligence, high definition optics, and antennas, all of
which are critical for flight operations in contested
environments.
Therefore, the committee recommends $70.8 million, an
increase of $65.0 million, in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force,
for MC-12W aircraft upgrades utilized by the Air National
Guard.
Modernization of UH-60A/L aircraft bound for Afghanistan Aviation
Forces
The committee encourages the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD) to develop strategies to modernize analog flight
and crew advisory instruments in the UH-60A/L aircraft bound
for Afghanistan Aviation Forces. The committee understands the
aging analog systems in the UH-60A/L are being phased out in
favor of digital glass flight displays that provide increased
situational awareness and avoid growing obsolescence and
reduced readiness. The committee notes that the digital glass
flight displays have the added benefit of more efficient
delivery of information to the pilot and copilot, easier scan
of flight parameters, and more intuitive use of this
information in the control of safe flight operations.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Defense to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
December 1, 2017, on OSD's strategy to transition UH-60A/L
aircraft bound for Afghanistan Aviation Forces.
Standard data link requirement for the Department of Defense
The committee reminds the Department of Defense that the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public
Law 112-239) included a provision, section 157, requiring
tactical manned intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance
(ISR) aircraft and unmanned aerial systems (UAS) to use a
specified standard data link. The provision requires the use of
encrypted waveforms to transmit and receive internet protocol
communications, requires UAS use data formats that are
consistent with North Atlantic Treaty Organization standards,
and requires that acquisition solicitations conform to
Department of Defense data link specification standards without
requirements or evaluation criteria that mandate proprietary or
undocumented waveforms, control interfaces, or data interfaces.
The committee understands that the office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
(USD(AT&L)) is currently developing a common data link (CDL)
enterprise modernization policy intended to transition the
Department of Defense to a Bandwidth Efficient CDL Revision B
(BE CDL Rev B), implement an open system cryptographic
modernization, and provide a vendor neutral terminal control
interface. The committee also understands the CDL executive
agent (the Department of the Air Force) is developing a BE CDL
Rev B software upgrade that will allow the Department to port
this compliant waveform into a number of widely fielded
airborne and ground terminals. Further, the Department of
Defense has informed the committee that preliminary transition
is already beginning via the secure CDL ISR radio program which
requires each vendor to implement BE CDL Rev B, Cryptographic
Core Modernization (CCM) encryption, and the new terminal
Common Control Interface (CCI), which are currently pending
National Security Agency certification. The Department of
Defense also informed the committee that the CDL enterprise
modernization policy to be issued later this year will direct
all new programs requiring CDL terminals (and existing programs
replacing their terminals) to implement BE CDL Rev B, the CCI,
and CCM modular encryption, and that the policy will retire the
466ER, Vortex Native, Predator Tactical, and Frequency
Modulation (FM) Analog ISR waveforms, not later than October,
1, 2023.
However, the committee is not entirely convinced that the
Department of Defense is on a path to meet the requirements of
section 157 without a need to exercise future waiver authority,
because the committee understands that some programs of the
Department of Defense may still seek to obtain waivers from
USD(AT&L). The committee believes that the Department of
Defense's waiver authority should be used rarely and only in
cases in which vital, unavoidable circumstances exist.
Therefore, the committee will consider in the future repealing
the waiver authority provided in section 157 if the committee
observes that program offices of the Department of Defense are
utilizing the waiver authority as a matter of convenience
rather than outright necessity.
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision
that would amend section 157 to require the Secretary of
Defense to provide the congressional defense committees
notification of common data link solicitations containing
certain waveforms, and modifies criteria related to the review
and approval of waiver requests by program offices seeking to
use legacy data link waveforms.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 101--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize appropriations for procurement
at the levels identified in section 4101 of division D of this
Act.
Subtitle B--Army Programs
Section 111--Report on Acceleration of Increment 2 of the Warfighter
Information Network-Tactical
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees by
January 30, 2018, detailing potential options for the
acceleration of procurement and fielding of the Warfighter
Information Network-Tactical Increment 2 program.
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
Section 121--Aircraft Carriers
This section would express the sense of Congress as to the
necessity to obtain 12 aircraft carriers, the frequency of
aircraft carrier construction, the requirement to provide shock
trials on the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN 79), and the desire to
continue the Ford-class carrier design for CVN 81. This section
would also require the Secretary of the Navy to obtain 12
aircraft carriers by September 2023, which is expected to occur
with the delivery of the USS John F. Kennedy. Finally, this
section would provide economic order quantity authority for the
construction of two Ford-class aircraft carriers and
incremental funding authority for the nuclear refueling and
complex overhaul of four Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.
Section 122--Procurement Authority for Icebreaker Vessels
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
act as a general agent for the Secretary of the Department in
which the Coast Guard is operating and to enter into a contract
for not more than three heavy icebreakers and three medium
icebreakers.
Section 123--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Procurement of
Icebreaker Vessels
This section would prohibit funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2018 from being obligated
or expended for the procurement of an icebreaker vessel.
Section 124--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Virginia Class
Submarine Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into one or more multiyear contracts for Virginia class
submarines beginning in fiscal year 2018, in accordance with
section 2306b of title 10, United States Code.
Section 125--Multiyear Procurement Authority for Arleigh Burke Class
Destroyers and Associated Systems
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into one or more multiyear contracts for Arleigh Burke
class destroyers and associated systems beginning in fiscal
year 2018, in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United
States Code.
Section 126--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Arleigh Burke
Class Destroyer
This section would limit the obligation of certain funds to
procure new air and missile defense radars for Arleigh Burke
class destroyers unless the radars are AN/SPY-6(V) radar
modular assembly (RMA) based. This section would authorize the
Secretary of the Navy to a waive the limit if the Secretary
determines that the cost or schedule risk associated with the
integration of the AN/SPY-6(V) radar is unacceptable or
incongruous with an appropriate business case.
The committee recognizes that the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in his
report to Congress required by the committee report (S. Rept.
114-49) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), noted that the Navy's
current radar program of record, AN/SPY-6(V) Air and Missile
Defense Radar, was designed to be fully scalable and modular to
support a variety of shipboard radar applications on a variety
of platforms and that the radar modular assembly conforms to
the Department of Defense's Better Buying Power initiative by
leveraging open systems, common logistics, and software
baselines, and by securing government data rights to both the
hardware and software to affect affordability.
The committee applauds the Navy's successful efforts to
leverage RMA-based applications of AN/SPY-6(V) technologies as
part of the Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) program
that provides critical capabilities for America-class
amphibious assault ships, amphibious transport docks, and
aircraft carrier-class combatants. The committee believes these
efforts demonstrate the feasibility of integrating RMA-based
solutions to existing ship designs.
The committee believes that all future DDG-51 radar new
construction procurements should remain consistent with the
Navy's current destroyer modernization plan and leverage the
AN/SPY-6(V) radar modular assembly architecture to minimize
operation and sustainment costs, reduce training and logistical
requirements, and maintain affordability through economies of
scale with other programs like EASR.
Section 127--Extensions of Authorities Relating to Construction of
Certain Vessels
This section would extend incremental funding authorities
for Ford class aircraft carriers and LHA replacement ships.
Section 128--Multiyear Procurement Authority for V-22 Osprey Aircraft
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy,
subject to section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, to
enter into one or more multiyear contracts, beginning with the
fiscal year 2018 program year, for the procurement of V-22
Osprey aircraft and common configuration-readiness and
modernization upgrades for the V-22 Osprey aircraft.
Notwithstanding section 2306b(k) of title 10, United States
Code, this section would also authorize the period covered by
such contract entered into on a multiyear basis to exceed 5
years, but not to exceed 7 years. Additionally, this section
would require that any such multiyear contract provide that any
obligation of the United States to make a payment under the
contract for a fiscal year, after fiscal year 2018, be subject
to the availability of appropriations or funds for that purpose
for such later fiscal year.
The committee encourages the Department of the Navy to
execute a procurement profile for this multiyear in order to
acquire the aircraft at economic order quantity levels that
most efficiently acquire the aircraft and fully procures the
programmed acquisition objective aircraft for the Department of
the Navy.
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs
Section 131--Streamlining Acquisition of Intercontinental Ballistic
Missile Security Capability
This section would list findings regarding the acquisition
of an aircraft to provide intercontinental ballistic missile
security as a replacement for the UH-1N helicopter, express the
sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should have the
authority to expedite procurement of a replacement aircraft for
the UH-1N helicopter, and authorize the Secretary of Defense to
waive any provision of law requiring the use of competitive
procedures for the procurement of a UH-1N helicopter
replacement and enter into a contract for the procurement on a
sole-source basis. The Secretary's authority in this section
would be subject to a 15-day wait period, a notice of the
Secretary's intent to exercise such authority, and the
Secretary's certification of certain events and determinations.
Section 132--Limitation on Selection of Single Contractor for C-130H
Avionics Modernization Program Increment 2
This section would prohibit the Department of the Air Force
from selecting a single contractor for the C-130H avionics
modernization program increment 2 until the Secretary of the
Air Force certifies to the congressional defense committees
that every opportunity will be taken to make use of commercial-
off-the-shelf technology solutions and nondevelopmental items
and that excessively restrictive military specification
standards were not used as criteria to restrict or eliminate
fair and open competition.
Section 133--Limitation on Availability of Funds for EC-130H Compass
Call Recapitalization Program
This section would restrict the Secretary of the Air Force
from contracting with any entity for the purposes of the
Compass Call re-host program until the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics submits a
certification to the congressional defense committees that
indicates the acquisition strategy has been reviewed and
determined to meet applicable laws, guidelines, and best
practices.
Section 134--Cost-Benefit Analysis of Upgrades to MQ-9 Reaper Aircraft
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of the Air Force, to conduct a
cost-benefit analysis that compares upgrading MQ-9 Reaper
aircraft to a Block 5 configuration, or foregoing the Block 5
upgrade to MQ-9 aircraft and proceeding with procurement of MQ-
9B aircraft instead. The provision also requires the Department
of Defense to submit the analysis to the congressional defense
committees not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Subtitle E--Defense-Wide, Joint, and Multiservice Matters
Section 141--Authority for Procurement of Economic Order Quantities for
the F-35 Aircraft Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
enter into one or more contracts, beginning with the fiscal
year 2018 program year, for the procurement of economic order
quantities for material and equipment that has completed formal
hardware qualification testing for the F-35 program and is to
be used in procurement contracts to be awarded under the F-35
program in fiscal years 2019 and 2020. This section would also
limit the amount of such contracts for fiscal year 2018, or any
year thereafter, to not more than $661.0 million. Additionally,
this section would limit the Secretary of Defense from entering
into such contracts until a period of 15 days has elapsed
following the date on which the Secretary submits to the
congressional defense committees a written certification that
the contract meets certain conditions.
Section 142--Limitation on Demilitarization of Certain Cluster
Munitions
The section would prohibit the elimination of cluster
munition stockpiles considered to be non-compliant after
January 1, 2019, according to the Memorandum of the Secretary
of Defense dated June 19, 2008, regarding the Department of
Defense policy on cluster munitions and unintended harm to
civilians. The prohibition remains in effect until the
Secretary of Defense certifies that the Department retains
sufficient inventory levels of operationally suitable cluster
munitions that comply with the Department's current policy, and
meets at least 75 percent of the U.S. combatant commands
operational requirements across the full range of military
operational environments.
This section would allow the demilitarization of cluster
munitions determined to be unserviceable due to a significant
failure to meet performance or logistics requirements. Cluster
munitions categorized as unserviceable solely due to current or
amended Department of Defense policy related to cluster
munitions would not meet this definition of unserviceable, and
would be subject to the limitation in this provision.
Section 143--Reinstatement of Requirement To Preserve Certain C-5
Aircraft
This section would amend section 132 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) to reinstate the requirement for the Secretary of the Air
Force to continue to preserve certain C-5 aircraft in a storage
condition that would allow a recall of retired aircraft to
future service in the Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, or
Active Force structure.
Section 144--Requirement That Certain Aircraft and Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles Use Specified Standard Data Link
This section would amend section 157 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) by: requiring the Secretary of Defense to notify the
congressional defense committees not later than 15 days after a
solicitation is issued for a Common Data Link-To Be Sunset
(CDL-TBS) waveform; elevating waiver review and approval
authority from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics to the Deputy Secretary of Defense;
and, terminating the waiver authority that enables use of
legacy data link waveforms on October 1, 2023.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army
Items of Special Interest
Acoustic threat detection technology
The committee is aware of efforts undertaken by the Army to
develop and operationally test acoustic threat detection
technology as a method of improving forward operating base
protection. The committee is also aware that acoustic threat
detection technology has been successfully integrated and
tested from fixed, aerostat, and deployable containerized
platforms. As such, the committee encourages continued
operational testing, to include limited user evaluations. If
warranted, the committee expects the Army to consider
acceleration of the transition of this technology to a program
of record through the utilization of acquisition reform
principles.
AN/VVR-4 Laser Detecting Set
The committee recognizes U.S. Army ground combat vehicles
are increasingly susceptible to laser-aided threats. The
committee believes ground combat vehicle crews require a
reliable means to identify laser threats and to apply
countermeasures or take evasive action against the growing
reliance by adversaries on lasers to enhance ballistic
solutions on weapons terminal guidance systems. The committee
believes a key element to the detection of these threats is the
AN/VVR-4 Laser Detecting Set, and is aware the AN/VVR-4 Laser
Detecting Set was designed to meet or exceed all performance
and environmental specifications defined by the U.S. Army.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Army
to pursue initial production and fielding of the AN/VVR-4 Laser
Detecting Set and to begin initial integration on the M1A2
Abrams tank.
Army counter-improvised explosive device technology
The committee recognizes that over the last decade the
military services have succeeded in developing, fielding, and
deploying highly capable systems to address the threats from
improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and that the Department of
Defense is currently supportive of additional ongoing
development efforts, including, but not limited to, the Army's
Research, Development, and Engineering Command's activities in
this area.
However, the committee is concerned that despite progress
in research and development, shortcomings may still exist in
areas such as real-time and easily interpreted imaging, non-
metallic detection, false alert rates, and non-invasive sensor
technologies. The committee is aware of currently available
technologies, tested and endorsed by close allies and partners,
such as the United Kingdom, capable of providing additional
protection from these IEDs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commanding General of
the U.S. Army Materiel Command to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2017, on such
technologies. This briefing shall include a detailed assessment
of the Army's ongoing efforts to improve capabilities to
counter IEDs, the extent to which existing and innovative
sensor technologies are and will be incorporated into relevant
development efforts, and the applicability of those
technologies by allies and partner nations, such as the United
Kingdom, to Army development efforts.
Army Network Integration Evaluations and Joint Warfighting Assessments
The committee acknowledges the importance of the Department
of the Army's Network Integration Evaluation (NIE) exercises
conducted at Fort Bliss, Texas, and White Sands Missile Range,
New Mexico. The committee notes that, through this program, the
Army has been able to test equipment in a realistic battlefield
environment in the hands of soldiers so the Army can
successfully integrate new technologies. The committee also
acknowledges the importance of the Joint Warfighting
Assessments (JWA). The committee recognizes NIE and JWA as
critical cost saving measures since these exercises allow the
Army to clarify program requirements and discontinue programs
that do not meet Army needs. As a result, the Army has produced
over $1.8 billion in savings and cost avoidance since 2011. The
committee believes that these exercises help the Army to test
emerging concepts, integrate new capabilities and technology,
and promote interoperability between the military services and
U.S. allies.
The committee also acknowledges the investments made in the
Joint Modernization Command, located at Fort Bliss, and
encourages the Army to continue NIE and JWA exercises at Fort
Bliss whenever possible to utilize those investments as well as
the unique space, terrain, and freedom of movement available at
Fort Bliss and White Sands Missile Range. The committee also
acknowledges that NIE and JWA events should be brigade-level
exercises when practical to ensure any systems tested will be
fully capable of deployment at the brigade level.
While the committee believes that the NIE and JWA should
continue to be an integral part of the Army's modernization
strategy, and encourages the Army to pursue both the NIE and
JWA, the committee understands that the Army is assessing the
most efficient way to test the integration of new concepts and
technologies. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by March 1, 2018, on this assessment.
Army warfighter technology programs
The budget request contained $39.6 million in PE 62786A for
Warfighter Technology research and development programs.
The committee is aware of the work being done by the
Warfighter Technology Directorate in improving the protection,
survivability, mobility, and combat effectiveness of soldiers.
The committee understands the directorate is continuing
research in the areas of advanced ballistic polymers for body
armor, fibers to make more durable and breathable uniforms,
fire resistant and lightweight infrastructures for advanced
shelters, among other research programs that should provide
tangible benefits to the individual soldier. The committee
believes it is critical to ensure that the Army continues
development of this technology and believes additional funding
could help to accelerate its development.
The committee recommends $44.6 million, an increase of $5.0
million, in PE 62786A for Warfighter Technology research and
development programs.
Civil Support Team Information Management System
The committee is aware that the National Guard Bureau (NGB)
Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams (CST) currently
field a system called the ``CST Information Management System''
(CIMS) to provide a common operating picture, promote
information-sharing and real-time collaboration in an emergency
situation, and support the CST mission of assisting and
advising first responders and facilitating communications with
other Federal resources. The committee is aware that the NGB
has developed a long-term strategy to expand that system to the
rest of the Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear
Response Enterprise, known as ``NG CIMS 2018+.'' The current
plan for NG CIMS 2018+ would standardize the tactical common
operational picture and information management systems for all
elements of the CRE, and achieve full operational capability
(FOC) by September 30, 2018. The committee is also aware that
this system has been successfully demonstrated in recent real-
world operations and training events, including the 2017
Presidential Inauguration.
The committee encourages the National Guard to continue to
develop and deploy NG CIMS 2018+ on the current timeline, and
utilize the National Guard and Reserve Equipment appropriation,
if necessary, to ensure resourcing to meet that FOC date.
Cold Temperature and Arctic Protective System development
The committee is aware that the Army is developing an
updated cold weather clothing system referred to as the ``Cold
Temperature and Arctic Protective System'' (CTAPS). The
committee supports efforts to ensure that soldiers are equipped
with organizational clothing and individual equipment for all
environments. The committee is aware the CTAPS system would
include flame-resistant technology similar to that of the
current flame-resistant environmental ensemble. The committee
encourages the Army to consider commercial-off-the-shelf
technologies, as well as technologies already proven in current
Army cold and extreme weather clothing systems as part of the
CTAPS development program.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by November
15, 2017, that includes the development timeline and schedule
for CTAPS, as well as addresses the cooperative efforts being
taken by the Army, to include the industrial base into the
overall design of the CTAPS system.
Enhanced lightweight hard armor and combat helmet research and
development
The budget request contained $20.2 million in PE 63827A for
soldier systems--advanced development, to include weight
reduction and performance improvements for body armor and
combat helmets.
The committee has consistently highlighted the critical
need for modernization of personal protective equipment (PPE),
to include body armor and combat helmets. In previous
legislation, the committee has expressed its concern regarding
the Department of Defense's long-term strategy for PPE
industrial base sustainment, and has encouraged the Department
to pursue strategies that would allow for sustainment of this
critical industrial base through modernization efforts. For
example, section 141 and section 216 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84)
established separate procurement line items and separate
program elements required for the procurement and research and
development (R&D) of individual body armor and associated
components. The committee continues to encourage and recommend
a weapon system approach to PPE acquisition, in particular body
armor and combat helmets. The committee believes this would
provide for more efficient planning, programming, and budgeting
for PPE, and would create a more stable environment for the
industrial base to continue to invest in innovation and weight
reduction technology.
The committee notes the Army's Soldier Protection System
and other service R&D efforts have made significant progress in
reducing the weight and improving the form, fit, and function
of body armor. The committee is also aware of current R&D
projects in this PE to help advance improved performance. The
committee understands that the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2017 (division C of Public Law 115-31)
included an additional $25.0 million in PE 63827A to continue
to improve the capability of hard and soft body armor and
combat helmets. The committee supports this initiative and
understands the industrial base is ready to start the efforts
to address the Army's two key goals of reducing body armor
weight by 20 percent or more, and improving combat helmet
capability against projected threats.
The committee recommends $45.2 million, an increase of
$25.0 million, in PE 63827A to ensure continuity and sufficient
resources are programmed for enhanced soft and hard body armor
and combat helmet research and development. The committee also
directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by March 14, 2018, on the
Army's plan to obligate these additional funds, and identify
potential development projects that could be accelerated.
Future Vertical Lift
The committee is aware that the Army is continuing
execution of the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) analysis of
alternatives (AOA) during fiscal year 2018, and the FVL
initiative has been informed by concept definition efforts such
as the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstration and the
Vertical Lift Consortium. The committee recommends that the
Army continue leveraging existing Other Transaction Authority
efforts to execute concept definition studies for the purpose
of informing acquisition approaches and advancing vertical lift
technologies in support of future requirements. The committee
encourages the Army to fully fund FVL efforts and to seek
opportunities to accelerate the program based on performance
and available resources.
High Bandwidth Tethered Unmanned Air Systems Technology
The committee understands that there are new, commercial
tethered unmanned air system solutions that could provide
significant improvements in the following capability sets:
communications, persistent surveillance, force protection, and
counter-VAS. The committee believes these improved capabilities
could benefit the forward deployed warfighter. As such, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a
briefing to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate by September 30, 2017, on the advisability and
feasibility of procuring new, tethered-based multi-rotor
platforms as a potential solution to address critical
operational capability gaps in communication, expeditionary
cyber operations, and intelligence collection requirements as
well as counter-unmanned aircraft systems applications.
High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle external fire suppression
systems
The committee is aware that in 2008 the Army pursued Work
Directive 379 in response to an operational needs statement,
and that the purpose of the directive was to explore options
for fluid-based fires in the fuel tank and engine compartment
of Army High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV).
The committee is also aware that one of the recommendations
resulting from this effort was to continue testing of fuel
tank, engine, and tire improvements that could potentially
reduce the risk of fluid-based fires. However, despite this
recommendation, the Army chose not to pursue such improvements
or validate a requirement for an external fire suppression
system (EFSS) for Army HMMWVs.
Given the evolution of fire suppression technology since
this evaluation was conducted, the committee believes that the
Army should reconsider the potential requirement for an EFSS
for Army and Army National Guard HMMWVs. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in coordination
with the Chief, National Guard Bureau, to provide a briefing to
the House Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2017, on
the advisability and feasibility of such a system being
installed on Army and Army National Guard HMMWVs as part of
HMMWV modernization and recapitalization programs.
Improved Turbine Engine Program
The committee continues to support the Army research and
development budget request for the Improved Turbine Engine
Program (ITEP), as well as the acquisition strategy included in
the request. ITEP is a competitive acquisition program that is
designed to develop a more fuel-efficient and powerful engine
for the current Black Hawk and Apache helicopter fleets. This
new engine will increase operational capabilities in high/hot
environments, while reducing operating and support costs. The
committee acknowledges the benefits of improved fuel
efficiencies through lower specific fuel consumption that ITEP
will bring to the battlefield. In addition, the committee
encourages the Army to prioritize maintenance and sustainment
cost savings for ITEP to ensure the continued affordability of
the program.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
committee required the Army to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services on potential options to accelerate
the ITEP program. The committee notes that the Army provided
the briefing and that the Army stated that there are two
potential acceleration opportunities that will be informed by
program knowledge points. The committee understands that
performance and available resources will drive these two
knowledge points. The committee encourages the Army to continue
to fully fund this competitive program and to pursue
acceleration opportunities based on program performance and
available resources.
Improved vehicle camouflage systems and next generation signature
management
The budget request contained $91.0 million in PE 64804A for
Logistics and Engineer Equipment-Engine Development. Of this
amount, $6.6 million was requested for next generation
signature management systems.
The committee remains encouraged by recent research and the
approval of the updated requirements document for next
generation signature management systems for combat and tactical
vehicles. The committee continues to recognize the importance
of this low-cost defensive capability against current and
emerging threats, particularly in Europe, and encourages the
Department of Defense to continue to accelerate development,
procurement, and fielding of this advanced camouflage net
system to meet warfighter requirements.
Given the immediate increasing demand for next generation
signature management systems by combatant commanders, the
committee encourages the Army, to the maximum extent possible,
to accelerate completion of the research and development of the
woodland and arctic camouflage variants in order to set the
conditions for a low-rate initial production decision in fiscal
year 2018, 1 year earlier than planned.
The committee recommends $93.0 million, an increase of $2.0
million, in PE 64804A to address an unfunded requirement for
next generation signature management systems.
Integrated Air and Missile Defense command and control capabilities
The committee acknowledges that fielding of an Integrated
Air and Missile Defense command and control set of capabilities
remains the U.S. Army's Air Defense Artillery community's
number one priority and believes that such capabilities are
urgently required to meet warfighter needs.
However, the committee is concerned about continued
programmatic challenges that have delayed even incremental
capability delivery. The committee notes the President's budget
request for Fiscal Year 2018 formalizes a shift of initial
operational capability for the Integrated Air and Missile
Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS) from September 2016
to April of 2022 and that total program costs have grown from
$1.73 billion to $2.68 billion as of the end of 2016.
The committee is further concerned about recent IBCS
performance observations by the Department of Defense's Office
of Operational Test and Evaluation which, in its February 2017
report, called the system's software ``neither mature nor
stable . . .'' and by the Army Test and Evaluation Command
which noted in report detailing a June 2016 limited user test
that the system is ``Not suitable, Not survivable, Not
reliable.''
The committee recognizes that the Army IAMD architecture
has changed significantly since IBCS requirements were
validated in 2009 with the cancellation of the Joint Land
Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System
(JLENS), the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), and
the Surface Launched Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile
(SLAMRAAM), and that emphasis has now shifted to integration of
other Army systems.
Therefore the committee directs the Secretary of Army, not
later than September 30, 2017, to provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees on the status of the IBCS
program. At a minimum, this briefing shall include:
(1) Updated information on programmatic risks, total
estimated costs, and a new testing and fielding schedule;
(2) The program's plan to address emerging threats such as
cyber and electronic attack; and
(3) A plan for potential IBCS capability delivery
acceleration, including options for how the Army could use
Fiscal Year 2018 funding, prior year funding, or otherwise
leverage other programs' investments to contribute or be
incorporated into IBCS prior to the completion of fielding or
investments that could alternatively meet program requirements.
Land-Based Anti-Ship Missile hardware and software integration and test
capability
The committee understands the U.S. Army Aviation and
Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center has
initiated a science and technology program for the Land-Based
Anti-Ship Missile effort. This effort includes adapting
existing Army and Marine Corps High Mobility Artillery Rocket
Systems (HIMARS) and Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS)
missile systems for this land-based offensive surface warfare
capability. The committee is aware that HIMARS and MLRS systems
could be limited to only engagement of stationary area and
point targets using global positioning system aided inertial
navigation, while maritime targets would require the capability
to engage mobile target sets. The committee notes that
additional technology consisting of integrating multi-mode
seekers and datalinks to existing HIMARS and MLRS systems could
be required, and also notes that this would be a significant
advancement in capability. The committee expects the Army to
program the necessary resources required across the Future
Years Defense Program to begin the integration work and testing
of the capability to address maritime targets.
Lightweight metal matrix composite technology for combat and tactical
vehicles
The committee recognizes the versatility and broad
application that Metal Matrix Composite (MMC) technology may
provide to the armed services through weight reduction of
vehicle components by potentially 50 percent, and in turn could
increase the service life of vehicles by three to four times
that of vehicles manufactured with traditional steel and armor.
The committee understands the U.S. Army Tank and Automotive
Research, Development, and Engineering Command (TARDEC) is
currently evaluating technologies that can reduce vehicle
weight, reduce fuel consumption, increase payload capacity, and
extend service life of combat and tactical vehicles, and that
MMC technology is part of this ongoing evaluation.
The committee directs the Commanding General of TARDEC to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
November 1, 2017, on the progress of development and
implementation of Metal Matrix Composite component technology
in order to reduce vehicle weight, reduce fuel consumption,
increase payload capacity, and extend service life.
M4 Carbine Free Floating Rail Technology
The committee has long supported small arms modernization
and continues to encourage increased investment to improve
small arms capability. The committee notes that the Army
continues to use and field legacy rail systems for use on M4
carbines. However, the committee understands that the U.S.
Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Army Marksmanship
Unit have begun to field free-float rail systems instead of
using current legacy systems. The committee is also aware that
free-float rail systems are considered to be the commercial
industry standard and are readily available. The committee
understands that the Program Executive Office-Soldier (PEO-
Soldier) through the Soldier Enhancement Program (SEP) is
currently evaluating the SOCOM free-float rail system. The
committee encourages the Army, subject to a favorable SEP
evaluation, to consider the advisability and feasibility of
developing an accelerated acquisition strategy for free-float
rail systems.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army, in
coordination with PEO Soldier, to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2017, on the
results of the current SEP evaluation and the Army's plans for
upgrading legacy rail systems.
Material development, characterization, and computational modeling
The committee recognizes the importance of evaluation of
materials and technologies, designs, and the development of
methodologies and models to enable enhanced lethality and
survivability. Methods such as computational research allow for
the development of models that predict the mechanical
properties of materials that are used in research and
development at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL). These
models and simulations provide a cost savings to the Department
of Defense by simulating materials prior to testing them to
ensure mechanical properties will work together. Additionally,
these methodologies allow for the enhanced development of
technologies, such as lightweight armors, protective
structures, kinetic energy active protection, ballistic shock
and mine blast protection, and helmet technologies to prevent
traumatic brain injury, as well as numerous other uses. The
committee encourages ARL to continue the utilization of
computational modeling and simulations research to achieve
greater cost savings.
Mobile protected firepower
The committee understands that as part of the Army's
modernization strategy, the Army is attempting to improve the
tactical mobility and lethality of infantry brigade combat
teams (IBCTs). The committee notes the mobile protected
firepower (MPF) combat vehicle program would provide the Army's
IBCTs with a mobile and survivable direct fire capability to
defeat enemy armored vehicles, hardened fortifications, and
dismounted personnel. The committee recognizes that the Army
Chief of Staff has made MPF a high priority modernization
program, and notes the Army is actively engaging with the
industrial base to ensure clarity of requirements. The
committee believes the Army is developing strategies to
potentially accelerate the MPF schedule given that the current
projected schedule has MPF fielding beginning in 2024.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by October 5, 2017, that outlines potential opportunities for
MPF program acceleration. The briefing should include a review
of testing requirements and potential areas for consolidation;
funding required in fiscal year 2018 and beyond to accelerate
the program; and any areas of legislative relief that would be
required in order to accelerate the program.
Multi-function explosive material detection technology
The committee notes that deployed U.S. military forces in
the greater Middle East face a range of explosive threats from
improvised explosive devices (IED), which vary based on
geography, adversary technical expertise, and availability of
different explosives. The committee is concerned that current
explosive detection technology is limited to detecting a
limited set of explosive materials. The committee is aware of
research work conducted by the Joint Improvised Threat Defeat
Organization and the Army in the area of multi-function
detection technology between fiscal years 2012 and 2015 that
had the potential of providing improved explosive material
detection capability against certain threats. However, the
committee was informed by the Army Armament Research,
Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) that there was no
funding planned in fiscal years 2017 or 2018 to further pursue
this technology due to a lack of a specific requirement. The
committee is concerned that this potentially useful
technology's development may be hindered as a result.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the U.S. Army
Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center to
provide a briefing not later than September 30, 2017, on the
mix of explosive materials that could be used to target US
forces with IEDs, the variety of explosive detection
technologies available, the potential utility of multi-function
explosive detection technology, and an estimate of the funding
necessary to accelerate work on this technology to a level that
would enable thorough testing in the future.
Open Campus
The committee commends the Army Research Laboratory (ARL)
for establishing its new Open Campus concept. The committee
notes that the goal of Open Campus is to build a science and
technology ecosystem that will encourage groundbreaking
advances in basic and applied research areas of relevance to
the Army through a unique arrangement that allows government,
industry, and academia to work collaboratively on projects in
common spaces. Such innovation initiated at the laboratory
level reflects current practices in industry and academia, and
can be a useful tool in maintaining the ability of ARL to
maintain its technological competency, workforce, and
facilities. The committee also encourages the Army to explore
opportunities to provide stipends for temporary sabbaticals to
allow academic experts to conduct research at ARL and to
consider funding long-term joint assignments between academia
and government. The committee recognizes that Open Campus might
be a useful model for the other military service laboratories
to examine to improve their collaboration as well as attract
new researchers and foster new multidisciplinary teams.
Rapid integration for emerging threats against missile system networks
The committee is aware that there are a number of rapidly
emerging threats to the integrity and security of space and
missile systems and their associated networks. The committee
recognizes that the Program Executive Office for the Army
Missile and Space Command is developing a capability to provide
cyber-robust networked weapon systems the ability to assess and
integrate rapid countermeasures to such threats. The committee
understands this capability is accomplished through a unique
approach to adapt to real-time threats, dramatically
accelerating the timeline to employ resilience in networked
weapon systems. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
of the Army to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives by March 1, 2018, on
the status of progress being made through this accelerated
program.
Remote weapon system development and integration for tactical and
ground combat vehicles
The budget request included $87.6 million in PE 64601A for
infantry support weapons. Of this amount, $22.5 million is for
the purchase of prototypes, design improvements, and test and
evaluation for a remote weapon station (RWS) that integrates a
medium-caliber weapon system with a 30mm auto-cannon and a
Stinger surface-to-air missile. This effort will support
upgraded lethality capabilities for Army and Marine Corps
tactical vehicles, including the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle
(JLTV).
The committee understands these upgrades are necessary to
fill emerging capability gaps identified by the Maneuver
Support Center of Excellence (MSCoE) and identified in the
Common Remotely Operated Weapon Stations (CROWS) Increment II
Capability Development Document (CDD). The committee is aware
the Army is considering upgrades to legacy remote weapon
systems in order to accelerate fielding of this capability. The
committee believes other alternative RWS platforms may be
available that could address these capability gaps. The
committee encourages the Army to consider a competitive
acquisition strategy that would leverage advances made in this
area by the industrial base that potentially generates better
value for the warfighter, and address the capability gap
without delaying fielding of this capability. However, the
committee also recognizes that the Secretary of the Army can
still exercise discretion in developing the appropriate
acquisition strategy to meet urgent operational needs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by August 31, 2017 that reviews the Army's current plan for
acquisition and fielding of remote weapon stations for tactical
and ground combat vehicles.
Report on heavy and Stryker brigade combat team wireless
intercommunication systems
The committee understands the Army's Training and Doctrine
Command conducted a requirement capability gap trace in March
2016 on wireless intercommunication systems for heavy brigade
combat teams and Stryker brigade combat teams, and subsequently
identified and re-certified a capability gap and standing
requirements. The committee is aware the Army is conducting a
Combined Arms Futures Integrated Exercise (CAFIX) assessment at
the Maneuver Center of Excellence (MCoE) to identify potential
technology solutions. Additionally, the committee understands
that the Program Executive Office Soldier (PEO Soldier) in
coordination with the Army's Soldier Enhancement Program (SEP)
is considering formal field user assessments of the wireless
intercommunications systems evaluated by MCoE.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee by March 29,
2018, that describes the technologies evaluated by MCoE during
the CAFIX assessment, as well as provides the results of the
SEP field user assessments.
Short range air defense advanced development
The committee believes there are significant capability and
capacity shortfalls in the Army's short-range air defense
artillery (SHORAD) force structure and posture. The committee
notes the National Commission on the Future of the Army
concluded that unacceptable modernization shortfalls can be
found in SHORAD. Section 114 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328)
required an assessment of the ways and associated costs to
reduce or eliminate capacity shortfalls in major capability
areas, to include SHORAD. The committee has not received this
assessment to date. However, the committee understands that the
Army has conducted a Strategic Portfolio Analysis and Review
(SPAR) to review 780 programs and evaluate their impact on
warfighting, and that the SPAR identified SHORAD as a top
priority. Given current and emerging threats, to include the
proliferation of small, unmanned aircraft as well as near-peer
and peer competitors' anti-access and area denial capability,
the committee supports the SPAR's assessment. The committee
also notes that U.S. forces can no longer assume air
superiority or air dominance in future overseas contingency
operations, which makes SHORAD that much more important.
The committee understands the Army is pursuing a
maneuverable, protected, SHORAD capability, as well as plans to
modernize legacy SHORAD capability and capacity. The committee
supports these efforts and would encourage the Army to develop
ways to accelerate this capability.
Software Based Mesh Network for Tactical Communications
The committee recognizes small dismounted teams require
nodes of tactical communication that are operationally
flexible, secure, reliable in austere and contested
environments, and emit minimal electronic signature.
Furthermore, the committee notes that satisfying these unique
communications requirements often entails introduction of
hardware infrastructure that degrades unit mobility,
operational agility and stealth. The committee is aware of and
encouraged by software-based alternatives that create secure
mesh communications networks, are highly mission adaptable,
hardware agnostic and scalable to larger maneuver units. As
such, the committee directs the Department of the Army, in
coordination with the U.S. Special Operations Command, to
provide the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate a briefing, not later than 90 days after enactment of
this act, to include results of a market survey of existing
software mesh capabilities, on its plan for addressing
capability gaps in its tactical communications requirements.
Soldier Enhancement Program
The budget request contained $87.6 million in PE 64601A for
Infantry Support Weapons. Of this amount, $3.3 million was
requested for Soldier Enhancement Program (SEP) initiatives.
The committee supports the work of the Soldier Enhancement
Program operated by Program Executive Office Soldier. For
several years, SEP has helped the Army rapidly evaluate and
type classify commercial off-the-shelf individual equipment and
organizational clothing to ensure soldiers in training and in
the field have the best products available. The committee
encourages the Army, through SEP, to continue evaluating
additional equipment in order to ensure soldiers have the best
and latest equipment possible, and believes additional funding
will allow the program to expand the scope of its work.
The committee recommends $90.6 million, an increase of $3.0
million, in PE 64601A for Soldier Enhancement Program
initiatives.
Soldier Power development
The committee understands that the Soldier Power portfolio
consists of the squad power manager (SPM) and integrated
soldier power and data system-core (ISPDS-C) with conformal
central power source (CCPS), universal battery charger (UBC),
flexible solar blankets, and soldier power generation programs.
The committee is aware that the SPM and ISPDS-C with CCPS
Capability Production Document (CPD) received final approval
from the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army on May 15, 2017. The
committee understands the UBC program is currently completing
low-rate initial production and is on track for full-rate
production approval decision in July 2017. The committee notes
these capabilities provide soldiers with expeditionary power
and multiple power management alternatives all designed for
combat operations in austere environments and can be tailored
to any mission. The committee supports these critical programs
and believes that they will help to reduce the soldier's combat
carrying load. The committee encourages the Army to continue to
work with the industrial base to improve and upgrade components
in the Soldier Power portfolio to potentially reduce weight and
cost, as well as to improve overall performance.
Testing and evaluation of supercavitating ammunition
The committee understands the defense industry has been
investing in research and development of full caliber
supercavitating ammunition for use in small arms. The committee
notes supercavitating ammunition can be used in various
operational environments, including air-to-air, water-to-water,
air-to-water and water-to-air, and that this technology could
potentially address critical mission capability gaps for the
warfighter.
The committee is aware that the Government of Norway's
Norwegian Defense Research Establishment has performed tests
and evaluation of supercavitating ammunition and that initial
assessments regarding these tests have demonstrated positive
results. Given these positive results of the Norwegian
government's assessments, the committee encourages the
Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Navy to consider
conducting similar tests and evaluations of this technology.
Therefore, the committee directs the U.S. Army Program
Executive Officer for Ammunition, in coordination with the Navy
Surface Warfare Center-Crane, and any other relevant U.S.
defense officials to provide a briefing to the House Committee
on Armed Services by October 6, 2017, that addresses the
advisability and feasibility of establishing a test and
evaluation program that could provide for a full capabilities
assessment.
Underwater munitions disposal and waterjet technology development
The committee remains concerned that the military services
have programmed insufficient resources and attention towards
technology that could significantly improve capabilities
required for underwater explosive ordnance disposal. The
committee notes the Navy continues to be threatened by mines
placed in the waters in which they operate, as well as the Army
having a requirement to remotely demilitarize obsolete,
discarded, and unstable munitions that have become embedded in
the undersea habitat, including coral, without damaging the
ocean environmental habitat. As such, the committee understands
the Department of Defense has a requirement for a feasible
technological approach to recover a munition's chemical and
explosive ordnance without removing the munition from the ocean
environment that would both render a munition safe by removing
the fuse, recovering the explosive material while also leaving
the munitions body in place. The committee believes additional
targeted research is needed to demonstrate technology capable
of both remotely defeating mines threatening U.S. Naval forces,
as well as providing the capability to demilitarize underwater
munitions without damaging critical ocean habitat.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army,
in coordination with the Secretary of the Navy, to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by December
1, 2017, on research and development efforts by the Army and
the Navy to further develop a prototype for underwater munition
explosive ordnance disposal for the purpose stated above.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy
Items of Special Interest
Academic partnerships for undersea technology
The budget request contained $57.8 million in PE 63680N for
the manufacturing technology program.
The Navy has been studying the capacity of U.S. shipyards
to maintain higher production rates for the Virginia-class
submarine, while at the same time designing and then beginning
construction of the first Columbia-class ballistic missile
submarine in 2021. Although this is a feasible option aligned
with the administration's stated strategic objectives, this
scenario may present numerous schedule and affordability
issues.
The committee is aware that opportunity may exist for the
Navy to leverage existing relationships with higher education
partners in the Manufacturing Technology (MANTECH) program to
decrease the risk the proposed concurrency at the shipyards may
pose for the cost and schedule of the programs. Specifically,
the committee believes greater leverage of existing
partnerships within MANTECH that are focused on undersea
vehicle applications relating to several key fabrication and
manufacturing processes technologies, including composites,
metals, and electronics, may be beneficial.
Therefore, the committee recommends $67.8 million, an
increase of $10.0 million, in PE 63680N to develop increased
manufacturing capability through academic and industrial
partnerships to better support the needs of the submarine and
undersea fleet.
Advanced capability for 81mm and 120mm mortar development
The committee understands that the Marine Corps has a
science and technology (S&T) objective for a precision-guided,
extended-range munition for the M252 81mm mortar system, and
that the Office of Naval Research (ONR) is currently leading
this effort. The committee is aware that ONR's goal is to
demonstrate an affordable precision-guided round using a global
positioning system or semi-active lasers with minimal size and
weight growth that has an extended maximum range of 20
kilometers or more. The committee notes that current testing
conducted by ONR in 2015 and 2016 have shown promising results,
and that additional testing is planned in 2017 to demonstrate
engagements in stationary and moving targets by utilizing a
semi-active laser. The committee also notes that a potential
employment concept option exists for either an 81mm or 120mm
mortar round to be dropped from an aircraft at medium altitude
with the mortar round utilizing precision guided maneuvering to
strike the intended target set.
If either of these developmental and demonstration efforts
are successful, the committee expects the Marine Corps to
consider transitioning these validated employment concepts from
S&T to a warfighting capability, and to consider developing an
accelerated acquisition strategy that would utilize all
available authorities to accelerate the acquisition of
production ready, or near-production ready, capabilities.
Airborne anti-submarine warfare systems
The committee understands that the Secretary of the Navy
continues to advocate for the advanced development and
developmental testing of airborne anti-submarine warfare
systems, including aircraft, equipment, and devices for use
against all types of submarine targets. The committee notes
that this includes sensors and components, processing, post-
processing, data recording and display capabilities to address
regional threat scenarios against surfaced or submerged
conventionally and nuclear-powered submarines. The committee
continues to support the rapid development of these
technologies that are considered mature and provide increased
operational capability through the use of the Rapid Capability
Insertion program.
Amphibious Combat Vehicle engineering and manufacturing development
The budget request contained $179.0 million in PE 65611M
for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) program.
In testimony before the committee, senior Marine Corps
officials, to include the Commandant of the Marine Corps, have
described the Amphibious Combat Vehicle program as the
service's highest modernization priority for the ground combat
element. The committee supports the President's budget request
for the ACV program. The committee commends the Marine Corps on
executing an accelerated acquisition strategy that incorporates
lessons learned from previous amphibious vehicle and armored
personnel carrier programs. By using an incremental acquisition
approach, the Marine Corps will be able to field a next
generation modernized ground combat vehicle to the warfighter
in an efficient and timely manner.
While the committee is encouraged by the progress of the
ACV program to date, and the committee notes the program
remains on cost and schedule with all engineering and
manufacturing development prototype vehicles having been
delivered, the committee will continue to exercise oversight on
the ACV program. The committee will focus particular attention
on the levels of concurrency, or overlap, that may exist
between testing, and the low-rate production decision that is
currently scheduled for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2018.
The committee recommends $179.0, the full amount requested,
in PE 65611M for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle program.
Automated Testing Technologies
The committee is aware that the Navy's Automated Testing
and Analysis (ATA) program was established to expand the use of
automated test methods currently in use by the Navy, such as
Automated Test and Re-Test, and adds new methods of testing,
promotes the use of automated test technologies, and
standardizes automated test practices, methods, and tools. In
addition, funding supports the development of enterprise level
strategies to apply ATA technology to a broad range of
software-intensive acquisition programs.
The committee applauds the Department's move to a more
flexible and agile development approach for software intensive
projects, but also recognizes that such activities must also be
matched with the ability to do automated software assurance to
improve security, and automated testing to improve software
quality and effectiveness. While the Navy has struggled to
develop an effective strategy for how to best utilize these
technologies, the committee believes the other services and
agencies are even more woefully underprepared to identify and
adopt useful and effective automated testing technologies such
as those demonstrated in the ATA program. The committee
believes that automated tools like this could be beneficial to
other service and agency test and evaluation activities for
software intensive systems, and elsewhere in this bill has
endorsed recommendations for how best to manage and centralize
such tools to support widespread use across the services and
agencies.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the Test
Resource Management Center (TRMC) to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services assessing the current state
of the art in automated testing technologies available in the
commercial marketplace by March 1, 2018. This briefing should
assess the requirements for automated testing tools across each
of the services and defense agencies developing software-
intensive systems, include a matrix with current commercial
automated testing tools that could service those requirements,
a rough order of magnitude assessment of the resources needed
for those tools, recommendations for making such tools
available on an enterprise basis, and recommendations for
measuring the use of and effectiveness of such tools, such as
through quantitative goals for the reduction of time and
improvements in the quality of tested software across the
enterprise.
Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range modernization
The budget request contained $66.5 million in PE 24571N for
consolidated training systems. Of this amount, no funds were
requested for research and development to upgrade the anti-
submarine warfare (ASW) underwater range instrumentation needs
at the Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Range at the Pacific
Missile Range Facility in Hawaii.
The committee recognizes that the military's ability to
conduct advanced ASW training is a critical aspect of our
military technological superiority. The Barking Sands Tactical
Underwater Range, which was designed, manufactured, and
installed in 1994, is the largest underwater instrumented range
in the world, and covers over 1,100 square nautical miles.
However, the committee is concerned that the current system is
beyond its 20-year design life, and rapidly becoming difficult
to operate, repair, and maintain. Senior leaders within the
Nation's submarine community have been on record since 2012
calling for a range replacement to begin in order to maintain
worldwide ASW fleet readiness and superiority.
Therefore, the committee recommends $76.5 million, an
increase of $10.0 million, in PE 24571N to support upgrading
the ASW underwater range instrumentation needs at the Barking
Sands Tactical Underwater Range.
F/A-18 noise reduction research
The committee understands that Navy testing to date on F/A-
18E/F Super Hornet noise reduction concluded that engine
chevron attachments achieved significant noise reduction in a
limited area of the F/A-18's engine's power settings. However,
the committee has also been informed by the Navy that further
research is likely needed to determine if chevron attachment
technology can be improved to cover a wider range of F/A-18
engine power settings, and in particular the range of settings
most relevant to high-noise flight operations near naval air
stations.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than September 1, 2017, on the results of all noise
reduction research complete as of the date of the briefing, its
plans for continued testing of noise reduction technologies for
the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and any possible funding needed to
pursue such testing efforts in the future.
Incremental development of Next Generation Jammer
The committee notes that the Navy's Next Generation Jammer
(NGJ) program is an element of airborne electronic attack that
is required to meet both current and emerging electronic
warfare capability gaps and shortfalls. The committee
understands that the Navy plans to field NGJ capabilities in
three increments, with each increment designed as separate
podded systems that will cover a different segment of the
electromagnetic spectrum. NGJ increment one is designed for the
mid-band threat range, while NGJ increment two will be designed
to cover frequency ranges to counter emerging threats from low-
band radar systems.
The committee expects that funding already invested to
develop NGJ increment one capability likely resulted in product
development lessons learned that could be applied to implement
efficiencies and capabilities, which could reduce the overall
development cost of NGJ increment two capability. Furthermore,
the committee notes that the modular open-architecture design
of NGJ increment one should offer the Navy a significant
opportunity to benchmark capability that could be leveraged
into the design of NGJ increment two capability.
Littoral Combat Ship immersive virtual ship environment
The committee notes that the Littoral Combat Ships (LCS)
training and certification capability is a key enabler of the
reduced crew size. The Navy indicated that the LCS training is
based on a virtual ship-centric concept, accomplished through a
combination of classroom instruction, vendor training, shore-
based trainers, and sophisticated virtual reality training
systems. The committee notes that the original LCS training
design relied upon using an immersive, virtual ship environment
(IVSE) to replicate key training objectives and protocols for
both ship variants. The committee continues to support efforts
to fully employ such sophisticated training, particularly live-
virtual-constructive training, for the LCS fleet with the
objective of improving sailor performance through higher-
fidelity, effective training solutions.
Despite the broad acknowledgement of the value of this
approach to training, positive fleet feedback from the first
immersive course, and the existence of a contract vehicle to
support courseware development, the committee believes the Navy
has been slow to leverage this capability to address readiness.
The committee is concerned about the Navy's commitment to
addressing the LCS training environment. In light of ongoing
LCS operations and maintenance challenges, the committee
encourages the Navy to more fully utilize IVSE courseware.
Marine and hydrokinetic technology
The committee is aware of the U.S. Navy's vision in the 30-
year research and development plan for supporting energy
harvesting, undersea sensor nets, and unmanned underwater
vehicle operations. In order to conduct many of the development
and research projects planned by the Navy, the committee
recognizes the need to have sufficient infrastructure to not
only test, but also to do a broader range of experimentation,
prototyping, and development that will be necessary for future
naval capabilities. The committee encourages the Navy, in
coordination with its other Federal partners, to continue its
support for the development of marine and hydrokinetic
technologies, including research, testing, and demonstration of
maritime security systems, at-sea persistent surveillance and
communications systems, and unmanned undersea vehicle charging.
The committee believes that support from existing facilities,
such as the Navy's Wave Energy Test Site in Hawaii and other
research facilities that are supporting marine and hydrokinetic
energy systems technology development, will be critical to
developing the naval force of the future.
Marine Corps and Navy small unmanned aircraft system and capability
development
The committee supports the U.S. Marine Corps pursuit of
nano-sized vertical takeoff and landing small unmanned aircraft
systems at the squad level to help Marines in small units
enhance situational awareness. The committee notes that this
plan was further supported in the 2017 Marine Corps Land
Systems Investment Plan. For squad-level missions, pocket-sized
sensors provide soldiers with improved intelligence,
situational awareness, and enhanced targeting capability. The
committee understands that this technology has been
successfully demonstrated by the Army and allied militaries
during operations, and believes it holds promising potential
for Marine Corps operations. The committee is further aware
that the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council approved a
nano-sized and vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) small
unmanned aircraft system (SUAS) program.
The committee also recognizes that the Navy and Marine
Corps are taking advantage of and increasing reliance on the
many capabilities that SUAS have to offer. The committee
understands that computer vision and machine learning
algorithms have been used by other agencies of the federal
government for the past decade for various applications ranging
from face recognition to three-dimensional surface modeling.
Until recently, these algorithms have required significant
computational resources, and therefore, power consumption.
However, because of recent technological advancements, it is
now possible to place an embedded processor on a SUAS and
perform a number of computer vision tasks onboard. Technologies
developed by Small Business Innovative Research in the
specialty of object detection, tracking, and recognition have
high potential for addressing Department of Defense
intelligence community surveillance and reconnaissance
challenges. Automated object detection and tracking (AODT)
capability for SUAS platforms applied to airborne computer
vision technology have the potential to provide seamless,
secure, and scalable SUAS deployed systems in support our
Nation's surveillance and reconnaissance efforts.
The committee encourages the Navy and Marine Corps to
advance development and implementation of nano-sized VTOL SUAS
capability at the squad level, to include researching AODT
integration opportunities. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than December 15, 2017,
providing the status of the nano-sized and VTOL SUAS programs,
a detailed discussion of the technologies being reviewed, and
the acquisition strategy for potentially implementing this
capability into the Department of the Navy.
Marine Corps female body armor
The committee commends the Marine Corps for updating its
guidance for body armor sizes to better fit Marines at both
ends of the size distribution scale. Whereas before the
standard for body armor sizes was to cover Marines from the 5th
to 95th percentile in size, the new guidance goes further to
cover the 2nd to 98th percentile in order to provide better
form, fit, and function to a greater range of male and female
Marines. The committee also notes that the Marine Corps made
other changes to its plate carrier system to improve the fit
for both smaller and larger Marines. The committee understands
that the Marine Corps believes that this new sizing approach is
the best way to ensure female Marines have body armor that fits
properly. The committee supports these efforts.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
committee directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the committee outlining plans to provide personal
protective equipment (PPE) and organizational clothing and
individual equipment developed specifically for female service
members. The committee notes that this briefing was supposed to
be presented by March 1, 2017; however, the Department of
Defense requested additional time and now expects to deliver
the briefing in late June 2017. As such, the committee remains
concerned that the Marine Corps and the Army continue to take
different approaches to the development of PPE, to include body
armor, for female service members. Specifically, the committee
notes that the Army has fielded female improved outer tactical
vests, better designed female protective undergarments,
ballistic combat shirts, as well as requiring female variants
for the Torso and Extremity Protection System, as part of the
overall Soldier Protection System. While the committee
recognizes that both military services are trying to provide
the best possible protection to their service members, the
apparent disconnect on this issue is concerning. The committee
expects the Marine Corps to fully coordinate with the Army
regarding the Army's development of body armor and PPE to meet
specific female needs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commanding General,
Marine Corps Combat Development Command, in coordination with
the Principal Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, to participate
in the briefing, as required by H. Rept. 114-537, to address
the Marine Corps' views on the Army's female PPE efforts, as
well as the Marine Corps' position on the appropriateness of
adopting the Army's approach to PPE and body armor development
for female service members. The committee further directs that
the Secretary of Defense provide the briefing no later than
September 1, 2017.
Marine Corps Group 5 unmanned aircraft systems experimentation
initiative
The budget request included $8.0 million in PE 34240M for
advanced tactical unmanned systems, of which $5.0 million is
for development and capability requirements of the Marine Air
Ground Task Force Unmanned Aircraft System Expeditionary with
Vertical/Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing Group 5 UAS
capability (MUX).
The committee notes that these funds will allow for early
trade studies, analysis, experimentation, and concept
refinement for MUX capability, and that the MUX system's
initial capabilities document was approved in October 2016. The
committee is aware that the material development decision and
analysis of alternatives is also planned to start in fiscal
year 2018. The future MUX system concept is envisioned to be a
multi-mission, weaponized, shipboard capable, expeditionary
system that is runway independent for all weather, long-range,
and persistence operations from the sea in a contested
environment. The MUX effort will inform future program scope
and phasing for development of a MUX capability that is planned
to be part of a future program of record, supporting
Expeditionary Force 21 Operating Concepts.
The committee looks forward to engaging with the Marine
Corps as the MUX capability becomes more refined in the future.
The committee also encourages the Commandant of the Marine
Corps to proactively keep the committee apprised of concept
refinement and any developmental efforts regarding the MUX
capability.
The committee recommends $8.0 million, the amount of the
request, in PE 34240M for advanced tactical unmanned systems.
Maritime Strike Tomahawk
The budget request contained $133.6 million in PE 24229N
for Tomahawk mission planning and development. Of this amount,
$114.8 million was requested for the Maritime Strike Tomahawk
program.
The committee remains concerned about the Navy's ability to
relieve the back-loading of development funding for the
Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST) effort. The vision of the Navy
regarding the MST program implementation is to install the MST
components in missiles concurrently with the Tomahawk missile
recertification program. The committee supports this expanded
research and development of the MST capability and the
concurrent delivery of the MST effort with the Tomahawk
recertification process.
The committee recommends $123.8 million, an increase of
$9.0 million, in PE 24229N for the Maritime Strike Tomahawk
program.
Modification to independent review of F/A-18 physiological episodes and
corrective actions as required by section 237 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
Section 237 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (PL 114-328) required an independent review of
F/A-18 Physiological Episodes (PEs) and corrective actions. The
findings of the Independent Review are to be sent to the
congressional defense committees by December 1, 2017.
The committee notes that in June 2017 the Navy issued a
Comprehensive Review (CR) examining the facts, circumstances
and processes surrounding the recent PEs involving T-45 and FA-
18 aircrew, including recommendations for how best to address
this ongoing problem. The Committee notes with concern the CR's
finding that at least four deaths have been related to
incidents involving mishaps involving PEs over the past several
years.
Therefore, as part of the Independent Review required by
Section 237 of PL 114-328, the committee directs the Secretary
of the Navy to provide further information on the service's
effort to address this problem in the immediate and long term.
This information should include, but not be limited to,
addressing the findings and recommendations provided in the
June 2017 CR including the Navy's plans (including aircraft
design changes) to address the following:
(1) execution of a depot-level deep dive inspection of the
entire F/A-18 environmental control system and onboard oxygen
generation system, to include associated sub-components and
piping;
(2) replacement of the F/A-18 cockpit altimeter;
(3) redesign of F/A-18 aircraft life support systems as
required to meet onboard oxygen generation system input
specifications;
(4) development of comprehensive F/A-18 physiological event
resolution instrumented data plans including multi-media in-
flight audio/video recording;
(5) design of an F/A-18 automatic or semi-automatic
initiation of emergency oxygen;
(6) design of an F/A-18 automatic ground collision
avoidance system;
(7) designs for improved FA-18 physiological monitoring and
alerting systems;
(8) how all improvements to the F/A-18 aircraft will be
included in future F/A-18 production.
The information provided by the Secretary of the Navy
should also include an assessment of whether the Navy and the
Independent Review Team have the Resources necessary to carry
out its mission. Should resources be found to be insufficient,
the Secretary of the Navy shall include an estimate of what
resources are necessary.
MQ-25 Unmanned Air System
The committee notes that the MQ-25 Unmanned Air System
program is programmed to provide an air refueling capability.
The committee supports this unmanned air refueling capability
and believes that it is critical that the Navy integrate an
unmanned aerial vehicle into carrier aviation operations to
increase the striking power of carrier air wings.
However, the committee is concerned that while the MQ-25
program continues to leverage Unmanned Carrier-Launched
Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) requirements
justification, the most recent documentation that was sent to
industry did not include precision strike capability as a
requirement. The committee believes that the Navy may be
unnecessarily excluding a critical capability and precluding
future growth in a platform that will likely be integrated into
the carrier air wing for the next 30 years.
Finally, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees by March 1, 2018, on the Navy's carrier
based unmanned aircraft acquisition program(s), with specific
focus on the MQ-25 that takes into account the revised
capability development document. At a minimum the report should
include: (1) the extent to which the program(s) have
established cost, schedule, and performance goals, including
test, production, and fielding plans; and (2) an assessment of
program progress toward meeting those goals.
Naval energetic materials roadmap
The committee is aware that energetic materials, including
both explosives and propellants, are critical components to
Navy weapon systems and munitions. While the committee is aware
that Navy laboratories and engineering centers have been
involved in some research into energetic materials, the
committee is concerned that these investments have not been
strategic in scope or direction. Much of the ongoing work is
devoted to sustaining legacy formulations for energetic
materials, not investing in new or revolutionary propellants or
explosives.
Therefore, the committee believes that the Navy should
pursue a renaissance of its energetic materials enterprise and
directs the Secretary of the Navy to develop a long-term
science and technology roadmap for the development of energetic
materials, both explosives and propellants. In developing this
roadmap, the committee believes that Navy should consider the
identification of the long-term research opportunities for the
Navy for energetic materials; an assessment of the current
laboratory and engineering infrastructure to meet the needs of
this roadmap; and a resourcing strategy. The committee further
directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by March 2, 2018, on the
plan.
Passive rocket propelled grenade armor protection technology
The committee notes there have been significant
improvements in passive rocket propelled grenade (RPG) armor
protection over legacy RPG armor systems, which are heavy and
cumbersome, as well as present form, fit, and function
constraints, particularly for Marine Corps ground combat
tactical vehicle fleets operating in expeditionary
environments. The committee encourages the Secretary of the
Navy to consider lightweight RPG armor solutions that provide
protection against RPG attacks, while maintaining the ability
to fold flat against the vehicle to allow for rapid deployment
and transport from amphibious ships and aircraft.
Scalable energy and chemical conversion system
The committee supports continued research by the Office of
Naval Research into the development of a scalable energy and
chemical conversion system. The goal of this research and
development project is to convert small waste-energy sources,
such as landfill gas, animal digester gas, sewage treatment
plants, agricultural and forest product wastes, and wellhead
flare gas, into useful fuels and chemicals. The committee is
aware that a demonstration effort could take waste methane
emissions from a solid-waste landfill, clean and desulfurize
the methane, and then convert it catalytically into gasoline.
Once fully piloted, it is anticipated that such plants would
not only reduce or eliminate their fugitive methane emissions,
but also the methane captured could be converted into a useful
fuel with only a 2-year payback period before it becomes a
positive cost contributor to the overall waste collection and
disposal process. The committee encourages this research as a
way to potentially reduce fuel cost for the military, and
potentially address supply chain concerns in forward areas.
Torpedo defense
In 2010, the Chief of Naval Operations issued an urgent
operational need for a robust surface ship torpedo defense
(SSTD) system to address a range of torpedo threats facing the
Navy's high value units. In response, the Navy accelerated
research and development efforts of torpedo detection and
defense capabilities, resulting in the deployment of a towed
array sensor system and passive sonar signal processing,
automation, and tactical control system four years ahead of its
original schedule. Today, five systems with more than 20,000
operational hours are deployed on aircraft carriers, with
active sonar upgrades to be delivered for all systems in 2017.
In parallel, industry has continued to implement planned
technology upgrades, with Department of Defense officials
confirming that the most recent sea trial successfully
identified system achievements and further development
priorities.
The committee notes that these improvements have occurred
against the backdrop of increasing torpedo threats as other
nations become more aggressive in the maritime domain. While
the intended goal was to develop a full SSTD capability for a
program of record while supporting deployed systems, the
committee understands that accelerating the program in this
manner impacted funding originally planned for the program of
record development. The committee appreciates the Navy's plan
to use the results of the 2017 Quick Reaction Assessment (QRA)
to help inform and validate the size and scope of planned
future investments in this critical technology. While the
committee also supports the Navy's interim plan to fully fund
necessary upgrades to ensure the highest operational
availability and performance of currently deployed CVN systems,
the committee notes that the FY2018 SSTD budget request does
not provide full funding to achieve this goal, let alone enable
appropriate program planning and adjustments that may result
following a successful QRA. As such, the committee believes
that this capability is essential to support the fleet and will
continue to monitor this program.
In addition, the committee notes that through the SSTD
program, the Navy has expended significant resources to develop
advanced Torpedo Warning System (TWS) software and algorithms
for torpedo detection, classification and localization that
could be used to enhance torpedo warning capabilities on
surface ships, particularly combatants that carry a
MultiFunction Towed Array (MFTA). This expanded utilization of
the TWS capability aligns with the Navy's efforts to work
across domains to leverage existing systems and programs to
achieve efficiencies while addressing requirements effectively.
Therefore, the committee directs the Navy to provide a briefing
to the House Committee on Armed Services, no later than
November 1, 2017, on the ability to integrate applicable
surface ship torpedo defense technologies to support an
expanded range of ships and the results of the QRA and related
testing events. At a minimum, this briefing shall include an
in-depth analysis of: the current and foreseeable torpedo
threats facing surface combatants; requirements for a torpedo
defense capability on surface combatants; the applicability of
the Navy's existing test and operational data regarding the
torpedo defense system to surface combatants; and cost savings
that would be achieved by capitalizing on the integration of
mature SSTD capabilities on a broader range of surface ships.
Workforce management at Navy test ranges
The committee notes that Navy elements of the Major Range
and Test Facility Base (MRTFB) operate under the Navy Working
Capital Fund (WCF). As such, their workforce management should
be dictated by section 2208 of title 10, United States Code,
which allows for flexibility in decisions to expand the
workforce driven by the funded work coming in from other Navy
or government customers. However, other parts of the MRTFB,
which in the other military services do not operate in a WCF,
use a billeting system to manage the workforce. The committee
notes that such conflicting workforce management methods can
prove to be problematic when funding work across the MRTFB
enterprise. The committee is concerned that this uncertainty
may be posing challenges for planning at these Navy test
ranges.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by October 2, 2017, on the workforce management policies at
Navy MRTFBs, including any shortfalls in staffing, conflicts in
guidance between WCF organizations and MRTFB organizations, and
recommendations for improving hiring and talent management at
these facilities.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Air Force
Items of Special Interest
Adaptive engine transition program
The committee continues to support Department of the Air
Force efforts to mature technology and reduce the risk for the
adaptive cycle engine (ACE). The committee notes that the
Department of the Air Force has given official engine
designations to the two competing ACE concepts. The committee
also understands that significant accomplishments validated by
the Department of the Air Force include the designation of
technology readiness level six for the adaptive fan technology,
completion of a preliminary design for an ACE, and validation
of third stream cooling air operation for aircraft and engine
heat sink capacity. Accordingly, the committee believes that
both legacy and future aircraft can benefit from this
technology and capability.
Therefore, the committee recommends the full amount
requested in PE 64858F to continue the adaptive engine
transition program, and further encourages the Department of
the Air Force to continue to make the necessary investments in
these critical technology demonstrations and engine
developments to ensure achieving operational capability at the
earliest opportunity.
Advanced laser technologies for coating removal, surface restoration,
and repair
The committee recognizes the mission critical importance of
using cutting-edge technologies in Air Force service depots.
The committee notes that technologies such as advanced laser
coating removal, repair, and additive restoration of aircraft
skin made of metal and composite materials results in
significant increases in warfighter system readiness,
sustainability, better environmental outcomes, and cost
savings. By improving and upgrading laser technologies and
incorporating them into aircraft life cycle, depot, and field
programs, the Air Force has estimated a significant annual cost
savings across all airframes and other Air Force systems and
ground support equipment. Additionally, the Air Force has
estimated environmental hazards due to coating removal at
depots to be reduced by 50 percent through the use of laser
technologies. Therefore, the committee encourages the Product
Support Engineering Division in the Air Force Life Cycle
Management Center, in support of the Air Force depots, to
qualify and incorporate advanced laser technologies for de-
painting, restoration, and repair of aircraft surfaces for both
metal and composite surfaces.
Advanced pilot training program
As the Department of the Air Force continues to
recapitalize its combat aircraft with fifth generation fighters
and bombers, the committee is becoming increasingly concerned
with the T-38C's inability to safely and affordably train the
Department of the Air Force's incoming pilots. In the committee
report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the committee noted
that the average age of aircraft in the T-38C fleet is 50
years, with an average of over 16,000 flight hours on each
aircraft. As a result, the committee believes that the T-38 is
reaching the end of a safe and viable service life, and is
increasingly unable to provide the modern pilot training
required by the Department of the Air Force. The committee
notes that the APT program office is currently engaged in the
in-source selection phase to evaluate proposals received by the
submission deadline of March 30, 2017, and that contract award
is anticipated to occur late in 2017. Upon contract award, the
committee understands that the program will enter a limited
development phase to finalize and verify system design prior to
a production decision planned for fiscal year 2022. The
committee also understands that the Air Force plans to make a
full rate production decision and declare initial operating
capability in 2024. Further, the Department of the Air Force
plans to attain full operating capability of the APT system in
2034. The committee notes that the costs of sustaining the T-
38C fleet are growing even as aircraft availability is
decreasing, and that the T-38C was originally intended to
undergo replacement in the mid-1990s. Accordingly, the
committee continues to believe that any delay to the APT
program will place the Department of the Air Force combat
readiness at risk, and that maintaining or accelerating the
current APT program schedule is required to ensure safe and
effective training of Department of the Air Force combat
pilots.
Therefore, the committee recommends the full amount
requested in PE 64233F to continue the T-X program. The
committee also directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than January 15, 2018, on potential options to accelerate
the APT program, subsequent to contract award.
Air Force dual-mode missile testing and evaluation
The committee understands the Department of the Air Force's
plans to complete development and fielding of the GBU-53 Small
Diameter Bomb II (SDB II) weapon, with initial operational
capability on F-15E aircraft planned in fiscal year 2019. The
committee notes that the SDB II has a three mode sensor that
provides capability against many target sets in a variety of
conditions. The committee also notes that, based on the 2016
selected acquisition report to Congress, the average
procurement unit cost for the GBU-53 is approximately $140,000
per weapon. The committee supports continued development,
production, and fielding of the GBU-53.
However, the committee also encourages the Department of
the Air Force to look at less expensive dual-mode missiles
that, if proven effective and fielded in quantity, could help
increase precision munition stocks. In particular, the
committee is concerned that the Department of the Air Force may
struggle to meet anti-armor precision weapon stock requirements
in a U.S. European Command context. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Department of the Air Force to conduct
integration testing with any dual-mode, air-launched, anti-
armor missiles currently in production and available to the
Department of the Air Force, including the Brimstone missile
now in service with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or other
similar weapons.
Air Force test and evaluation support
The budget request contained $678.3 million in PE 65807F
for the Department of the Air Force. Of this amount, the budget
request contained $640.8 million for Department of the Air
Force test and evaluation support. The committee notes that
test facilities capabilities and resources operated through
this program include wind tunnels, rocket and jet engine test
cells, armament test ranges, civilian payroll, and contractor
services.
Department of the Air Force officials have informed the
committee that funding for test and evaluation support is about
$30.0 million below its historical norm, and that this funding
erosion has diminished the ability of the Air Force Test and
Evaluation (T&E) enterprise to support T&E of next generation
capabilities in the near-term. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $30.0 million for this purpose.
Additionally, the committee understands that due to late
resolution of a collective bargaining agreement for a test
range operations and maintenance contract, the determination of
required increases for pay and benefits did not occur in time
to be addressed in the fiscal year 2018 budget request. The
Department of the Air Force has informed the committee that the
shortfall amount is $2.4 million, and without these funds,
critical support to ongoing testing of weapons systems and
support for operational training activities would be in
jeopardy. To address this shortfall, the committee recommends
an increase of $2.4 million.
Finally, the committee understands that the Department of
the Air Force does not have a validated requirement for joint
threat emitters (JTEs) at all test ranges. However, the
committee believes that the installation of JTEs on all test
ranges would enhance tactical fighter pilot training,
particularly for pilots flying fifth generation aircraft at
nearby locations. Therefore, the committee encourages the
Department of the Air Force to reconsider its requirement for
JTEs at all test ranges.
In total, the committee recommends $710.7 million, an
increase of $32.4 million, in PE 65807F for Air Force test and
evaluation support.
Assessment of Air Force Test Center
The committee acknowledges the importance of the Air Force
Test Center (AFTC) and the invaluable developmental test and
evaluation (DT&E) of air, space, and cyber systems conducted
throughout the AFTC enterprise. The AFTC enterprise leverages
its 31 locations across the U.S., 100-plus aircraft, and a
workforce of 18,000 strong to carryout complex electronic
warfare testing, airframe and avionics testing, propulsion
testing, C4ISR testing, and weapons integration. The Committee
notes that through the AFTC the Air Force has successfully
tested equipment and aircraft in a realistic and cutting-edge
environment, ensuring the U.S. maintenance of airpower
superiority.
While the Committee believes that the AFTC should continue
to serve as the cornerstone of Air Force's test and evaluation
enterprise, the Committee understands that the AFTC faces
unique challenges in carrying out its mission. These challenges
include funding for critical sustainment, restoration, and
modernization of test capabilities; development and growth of
hypersonic infrastructure and testing capabilities; and
increasing workforce recruitment and retention. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report on
its assessment of these challenges and plans to address such
challenges to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2018.
Battlefield airborne communications node program
The committee notes that the battlefield airborne
communications node (BACN) system was initially developed to
meet an urgent warfighter need, and continues to provide
critical communications and information sharing capability
between disparate tactical data and voice networks in some of
the most challenging and important environments around the
world. The committee appreciates the Department of the Air
Force's efforts to establish a program of record, and
encourages continued progress towards this goal.
In addition, the committee encourages the Secretary of the
Air Force to continue the planning and establishment of a BACN
program of record while continuing to meet ongoing warfighter
requirements in theater. As part of the program's future, the
committee encourages the Secretary to begin system
modernization planning in support of anticipated future
requirements across multiple theaters to ensure that BACN
capability is maintained in the Department of the Air Force to
support joint operational communications, 5th Generation
communications, Combat Cloud, and data networking requirements.
Educational Partnership Agreements
The committee is aware that the Air Force performs a wide
range of advanced research and engineering in multi-
disciplinary design for unmanned air platforms. Further, the
committee recognizes that advanced modeling and design, as well
as quicker comparative analyses, are beneficial to this effort.
The committee believes that academia is well-suited to partner
with the Air Force on modeling, design, and comparative
analysis through the use of Educational Partnership Agreements,
which are mutually beneficial agreements that also may enhance
the Air Force's effort to recruit a diverse and educated
workforce. The committee encourages the Air Force to leverage
Educational Partnership Agreements for advanced research and
engineering for unmanned air platforms.
F135 aircraft engine component improvement program
The budget requested contained $32.3 million in PE 27268F
for the F135 aircraft engine component improvement program.
The committee notes that the F135 component improvement
program (CIP) provides the only source of critical sustaining
engineering support for this in-service propulsion system.
Engine CIP maintains flight safety, fixes in-service revealed
deficiencies, and improves system operational readiness and
reliability and maintainability (R&M) to reduce propulsion
system life-cycle cost and sustain the propulsion system
throughout the service life of the aircraft. With most F135
systems design and development funding ending in fiscal year
2018, CIP funding will be a critical part of efforts to
maintain single engine safety and support of the F-35 fleet.
The committee notes further that in 2015 the F135 CIP
successfully completed a full service life demonstration test,
and that the program continued in 2016 with an engine assembled
and delivered to test by the end of the year. In addition, the
program is now positioned with multiple tasks for design and
development which will contribute to the planned course of
reliability specification requirements. The committee believes
that continued funding of CIP will ensure that necessary
improvements can be properly fielded following planned task
design, development, and test validation.
The committee recommends $32.3 million, the full amount
requested, in PE 27268F for the F135 aircraft engine component
improvement program.
High-efficiency heat exchangers
High-efficiency heat exchangers are becoming increasingly
necessary for engines and aircraft, such as the F-35, that
generate more heat as more advanced capabilities, and thus
increased weight, are added to the platform. The committee is
aware that current thermal management systems (TMS) may be
limited by traditional manufacturing processes, and that
additive manufacturing is crucial to next-generation TMS.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Air Force to make
investments in additive manufactured TMS.
High-speed, anti-radiation missile targeting system pod block upgrade
program
The budget request contained $15.1 million in PE 27136F for
manned destructive suppression, but included no funds for a
high-speed, anti-radiation missile targeting system (HTS) pod
block upgrade program.
The HTS pod is currently the only reactive suppression of
enemy air defenses capability and enables the F-16 pilot to
detect, identify, and locate hostile ground-based emitters.
Additionally, the HTS pod provides the precise geo-location
capability necessary to employ precision-guided munitions to
destroy fixed and mobile enemy air defense systems.
The committee understands that component obsolescence
diminishes the availability of HTS pods, and that the
Department of the Air Force is currently managing this issue by
using a part-by-part replacement approach that will maintain
pod inventory, but will not increase the capability of the
system since any re-design efforts are limited to form-fit-
function constraints. The committee believes that this process
may result in more advanced and agile threat systems outpacing
the capability of the HTS pod. To address this issue, the
committee believes that development of a block upgrade program
would be a more efficient option to mitigate the impact of
obsolescence in a single development cycle, and to provide the
capability enhancements necessary to defeat future adversary
threat systems.
Therefore, the committee recommends $35.1 million, an
increase of $20.0 million, in PE 27136F for manned destructive
suppression to begin a block upgrade program for the HTS pod.
Hypoxia research collaboration
The budget request contained $245.9 million in PE 63115DHA
for medical technology development for promising candidate
solutions for defense medical challenges.
The committee recognizes the challenges posed to military
pilots from hypoxia, and notes the recent significant hypoxia
challenges with the Navy's F/A-18 Hornet and F/A-18 Super
Hornet fleets, and the grounding of Navy T-45C Goshawk training
aircraft. The committee believes that the Air Force should be
maintaining a robust aerospace research program focused on
hypoxia research to enhance human resiliency and performance
within extreme and variable cognitive and physical
environments. The committee also believes that deeper
relationships with universities and non-profit research
institutes can be a useful mechanism to deepen the bench of
expertise focused on these challenges. Finally, the committee
encourages the Air Force to work with the Navy as it designs
its research plans to ensure that hypoxia research efforts are
fully coordinated across the Department of Defense.
Therefore, the committee recommends $250.9 million, an
increase of $5.0 million, in PE 63115DHA to expand
collaboration on hypoxia research for the Air Force.
Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System Recapitalization
program
The committee is aware of the progress to date being made
by the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS)
Recapitalization program in the effort to replace the legacy E-
8C JSTARS platform. In accordance with the waiver authority
provided in section 223 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328), regarding the
limitation on availability of funds for the JSTARS
Recapitalization program, the committee notes that the
Secretary of Defense waived the congressional requirement to
have a firm-fixed-price contract structure for the engineering
and manufacturing development phase of the program. The
committee expects the Secretary of the Air Force to keep the
committee informed regarding the radar risk reduction effort,
eventual source-selection and contract award for the aircraft,
progress towards achieving a milestone B award. The committee
also expects to be informed regarding any efforts that could be
implemented to enable program acceleration without
inadvertently increasing program cost, schedule, or risk beyond
that are already planned for the program. Finally, the
committee supports the current acquisition strategy and
discourages any alteration to the strategy that would rely upon
the use of a private-sector lead systems integrator.
Light Attack Aircraft Experiment Report
The committee is aware that the Air Force is conducting a
Capability Assessment of Non-Developmental Light Attack
Platforms run by the Air Force Strategic Development Planning
and Experimentation Office with inexpensive, light attack
aircraft to determine what missions such aircraft could
perform, how well, and the efficacy of creating a `high/low'
aircraft capability mix within the Service. The committee
supports service-wide efforts to explore innovative solutions
that lower costs. The possibilities afforded by highly capable,
low-cost, and low cost-per-flying-hour aircraft include:
dramatically reducing the use of existing legacy and 5th
Generation aircraft in low-threat insurgency-type environments,
reducing the Service's yearly operations and support costs,
offering increased joint training opportunities with ground
forces, improving international partnerships and capacities,
and helping to solve pilot absorption issues by dramatically
increasing the amount of fighter mission flying time trained
pilots receive every month. The committee does not believe that
light attack aircraft can replace the high-end capabilities of
aircraft such as the A-10 or F-35. The committee notes that
these lower cost aircraft can be operated as supplement to, and
thereby maximizing the life of, these important aircraft for
the near-peer fight, were that to be necessary.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
submit a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by
December 31, 2017, on the results of the OA-X experiment. If
the Secretary has concluded that an OA-X program will
effectively complement the existing force structure, reduce
costs, and improve pilot training and proficiency, and that
such a program should proceed expeditiously, the Secretary is
encouraged to provide the Congress with a supplemental funding
request and acquisition plan.
Metals Affordability Initiative
The committee is pleased by the continuing work of the Air
Force Research Laboratory to decrease costs and weight of high-
performance metals for use in airframes, engines, and other
structures and devices through the Metals Affordability
Initiative. Technologies produced through this program have
aided many major weapons systems, including the F-35, C-130,
and legacy aircraft such as the F-15 and F-16. The committee
encourages the Air Force to continue the work of this
innovative public-private partnership.
Remote and stand-off detection of weapons of mass destruction threats
The budget request included $124.7 million in PE 62201F for
Aerospace Vehicle Technologies, but contained no funding for
technology development research for remote and stand-off
detection of weapons of mass destruction using remotely piloted
aircraft.
The committee encourages the Department of Defense and the
Air Force to leverage existing work to increase focus regarding
the development of weapons of mass destruction sensor
technology that could be potentially integrated on remotely
piloted aircraft. The committee understands that analyzing and
applying chemical plume tracking behavior could potentially
lead to opportunities to address current requirements for
improved detection and location of sources of chemical,
biological, radiological and nuclear targets, and recovery of
endangered personnel through the integration of this sensor
technology on remotely piloted aircraft.
The committee recommends $129.7 million, an increase of
$5.0 million, in PE 62201F to accelerate technology development
for remote and stand-off detection of weapons of mass
destruction using remotely piloted aircraft.
Reusable hypersonic vehicle structure
The committee is aware of the importance of hypersonic
research to future defense needs. The committee notes that the
Air Force has reinvigorated its work in this area, and in
conjunction with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,
has been exploring near-term weapons systems options. The Air
Force has also recently announced a new initiative to explore a
reusable hypersonic vehicle, which will require investments to
better characterize the materials properties, flight dynamics
properties, and vehicle and wing structure that might be
necessary for such a vehicle. The committee supports the goals
of the Air Force initiative, and encourages the use of a
consortium, including research universities, non-profit
research institutes, industry partners, and other government
laboratories, to focus on areas of thermal and mechanical load
predictions through the use of computational models validated
with limited hypersonic wind tunnel testing.
Robust electrical power system for aircraft
The budget request contained $104.5 million in PE 603216F
for the development and demonstration of electrical power,
thermal management, and distribution for aerospace
applications.
The committee recognizes the Air Force is highly focused on
developing directed energy weapons systems, both for aircraft
self-protection as well as to provide offensive capability for
future aircraft. In order to meet those goals, the Air Force
will not just need a lasing system and optics with the size and
weight to be incorporated into aircraft-sized systems, but it
will also need a power generation system that can meet all of
these new power demands in addition to all of the other
electrical and avionics subsystems on these aircraft. The
committee encourages the Air Force to focus developmental work
on the aerospace electrical power for lightweight and efficient
power technologies needed for those future aircraft concepts.
Therefore, the committee recommends $109.5 million, an
increase of $5.0 million, in PE 603216F to enable the design,
fabrication, and ability to test components in a ground
demonstrator to support a robust electrical power system for
future aircraft needs.
Technology transition efforts
The budget request contained $840.7 million in PE 604858F
for efforts to demonstrate technologies and concepts to
accelerate the transition to acquisition programs of record and
operational use.
The committee recognizes the need to provide more
opportunities to mature and demonstrate technology in order to
improve acquisition outcomes and get new technology in the
hands of the warfighter more rapidly. The committee also
recognizes that without some dedicated funding to help bridge
the ``valley of death'' between research efforts from the labs
and acquisition programs of record, the warfighter will
continue to be challenged with maintaining technological
superiority and keeping a qualitative technological advantage
over potential future adversaries. The committee encourages the
Air Force to continue using this program element line to
conduct large scale demonstrations, as well as to take greater
advantage of cost-matching with its industry, academic, and
other Government partners in order to support key technology
areas, like system performance modeling and simulation,
additive manufacturing, demonstrations, and rapid evaluation of
systems-of-systems prototypes.
Therefore, the committee recommends $850.7 million, an
increase of $10.0 million, in PE 604858F for cost-matched
technology transition efforts.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
Items of Special Interest
Accumulation of section 219 funds
The committee is aware that section 219 of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Public Law 110-417) provided new authorities to allow the
Department of Defense laboratories to set aside funds for
activities to improve the labs' ability to conduct defense
missions. That authority included the use of these funds for
some minor military construction projects that would help
alleviate the backlog in modernization needed to keep the labs
at the cutting edge of research. The provision was further
modified by section 262 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) to allow these
funds to be accumulated for up to 5 years.
However, the committee is aware that to date, no actions
have been taken to implement the new authority allowing the
accumulation of funds among any of the military services. While
there has been some discussion about difficulty in establishing
the accounting procedures to account for these funds, the
committee is not aware of any formal determination or
explanation of the reasons for not implementing this authority.
The committee is concerned that the Department, despite the
widespread support for these authorities among the Department
of Defense laboratories, has not provided sufficient attention
to this issue to work through any difficulties. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Secretaries of the military departments, to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by January
15, 2018, on the status and challenges of implementing
subsection (b)(3) of section 219 of Public Law 110-417,
including recommendations for actions that might support
implementation.
Additive manufactured parts
The committee is aware of the significant possibilities
that additive manufacturing, or 3-D printing, will provide to
the Department of Defense, both in revolutionizing the
industrial supply chain, as well as in providing radically new
technological capabilities. The ability to utilize new
materials in new ways, such as titanium or explosives, or to
develop new manufacturing processes, has the potential to
transform how the Department does business. The establishment
of new Defense Manufacturing Innovation Institutes, as well as
the growing prevalence of 3-D printers at tactical levels,
indicates the Department sees that potential as well. Additive
manufacturing could also greatly improve the organic industrial
base's ability to respond to demands that original equipment
manufacturers are unable to meet or to fabricate obsolete parts
that are no-longer manufactured.
The committee understands that an inhibitor to seeing the
full potential of this technology will be the need to do
quality assurance and validation of additive manufactured
parts, especially for those in flight or safety-critical
systems. Until the Department can develop the standards and
processes for assuring quality, 3-D printing will be limited in
its application. Also, substantial room remains across the
force to add more capacity for this capability, both to repair
out-of-date equipment and to speed repair in order to meet
urgent operational requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than December 1, 2017, on the Department's plans to
develop and improve additive manufacturing. The briefing shall
include the Department's plans to: develop military and quality
assurance standards as quickly as possible; leverage current
manufacturing institutes to conduct research in the validation
of quality standards for additive manufactured parts; and
further integrate additive manufacturing capabilities and
capacity into the Department's organic depots, arsenals, and
shipyards.
Briefing on improving overseas security from UAS threats and existing
authorities to use countermeasures
The committee is aware that servicemembers and operational
security are threatened by the global proliferation of unmanned
aerial systems. Adversaries ranging from ISIS to North Korea
have employed UAS of varying sophistication in capacities
including offensive operations and reconnaissance. Because of
the commercial availability of these systems, their relative
affordability and ease of use, this trend is likely to continue
into the future.
The committee is also aware of developments in counter-UAS
strategies which have the capability to reduce this threat.
Options range from sophisticated EW jamming technologies to
specially trained birds of prey, such as those used to protect
the May meeting of NATO leaders. The committee believes a
tiered approach to installation self-protection including
multiple defensive measures is ideal. However, the committee
notes the authorities employed to interdict UAS can vary
greatly by host country. Therefore, the committee requests a
briefing from the Secretary of Defense no later than September
30, 2017, on emerging technologies and techniques for counter-
UAS installation security and force protection at locations
with such requirements and any challenges to meeting
requirements due to host nation law, rules, and regulations.
Common Analytical Laboratory System
The Common Analytical Laboratory System (CALS) would
provide the U.S. military with a common platform across all the
military services for analyzing, diagnosing, and investigating
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) agents
at home station or when forward deployed. Currently, each
military service uses its own system requiring different
training across each platform and differing sustainment
resources and investments. The committee believes CALS will not
only provide increased capability for analyzing, diagnosing,
and investigating CBRN agents, but that commonality will also
result in costs savings and other efficiencies. Therefore, the
committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue its
investment in CALS.
Cyber Grand Challenge
The committee recognizes the value in researching, testing,
developing, and wargaming autonomous systems, artificial
intelligence, and cyber tools in order to enable the Department
of Defense with advanced systems and platforms. The committee
recognizes that the Cyber Grand Challenge conducted by the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is an excellent
example of such an engagement, in which the construct was
productive and the purpose was critical. It is imperative that
lessons learned from the Cyber Grand Challenge and other such
exercises are not forgotten and that the Department work to
incorporate the technology, lessons learned, and process into
future research, development, testing, and evaluation. The
committee encourages the Department to harness these lessons
and ensure increased collaboration with the operational cyber
mission forces as a way to get those emerging technologies into
the hands of the warfighter. The committee believes the
Department should continue to develop the technological
advances displayed at Cyber Grand Challenge, and to consider
incorporating these lessons, ideas, and challenge opportunities
into other exercises moving forward.
Defense genomics research and training
Given recent advancements in genetic engineering, synthetic
biology, and the genomic sciences, the committee is interested
in advancing the genomics work performed by the U.S. Army
Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) as
a way to more effectively identify, monitor, and potentially
counter emerging biological threats. The committee also notes
that current research and development efforts underway in the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency may offer collaborative opportunities
when combined with USAMRIID's expertise and institutional
knowledge. Therefore, the committee encourages a more robust
and rapid collaborative effort between these organizations
within the Department of Defense to more effectively deal with
emerging biological threats.
Department of Defense laboratories and engineering centers
The committee is aware that vital work is being conducted
at Department of Defense laboratories and research and
engineering centers, along with the laboratories of the
military services. The committee has previously noted its
concern about the state of research facilities, office space,
and other infrastructure at some of the Nation's premier labs.
That concern was reiterated in a January 2017 report from the
Defense Science Board, titled ``Defense Research Enterprise
Assessment.'' This report quantified the average age of
facilities being between 45-50 years, and ``found examples of
dysfunction regarding infrastructure planning and operation.''
Modern buildings, equipment, and other resources are vital
to ensuring that the military services stay at the cutting edge
of technology and are recruiting and retaining the most
talented scientific personnel, but are not adequately or
comprehensively addressed by laboratory, science and
technology, or military service leadership. Therefore, the
committee encourages the Department and other services to
prioritize recapitalizing, refurbishing, and otherwise
modernizing facilities at military service research
laboratories and research and engineering centers.
Deployable assured position, navigation, and timing systems
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
several urgent research and development efforts underway to
ensure that critical position, navigation, and timing (PNT)
systems remain effective into the future as part of an assured
PNT (A-PNT) program of record. The committee supports these
efforts and believes that the threat to PNT capability is
increasing and likely warrants an aggressive approach by the
Department to stay ahead of the problem. The committee notes
that the Army Rapid Capabilities Office is exploring a range of
potential A-PNT alternatives in which existing technologies
could efficiently meet near-term operational needs in the
European theater. As the A-PNT program of record continues to
progress, the committee expects that manufacturers of existing
technologies will have the opportunity to bid on A-PNT
contracts for the development of materiel solutions as part of
the program of record.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by September
1, 2017, that includes the following: a summary of the
Department's current programs related to assured PNT; the
current requirements for the programs in terms of size, weight,
power, resilience against kinetic and non-kinetic effects, and
other factors; the current schedule and cost estimates for such
programs; and any opportunities for potential acceleration of
these efforts.
Energy storage modules
The committee supports continued research and development
of directed energy weapons, including those capable of use on
high-altitude aircraft. In order to make that goal achievable,
the committee notes its concern surrounding the availability of
energy and pulsed power source for airborne directed energy
weapons. The committee is aware of significant advances in the
capabilities, size, and weight of new energy sources, such as
those that combine lithium-ion batteries with phase change
materials and an active heat transfer loop. The committee
believes that with further research, these activities could
develop enhancements to current technology that might include
reduced weight and volume; improved battery longevity; reduced
procurement, operations and maintenance, and sustainment costs;
significantly improved safety and survivability; increased
recharge as well as discharge rates; and robust and well-damped
thermal management process controls.
Enhancement of test and evaluation through modeling and simulation
The committee believes that advanced modeling and
simulation (M&S) can moderate the rising costs associated with
test and evaluation (T&E) of complex weapon systems. However,
the committee notes there is no indication that the Department
of Defense's T&E organizations are involved in any concentrated
effort to reduce the cost of T&E activities through a
coordinated M&S effort. The committee understands that
significant investments have been made by program offices in
M&S for their particular weapon system, and that some M&S is
primarily for training uses and are proprietary or specifically
designed for that weapon system. Therefore, these models cannot
be easily integrated together in a complete war fighting
fashion. The committee recommends that the Department
aggressively pursue initiatives, like establishing a
coordination group, to encourage the use of M&S more
effectively by the T&E community in development and operational
activities.
Explosive Ordnance Disposal equipment technology upgrades
The committee notes that conventional Explosive Ordnance
Disposal (EOD) units across the military services require
upgraded equipment and technology enhancements, particularly
for routine inspection and search activities. The committee
believes that conventional Joint Service EOD units would
benefit from rapid acquisition of EOD equipment, which have
high-definition resolution and encrypted signals, among other
upgraded capabilities. The committee understands that the
Department of Defense cancelled the Explosive Ordnance
Disposal/Low Intensity Conflict program element which formerly
developed and delivered Joint Service EOD advanced
capabilities. The committee understands the Combating Terrorism
Technology Support (CTTS) program will absorb this mission area
within the Improvised Defeat Device and Explosive
Countermeasures subgroup activity. The committee encourages the
Director of the CTTS program to prioritize funding toward
delivering advanced capabilities for conventional Joint-Service
EOD units.
Historically black colleges and universities and minority serving
institutions
The budget request contained $25.9 million in PE 61228D8Z
for research work with historically black colleges and
universities and minority serving institutions (HBCU/MSI).
The committee recognizes the important role this program
plays in bolstering the research capabilities and capacities at
HBCU/MSIs. Not only is such work important in meeting the
defense research needs of the Department of Defense, but the
committee also believes it provides an added benefit by
diversifying the supply of scientists, engineers, and
researchers working on defense problems. This diversity in
people also provides diversity in thought and approach that can
be immensely beneficial for research.
Section 233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) required the Department of
Defense to develop a strategy for improving engagement with
HBCU/MSIs. Among other things, this strategy outlined four
objectives, including:
(1) increasing efforts to include HBCU/MSIs in ongoing
research programs and activities for which institutions of
higher learning, in general, are the eligible entities;
(2) increasing the visibility of the Department of Defense
programs and activities among HBCU/MSIs and their students;
(3) re-emphasize the need to include HBCU/MSI faculty and
students in Department of Defense research activities; and
(4) ensuring HBCU/MSIs and their faculty and students are
mentored.
The committee applauds the Department for articulating a
clear strategy, and encourages the Department to develop a
scorecard for collecting and reporting metrics of success in
achieving the components of this strategy.
Therefore, the committee recommends $35.9 million, an
increase of $10.0 million, in PE 61228D8Z for additional
research between historically black colleges and universities
and minority serving institutions, as well and increased
teaming opportunities between these institutions and other
research universities with experience supporting defense needs.
Joint electronic warfare wargaming
The committee recognizes electronic warfare (EW)
capabilities are a critical enabler of the U.S. military, and
that the EW capabilities and countermeasures of our adversaries
threaten our military's advantage on the battlefield. The
committee believes effective and efficient management of joint
EW capabilities are an essential element of addressing trans-
regional, multi-functional, and multi-domain security
challenges across the spectrum of conflict, and supports the
Department of Defense's establishment of the Electronic Warfare
Executive Committee (EW EXCOM) in 2015, and the development of
an EW Strategy to that end.
However, the committee is concerned that the speed and
scope of progress on the strategy and joint development of
warfighting capabilities is not keeping pace with threats and
opportunities. The committee believes wargaming may provide an
opportunity to thoroughly understand the current preparedness
of the joint force to operate in a EW contested environment,
and such knowledge will contribute to the overall management of
joint EW capabilities and development of a strategy. Therefore,
the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to conduct an
EW wargame to model and evaluate the preparedness of the joint
force to operate in a contested environment based on current EW
capabilities modeled against a selection of approved war plans
and current intelligence estimates. The committee further
encourages the Department to consider focusing on the
challenges potentially posed by the Russian Federation or the
People's Republic of China as part of any wargaming scenario.
Joint U.S. Forces Korea Portal and Integrated Threat Recognition
program
The committee notes the recent increase in political
tensions on the Korean peninsula caused by the growing threat
of the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), and
recognizes the importance of the Joint U.S. Forces Korea Portal
and Integrated Threat Recognition (JUPITR) Advanced Technology
Demonstration (ATD). While threats posed by North Korea's
nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs remain paramount,
deterrence and defense requires a comprehensive strategy
against all WMD. JUPITR compliments this mission by providing
essential detection and identification of biological threats.
The committee recognizes the important role JUPITR plays in
the protection of U.S. Forces Korea and the defense of the
Republic of Korea. The committee encourages the Department of
Defense to take actions to accelerate and enhance the JUPITR
ATD and to establish an operational program of record for
fielding and operating suitable equipment to protect U.S.
Forces Korea from biological threats.
Latent and delayed-onset effects of traumatic brain injury
The committee is aware that traumatic brain injury (TBI)
disproportionately affects the warfighter and veterans, with
symptoms including memory loss, an inability to manage
emotions, impulsivity, and depression. However, due to the lack
of overt symptoms for many who suffer mild TBI or concussions,
service members may be left untreated or dismissed due to
delayed effects that may only manifest over time. The committee
commends the Department of Defense on its efforts to promote
research aimed at addressing symptoms of TBI in the acute
stages after injury and prevention of such injuries. However, a
key challenge facing the military is understanding how TBI
impacts the brain, both in the short-term and long-term, and
how to improve the function of the brain regions that have
escaped damage. Therefore, the committee encourages the
Department to continue its efforts and collaborate with public
and private partners to accelerate the development of
treatments for the latent and delayed-onset effects of TBI.
Light field display technology
The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Project
Research Agency funded and developed a working prototype of a
holographic display for real-time battle space visualization
through a program called the ``Urban Photonic Sandtable
Display.'' Subsequent efforts through Small Business Innovation
Research grants by the Department of the Navy, the Department
of the Army, and the Department of the Air Force have advanced
this technology to support warfighter situational awareness
requirements, including an enhanced glasses-free 3-Dimensional
common operating picture. The committee supports accelerated
development of this technology, including rapid transitions
into military service programs of record.
Low-power, long-endurance radar for force protection
The committee is aware that U.S. Special Operations Command
has developed an ultra-low-power, rapidly deployable field
radar to enhance force protection, surveillance, and
reconnaissance missions for small teams operating in austere
environments. This capability has also shown promise in
traditionally difficult areas, including riverine environments,
mountains terrain, and dense foliage. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Department of Defense and U.S. Special
Operations Command to continue to develop similar capabilities,
and to transition mature technology into a program of record
when appropriate.
Machine learning
The committee applauds the Department of Defense's focus on
machine learning in its Third Offset Strategy as a means of
enhancing the safety of the warfighter, lowering costs and
streamlining processes, and informing strategic decision
making. The committee is aware that the exponential growth in
data available globally, combined with evolving machine
learning techniques and growing computational resources, are
both an opportunity and a necessity. The committee recognizes
that countries that make effective use of these data sets and
tools will have strategic and tactical advantages over those
who do not. As such, the committee urges the Department of
Defense to continue to expand its exploration of commercial
machine learning offerings, and in particular, to consider the
promise of machine learning applied to non-traditional data
sets, including financial markets, the Internet of Things, and
global supply chains. These and other similar data sets
encapsulate the actions and decisions of wide swaths of the
world's population, and thus may provide enhanced situational
awareness, as well as anticipatory signals on future events
through crowd sourcing.
Medical simulation research
The committee is aware that medical simulation systems can
improve education, training, and skills development. While many
of the current simulator manikins used for practical, hands-on
training lack the tactile fidelity and accurate portrayal of
multiple biological and organ systems, these systems hold
greater promise in the future after further development and
validation. However, recent advances in computational power,
big data analytics, machine learning, and medical informatics
also indicate promise for new forms of medical simulation that
might be applied to other areas of clinical outcomes, including
clinical decision support.
The committee is encouraged by advances in both areas, and
believes the Department of Defense could do more to leverage
these technological advances to support medical training.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
January 19, 2018, on current investments in medical simulation
technology and research and Department-wide efforts to
incorporate simulated learning techniques in defense medical
training.
Non-lethal directed energy technologies
The committee supports the need to minimize collateral
damage, take all available avenues to reduce civilian
casualties, and prevent damage to infrastructure in engagements
abroad. The utilization of radio-frequency and microwave-based
non-lethal directed energy technologies provides many
opportunities in this regard. These technologies have matured
through the science and technology phase, and are already
employed by military service and combatant commands in the
operational environment across the globe, providing a
complementary asset and additional flexibility to the
warfighter and U.S. security forces. These technologies have
the capacity to stop ground vehicles, small vessels, and
unmanned aerial vehicles from infringing upon protected spaces,
or to deny access to secured facilities. The effects of these
technologies are entirely reversible. The committee, therefore,
encourages the Department of Defense to make greater efforts to
utilize these technologies where appropriate, and sustain these
integrated non-lethal directed energy technologies in order to
minimize risk to U.S. forces, noncombatants, and critical
infrastructure.
Overseas waste disposal technology development
Section 317 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) required the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and House of Representatives regarding the use of
open-air burn pits. The report submitted by the Secretary
stated that ``the introduction of incinerators, plus other
thermal (to include waste-to-energy) and non-thermal waste
disposal options, are intended to eventually displace the use
of burn pits.'' The report concluded, ``The Department of
Defense must continue to explore viable technical solutions for
waste reduction and waste disposal in all categories--solid,
medical, and hazardous--and then make such solutions available
through easily acquired commercial or Department of Defense
provided equipment.''
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a briefing to
the House Committee on Armed Services by November 15, 2017,
that provides an update on the progress made toward achieving
the goals stated in the report required by section 317 of
Public Law 111-84, as well as an update regarding how the
Department is implementing lessons learned regarding waste-
disposal technologies in overseas contingency operations.
Pilot program on modernization and fielding of electromagnetic spectrum
warfare systems and electronic warfare capabilities
The committee notes that Section 234 of the Fiscal Year
2017 NDAA established a pilot program on modernization of
electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) warfare systems and electronic
warfare (EW) systems. This program was written to provide the
Secretary of Defense with flexibility in the use of
appropriated funds, with the ultimate goal of developing and
fielding more modern capabilities. As an example, some aircraft
are currently operating with jammers and radar warning
receivers developed in the 1980s which would be ideal
candidates for inclusion in the pilot program. By using the
authority granted in Section 234, the Department of Defense
could then use appropriated sustainment funds to modernize
these systems, delivering improved capability to the warfighter
without additional appropriations. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to deliver a report to the House Armed
Services Committee no later than December 31, 2017 on
implementation of the Section 234 pilot program, to include
which EMS warfare and EW systems have been selected and any
challenges encountered in modernization of these systems.
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
The committee acknowledges science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) educated personnel are
required for a significant portion of the Department of Defense
workforce. Personnel with STEM degrees are especially important
to the viability of the science and technology workforce now
and in the future, including at national labs. The committee
believes it is important that the Department of Defense grow
the next generation of scientists and researchers to contribute
to national defense and technology through funding STEM
education programs and collaboration with academia.
Small turbine engines
The committee recognizes the importance of low cost turbine
engines in powering munitions and unmanned aerial vehicles that
support operations in the various combatant command areas of
responsibility, and is aware that technology for high-
efficiency, low-cost systems may be available. Low-cost is
driven by competition, as well as small business participation.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Department of Defense
to adequately resource efforts to identify low-cost, small
engine technologies capable of powering missiles and unmanned
aerial vehicles, and directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a briefing to
the Senate Armed Services Committee and House Armed Services
Committee by September 1, 2018, on current research and
development efforts and the industrial base which supports this
area.
Space-based debris remediation in Low Earth Orbit
The committee is concerned about the increasing challenges
of space debris and growing risk to defense and other
satellites. The committee thereby directs the Director of the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to assess the
viability of space-based debris remediation in Low Earth Orbit
(LEO), and also whether such system could be used for
additional purposes, including space situational awareness. The
committee believes that remediation of debris smaller than what
can currently be detected and tracked may help prevent
catastrophic conjunctions and preserve orbital regimes for
future operations.
The committee directs DARPA to provide a briefing to the
House and Senate Armed Services Committees no later than
January 15, 2018 on the results of the assessment.
Sterilization and inspection of medical instruments
The committee is aware that a new class of small diameter,
near-field inspection scopes and infection control systems,
designed to provide ready access to and imaging of the interior
chambers and working channels of medical and surgical devices
and endoscopes, have been developed, and are commercially
available on a competitive basis. The detailed inspection and
focused sterilization they provide may be the most efficient
and effective way to ensure that medical devices are safe when
used on patients and compliant with the Association for the
Advancement of Medical Instrumentation and American National
Standards Institutes standards for surgical instrumentation
sterilization. The committee is aware such advancements in
technology would be beneficial to Department of Defense medical
facilities, especially in forward deployed surgery centers.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Health Affairs, in coordination with the Surgeon
Generals of the military departments, to explore deployment of
these modern infection control systems.
Success metrics of the Defense Innovation Unit Experiment (DIUx)
The committee is aware of the Department of Defense's
efforts to increase outreach to and collaboration with sources
of commercial innovation throughout the United States. The
committee is also aware that there is discussion about
reorganizing the innovation organizations in the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD). The establishment of an Under
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering under Section
901 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017 (Public Law 114-328) would elevate the innovation function
within the Department and provide a critical mass for all of
the technology innovation functions within OSD, much like a
Chief Innovation Office or a Chief Technology Officer would in
a private sector organization. The committee recommends the
Department look at the organization and functions of the
Defense Innovation Unit Experiment (DIUx) as part of that
holistic review, and encourages the Department to consider
placing this organization under this new Under Secretary.
Further, the committee appreciates the DIUx report, dated
January 16, 2016, which was submitted in response to
requirements in the FY17 NDAA. However, additional information
is necessary in order to fully evaluate the effectiveness of
DIUx under the listed metrics. Lack of reporting on the metrics
impacts the committee's ability to fully evaluate and
understand if the DIUx program is meeting its mission of
accelerating innovation to the warfighter.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit to the congressional defense committees a report not
later than March 1, 2018, on how DIUx activities will be
sufficiently tied into the broader activities of the Department
of Defense, including incorporating lessons learned to
alleviate the systematic problems with technology access and
timely contract execution. The report shall also contain
results of DIUx's metrics of success, by year since DIUx
establishment, that include complete data on the following:
(1) number of innovations delivered into the hands of the
warfighter;
(2) return on investment for all DIUx projects, including
both ``demonstration effect'' and incorporation of piloted
technology if applicable;
(3) whether DOD access to technology leaders has increased
as a result of DIUx, with specific examples;
(4) number of non-traditional companies doing business with
DOD as a result of DIUx
(5) whether other DOD components have elected to adopt DIUx
practices, with specific examples.
The report shall also include information on:
(1) how the Department plans to integrate, field and
sustain capabilities acquired through the private sector to
ensure maximum utility and value to the department through a
capability's lifecycle; and
(2) how the Department is notifying its internal components
about participation in DIUx.
System for reviewing and monitoring industrial base transactions
The budget request contained $10.9 million in PE 67210D8Z
for industrial base analysis and sustainment support.
The committee is aware that the challenge of monitoring and
analyzing foreign investments into the defense industrial base,
including everything from mergers, acquisitions, joint
ventures, strategic partnerships, and other transfers of
intellectual property, is taxing the capabilities of the
Department of Defense. Not only are the types of transactions
becoming more opaque, but the use of tactics specifically to
circumvent traditional regulatory mechanisms are making the
situation increasingly difficult to identify and assess within
a complex business environment. Recent reports in the news, as
well as briefings to the committee, indicate a shortfall in our
capabilities, especially for decision support systems to allow
a limited number of highly trained analysts to be proactive and
inform pending industrial base decisions before irreversible
mergers or acquisitions are made. The committee believes that
the Department should devote more resources to monitoring this
complex business environment, utilizing both automated decision
support systems, as well as use of more analysts to assess and
make recommendations.
Therefore, the committee recommends $15.9 million, an
increase of $5.0 million, in PE 67210D8Z for the development of
an information technology systems to support the review and
monitoring of industrial base transactions, especially those
involving foreign transactions, as well as for additional
analytical support.
Training ranges for electronic warfare experimentation
The committee is aware that electronic warfare is a field
where the technology is undergoing rapid changes, based on both
commercial pressures as well as tactical innovation on
battlefields around the world. The resurgence of focus on this
technical area is also a challenge to the Department of
Defense, which must ensure that these new and quickly evolving
capabilities can be adequately tested, trained with, and
defended against. It also demands the capability to rapidly
experiment with both new technologies and new concepts to
deliver capabilities to the warfighter that are relevant and
effective. In order to do that, the Department needs to ensure
it has sufficient range capabilities and space to perform
important training. Therefore, the committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to review the efficacy of existing ranges
for experimentation and testing of advanced electronic warfare
technology and capability, as well as whether there is a need
to increase investment and develop new approaches to testing,
training, and experimentation for electronic warfare systems.
Trusted microelectronics supply
The committee recognizes that microelectronics technology
provides critical capabilities in Department of Defense, other
Government organizations' systems, and the commercial
marketplace. The committee is also aware that that the U.S.
microelectronics industrial base faces global competitive
challenges, including from foreign competitors that receive
substantial support from their government. A recent report from
the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) titled, ``Report to the President Ensurin Long-Term
U.S. Leadership in Semiconductors'' highlighted many of these
challenges, including:
(1) a concerted push by the People's Republic of China to
reshape the semiconductor industry in its favor, using
industrial policy backed by over $100.0 billion dollars in
government-directed funds, that threatens the competitiveness
of U.S. industry;
(2) any presumption that existing market forces alone will
yield optimal outcomes, particularly when faced with
substantial industrial policies from other countries, is
unwarranted;
(3) policy can slow the diffusion of technology, but it
cannot stop its spread. The only way to retain leadership is to
outpace the competition; and
(4) the United States should act in the short-term to
reduce the market-distorting behavior of Chinese policy by
increasing transparency on Chinese actions; working with allies
to coordinate and strengthen inward investment security and
export control, and to respond firmly and consistently to
Chinese violations of international agreements.
Further, the committee notes that the Department's current
approach to ensure trusted microelectronics supply is
characterized by a narrow definition for trust-only applicable
to application-specific integrated circuits, but not to other
classes of circuits like field programmable gate arrays. The
committee supported the requirement in section 231 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328) for a strategy for assured access to
microelectronics that would address this definition for trust,
as well as ensure there is comprehensive thought on the
acquisition and industrial base concerns related to
microelectronics. As the Department develops and codifies that
strategy, the committee encourages a thorough review all of the
Department's related guidance and instructions, to include a
more comprehensive definition of the items requiring a trust
policy, as well as ensuring that appropriate language is
included in relevant solicitations and contracts for applicable
systems.
U.S. Special Operations Command SOFWERX initiative
The committee notes that the SOFWERX initiative within U.S.
Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has taken on several
innovative projects that encourage collaboration between the
private sector, and other Government agencies and organizations
such as the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, Defense
Innovation Unit Experimental, and science and technology
efforts within the military services.
The committee encourages these practices, specifically the
continuation of the 1208 Rapid Prototyping Event (RPE) with its
potential for cost efficiencies. RPE verified that the
technology exists to supplement the 1208 counterterrorism
authority in section 127e of title 10, United States Code, by
equipping partner forces with commercial equipment in a cost
effective manner. In a similar fashion, the committee also
encourages USSOCOM and SOFWERX to advance the application of
disruptive emerging technologies, including nano-technology,
additive manufacturing, quantum computing, artificial
intelligence, robotics, and the convergence of each, in
fulfilling immediate and emerging special operations forces'
requirements. The committee also encourages the military
services to continue to monitor developments within this
framework to leverage work being done through SOFWERX.
Weapons and munitions science and technology roadmap
The committee recognizes that Department of Defense
investments in science and technology (S&T) to counter emerging
threats should be reflected in the science and technology
portfolio and understands that the exigencies of ongoing
operations required a focus on improving our systems for
uncontested or asymmetrically contested environments. As a
result, advances in weapons and munitions have received less
attention in recent years. At the same time, potential
adversaries have made advances in platforms, missiles, long-
range guns, new propellants, and explosive combinations that
could threaten U.S. forces and frustrate U.S. efforts at
forcible entry into contested areas. The committee believes the
Department must concentrate on developing new generations of
weapons and munitions to counter those threats.
Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to
develop a focused weapons and munitions science and technology
roadmap to comprehensively guide investment needs for this
area. In developing this roadmap, the Secretary should address
the following:
(1) how have recent wargaming scenarios and exercises been
used to identify key needs;
(2) how have the integrated priorities lists of the
combatant commands articulated their needs for new munitions
types and delivery systems;
(3) how are current S&T efforts aligned with these needs;
and
(4) are there shortfalls in resources or capacity to
address these needs.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize appropriations for research,
development, test, and evaluation at the levels identified in
section 4201 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 211--Cost Controls for Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization
Program
This section would fix the requirements for Presidential
Aircraft Replacement (PAR) Program aircraft to those identified
by the systems requirements document (SRD) for the Presidential
aircraft recapitalization program version 7.0 dated December
14, 2016. This section would also limit changes to PAR
requirements to only those approved by the Secretary of the Air
Force following a written determination provided to the
congressional defense committees that the change is necessary.
This section would require that not less than 50 percent of the
total amount of funds obligated or expended for contracts for
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) under the PAR
Program shall be for fixed price type contracts. This section
would authorize contracts other than fixed price type contracts
for EMD only if such contract type is approved by the service
acquisition executive. This section would also require the
Secretary of the Air Force to provide quarterly briefings to
the House Committee on Armed Services beginning no later than
October 1, 2017 and continuing through October 1, 2022 on the
efforts to control costs. The quarterly updates shall include
the following:
(1) schedule overview;
(2) contract type and status;
(3) development status;
(4) modification status;
(5) test status;
(6) delivery status; and
(7) sustainment status.
Section 212--Capital Investment Authority
This section would amend section 2208(k)(2) of title 10,
United States Code, to raise the limit on capital purchases
from defense working capital funds from $0.25 million to $0.5
million.
Section 213--Modification of Authority To Award Prizes for Advanced
Technology Achievements
This section would amend section 2374a of title 10, United
States Code, to make permanent the Secretary of Defense's
authority to award prizes for advanced technology achievements,
to allow for the award of non-monetary awards, and to authorize
the acceptance of non-monetary items from other parts of the
Federal Government, from State government, and from non-
governmental sources.
Section 214--Critical Technologies for Columbia Class Submarine
This section would deem certain Columbia-class ballistic
missile submarine components as critical technologies.
Section 215--Joint Hypersonics Transition Office
This section would re-designate the ``Joint Technology
Office on Hypersonics''' as the ``Joint Hypersonics Transition
Office,'' with the responsibility to coordinate and integrate
programs, ensure coordination of current and future programs of
the Department of Defense on hypersonics, and approve
demonstrations.
Section 216--Hypersonic Airbreathing Weapons Capabilities
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to
transfer oversight and management of the Hypersonic
Airbreathing Weapons Concept from the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency to an entity of the Air Force.
Section 217--Limitation on Availability of Funds for MQ-25 Unmanned Air
System
This section would allow only 75 percent of the funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made
available for fiscal year 2018 for the MQ-25 unmanned air
system to be obligated or expended until a period of 60 days
has passed after the date on which the Secretary of the Navy
certifies that the MQ-25 meets a validated capability gap; the
Chief of Naval Operations has reviewed and approved the initial
capabilities document (ICD) and the capability development
document (CDD); and the ICD and CDD have been submitted to the
congressional defense committees.
This section would also require the Assistant Secretary of
the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees that includes
key performance parameters, certification of performance
parameters' achievement, as well as a description of
requirements with respect to fuel transfer, equipment for
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, electronic
attack and electronic protection, communications equipment,
weapons payload, range, mission endurance for unrefueled and
aerial refueled operations, affordability, survivability, and
interoperability.
Section 218--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Contract Writing
Systems
This section would limit the amount of authorized funds
available to be obligated or expended to not more than 75
percent for specified contract writing systems until the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries of
the military departments, provides an assessment of the common
requirements and potential use of shared information technology
(IT) services as a means to provide that capability in a
common, interoperable, and more cost effective manner.
The committee remains concerned that the Department of
Defense continues to invest billions of dollars in systems that
fail to provide integrated business solutions, timely and
reliable information, and other important financial and
business information for the daily operations of the military.
In fiscal year 2015, the Defense Business Council approved
certification requests totaling $6.9 billion for 1,182 business
systems. Of these, more than 30 are service or component unique
contracting, procurement, and solicitation management systems.
While this ongoing redundancy diverts available funding from
direct warfighting capability and decreases the Department's
ability to manage its operations as an enterprise, the
Department has made little progress in consolidating such
business systems.
Furthermore, the committee notes that the Government
Accountability Office has repeatedly reported that the
Department could achieve greater efficiency in defense business
operations, including directing 49 related recommendations to
the Department in 2011, 38 of which remain open and unresolved.
The committee believes that more focus on implementing shared
IT services may be helpful in overcoming the longstanding
cultural barriers that continue to prevent more enterprise-wide
management of defense business systems. It would also support
the goal of the Secretary of Defense, as stated in his
memorandum dated January 31, 2017, to achieve ``horizontal
integration across DOD components to improve efficiency and
take advantage of economies of scale.'' As an example of where
such efficiencies could be taken, the committee notes with
skepticism the existence of multiple service and agency unique
contract writing systems. The committee recommends the
inclusion of this section to better understand the risks
associated with eliminating or consolidating such systems and
will rely on the information provided in assessing future
support for such systems.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Budget Request Adjustments
Advanced Adversarial Air Training
The budget request included $516.8 million for advanced
adversarial air training. The committee noted in section 350 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328) its concern that advanced tactical air
training and advanced adversarial air training has diminished
significantly over the past 20 years, at a time when foreign
air forces are growing in technical capability and their pilots
are growing in proficiency. The committee has assessed that
maintenance of combat aircraft will not, in and of itself,
restore combat efficiency to U.S. flight crews or their
squadrons. The committee notes that senior leaders in the
military services understand this and have sought to increase
advanced flight training and to restore adversarial air
training as integral to combat pilot proficiency. The committee
also understands that, due to the cost of operating frontline
aircraft and the need to train pilots in their primary roles
with these aircraft, it is most beneficial to use capable
aircraft of older vintage to perform adversarial air training
and to contract out the adversarial air mission to former
flight instructors and combat pilots in order to save finite
hours of life limits to frontline aircraft, costs of
adversarial air training, and to help address the 40,000 hours-
per-year shortfall in adversary air training. The committee
endorses the movement by the services to integrate these
capabilities into their training regimens and recognizes the 1-
year budget programming lag resulting in insufficient funds
being requested in the fiscal year 2018 budget request.
Therefore, the committee recommends $527.0 million, an
increase of $10.2 million, in Operation and Maintenance, Air
Force, for contractor support for advanced adversarial air
training.
Civil Air Patrol
The budget request included $26.7 million in Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force, for the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) to
execute support to Federal agencies and State and local
communities. The committee recommends $29.8 million, an
increase of $3.1 million, in Operation and Maintenance, Air
Force, to allow the CAP to comply with the mandate by the
Federal Aviation Administration to install the Automatic
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) system across the CAP
aircraft fleet, replace non-repairable radios used for
emergency response search-and-rescue and disaster-relief
missions, and implement cyber security upgrades to critical
mission systems.
Ship Repair in the Western Pacific
The budget request included no funds for providing
additional dry-docking capability in the western Pacific
theater. A business-case analysis commissioned by the U.S.
Pacific Fleet indicated a savings to the U.S. Navy by
maintaining a dry dock on the Territory of Guam. The Asia-
Pacific rebalance has increased Navy forward deployment in the
Western Pacific, including the deployment of a fourth attack
submarine and a second submarine tender to Naval Base Guam.
However, depot-level maintenance capabilities have not
followed, and current Pacific U.S. dry-docking maintenance
capabilities exist only in Hawaii and the west coast of the
continental United States, requiring surface and subsurface
vessels to be removed from the theater and from Pacific Fleet's
strategic inventory for an additional 2-3 weeks. Further, the
interport differentials, temporary duty costs, and impact on
families are significant added costs to these repairs. The only
other dry-docking options remain outside of the United States,
requiring that U.S. naval vessels receive significant repairs
using foreign labor and technology, potentially compromising
the quality of work as well as national security interests. The
committee, therefore, recommends an increase of $9.5 million in
Operation and Maintenance, Navy, Ship Depot Maintenance, for
the chartering of a dry dock to meet maintenance requirement
for the western Pacific Fleet.
Energy Issues
Energy Resiliency for Mission Assurance
The committee continues to believe that the Department of
Defense must have the ability to sustain mission-critical
operations during utility disruptions at its installations. The
committee notes that the Department has placed a large emphasis
on energy infrastructure investments that may reduce energy
demand and provide a financial return on investment. While the
committee is supportive of these efforts, the committee is
concerned that more emphasis is required on investments that
reduce mission risk by increasing energy resiliency through on-
installation energy generation, transmission, distribution, and
storage. To that end, section 2805 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328)
expanded the authority of the Energy Conservation Investment
Program (ECIP) to include energy resiliency projects. The
committee encourages the Department to take further action,
both through ECIP and other energy initiatives pursued through
other authorities, to fully integrate energy resiliency with
military value into their energy investment programs.
Energy Resilience of Overseas Military Installations
As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee continues
to assert that the Department of Defense must have the ability
to sustain operations during energy supply disruptions,
especially in the case of overseas military locations that rely
on foreign-sourced energy. For example, the committee notes
that a number of European countries that host permanent and
rotational U.S. Armed Forces rely extensively on natural gas
and oil from the Russian Federation. The committee believes
that a policy of energy reliance through diversification is
critical to maintaining a resilient U.S. overseas defense
posture and presence.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by March 1, 2018, on potential vulnerabilities to energy supply
disruptions at overseas locations that host permanent and
rotational U.S. Armed Forces and on mitigation efforts aimed at
protecting mission resiliency. The briefing must, at a minimum,
assess the operational risk of energy supply disruptions,
identify mitigation measures to sustain mission-critical
operations, and assess the feasibility and cost and schedule
impacts of including diversified energy solutions for future
overseas military construction projects.
Logistics and Sustainment Issues
Army Contracting Command Reachback Functions
The committee understands the Army Contracting Command has
a policy by which contracting elements at Army installations
are required to forward all contracts governing awards valued
at more than $750,000 to their regional service centers for
resolution with the stated goals of improved continuity of
workflow and the potential for more efficiencies. Despite this,
the committee is aware of anecdotal evidence that it is not
having the desired effect and is creating inefficiencies.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by October 2, 2017, on Army Contracting Command Reachback to
include:
(1) The number of contracting actions that have been sent
to the various Reachback groups across the contracting
enterprise since the start of the Reachback program;
(2) The percentage of contracting actions that were awarded
on time;
(3) Detailed impacts to installations due to late award of
contracts;
(4) The amount of cost savings realized attributed to the
Reachback program, specifically, administrative savings; and
(5) The amount of personnel reductions at each local
contracting unit.
Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives for the Military
Departments
The committee continues to be concerned that the military
departments have not adequately addressed corrosion control and
prevention in the military departments' sustainment plans for
weapon systems. The committee believes that corrosion control
and prevention must be addressed early in system design. To
facilitate education, awareness, and prioritization of
corrosion control and prevention, section 903 of the Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(Public Law 110-417) required each military department to
identify a corrosion control prevention executive (CCPE). The
committee has observed that the CCPEs are most effective when
they have the time and seniority to manage corrosion control
policy and resources across the military department, consistent
with the requirements of section 903 of Public Law 110-417. The
committee believes the Departments of the Navy and the Air
Force have been most effective in corrosion control and
prevention and notes they have assigned individuals whose
primary responsibility is to perform the functions of the CCPE.
The committee also notes that the Department of the Army has
used a different model and implemented the requirements of
section 903 of Public Law 110-417 by appointing a Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology as the CCPE and having action-officer level
individuals assist in those duties.
The committee directs the Secretaries of the military
departments to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services, not later than September 30, 2017, on the steps
the military departments have taken to comply with section 903
of Public Law 110-417. The briefing should describe the service
corrosion executives' technical qualifications, duties, and
responsibilities, including coordination with the Department of
Defense Director of Corrosion Policy and Oversight and
formulation of service-level guidance and policy regarding
corrosion control and prevention as part of the development,
procurement, and sustainment of the military services' weapon
systems and infrastructure. Finally, the briefing should
include the Secretaries' assessments as to the effectiveness of
their corrosion control and prevention policies and the extent
to which the CCPEs are taking steps to improve prioritization
of this issue early in the planning of weapon systems.
Improving Asset Tracking and In-Transit Visibility
The committee is supportive of the Department of Defense's
ongoing efforts to improve asset tracking and in-transit
visibility. The committee supports the goal of enhancing asset
visibility through item-unique identification (IUID) and
automatic identification technology/automatic identification
and data capture processes because this initiative can help
improve readiness, reduce waste, and increase oversight.
However, the committee remains concerned with the Department's
compliance with its own IUID policy as issued in 2015 in
Department of Defense Instruction 8320.04 and believes that
writing requirements into contracts fosters compliance with the
IUID policy. The committee is also concerned that a briefing
requirement on this subject from the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 has not yet been
delivered, and expects to receive this briefing in a timely
manner. Additionally, the committee directs the Director of the
Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) to brief the
committee not later than December 1, 2017, on the DCMA's plan
to foster the adoption, implementation, and verification of the
revised IUID policy across the Department and the defense
industrial base.
Inventory Management and Demand Planning Software Pilot Program
The committee is aware that the Army completed a small test
program using commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software on 27
various Army Black Hawk helicopter parts. This small-sample
study showed significant cost savings and increased readiness
when leveraging the Army's enterprise resource planning system,
the Logistics Modernization Program (LMP), to manage inventory,
particularly unserviceable assets. The committee remains
interested in not only the cost savings and readiness increases
found in the Army's Black Hawk inventory management, demand
planning, and readiness-based sparing software application to
LMP, but also cost savings and readiness increases if the Army
were to apply this tool across Army Materiel Command's (AMC's)
spare parts management portfolio.
The committee also seeks information on Naval Sea Systems
Command's (NAVSEA's) views regarding the benefits of COTS
product lifecycle management software to help with its growing
challenge in managing its critical databases across the NAVSEA
enterprise. Currently, two NAVSEA databases, the Naval Ships
Engineering Drawing Repository (NSEDR) and the Naval Logistics
Technical Data (NAVLOGTD), are growing faster than the
antiquated and expensive system that manages them can handle.
The committee directs the commander of Army Materiel
Command and the commander of Naval Sea Systems Command to
provide briefings to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than February 7, 2018, on separate initial assessments of
following:
(1) the extent to which AMC explored the use of COTS
software as an add-on to LMP to improve its spare parts and
inventory control management;
(2) the extent to which NAVSEA has explored the use of COTS
product lifecycle management software to improve managing its
NSEDR and NAVLOGTD databases; and
(3) the extent to which AMC and NAVSEA have found cost
savings and readiness improvements for their programs by using
this software and believe these cost savings and readiness
increases could be expanded.
Joint Minimum Standards for Protective Covers
The committee recognizes and supports the military
departments and the Office of the Secretary of Defense's
efforts to identify and address the adverse readiness impacts
of exposing critical military equipment to corrosive
environmental conditions. However, the committee is concerned
that there is no minimum U.S. military standard for protective
covers. Subsequently, a wide range of covers has been procured,
many of which do not adequately protect against corrosion. The
committee understands that there are commercial, off-the-shelf
protective covers that can address corrosion and thus improve
the life of covered equipment.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees,
not later than December 1, 2017, on the Department's efforts
across the military services and within the Office of the
Secretary of Defense to develop joint minimum standards for
commercial, off-the-shelf protective covers. This briefing
shall include a detailed description of plans and priorities
for both the active and reserve components to use such covers
to protect equipment, including but not limited to equipment
returned from operational theaters, pre-deployed assets, and
those items currently in storage within the United States and
its territories. At a minimum, this briefing shall address
requirements regarding the following: water, particulate, mold,
and mildew intrusion; hydrophobic, oleo-phobic, and ultra-
violet resistance; flexure; and temperature.
Logistics Management Business Systems Modernization
The committee is aware of the military services' challenges
in developing, acquiring, and fielding integrated supply,
maintenance, logistics and financial resource planning systems
that work across the enterprise. The committee notes that the
Department of the Army has achieved a measureable level of
success with the Logistics Modernization Program (LMP), a
commercially developed enterprise resource planning system
(ERP) used by the Army to integrate its Working Capital Fund
missions. The committee encourages the Secretaries of the Navy
and the Air Force to explore alternative resource planning
systems associated with Working Capital Fund operations and
consider future implementation of LMP. The committee directs
the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Air Force to
provide a briefing to the committee, no later than December 1,
2017, on the following in regard to Navy, Marine Corps, and Air
Force Working Capital Fund ERPs:
(1) The ERP or other systems the military services are
currently using to integrate their Working Capital Fund
business systems across the services' logistics enterprises;
(2) The annual cost of modernizing and maintaining their
current Working Capital Fund business systems;
(3) How the three military services' current ERPs are
contributing to the national security of the United States or
to the efficient management of the Department of Defense,
including auditability compliance;
(4) Options the military services have explored to find
alternatives to their current systems which would provide equal
or greater capability at a lower cost, including consideration
of the Army LMP; and
(5) Whether the existing acquisition management structure
for the military services' current ERPs is adequate to manage
and control program costs into the future.
Opportunities To Consolidate Printing Services
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
requested funding for printing services that totaled more than
$440.0 million in the fiscal year 2017 budget request.
Department of Defense Instruction 5330.03 establishes the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Document Services as the
preferred provider for document automation services to the
Department, which includes printing services, scanning and
conversion, office device support, and electronic content
management. In addition, the Defense Business Board's February
2015 report ``Transforming DOD's Core Business Processes for
Revolutionary Change'' noted that actions such as moving to
managed printing services and consolidating print management
services could achieve significant savings in related
activities. Furthermore, the committee has noted that the
printing budgets for active service components are excessive
and that portions of these budgets should be realigned to
address unfunded readiness priorities of the Department and the
military services.
In light of the above, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to assess the
following:
(1) what is the nature and scope of printing activities
financed by Department components, including the military
services and DLA;
(2) how have estimated costs for printing activities
compared to actual costs since fiscal year 2012;
(3) what options, if any, has the Department considered in
adjusting its approach to printing services to achieve greater
efficiencies or reduced costs for related activities; and
(4) any other issues the Comptroller General determines
appropriate with respect to consolidation of printing services.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than December 1, 2017, on the Comptroller General's
preliminary findings and to submit a final report to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed
Services on a date agreed to at the time of the briefing.
Report on Operation of the Transportation Working Capital Fund
The committee notes that the Airlift Readiness Account
(ARA), which maintains military airlift capacity during
peacetime to be prepared for the higher level of activity
needed during contingency operations, has received varying
levels of funding in past years. The committee is concerned
about how the Transportation Working Capital Fund (TWCF) can
effectively operate and set reasonable rates with such fiscal
uncertainty. Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by August 1, 2018, regarding
allocation of the ARA in conjunction with the TWCF during
fiscal years 2007 to 2016, inclusive. The report should
include:
(1) a review of the U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM)
oversight of the TWCF, including the command's adherence to
statutory authorities related to the TWCF and ARA;
(2) a review of the rate-setting procedure used by
TRANSCOM, including procedures to lower the TWCF rate once
fixed costs of the program are covered and how ARA funding is
used to fund airlift capacity not being fully utilized during
peacetime but required to support contingency operations;
(3) how the Air Force pays its ARA bill during years in
which ARA funding is not requested, authorized, or appropriated
or years in which ARA funding is cut; and
(4) what steps the Air Force has taken to ensure the Air
Force Working Capital Fund receives the appropriate funding if
a cash shortfall occurs because of a lack of fiscal year ARA
funding.
Revising Depot Carryover Calculations
Department of Defense regulations limit the amount of
carryover allowable at the military depots at the end of a
fiscal year. These regulations require that carryover be
calculated in a way that routinely exceeds allowable carryover
ceilings, resulting in decrements to the military services'
appropriations. While the committee believes there should be
limits on the amount of carryover workload held by a depot, the
committee is concerned that the current calculation of
allowable carryover has indirectly affected military readiness
and the ability of the depots to sustain core workload as
required by section 2464 of title 10, United States Code. As a
result, the committee would like to understand the Department's
calculation of allowable carryover.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretaries of the military
departments, to submit a report to the House Committee on Armed
Services by December 31, 2017, on workload carryover to
include:
(1) an explanation of how the carryover formula is
currently calculated, and how each military service manages
carryover;
(2) what exclusions from carryover are currently in place
and how they were determined;
(3) how carryover has been affected by the late receipt of
funds;
(4) the level of carryover of parts and materiel needed to
support depot maintenance programs compared to direct labor
hours;
(5) what portion of total carryover is for inter-service
workload; and
(6) recommendations to modify the existing carryover
formula.
The Secretary of Defense may also include other related
matters as deemed appropriate in order to provide a
comprehensive examination of carryover policies.
The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than October 31, 2017, on preliminary findings of the
Secretaries' evaluation.
Readiness Issues
Advanced Adversarial Air Training Program
The committee notes that the Air Force testified it is at
its lowest state of full-spectrum readiness in its history,
particularly when confronting near-peer adversaries. The Air
Force has publicly stated its need for contracted adversarial
air support. The committee is concerned about the disparity
between the significance that senior Air Force leadership
assigns to increased combat pilot training and the lack of
budgetary and programmatic attention to addressing it. The
fiscal year 2018 Air Force budget approach delays the entrance
of new combat pilot training capabilities not currently
available to the Air Force. Specifically, the current
adversarial air training capability flies subsonic, single
engine aircraft that address a portion of lower-end training
requirements; it does not address supersonic training, which
U.S. pilots will face when engaging near-peer adversaries.
In the absence of commercially supplied supersonic
adversarial air capability, the Air Force will continue to rely
on front-line aircraft and pilots to meet this need, which the
committee notes is expensive, reduces the life of the fleet,
and takes pilots away from practicing their intended missions.
The committee believes the Air Force should move
aggressively to meet the adversarial air combat training
requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Air Force to brief the House Committee on Armed Services by
September 1, 2017, on the status of near-peer training
utilizing advanced adversarial air capabilities.
Advanced Foreign Language Proficiency
The committee recognizes the importance of advanced foreign
language and cultural proficiency for military readiness and
national security. When proficient language speakers
effectively communicate with non-English speakers, individually
or via the broadcast media, they become a major force
multiplier and key component of national defense. The committee
is aware that, in partnership with universities across the
country, the National Security Education Program provides
critical training for service members and government officials
in a number of languages and strategic cultures, including
those of the Arab world, Afghanistan, China, Russia, and Iran.
The committee understands that the Language Flagship Program
has successfully recruited language-proficient students by
utilizing partnerships with K-12 schools devoted to creating
articulated pathways into the program. The committee is
concerned that the Department of Defense has not sufficiently
prioritized these language readiness programs.
The committee is further concerned that the Department of
Defense allowed access to authentic, copyrighted foreign
language broadcast services media to lapse in 2015. Despite the
continued need, the committee understands that a competitive
request for proposal has not yet been released to begin the
process of contracting for a suitable solution.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by December 1, 2017, that assesses:
(a) Whether the National Security Education Program meets
the current need for language and culture training so that
warfighters and national security professionals can complete
their missions effectively, whether current partnerships with
K-12 schools are sufficient to provide language-proficient
students to the Language Flagship Program, and whether the need
would warrant an expansion of the language and cultural
training programs; and
(b) The status of whether access to authentic, copyrighted
foreign language content should be restored for the joint
force.
Alternative-Source F/A-18 Depot-Level Maintenance
The committee understands that the Department of the Navy
awarded an alternative-source contract for F/A-18A/B/C/D depot-
level maintenance in February 2016. This award is another step
toward addressing the backlog of F/A-18A/B/C/D depot-level
maintenance requirements in a manner that leverages the range
of relevant resources within the national technology and
industrial base, and the committee encourages the Navy to
induct aircraft to meet this contract's maximum authorization
within each contract year. While the committee expects the
Department of the Navy to workload its organic aviation depots
to the maximum extent possible and in accordance with Federal
law, the committee encourages the Navy to make maximum use of
this contract to help eliminate the remaining backlog of F/A-
18A/B/C/D depot-level maintenance requirements. Additionally,
to improve efficiency of the aircraft maintenance process under
this contract, the committee encourages the Navy to provide
authorizations for engineering disposition and alternate supply
chain as appropriate, with accompanying contractual changes.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a
report to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than
September 15, 2017, that includes, but is not limited to, plans
to maximize the F/A-18A/B/C/D workload at its organic aviation
depots; an evaluation of ongoing F/A-18A/B/C/D alternative-
source depot-level maintenance efforts; plans for maximizing
the number of aircraft authorized under the existing contract
by contract year; plans for establishing a follow-on multiple-
award contract for F/A-18A/B/C/D depot-level maintenance, as
required to address the maintenance backlog; and confirmation
that Navy officials are providing engineering disposition and
other improvements to allow for optimal efficiency and
throughput of aircraft.
Counter-UAS Briefing
The committee believes that the importance of counter-
unmanned aerial systems (C-UAS) will continue to increase due
to the proliferating threat of commercially available and
homemade hostile unmanned aerial systems used for
reconnaissance and as flying Improvised Explosive Devices.
The committee is concerned that there is a shortage of C-
UAS range space in the United States. Currently, there is only
one site where test and training activities can take place,
which is at the Army's Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. The
committee notes it is important that training locations have
sufficient contiguous and unimpeded ground and air space so
that radio frequency jamming, directed energy, and kinetic
capabilities can be utilized without concern for impact outside
of the range.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than December 1, 2017, on the potential of using additional
military installation ranges for C-UAS testing and training. To
address this critical need, the committee encourages the
Department of Defense to consider a number of additional sites
that could be used for the testing and training of C-UAS
capabilities.
Expediting the Security Clearance Process
The committee notes that the Department of Defense and the
Office of Personnel Management have undertaken significant
steps to improve the security clearance review process. While
some progress has been made, the security clearance backlog
continues to prevent the Federal Government and the national
security industrial base from hiring otherwise qualified
personnel. The committee believes more needs to be done to
address this backlog, including reviewing current security
clearance procedures. For example, the Questionnaire for Public
Trust Positions Standard Form 85 requires nearly the same
information as the Standard Form 86, Questionnaire for National
Security Positions. The committee believes positions requiring
access to classified information are inherently positions of
public trust, and requiring an individual with a favorably
adjudicated security clearance based on the Standard Form 86 to
undergo an additional nearly identical background check based
on the Standard Form 85 is redundant, and likely adds to the
significant backlog of background investigations throughout the
U.S. Government.
The Department risks losing new hires, particularly
qualified linguists, engineers, computer scientists, and cyber
professionals, who find jobs elsewhere while their security
clearance review takes months to complete. However, the
committee does note that the Federal Government already has
options to expedite the security clearance process to bring in
personnel that have linguistic and cultural competencies that
are critical to the warfighter. Authority under title 5, United
States Code, allows the government, in certain circumstances,
to expedite hiring persons with specialized skills.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Office of Personnel Management, to
provide a briefing to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2017,
on efforts to shorten the security clearance review process.
The briefing shall address potential time-savers such as using
Standard Form 86 in lieu of Standard Form 85, allowing industry
to provide certified initial background materials, reducing the
number of contractors who require a clearance, returning to
interim secret clearances for low-risk hires, standardizing the
process to allow civilians and contractors to move to new jobs
within an agency without a lengthy wait for an additional
security review, and standardizing adjudication measures. The
briefing provided should also include information about how the
Federal Government uses other authorities to hire linguists and
cultural experts where there are workforce gaps.
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Budget Display
The committee received a briefing in accordance with a
directive in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) that included budget data for
all explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) activities throughout the
Department of Defense. The committee notes that this
information, collected from all of the services' budgets and
including operation and maintenance, procurement, and research,
development, test and evaluation accounts, was not easily found
yet was useful in identifying where EOD funding originated.
Given the increasing importance of EOD units and congressional
interest in EOD activities, the committee expects that in all
future Department and service budget justification documents
EOD activities will be clearly marked and identified.
Explosive Ordnance Disposal Organization and Support to Operational
Plans
Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) have been the enemy's
weapon of choice in the Republic of Iraq, the Syrian Arab
Republic, and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and,
according to the Department of Defense, will probably be a
mainstay in any future conflict, given their low cost to
develop coupled with their potential for strategic impact.
Since 2003, under the aegis first of the U.S. Army's Improvised
Explosive Device Task Force, then of the Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Organization, and now of the Joint
Improvised-Threat Defeat Organization, the Department of
Defense has sought to counter IED threats to U.S. forces.
Integral to this effort, among other things, are explosive
ordnance disposal (EOD) units which, despite a spike in growth
since 2002, remain in high demand relative to the limited
number of units throughout the Department. Moreover, the
committee is concerned about the degree to which EOD
requirements and capabilities have been integrated into
standing operational plans. In light of the above, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to assess the following:
(1) the extent to which EOD requirements and capabilities
are integrated into operational plans, including those for
potential support of civil authorities;
(2) the extent to which the Department's EOD capabilities,
including manning and equipment, are sufficient to meet
combatant commander requirements;
(3) what, if any, steps are being taken to identify and
mitigate any EOD capability gaps in operational plans;
(4) the extent to which the Department conducts oversight
of Department-wide EOD functions; and
(5) any other issues the Comptroller General determines
appropriate with respect to EOD capability support to
operational plans.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than December 1, 2017, on the Comptroller General's
preliminary findings and to submit a final report to the
congressional defense committees on a date agreed to at the
time of the briefing. The committee also directs the Secretary
of Defense, the Secretaries of the military departments, and
the combatant commanders, to share any pertinent information
about EOD units, requirements, and capabilities, including EOD
units required to support operational plans, with designated
representatives of the Government Accountability Office
assigned to this review commensurate with applicable
classification guidance.
Joint Force Training and Exercises
The budget request contained $583.6 million in Operation
and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, for the Combatant Commanders
Exercise Engagement and Training Transformation (CE2T2)
program.
The committee understands that the CE2T2 program supports
combatant command and service joint training, from individual
specialized skills to large-scale joint exercises, and is a
critical enabler to improving joint readiness and warfighting
capabilities. However, since 2011, the CE2T2 program has been
reduced by 38 percent.
The committee recognizes that the 2016 National Military
Strategy emphasizes the four-plus-one security challenges of
the Russian Federation, the People's Republic of China, the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Islamic Republic of
Iran, and violent extremism. The committee remains concerned
about the readiness of the joint force to address the full
spectrum of security challenges. The committee believes that
greater resources for joint force training and exercises that
span the combatant commands and allow for experimentation with
new concepts of operations are essential to improving the
effectiveness and readiness of the joint force, and for
maintaining an appropriate balance within the joint force.
Therefore, the committee recommends $603.6 million, an
increase of $20.0 million, in Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide, for the Combatant Commanders Exercise Engagement
and Training Transformation program to enhance joint training
and exercises that span combatant commands and address the
four-plus-one challenges identified in the 2016 National
Military Strategy.
Military Mission Line Moratorium
The committee notes that the military departments utilize
ranges and operating areas in the Gulf of Mexico for a variety
of testing and training missions. These include high altitude,
supersonic air combat training, air-to-air missile testing,
electronic warfare, drone targeting, naval sub-surface, air-to-
surface, and surface-to-surface testing, including mine and
counter-mine operations. These ranges and operating areas east
of the Military Mission Line in the Gulf of Mexico provide
approximately 120,000 square miles of ranges and operating
areas that are essential to maintaining the maritime and
airborne readiness of the military services. Furthermore, the
ranges and operating areas east of the Military Mission Line in
the Gulf of Mexico provide the military departments with
critical airspace essential to 5th generation capabilities and
provides for hypersonic weapons testing and space launch.
The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) of 2006
(Public Law 119-432) established a moratorium on oil and gas
leasing, pre-leasing, or any related activity in the ranges and
operating areas east of the Military Mission Line in the Gulf
of Mexico. This moratorium expires on June 30, 2022. With no
comparable test and training area within the United States, the
committee is concerned that the expiration of this moratorium
may adversely impact the Department of Defense's ability to
meet its military testing and training missions. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to deliver a report
to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Natural Resources not later than March 1, 2018. At
a minimum the report shall address the following:
(1) The scope of military test and training events
conducted in the area east of the Military Mission Line in the
Gulf of Mexico;
(2) Comparable testing and training areas within the United
States and its territories that can replicate the capabilities
of the ranges and operating areas east of the Military Mission
Line in the Gulf of Mexico;
(3) Comparable testing and training areas outside the
United States which are available for United States military
testing and training activities that can replicate the
capabilities of the ranges and operating areas east of the
Military Mission Line in the Gulf of Mexico;
(4) The number of test events, exercises, and military
operations conducted annually in the ranges and operating areas
east of the Military Mission Line in the Gulf of Mexico from
2006 to time of report;
(5) The extent to which the services will be unable to meet
training and test requirements necessary to be prepared to
support Operational Plans should the moratorium on oil and gas
leasing, pre-leasing, or any related activity east of the
Military Mission Line in the Gulf of Mexico not be extended.
NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center F/A-18 Chase Aircraft
The committee is concerned about the availability of chase
aircraft at NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center, which
provides total flight safety during developmental and
operational tests. The committee notes the NASA Armstrong
Flight Research Center's proximity to Edwards Air Force Base,
China Lake Naval Weapons Station, Marine Corps Air Station 29
Palms, and other associated desert and offshore test ranges,
which makes the Center a regular provider of test missions for
the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. The committee believes
these missions are critical to helping the U.S. military
maintain its technological superiority.
The committee notes that chase aircraft maintain constant
radio contact with research pilots, serve as an extra set of
eyes during test flights, and provide a camera platform for
research missions that must be photographed or videotaped. The
committee understands that F/A-18F have the ideal high-speed
test bed capacity and mold lines, can maintain safe, long-term,
high-speed test operations, and do not confront the same
maintenance issues as the current Armstrong Flight Research
Center chase aircraft. The committee believes that Department
of Defense-wide test missions are adversely impacted by the
current aircraft availability at the Center, and that the
Department should consider replacing current NASA chase
aircraft to support an aggressive future test schedule as the
Department modernizes its overall aircraft fleet.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to submit a report to the House Committee on Armed
Services, not later than 90 days after the enactment of this
Act, on its plans to consider the transfer of aircraft and the
timeline associated with such plans. The report should include:
(1) The number of aircraft planned for transfer;
(2) The minimum number of remaining flight hours of each
aircraft to be transferred; and
(3) The radar capabilities, centerline and wing station
stores management system, and advanced targeting forward
looking infrared equipment of such aircraft.
Naval Shipyard Development Plans
The Department of the Navy operates and maintains four
public shipyards in the United States: Norfolk Naval Shipyard,
Virginia; Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Maine; Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard, Washington; and Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, Hawaii.
The committee recognizes the vital role these shipyards play in
generating readiness, supporting the Navy's surface and
submarine fleet by performing depot- and intermediate-level
maintenance, modernization, emergent repairs, and
inactivations. However, the committee notes that the
infrastructure at these shipyards has not been properly
sustained, modernized, or configured to efficiently and
effectively support the Navy's future force structure and
shipyard workload. The committee believes that long-term
underfunding of the Navy's infrastructure investment accounts
has created capability gaps in shipyard infrastructure that
will result in the public shipyards being unable to properly
complete assigned and projected work. In fact, disturbing
delays in ship overhaul work have already occurred.
The committee also notes that the public shipyards are
supported by more than 34,000 employees and the Navy is
planning to expand the workforce by another 2,000 employees by
2020 to accommodate anticipated workload. The committee notes
that almost half of the entire public shipyard workforce has
less than 5 years of experience and lacks the journeyman skills
associated with a more experienced workforce. The Navy has
testified that the manpower shortfall and inexperience in the
public shipyard workforce may result in extended maintenance
availabilities, thus affecting operational availability of
combat-ready ships. This comes at a time when existing
maintenance backlogs have expanded due to the increased
operational tempo of the fleet, and continuing delays in
receipt of appropriations have further affected the public
shipyards' ability to execute work on time.
The shortage of journeyman-level experience and the
insufficient industrial capacity have led to severe throughput
issues at the public shipyards, highlighted by six nuclear
attack submarines languishing in the shipyards for years beyond
their scheduled completion date. As a result, some crews have
spent their entire submarine assignment rotation pier-side,
which degrades military personnel readiness and operational
effectiveness. Further, insufficient capacity has led the Navy
to decertify the USS Boise (SSN 764) for diving operations
until this submarine can be inducted for its engineered
overhaul. Other attack submarines are likely to experience
similar operational limitations until sufficient public-sector
throughput can be provided. The committee is disappointed by
the Navy's failure to respond in a timely and effective manner
to growing backlogs and to implement corrective actions. The
committee believes that significant workforce, workload
planning, and infrastructure management changes should occur to
enable more efficient planning and execution of maintenance
availabilities.
While the public sector is expanding to accommodate the
growing maintenance requirements, the committee also notes that
private-sector shipyards currently have infrastructure and
workforce capacity to help mitigate the shortfalls in nuclear
maintenance availabilities. The committee believes that the
Naval Sea Systems Command has moved away from the ``One Naval
Shipyard'' concept that it had previously embraced at a time
when it should be fully leveraging the entire industrial base.
Furthermore, the committee notes that a significant private-
sector workload expansion is programmed in conjunction with the
start of the Columbia-class program. To reduce risk associated
with the delivery of the Columbia-class ballistic missile
submarine, the committee believes that the Navy should analyze
the feasibility of moving additional workload to the private
sector until the public sector can establish a higher workload
throughput baseline. At the same time, the Navy must not divert
funding from or delay the public shipyards' modernization and
workforce expansion that are necessary to meet future Navy
requirements. This will allow the private sector to build up
its workforce gradually prior to commencing work on the first
Columbia-class submarine rather than rapidly expanding its
workforce in 2021. The committee further believes that this
temporary move may lead to a more efficient private-sector
workforce and eventually lower program costs associated with
the Columbia-class program, which, at a cost of $100.2 billion,
is the second largest acquisition program in the Department of
Defense. Naval Sea Systems Command should examine ways to
eliminate the barriers between the public- and private-sector
nuclear shipyards and consider innovative ways to share
resources and infrastructure across the enterprise while the
public yards recapitalize.
Finally, the committee notes that the deficiencies within
the public shipyard enterprise will be further exacerbated by
the Navy's goal to expand ship force structure. The committee
believes that the growth in the public shipyard enterprise
should be paced by the anticipated growth in the Navy force
structure, as detailed by the administration's 30-year
shipbuilding plan, required annually pursuant to section 231 of
title 10, United States Code.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, by
March 1, 2018, on a comprehensive plan to address shortfalls in
the public shipyard enterprise. Specifically, this plan shall
address the following elements:
(1) Personnel Roadmap: Prepare an employment development
plan by shipyard that estimates resourcing shortfalls and full-
time equivalent allotments, including overtime and contracting
support, workforce hiring targets, and the numbers and types of
employees needed. To the degree possible include the number of
apprentices by trade skill, the number of engineers, and the
number of overhead disciplines; and the training initiatives
and time needed to meet the emerging workload requirements for
fiscal year 2019 and beyond.
(2) Infrastructure Development Plan: Identify current
infrastructure deficiencies at U.S. naval shipyards and prepare
a detailed master plan for each shipyard that includes a list
of specific infrastructure projects, scope of work, cost
estimates, and schedule associated with the current and 30-year
force structure projections.
(3) Metrics Assessment Plan: Develop holistic workload
metrics to better assess the efficiency of the entire shipyard
versus a narrow review by maintenance availability.
(4) Workload Management Plan: Using the limitation
currently imposed by the shortfall of personnel and the
existing material condition of the public shipyards, prepare a
5-year workload management plan to include the entirety of the
nuclear maintenance enterprise, both public- and private-sector
capacities, that limits lost operational days.
(5) Funding and Authority Plan: Each plan shall identify
the additional funding and any legislative authority needed to
achieve an end state, as quickly as practicable, of elimination
of all ship maintenance backlogs and a return to predictable,
sustainable, and affordable ship maintenance availabilities,
including for the anticipated growth in Navy force structure.
Readiness of Coastal Riverine Forces
Following an incident involving the temporary detention of
10 U.S. Navy sailors aboard two riverine patrol boats by Iran's
Revolutionary Guard in January 2016, the Comptroller General of
the United States conducted a comprehensive review of the
readiness of the Navy's Coastal Riverine Force, whose
operational responsibilities range from defending high-value
assets and critical maritime infrastructure to conducting
offensive combat operations. The Comptroller General's report
on the readiness of the Coastal Riverine Force highlights
manning, training, and equipping challenges the force faces in
maintaining its warfighting readiness. However, the committee
notes that the Navy's response to the report failed to describe
the steps the Navy will take to address the challenges
identified. The committee is concerned that the challenges
outlined in the Comptroller General's report will continue to
worsen without correction, particularly the manning challenges
facing the force. Accordingly, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to:
(1) develop manning strategies tailored to the Coastal
Riverine Force's unique needs to address gaps in critical
skills and competencies;
(2) evaluate what human capital flexibilities the Navy
could implement to support strategies to address Coastal
Riverine Force's manning shortfalls; and
(3) develop a strategic human capital plan that addresses
Coastal Riverine Force manning shortfalls.
Further, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and
the Senate Committee on Armed Services not later than January
12, 2018, on the results of these efforts.
Remotely Piloted Aircraft Training Strategy
The committee notes with concern that the Air Force's
Active and Reserve Component MQ-1 and MQ-9 aircrews within the
Air Force's remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) enterprise have
limited access to unit training resources such as proficiency
simulators and continuation training sorties because they are
stretched to meet the operational demands of combatant
commanders supporting deployed forces. The committee also notes
that RPA aircrews are able to meet some training and
proficiency requirements during the conduct of operational
missions, but believes that this practice should be exercised
only when absolutely necessary.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to brief the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than September 28, 2017, on the service's approach to RPA
aircrew training, with a particular focus on how the Air Force
plans to field simulator capability and training capacity among
Active and Reserve Component units supporting RPA operations.
Report on Army Aviation Restructure Initiative
The committee is concerned about the status of Army attack
aviation following the decision to execute the Aviation
Restructure Initiative in 2013. The committee is aware that the
decision to reduce attack and reconnaissance aviation
battalions by 37 percent and realign most attack helicopters
from the Army National Guard to the active component was made
to meet the demands of strategic planning at the time. However,
the committee notes there is a shortfall of both warrant
officer and commissioned officer pilots in the active
component. Meanwhile, there is a cadre of experienced and
qualified Guard pilots that can help bridge this gap. The
committee is concerned that this cadre may not remain a viable
option, as the nation is facing a pilot shortage crisis and
commercial airlines are now specifically targeting helicopter
pilots. This mismatch of resources has created a situation
where aircraft are assigned to bases with no pilots to fly
them. The committee believes this scenario could negatively
affect the ability of the Army to support combatant commanders'
future needs. Furthermore, the committee needs to gain a better
understanding of the overall operational impacts for National
Guard Apache battalions given the current plan to retain 18
aircraft per unit in the National Guard instead of the 24 that
their active-duty counterparts will have.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army, in coordination with the Director of the National Guard
Bureau, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services, not later than December 31, 2017, on the status of
Army attack aviation readiness. The briefing should also
provide updates on new factors that affect the Army's ability
to maintain a robust attack aviation capability over the next 3
years, including a plan to recruit and retain the required
number of qualified attack helicopter pilots.
Report on Military Training for Rotary-Wing Aviation
Ongoing readiness challenges with rotary-wing aviation in
the U.S. Armed Forces have raised a number of questions around
the maintenance, training, manpower, safety, and deployability
of these aircraft. For example, both the Army and Marine Corps
have cited a lack of funding for training and maintenance,
including spare parts, as a critical concern for their rotary-
wing aviation communities. Further, the military services have
cited pilot shortages and the lengthy duration of new pilot
training as issues affecting rotary-wing aviation readiness.
These issues have been further exacerbated by increased
civilian hiring competition for experienced rotary-wing pilots.
The committee has expressed concern about the effect these
readiness challenges have had on the frequency of accident
mishaps in rotary-wing aviation over the past 5 years and has
urged the military services to prioritize funding for rotary-
wing aviation in order to ensure that the United States
maintains this crucial capability into the future.
Given these concerns, the committee directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to assess the following:
(1) to what extent have the military services met annual
training requirements for rotary-wing aircraft, and identified
any factors that have limited this training;
(2) what is known about the relationship between the amount
and type of training completed on rotary-wing aircraft and the
number of accident mishaps;
(3) to what extent have the military services utilized
virtual training devices to meet training requirements for
rotary-wing aircraft; and
(4) any other issues the Comptroller General determines
appropriate with respect to rotary-wing aviation training.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than February 1, 2018, on the Comptroller General's
preliminary findings and to submit a final report to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services on a date agreed to at the time of the briefing.
Report on Multi-Domain Battle Concept
Over the past decade, the Russian Federation, the People's
Republic of China, and other potential adversaries have
developed sophisticated intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance; air defense; artillery; information operations;
and other capabilities that pose significant challenges to U.S.
ground forces entering the theater and, once in place, would
leave them exposed to counterattack. In February 2017, the Army
and Marine Corps published a concept paper describing an
approach for ground combat operations in the face of such
challenges. This approach, named ``multi-domain battle,'' would
synthesize ground maneuver, fires, and information operations
capabilities to project power from the land and into the air,
maritime, and cyber domains. In doing so, land forces would be
able to consolidate gains, deny the adversary freedom of
movement, and create temporary windows that the joint force
could then exploit for decisive operations.
The committee appreciates the Army and Marine Corps
publication of the multi-domain battle concept and is
encouraged by the Army's forward thinking on the next steps to
bring multi-domain battle to the warfighter. The committee is
aware of additional, planned Army concept development,
experimentation, and potential force structure changes that are
intended to translate the concept into a warfighting
capability. However, significant work remains. Importantly, the
committee notes that multi-domain battle has implications for
the Navy and Air Force, whose involvement will be instrumental
in the concept's warfighting success. Bringing the multi-domain
battle concept to fruition will require changes in warfighting
doctrine, organization of new warfighting formations at
multiple echelons, investment in key technologies, leader
education, force training, and readiness evaluation.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to review the Army's progress and plans in
developing the concept. As part of the review, the Comptroller
General should examine the extent to which the Army and Marine
Corps have engaged with each other and with the other services
to develop multi-domain battle concepts and doctrine, and set
priorities for organizing, training, and equipping the force in
the concept. Additionally, the review should assess:
(1) the services' priorities and plans for fielding new
multi-domain battle capabilities over the next 2 to 5 years;
(2) the implications for the Army's near-term and long-term
modernization plans;
(3) plans for educating, training, and evaluating the
readiness of Army formations to execute multi-domain battle
operations; and
(4) any other matters related to multi-domain battle the
Comptroller General determines are appropriate.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
July 1, 2018, on preliminary findings of the review and to
submit a final report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services by a date agreed to
at the time of the briefing.
Report on Unit-Level Training Costs to Build Full-Spectrum Readiness
The Department of Defense uses operation and maintenance
(O&M) funding to train U.S. military forces in order to build
combat readiness, among other purposes. However, in recent
years, the military services have raised concerns about the
level of O&M funding available to support unit-level training
programs. For example, in 2016 the Assistant Commandant of the
Marine Corps stated that given available resource levels, the
Marine Corps was accepting prolonged readiness risks and
focusing the training of some units to their more limited
rotational missions versus full-spectrum training. The Vice
Chief of Staff of the Army also stated that the Army took
actions to enable the effective and efficient use of training
resources in order to mitigate the risk posed by the fact that
less than one-third of Army units were at acceptable levels of
readiness.
The military service chiefs have identified rebuilding the
readiness of the armed forces to prevail across a full range of
potential contingencies as a top priority and, in recent budget
requests, have recommended funding for training that had been
cut due to budget constraints. The committee is aware that the
military services use various approaches and models to
determine funding requirements for training as part of the
Department's planning, programming, budgeting, and execution
processes. The committee is further aware that the Department's
annual budget requests include some information about the
military services' O&M funding estimates for training. However,
this information is not sufficiently detailed to determine unit
training costs and the amount of readiness that is expected to
be generated by annual O&M expenses. Therefore, it is difficult
to determine the benefits that would be gained from additional
O&M funding for unit-level training.
To better understand the military services' budgeting
processes to build unit-level training readiness, and to
achieve greater transparency over the military services' O&M
funding requests, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to assess the following:
(1) how the military services determine annual O&M budget
estimates for unit-level training;
(2) the extent to which the Department of Defense and the
military services established mechanisms to monitor the amount
of O&M obligations for unit-level training and used data on
actual O&M costs to develop future funding requests; and
(3) the extent to which the military services established
processes and metrics to systematically evaluate unit training
costs and the amount of readiness that is generated from O&M
training expenditures.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than February 1, 2018, on the Comptroller General's
preliminary findings and to submit a final report to the
congressional defense committees on a date agreed to at the
time of the briefing.
Small Arms Weapons Simulation Training
The committee recognizes the benefits gained from the use
of simulation and synthetic training systems to maximize
military training and readiness requirements. As the use of
such systems increases to supplement live training exercises
and to meet critical warfighter readiness requirements, the
committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has not
implemented clear performance evaluation metrics, data
collection requirements, and validation standards to accurately
assess and document whether each command's chosen training
system is transferring required skills proficiency to live fire
and real-world combat scenarios.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by December 1, 2017, that includes, at a minimum: a detailed
description of the evaluation metrics that each service plans
to use to ensure all new small arms simulation training systems
and programs of instructions are tested to demonstrate clear
and repeated live fire transfer proficiency and combat
readiness prior to system acquisition; an assessment of the
live fire performance results of existing simulation and
synthetic small arms training systems being utilized; a plan to
ensure future systems are capable of data collection that gives
commands the ability to maintain and track individual and
squad-level training records, provide trend analysis and
forecast models to reduce training time and accurately
determine live fire transfer readiness, and train to multiple
proficiency levels and threat evolutions; and, examples of
current simulation and synthetic small arms training systems
that are documenting cost savings in ammunition, travel,
training time, and expedited and improved qualification and
remediation rates.
Training for Air Force Combined Air Operations Center Personnel
The committee recognizes that a top priority for the Air
Force Chief of Staff is to qualify personnel to serve in joint
task forces and combined air operations centers (CAOCs). This
qualification relies in part on the opportunity for Air Force
personnel to train in command and control procedures within the
physical environment of a CAOC. Most Air Force CAOC training
occurs during occasional large-force training and mission-
rehearsal exercises, where the primary focus of the exercise is
not the training of CAOC personnel. The committee believes that
adequate command and control training of CAOC staffs is
essential to safe, secure, and effective air operations in
theaters and contingency environments around the world.
Additionally, the committee is aware that regional CAOC
training centers provide effective training with reduced costs.
The Air Combat Command (ACC) Crisis Action Center, where ACC
staff plans and commands ACC forces responding to a national
crisis, and the CAOC Exercise (CAOC-X), designed to support
planning and execution of joint forces when ACC is the air
component commander supporting an engaged combatant commander
or a joint task force commander leading a crisis response, are
two such regional centers. In those cases, the CAOC provides
actual current intelligence and targeting and produces the
daily air tasking order. The committee strongly encourages the
Chief of Staff of the Air Force to ensure that CAOC-X and other
regional CAOCs are resourced, manned, and fully utilized to
serve as a training venue for the planning, execution, and
command and control of joint forces taking part in major
regional joint exercises.
Training Range Inventory, Capacity, and Configuration in Europe
As the committee asserts elsewhere in this report, the
committee believes there is operational and strategic value in
maintaining forward presence of United States military forces
by providing rapid response capabilities to geographic
combatant commanders, serving as a deterrent to potential
adversaries, assuring partners and allies, and facilitating
cooperative efforts to build and develop partner-nation
security capabilities. The committee notes that permanently
stationed U.S. forces presently are located primarily at
legacy, enduring locations in Western Europe, while rotational
U.S. forces have primarily been deployed to support exercises
and assurance activities in the Baltic countries, as well as
Central and Eastern Europe. With these rotational forces
exercising in new locations, the committee is concerned that
training requirements to build and sustain readiness may not be
adequately met by current training range capabilities in the
region.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Commander, U.S. European Command, to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees by
April 1, 2018, on the location, capabilities, and capacities of
air and ground ranges, range complexes, military training
routes, and special-use areas in the European Command's area of
responsibility. At a minimum, the report should address the
following:
(1) an inventory of current air and ground ranges, range
complexes, military training routes, and special-use areas the
U.S. Armed Forces currently utilize or have access to in the
U.S. European Command's area of responsibility;
(2) an overview of the current capabilities and capacity of
these training areas to support permanent and rotational
forward presence of U.S. military forces;
(3) an assessment of any capability gaps at these training
areas that limit the ability to meet training requirements to
U.S. standards; and
(4) details of current or planned investments in training
infrastructure to mitigate identified capability gaps, help
meet U.S. training requirements, or required to support
additional permanent or rotational forces in Europe, funded
either by the United States, NATO, or foreign partners.
Undergraduate Pilot Training
The committee supports the Air Force's efforts to increase
pilot production as a critical enabler to rebuilding readiness.
Given current and future training demands, existing
undergraduate pilot training (UPT) facilities are reaching
maximum throughput capacity. The Air Force currently utilizes
nearby civilian airfields to meet operational flight
requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services by October 27, 2017, on the following:
(1) A business case analysis to identify efficient ways to
maximize current UPT activities including use of proximate
civilian airfields;
(2) Efforts to maximize current UPT activities;
(3) Efforts to optimize the pilot instructor training force
including use of retired-to-reserve, Air Force Reserve, Air
National Guard, and civilian contract instructors;
(4) An assessment of availability of civilian aviation
facilities proximate to current UPT installations including
runway capacity, ramp space, access to military operating
areas, hangars, other aviation operation infrastructure,
facilities for administrative and support functions, and
availability of instructors, maintainers, and other support
personnel;
(5) A summary of currently shared operations and activities
between each Air Force UPT installation and proximate civilian
aviation facilities, and a list of other proximate civilian
aviation facilities with potential utilization capabilities;
and
(6) An evaluation of the feasibility and efficiency of
increasing the use of proximate civilian aviation facilities to
expand UPT capacity to meet throughput requirements and create
additional surge capacity, including expanding operations at
currently utilized civilian aviation facilities and increasing
utilization of additional proximate civilian aviation
facilities.
Other Matters
Combatant Command Policies on Open-Air Burn Pits
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has in
place Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 4715.19 that
establishes policies, responsibilities, and procedures
regarding the use of open-air burn pits in contingency
environments. The committee notes that U.S. Central Command is
currently the only geographic combatant command that has issued
implementation policies and procedures for waste management. In
September 2016, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
recommended that the commanders of U.S. Africa Command, U.S.
European Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. Southern
Command also issue implementation policies and procedures for
waste management. The committee notes that the Department
concurred with this recommendation and understands that the
Department is currently in the process of revising DODI
4715.19. As the Department revises DODI 4715.19, the committee
encourages the Department to incorporate the above GAO
recommendation.
Consideration of the Domestic Textile Industrial Base in Contracting
for Uniforms
The committee is aware of an August 2016 Department of the
Navy directive altering mandatory seabag requirements,
including elimination of the wool peacoat and the all-weather
coat. The committee is concerned this decision was made without
considering upgrades or alternatives to the traditional peacoat
or the impact to the nation's domestic textile industrial base.
As the Department of the Navy works to streamline military
uniforms, the committee notes the importance of a stable
domestic textile industrial base to produce garments such as
these and encourages the Department to take into consideration,
when making decisions about uniform changes, such an impact
upon the domestic textile industrial base, including the small
businesses that provide critical contributions.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than October 1, 2017, that addresses the following:
(1) an explanation of why the Navy removed the peacoat from
the mandatory seabag requirements;
(2) what consideration of alternatives was given to
upgrades or improvements to the peacoat;
(3) any evaluation of the costs of the cold-weather parka
compared to both the peacoat and the all-weather coat; and
(4) an assessment of the impact to the domestic textile
industrial base of these changes.
Dioxin-Based Herbicides Review Related to Guam
Agent Orange, a dioxin-based herbicide now known as a
carcinogen, was used by the United States during the Vietnam
war to defoliate trees and shrubs that provided cover for
opposition forces. The committee is concerned that additional
exposures to Agent Orange may have occurred in the U.S.
Territory of Guam, where persistent questions have been raised
about the use of locations on Guam as a transshipment point for
Agent Orange intended for use in Vietnam. The committee
therefore directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to conduct a review of the Federal Government's handling of
Agent Orange on Guam and submit a report of the findings to the
House Committee on Armed Services by March 22, 2018. The
Comptroller General's study should address the following:
(1) what is known about where the Federal Government
stored, transferred, and used Agent Orange or its components on
Guam, and what is known about related contamination at these
locations, including what is known about the storage or
transfer of Agent Orange on Guam;
(2) the number of known and suspected environmental ``hot
spots'' from dioxin contamination associated with Agent Orange
that are on Guam;
(3) what is known about the current dioxin levels and
threats to human health and the environment at these sites;
(4) the plans that are in place to remediate these sites,
and the status of these plans; and
(5) the sum of money the Department of Defense spent to
date to clean up these sites and the projected remaining costs
associated with these cleanup efforts.
Ensuring Proper Fitting of Athletic Footwear
The committee is aware of the Department of the Navy's use
of specific foot imaging technology to properly gauge the
individual foot type (overpronated, neutral, or underpronated)
and appropriate shoe type (motion control, stability, or
cushioned/neutral) for recruits entering basic training. The
committee notes a Department of the Navy study demonstrating
the effectiveness of its Recruit Training Command's
standardized physical training program including injury
prevention initiatives, such as matching individuals with
appropriate shoe types, in lowering the rate of recruit injury
by nearly 70 percent. The committee supports the Department of
the Army and the Department of the Air Force's efforts to fit
recruits with appropriate athletic footwear to reduce injury
and encourages both departments to ensure that all recruit
training facilities are equipped with foot imaging technology
to prevent injury.
Environmental Restoration
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has
responsibility for more than 34,000 sites under the
installation restoration program at active installations,
Formerly Utilized Defense Sites, and BRAC locations. The
Department has set a goal of achieving response complete at 90%
of these sites by the end of fiscal year 2018 and 95% of these
sites by the end of fiscal year 2021. The committee understands
that the Department is currently on track to achieve these
goals. However, the committee notes that even after the
Department meets these goals, more than 1,700 sites will still
not have achieved response complete status. Based on current
estimates, many of these locations will require significant
time and resources to achieve response complete.
The committee is concerned that current funding may be
insufficient and result in inefficient remediation efforts,
delays and overall higher costs. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
secretaries of the military departments, to provide a report to
the House Committee on Armed Services no later than December
31, 2017, on efforts to reach 100% response complete for sites
under the installation restoration program. At minimum, the
report should provide a list of sites that have not yet
achieved response complete, a total estimated cost for
achieving response complete at these sites, the number of years
that it will take at current annual funding levels to achieve
response complete at these sites, and current efforts the
Department is taking to ensure the installation restoration
program is resourced to maximize efficiency and minimize the
total time required to reach response complete at these sites
including the feasibility of public-private partnerships to
expedite clean up.
Fabric and Membrane Technology for Footwear
The committee expresses its ongoing support for Department
of Defense research and testing of cutting-edge fabric and
membrane technologies to improve service members' comfort,
effectiveness, and mission readiness. The report (S. Rept. 114-
49) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 included a requirement for the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services on fabric-based respiratory protective equipment,
including evaluations of emerging technologies to minimize
service member exposure to inhalation of particulates and
pollutants. Additionally, in the report (S. Rept. 114-255)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, the Senate Committee on Armed Services directed the
Secretary of the Army to report similarly on footwear
technologies that incorporate new polytetrafluoroethylene
(ePTFE) and other membrane technologies. In light of these
directives, the committee understands that the Army is
currently evaluating the referenced technologies and that the
evaluations are yielding positive results.
Recognizing the importance of these technologies to
warfighter readiness, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services not later December 15, 2017, on the suitability of the
aforementioned technologies to military applications.
Specifically, the briefing shall provide an evaluation of the
fabric-based filter protective equipment technologies reviewed
under the reporting requirement in S. Rept. 114-49,
identification of specific applications for integration of the
technology, and a plan for transitioning the technology into
such applications and programs. In line with the Army's review
of footwear technologies as required in S. Rept. 114-255, the
briefing shall provide a detailed evaluation of new ePTFE
membranes, laminates, and other membrane technologies.
Additionally, the briefing shall include suggested revisions to
current requirements and product descriptions that could be
implemented to expand access to these membrane technology
advancements. Finally, the briefing shall address a plan for
transitioning membrane technologies into military applications,
including Army boot modernization programs such as the jungle
combat boot program, the cold-weather and extreme cold-weather
boot programs, and future cold-weather clothing systems.
Flame-Resistant Military Uniform Postures
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
committee directed the military services to provide a joint
briefing to the committee that outlined the plan and process,
including costs, for providing flame-resistant (FR) uniform
protection postures for all military personnel. The committee
encouraged all military services to consider implementing FR
uniform protective postures based on an assessment of the
threat and the operating environment. In light of this report,
the committee encourages the services to continue to update
military requirements and implementation of FR protective
postures based on the threat and the operating environment.
Former Naval Weapons Industrial Plant Bethpage
The committee notes that from 1942 until 1996, the Naval
Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) at Bethpage, New York,
was a government-owned, contractor-operated facility. Since its
inception, the plant's primary mission supported the research,
prototyping, testing, design, engineering, fabrication, and
primary assembly of military aircraft. The committee is aware
of the environmental concerns related to soil and groundwater
contamination in the vicinity of NWIRP Bethpage. There are
other responsible parties and non-Navy sources that have
contributed to regional groundwater contamination, including
the contractor which operated the NWIRP and owned and operated
adjacent facilities.
To guide remediation actions associated with the historic
operations, the committee notes that the Navy has signed three
separate records of decision (ROD) for the NWIRP Bethpage dated
1995, 2003, and 2015. To date, the U.S. Government has spent
approximately $94 million to implement and comply with the
RODs. The U.S. Government currently estimates that it will
spend approximately $2.5 million to $10.0 million per year over
the next 30 years. This funding supports a range of response
actions including extensive off-property groundwater
monitoring, construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring
of public water supply treatment systems and hot spot mass
removal systems. Funding is also being used to remove
contaminated soil, construct and operate soil vapor extraction
systems to treat contamination in solid and control vapor
intrusion, and to conduct community and regulatory outreach
through restoration advisory board and quarterly technical
meetings. The committee is aware that the Navy intends to
continue efforts to remediate soil and groundwater
contamination while also putting in place land use controls to
prevent human exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater.
The committee is supportive of the Navy's remediation
efforts as outlined in the RODs and believes it is important
for the Navy to continue to dedicate adequate resources to
ensure timely and effective remediation of the former NWIRP
Bethpage site. The committee also believes working with State
and local governments to timely and efficiently execute the
Navy's responsibilities under its RODs may help reduce the
financial burden stemming from remediation efforts. As
additional resources or new technologies are made available,
the committee encourages the Navy to seek opportunities to
expedite the current remediation schedule.
Guam Micronesian Kingfisher Recovery Habitat
The committee is aware that the Department of the Navy and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service signed a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) on June 11, 2015 regarding the conservation of
the Guam Micronesian kingfisher. The committee notes that this
MOA was put in place to support the relocation of U.S. Marines
to Guam as well as to ensure a sufficient amount of suitable
survival recovery habitat is conserved and managed for the
reintroduction and recovery of the Guam Micronesian kingfisher.
Under the MOA, 5,234 acres of land under the control of the
Department of Defense was identified and designated for
enhanced management activity to ensure the continued
suitability of the recovery habitat until such time as the
species can be reintroduced on Guam. The committee notes that
this MOA was signed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Navy, as the Department of the Navy serves as the executive
agent for installation management for Joint Region Marianas.
However, the committee is concerned about the potential impacts
this MOA may have on current and future military infrastructure
development, training, and operational requirements on Guam as
well as the limitations unrelated to the Department of Defense
that affect the feasibility of reintroduction of the species.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy and
the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services not later than September 30,
2017, regarding the near- and long-term operational impacts of
the MOA. At minimum, the briefing should address land use needs
at Andersen Air Force Base, impacts on the operations master
plan for future mission growth, any identified property deemed
potentially in conflict with current land designations, and any
other relevant information.
Personal Protection Equipment Awards Program
The Army's Personal Protection Equipment Awards program
recognizes soldiers whose lives were saved by their personal
protective equipment. The award consists of a demilitarized
piece of protective equipment that the soldier was wearing when
injured, mounted on a wooden plaque or mount. The committee
understands that the Secretary of the Army chose to limit
eligibility for these awards to only those soldiers under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense at the time of the
award. The committee believes that the program is important to
both soldiers and former soldiers and, when feasible, should be
available to both groups. The committee supports the Army's
Personal Protection Awards program for all recipients,
including former soldiers who have earned the award.
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
The committee notes that perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
(PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) are part of a class of
man-made chemicals that are used in many industrial and
consumer products to make the products resist heat, stains,
water, and grease. In the 1970s, the Department of Defense and
commercial airports began using aqueous film forming foam
(AFFF), which contained these chemical compounds, to extinguish
petroleum fires. The committee notes that on May 19, 2016, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new Lifetime
Health Advisories (LHAs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act for
combined PFOS and PFOA concentrations at 70 parts per trillion.
Since EPA issued these new LHAs, the Department of Defense has
completed testing of the 480 drinking water systems at
locations where the Department supplies drinking water. In
addition, the Department is currently working through The
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601) (CERCLA) process to conduct
preliminary assessments and site inspections to identify sites
where PFOS and PFOA may have been released by the Department of
Defense. This activity includes performing tests of privately
owned drinking water wells near military installations where
warranted. These efforts will be used to inform future cleanup
actions, and the Department incorporates LHA information when
assessing risk to human health under CERCLA.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense
spent approximately $200.0 million through December 31, 2016,
in response to PFOS and PFOA. This funding has been used to
conduct preliminary assessments and site inspections, test
drinking water systems, and provide mitigations such as bottled
water or drinking water filtration systems where water systems
tests indicate PFOS/PFOA above the LHA levels. The committee
notes that the Department was unable to program funds
specifically for these actions in the fiscal year 2016 or
fiscal year 2017 budget requests and have been funding their
response to PFOS/PFOA using existing funds originally
programmed for other response actions. The committee is
supportive of the Department's near-term efforts to respond to
PFOS and PFOA and believes it is critical for the Department to
continue its outreach and engagement with local communities
with drinking water systems that have PFOS/PFOA detected above
the LHAs and may have been impacted by the Department's
activities. Furthermore, the committee believes it is important
for the Department to fully plan, program, and budget for
actions related to PFOS and PFOA in order to meet its
responsibilities under the CERCLA, the Safe Drinking Water Act
(42 U.S.C. 300f), and other applicable Federal statutes, rules,
and regulations.
Finally, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than September 30, 2017, on the Department's response to
PFOS/PFOA. The briefing should provide the following:
(1) the locations on or in proximity to current and former
military installations where the Department has conducted
testing of military, public, and private drinking water systems
and a summary of the results of those tests where PFOS/PFOA
levels were detected in excess of the LHA levels;
(2) the locations on or in proximity to current and former
military installations where the Department has conducted
groundwater testing where PFOS/PFOA may have been released and
a summary of the results of those tests where PFOS/PFOA levels
were detected in excess of the LHA levels;
(3) short-term mitigations that have been funded and
provided by the Department, both on military installations and
in the surrounding communities, where PFOS/PFOA levels were
detected in excess of the LHA levels;
(4) the process and timeline for identifying and resourcing
long-term remediation on military installations or in the
surrounding communities where PFOS/PFOA levels were detected in
excess of the LHA levels; and
(5) research conducted in pursuit of less environmentally
harmful AFFF blends containing less or no PFOS/PFOA.
Recurrent Flooding and Sea Level Rise
The committee is aware that several Department of Defense
installations and facilities are experiencing recurrent
flooding events and encroachment from sea level rise. These
events have the potential to adversely impact military
operations, training, and readiness. The committee is aware
that the Department of Defense and the military departments
have initiated several studies and collaborations with
academic, research, and intergovernmental institutions to model
recurrent flooding and sea level rise and examine options for
enhancing mission resiliency at impacted military
installations. The committee supports these collaborations and
encourages the Department of Defense to continue and expand
these research efforts.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretaries of the military departments,
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than March 1, 2018, on recurrent flooding and sea
level rise impacting military installations. At a minimum, the
briefing should address the findings and recommendations of the
research collaborations that have been undertaken to date, a
discussion of areas where the Department of Defense believes
additional research is needed, and ongoing and planned
mitigations to ensure the continued operational viability and
mission resilience of affected military installations.
Standard-Issue Garments for Women
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
committee directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the committee outlining plans to provide personal
protective equipment (PPE) and organizational clothing and
individual equipment (OCIE) developed specifically for female
service members. The committee notes that it has not yet
received this briefing. The committee further directs the
Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than September 30, 2017,
on efforts to ensure that standard-issue garments, such as the
Army Combat Shirt, are meeting the unique body types of female
service members. This briefing should include a discussion of
how the Army is seeking to leverage advancements in flame-
resistant technology and integrate them into standard garments.
Water Quality Trading
The Committee recognizes that the Department of Defense
must comply with post-construction water quality requirements
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)
when conducting construction activities on military
installations. Water quality requirements may include, but are
not limited to, those associated with the control and reduction
of storm water runoff, total maximum daily loads, water quality
standards and criteria, National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permits, or similar state or local permits.
The committee is aware that some states are developing Water
Quality Trading Program, where the purchase of water quality
credits, generated by third parties and certified by the
appropriate federal, state, or local agency, may help reduce
costs while meeting water quality compliance requirements in a
transparent and accountable manner. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
secretaries of the military departments, to provide a briefing
to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than March
1, 2018, on the potential use of water quality credits to
comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations.
At minimum, the briefing should address the Department's policy
with respect to purchasing water quality credits, examples of
where such credits have been used by the Department of Defense,
as well as the financial costs, benefits, and challenges
associated with such credits.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 301--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize appropriations for operation
and maintenance activities at the levels identified in section
4301 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Energy and Environment
Section 311--Codification of and Improvements to Department of Defense
Clearinghouse to Coordinate Department Review of Applications for
Certain Projects That May Have Adverse Impact on Military Operations
and Readiness
This section would amend chapter 7 of title 10, United
States Code, by inserting a new section that would update the
authorities of the Department of Defense Clearinghouse
established by section 358 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).
This section would also change the name of the
Clearinghouse to the ``Military Aviation, Range, and
Installation Assurance Program Office'' would repeal section
358 of Public Law 111-383 upon enactment.
Section 312--Energy Performance Goals and Master Plan
This section would amend section 2911 of title 10, United
States Code, to add future energy demand, energy resiliency,
and opportunities to leverage third-party financing to the
special considerations the Secretary of Defense must consider
when developing and implementing the energy performance goals
and energy performance master plan.
Section 313--Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of Stipulated
Penalty in Connection With Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
transfer a specified amount to the Hazardous Substance
Superfund to satisfy a stipulated penalty assessed by the
Environmental Protection Agency against the Umatilla Chemical
Depot, Oregon, under a Federal Facility Agreement entered into
by the Army and the Environmental Protection Agency in 1989.
Section 314--Payment to Environmental Protection Agency of Stipulated
Penalty in Connection With Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant, Texas
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
transfer a specified amount to the Hazardous Substance
Superfund to satisfy a stipulated penalty assessed by the
Environmental Protection Agency against Longhorn Army
Ammunition Plant, Texas, under a Federal Facility Agreement
entered into by the Army and the Environmental Protection
Agency in 1991.
Section 315--Department of Defense Cleanup and Removal of Petroleum,
Oil, and Lubricant Associated With the Prinz Eugen
This section would authorize removal and cleanup of
petroleum, oil and lubricants from the heavy cruiser Prinz
Eugen, which was transferred from the United States to the
Republic of the Marshall Islands in 1986.
Subtitle C--Logistics and Sustainment
Section 321--Reauthorization of Multi-Trades Demonstration Project
This section would amend section 338 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-
136) to extend the multi-trades demonstration project through
2024.
Section 322--Guidance Regarding Use of Organic Industrial Base
This section would direct the Secretary of the Army to
maintain the arsenals with sufficient workloads to ensure
affordability and technical competence in all critical
capability areas.
Subtitle D--Reports
Section 331--Quarterly Reports on Personnel and Unit Readiness
This section would amend section 482 of title 10, United
States Code, to change the matters reported in the Quarterly
Readiness Reports to Congress (QRRC). Reports for the first and
third quarters of a fiscal year would contain information on
Department of Defense and military service readiness status
while those for the second and fourth quarters of a fiscal year
would contain Department of Defense mitigation plans for
readiness deficiencies identified in the previous quarter's
QRRC.
Section 332--Biennial Report on Core Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair
Capability
This section would amend section 2464 of title 10, United
States Code, to improve existing biennial reporting
requirements on core depot-level maintenance and repair
capabilities by clarifying what specific data should be
included in such reports.
Section 333--Annual Report on Personnel, Training, and Equipment Needs
of Non-Federalized National Guard
This section would amend section 10504 of title 10, United
States Code, to require an annual report on the personnel,
training, and equipment needs of the non-federalized National
Guard.
Section 334--Annual Report on Military Working Dogs Used by the
Department of Defense
This section would establish an annual reporting
requirement on Military Working Dogs used by the Department of
Defense.
Section 335--Annual Briefings on Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal
This section would require an annual briefing to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives on the Army's explosive ordnance disposal
program.
Section 336--Report on Effects of Climate Change on Department of
Defense
This section would state findings related to climate
change, express the sense of Congress regarding climate change
and national security, and would require the Secretary of
Defense to provide a report on vulnerabilities to military
installations and combatant commands from climate change
related effects.
Subtitle E--Other Matters
Section 341--Explosive Safety Board
This section would amend section 172 of title 10, United
States Code, to change the name of the Ammunition Storage Board
to the Explosive Safety Board while also changing the
membership requirements of that board.
Section 342--Department of Defense Support for Military Service
Memorials and Museums That Highlight the Role of Women in the Armed
Forces
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to
provide financial support for the acquisition, installation,
and maintenance of exhibits, facilities, historical displays,
and programs at military service memorials and museums that
highlight the role of women in the Armed Forces.
The budget request included $5.0 million for financial
support for the acquisition, installation, and maintenance of
exhibits, facilities, historical displays, and programs at
military service memorials and museums that highlight the role
of women in the military in accordance with section 2833 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328). As noted in the justification materials
accompanying the budget request, the committee expects these
funds and the authority provided by this section to enable the
memorial to address program shortfalls and chart a path to
financial independence by end of year fiscal year 2018.
Section 343--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Advanced Skills
Management Software System of the Navy
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to
brief the committee on needed enhancements to the Advanced
Skills Management software system. This section would also
withhold funding for this software system until 60 days after
the Secretary of the Navy has provided the committee with the
results of a formal request for information that considers
commercial-off-the-shelf solutions.
Section 344--Cost-Benefit Analysis of Uniform Specifications for Afghan
Military or Security Forces
This section would require a cost-benefit analysis of
uniform specifications as a condition of the contract whenever
the Secretary of Defense enters into a contract for the
provision of uniforms for Afghan military or security forces.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for Active Duty personnel of the Armed Forces as of September
30, 2018:
Sec. 401.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2017 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2018 FY 2017
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army........................................... 476,000 476,000 486,000 10,000 10,000
Navy........................................... 323,900 327,900 327,900 0 4,000
USMC........................................... 185,000 185,000 185,000 0 0
Air Force...................................... 321,000 325,100 325,100 0 4,100
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total.................................... 1,305,900 1,314,000 1,324,000 10,000 18,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 402--Revisions in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum
Levels
This section would establish new minimum Active Duty end
strengths for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force as of
September 30, 2018. The committee recommends 486,000 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Army, 327,900 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Navy, 185,000 as the
minimum Active Duty end strength for the Marine Corps, and
325,100 as the minimum Active Duty end strength for the Air
Force.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for Selected Reserve personnel, including the end strength for
Reserves on Active Duty in support of the Reserves, as of
September 30, 2018:
Sec. 411.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2017 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2018 FY 2017
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................ 343,000 343,000 347,000 4,000 4,000
Army Reserve................................... 199,000 199,000 202,000 3,000 3,000
Navy Reserve................................... 58,000 59,000 59,000 0 1,000
Marine Corps Reserve........................... 38,500 38,500 38,500 0 0
Air National Guard............................. 105,700 106,600 106,600 0 900
Air Force Reserve.............................. 69,000 69,800 69,800 0 800
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total.................................... 813,200 815,900 822,900 7,000 9,700
Coast Guard Reserve............................ 7,000 7,000 7,000 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of
the Reserves
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for Reserves on Active Duty in support of the Reserves as of
September 30, 2018:
Sec. 412.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2017 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2018 FY 2017
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................ 30,155 30,155 30,155 0 0
Army Reserve................................... 16,261 16,261 16,261 0 0
Navy Reserve................................... 9,955 10,101 10,101 0 146
Marine Corps Reserve........................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0
Air National Guard............................. 14,764 16,260 16,260 0 1,496
Air Force Reserve.............................. 2,955 3,588 3,588 0 633
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total.................................... 76,351 78,626 78,626 0 2,275
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status)
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30,
2018:
Sec. 413.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2017 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2018 FY 2017
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................ 25,507 25,507 25,507 0 0
Army Reserve................................... 7,570 7,427 7,427 0 -143
Air National Guard............................. 22,103 21,893 21,893 0 -210
Air Force Reserve.............................. 10,061 10,160 10,160 0 99
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total.................................... 65,241 64,987 64,987 0 -254
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2018 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual Status
Technicians
This section would establish the maximum end strengths for
the Reserve Components of the Army and Air Force for non-dual
status technicians as of September 30, 2018:
Sec. 414.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2017 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2018 FY 2017
mendation Request Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard............................ 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 0
Air National Guard............................. 350 350 350 0 0
Army Reserve................................... 420 420 420 0 0
Air Force Reserve.............................. 90 90 90 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total.................................... 2,460 2,460 2,460 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 415--Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized To Be on
Active Duty for Operational Support
This section would authorize, as required by section 115(b)
of title 10, United States Code, the maximum number of Reserve
Component personnel who may be on Active Duty or full-time
National Guard duty during fiscal year 2018 to provide
operational support. The personnel authorized here do not count
against the end strengths authorized by section 401 or section
412 of this Act unless the duration on Active Duty exceeds the
limitations in section 115(b)(2) of title 10, United States
Code.
Sec. 415.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Change from
---------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2017 Committee
Authorized Request Recom- FY 2018 FY 2017
mendation 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 421--Military Personnel
This section would authorize appropriations for military
personnel at the levels identified in the funding table in
section 4401 of division D of this Act.
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Bystander Intervention Training
The committee notes that research in the use of evidence-
based bystander intervention training and education has yielded
promising results in helping to decrease the number of sexual
assaults. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
continue to employ evidence-based training and education
methods and to leverage civilian research centers in developing
new and effective ways to reduce sexual assaults in the
military.
Comptroller General Report on Race Data in the Military Justice System
The committee is aware of a recent report that concluded
that racial disparities may exist in the military justice
system. The committee notes that the report relies on
incomplete information because of differences in the way in
which the military services collect and maintain data on this
subject. Therefore, not later than January 30, 2019, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to submit a report to the Armed Services Committee of the House
of Representatives containing the following components: (1) how
the military services record and maintain the race and gender
of service members convicted of violations of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice; (2) the reason for any differences in
collection and maintenance of this data among the military
services; (3) recommendations to improve the collection of this
data; (4) data and analysis to assist the committee in
determining whether there is a racial disparity in the
prosecution of cases under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice; and (5) any other matters the Comptroller General
believes are relevant to this issue.
Digital Transformation of the Recruiting Process
The committee understands that the Department of Defense
and the military departments are working to improve and
modernize the military recruiting process. However, the
committee is aware that additional modernization is required to
optimize recruiting and entrance processing. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the military services, to provide a briefing to the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives no
later than April 1, 2018, on the plan to modernize military
recruiting and entrance processing. The briefing shall include:
(1) how the enlistment and commissioning workflow process
can be modernized to improve workflow by minimizing paperwork
and maximizing paperless transactions;
(2) how the military services measure effectiveness and
return on investment for recruiting and advertising; and
(3) how the military services are using data analytics to
improve recruiting.
Female Propensity To Serve in the Armed Forces
The committee recognizes that a broad talent pool is
critical to attaining qualified recruits with the requisite
skill sets in demand by the armed services. An analysis of
Joint Advertising Market Research and Studies data conducted
for the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services
estimated that only 29% of youth ages 17 to 24 meet eligibility
criteria for military service. Over half of that population is
comprised of women; however, women account for less than 15% of
today's active duty force. Increasing the propensity of women
to serve is an important step to achieving meaningful access to
that eligible population and vital to meeting long-term
readiness requirements. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to brief the House Armed Services
Committee by January 31st, 2018 on the following:
(1) female propensity to serve in each of the Armed
Services, including historical trends in propensity from 9/11
through the opening of remaining combat arms MOSs and units to
women;
(2) a review of proactive measures the services have taken
to increase the propensity of women to serve;
(3) an assessment of programs, policies, or incentives that
could help increase the propensity of women to serve including
an evaluation of how successful previous efforts been in this
regard;
(4) service efforts to recruit women applicants, including
measures of success weighted against the varying propensity of
men and women to serve, funding directed towards gender
diversity initiatives, and statistics related to female-
targeted advertising and outreach to female athletes and high
school students as a percentage of overall recruiting efforts
in these areas; and
(5) an assessment of the impact of service culture on the
propensity of women to serve, including departmental and
service efforts to build environments of respect and inclusion
and counter negative impressions of military service stemming
from recent social media scandals.
Gender Double Standards
The committee embraces the service of all qualified service
members and believes that a single standard should apply to all
service men and women to the degree practicable. While the
committee supports the continuance of gender and age specific
physical fitness evaluations, the committee is concerned that
female service members are sometimes perceived to be held to
different standards than their male service members. The
committee is particularly concerned with the differences in
basic training, such as the differing haircut standards for men
and women in all services' initial entry training. The
committee also believes that gender neutral physical standards
should be adopted through the services for each occupation.
Such standards would ease the gender neutral assignment
policies to all duty positions, which should be the norm.
To begin the process of eliminating the perception of
double standards as much as possible, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with service secretaries
and the chiefs of the armed services, to review instances where
men and women are held to different standards across the
services and brief the House Committee on Armed Services by
February 1, 2018 on any such differences the Secretary
recommends retaining. Such a briefing should include discussion
on appearance standards; a gender neutral assignment policy;
gender neutral training and occupational standards, and any
separate gender training.
Gender Integration of United States Marine Corps Basic Recruit Training
The committee notes that on January 24, 2013 the Secretary
of Defense rescinded the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition
and Assignment Rule and directed the service to open all
occupations and units to women as expeditiously as possible,
but no later the 1 January 2016. The committee also recognizes
that the military services have transitioned to gender-neutral
occupational standards, but the military has retained different
standards for men and women for the service's physical fitness
test and encourages the services to continue to explore options
for gender-neutral standards in this regard. The committee also
notes that the United States Marine Corps is the only military
service that has not integrated men and women at basic recruit
training. Therefore, the committee directs the Commandant of
the Marine Corps, not later than one year after enactment, to
report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives on the required changes and cost
the Marine Corps would require to execute a fully integrated
basic recruit training, to include the construction or
renovation of barracks.
GI Bill Benefit Review
The committee recognizes the substantial benefit the Post
9-11 GI Bill provides service members to further their or their
dependent's education. Due to the length of service
requirements to earn the benefit or transfer the benefit to a
dependent, many service members have experienced difficulty
understanding how much of the benefit they have earned. The
committee is aware that service members, both Active Duty and
in the Reserve Components, have had to reimburse the government
for unauthorized use of the benefit due to not meeting the
length of service requirements. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by November 30, 2017, on
whether providing service members information on their
remaining entitlement upon discharge from service would be
feasible and appropriate. The committee believes relevant
information would include the amount of the Post 9-11 GI Bill
benefit each service member has earned prior to separation,
retirement or release from military service, including whether
or not they have completed any additional service obligation
for transferring the benefit to a dependent.
Military Child Custody Protections
The committee remains concerned that service members are
not receiving necessary information related to State child
custody laws governing their dependents. While the Secretaries
of the military departments are currently required to provide
notice of child custody protections under the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act, the military departments do not have uniform
requirements to provide information on State child custody
laws. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of the military
departments, to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives not later than March
1, 2018, on the information and resources currently provided to
service members regarding State child custody laws. The
briefing shall include an analysis of how best to standardize
the dissemination of this information to all affected service
members, as well as an analysis of when, and how often, the
information should be provided to these service members.
Military Officer Diversity
The Committee is concerned with the lack of diversity
within commissioned officers and believes a new evaluation of
military service academy attendees is necessary to obtain data
in order to evaluate future policy. Therefore, the Committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the recruiting,
retention, and persistence rates of military service academy
candidates, current cadets/midshipmen, and graduates. The
Secretary of Defense shall provide the results of the
evaluation in a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of
the House of Representatives no later than December 1, 2018.
Military Service Academy Applications and Reserve Officer Training
Corps Scholarship Programs
The committee recognizes that the selection opportunity for
a position at a military service academy is a very selective
process and the number of applications vastly outnumbers the
available military service academy positions. Due to an
abundance of well-qualified applicants for military service
academies and their potential interest and qualification for a
Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) scholarship, the
committee highly encourages the Secretaries of the military
departments to forward all military service academy non-select
applications to their respective ROTC commands for
consideration for an ROTC scholarship. In so doing, the
Secretaries should also inform the applicant of the full range
of options for which he or she may be qualified.
Pilot Shortage Assessment
The committee recognizes that the services are having
difficulty addressing shortfalls in critical career fields that
are vital for the readiness of our Armed Forces, specifically
in the pilot career field. The committee is concerned about the
Air Force's retention and recruitment issues within the fighter
pilot community. The committee notes that the Air Force
provided written testimony to the committee on February 7,
2017, stating that the Air Force was short 723 fighter pilots
below requirement and 1,555 pilots short across all mission
areas.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of the
Air Force to evaluate all options for improving the recruitment
and retention of Air Force pilots. As part of such an
assessment, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services
of the House of Representatives by December 1, 2017, on the
extent to which moving pilot or other aviation billets to the
Active Guard and Reserve Components would address these
shortages.
Pre-Command Audit Training Course
The committee believes that good financial management and
auditability are important responsibilities of military leaders
at all levels and is concerned that responsible officers
receive inadequate training on these matters in the course of
their careers. Therefore, 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 by
March 1, 2018, on the current programs of education used to
train those officers assuming a command billet or a billet
directly responsible for financial management on their
responsibilities regarding financial management and
auditability.
Additionally, 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
by June 1, 2018, that provides an assessment of the programs
identified in the Secretary's report. The report of the
Comptroller General shall also include an overview of current
law and the Department of Defense's financial management and
audit efforts to be in compliance with statutory guidance, as
well as general financial management training requirements for
command billets or billets requiring management of Department
of Defense funds.
Provision of Services at Department of Defense-Run Child Development
Centers (CDC)
The committee is concerned about staffing shortages at
childcare centers on military installations. These facilities
provide important services to the families of our men and women
in uniform and allow the military to tap the potential of
important demographics of society that otherwise might not be
able to contribute to our national defense. On-base childcare
is also an important workplace benefit that servicemembers and
their families depend on as part of their total military
compensation. The committee is further concerned that the
civilian hiring freeze issued by the Administration in January
2017 has furthered these shortages. Therefore the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the House Armed
Services Committee by December 1, 2017 on:
(1) current staffing deficiencies at service-run child
development centers (CDCs), to include part-time and preschool
programs;
(2) whether the hiring freeze created any collateral
effects on the services' ability to fill child-care positions
(e.g. reduced administrative staff at personnel offices, etc.);
(3) how long the hiring process takes for filling
individual child-care positions including information on what
kinds of background checks are involved;
(4) an assessment of whether streamlined hiring authorities
help fill vacancies faster;
(5) a discussion of the kinds of incentives that would help
recruit child-care workers in areas where filling these
positions is a challenge;
(6) how child care fee assistance programs could be
improved to fill any gaps in availability; and
(7) how the Department intends to ensure that non-
installation Child Development Centers address the unique
developmental needs of servicemember families should military
families have to seek outside care.
Report on the Feasibility of Establishing a Military Family Service
Corps
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 by February 1, 2018, on the
feasibility of the U.S. Department of Defense entering into an
agreement with the Corporation for National and Community
Service to establish a Military Family Service Corps as an
AmeriCorps Affiliate.
Participants in such a Corps would focus on service in a
military community in activities selected by the installation
commander from a list of options drawn from a survey of need in
the military community. Potential activities could include the
following: military spouse career support, transition support
for members departing military service; integration of new
military families into the military community and installation;
development and implementation of morale and recreation
activities for the installation; service as a liaison with
local schools for military children; support for military
families with children of special needs, wounded warrior
transition support, and any additional activities the Secretary
deems appropriate.
Review of Resourcing of Trial Defense Services
The committee is aware of the integral role that an
independent and adequately resourced military trial defense
service plays in the military justice system. Accordingly, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Secretaries of the military departments, to conduct a
review of the trial defense services resourcing, and to provide
a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives not later than April 1, 2018. The review will
include:
(1) whether military defense counsel require independent
investigators in order to adequately defend their clients, and
the costs associated with providing such investigators;
(2) whether trial defense offices are adequately resourced
with personnel and equipment;
(3) the feasibility and advisability of providing
independent funding and approval authority to trial defense
services for expert witnesses; and
(4) the programs in place to ensure that lead defense
counsel in complex cases, such as murder and sexual assault,
have the appropriate experience and training required to
effectively defend their clients.
Review of the Court Martial Appeals Process
The committee recognizes the significant efforts made to
modernize the Uniform Code of Military Justice in order to
maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces while
providing service members due process protections. However, the
committee is aware that certain service members are unable to
appeal their court-martial cases to the United States Supreme
Court. Under existing law, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction
to hear appeals in which the Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces (CAAF): declined review; denied extraordinary relief;
or, in some cases, denied interlocutory appeals. In these
cases, service members have less access to Supreme Court review
than civilians operating in the civilian court system.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
review restrictions on service member appeals to the United
States Supreme Court and whether these restrictions should be
eliminated and provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives no later than April
30, 2018.
Social Media Policy for Recruits
The committee notes that DOD Instruction 1304.26, March 23,
2015, ENCLOSURE 3 contains a section, ``Character/Conduct,''
that reads as follows: ``The underlying purpose of these
enlistment, appointment, and induction standards is to minimize
entrance of persons who are likely to become disciplinary
cases, security risks, or who are likely to disrupt good order,
morale, and discipline. The Military Services are responsible
for the defense of the Nation and should not be viewed as a
source of rehabilitation for those who have not subscribed to
the legal and moral standards of society at-large.'' The
committee understands that DD FORM 4/1, OCT 2007, ENLISTMENT/
REENLISTMENT DOCUMENT ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES,
states, ``If my behavior fails to meet acceptable military
standards, I may be discharged and given a certificate for less
than honorable service, which may hurt my future job
opportunities and my claim for veteran's benefits.''
The committee is troubled by recent high-profile cases
involving the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. In
addition, the committee is concerned that the military
departments continue to have varying policies outlining
appropriate social media conduct. The committee believes that
all service members must be explicitly notified, upon
enlistment or reenlistment, that online harassment, bullying,
or hazing, including sexual harassment, bullying, or hazing,
will not be tolerated and, if verified, may lead to a less than
honorable discharge.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by January 31, 2018, on the best method to ensure uniform high
standards across the military services for social media use by
service members, and to require notification and acknowledgment
by all enlistees of the existence of these policies and the
potential consequences for violations of these standards.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Regular and Reserve Component Management
Section 501--Modification of Requirements Relating to Conversion of
Certain Military Technician (Dual Status) Positions to Civilian
Positions
This section would amend section 1053 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92), as amended by section 1084 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328), to
reduce the clerical and administrative dual status technician
conversions to title 5, United States Code, civilians required
by those sections from 20 percent to 10 percent and would
extend the date of completion of those conversions for 1 year
until October 1, 2018. Additionally, this section would require
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 March 1, 2018, containing
recommendations for revisions to section 709 of title 32,
United States Code.
Section 502--Pilot Program on Use of Retired Senior Enlisted Members of
the Army National Guard as Army National Guard Recruiters
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
carry out a pilot program under which retired senior enlisted
members of the Army National Guard would serve as contract
recruiters for the Army National Guard.
Section 503--Equal Treatment of Orders To Serve on Active Duty under
Section 12304a and 12304b of Title 10, United States Code
This section would amend sections 1074(d)(2) and 1145(a) of
title 10, United States Code, to authorize Reserve Component
members activated under the authority provided by either
section 12304a or 12304b of title 10, United States Code, to
receive pre-mobilization and transitional TRICARE health care.
Section 504--Direct Employment Pilot Program for Members of the
National Guard and Reserve
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a pilot program to provide job placement assistance to
members of the National Guard and Reserves. This section would
also require the Secretary to provide a report to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by January 31, 2022 describing the results of
the pilot. The authority to conduct the program would expire on
September 30, 2020. The Secretary would be further authorized
to extend the pilot program for not more than 2 fiscal years.
Subtitle B--General Service Authorities and Correction of Military
Records
Section 511--Consideration of Additional Medical Evidence by Boards for
the Correction of Military Records and Liberal Consideration of
Evidence Relating to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or Traumatic Brain
Injury
This section would amend section 1552 of title 10, United
States Code, to require Boards for the Correction of Military
Records to review medical evidence of the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs and civilian healthcare providers in cases in which the
application is based on matters relating to post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI). In
addition, it would require the boards to review the case with
liberal consideration to the former member that PTSD or TBI
potentially contributed to the discharge or dismissal, or
discharge characterization.
Section 512--Public Availability of Information Related to Disposition
of Claims Regarding Discharge or Release of Members of the Armed Forces
When the Claims Involve Sexual Assault
This section would amend sections 1552(h) and 1553(f) of
title 10, United States Code, to add a requirement to publicly
disclose statistics related to applications to the Boards for
the Correction for Military Records and Discharge Review Boards
in which sexual assault is alleged to have contributed to the
original characterization of the discharge or release of the
claimant.
Section 513--Pilot Program on Use of Video Teleconferencing Technology
by Boards for the Correction of Military Records and Discharge Review
Boards
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a pilot program on the use of video teleconferencing
technology by boards for the correction of military records and
discharge review boards so that, when authorized, applicants
may appear before the board without being physically present.
Section 514--Inclusion of Specific Email Address Block on Certificate
of Release or Discharge From Active Duty (DD Form 214)
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
modify the Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty
(DD Form 214) to include a specific block for the service
member's email address.
Section 515--Provision of Information on Naturalization Through
Military Service
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
ensure certain service members are informed of the availability
of naturalization through military service under section 328 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 143).
Subtitle C--Military Justice and Other Legal Issues
Section 521--Clarifying Amendments Related to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice Reform by the Military Justice Act of 2016
This section would make clarifying amendments to the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, including clarifying that
petitions for writs of mandamus by victims have priority in
both the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for
the Armed Forces; expanding the pre-referral matters that a
military judge may consider to include appointment of a certain
individual to assume the rights of certain victims and pre-
referral matters related to a petition for a writ of mandamus
by a victim; clarifying that the President may establish the
types of sentences that require automatic reduction in enlisted
rank; and extending the due date of the Military Justice Review
Panel's assessment on sentencing data from 2020 to 2021.
Section 522--Minimum Confinement Period Required for Conviction of
Certain Sex-Related Offenses Committed by Members of the Armed Forces
This section would amend section 856(b)(1) of title 10,
United States Code (article 56(b)(1) of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice) to include a two-year mandatory minimum
period of confinement for service members convicted of certain
sex-related offenses.
Section 523--Prohibition on Wrongful Broadcast or Distribution of
Intimate Visual Images
This section would amend the Uniform Code of Military
Justice to insert a new section (article) prohibiting wrongful
broadcast or distribution of intimate visual images.
Section 524--Information for the Special Victims' Counsel or Victims'
Legal Counsel
This section would amend section 1044e(b)(6) of title 10,
United States Code, to require that, if there is a prosecution
of an alleged sex-related offense, the special victims' counsel
or victims' legal counsel representing the victim shall receive
a copy of all case information in the possession of the trial
counsel, unless the information is privileged.
Section 525--Special Victims' Counsel Training Regarding the Unique
Challenges Often Faced by Male Victims of Sexual Assault
This section would require that baseline Special Victims'
Counsel training include training on how to recognize and deal
with the unique challenges often faced by male victims of
sexual assault.
Section 526--Garnishment To Satisfy Judgement Rendered for Physically,
Sexually, or Emotionally Abusing a Child
This section would amend section 1408 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the garnishment of service member
retired pay to satisfy a judgement rendered for physically,
sexually, or emotionally abusing a child.
Section 527--Inclusion of Information in Annual SAPRO Reports Regarding
Military Sexual Harassment and Incidents Involving Nonconsensual
Distribution of Private Sexual Images
This section would amend section 1631(b) of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) to require inclusion of information on reports of
sexual harassment and incidents involving nonconsensual
distribution of private sexual images involving members of the
Armed Forces in the annual Department of Defense Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response Office Report.
Section 528--Inclusion of Information in Annual SAPRO Reports regarding
Sexual Assaults Committed by a Member of the Armed Forces against the
Member's Spouse or Other Family Member
This section would require inclusion of information
regarding sexual assaults committed by service members against
their spouse, intimate partner, or other dependent in an annual
report required by section 1631 the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383), which is issued on or after March 1, 2018.
Section 529--Notification of Members of the Armed Forces Undergoing
Certain Administrative Separations of Potential Eligibility for
Veterans Benefits
This section would require that service members being
separated from the military with an other than honorable
discharge be informed, in writing, that they may petition the
Veterans Benefits Administration of the Department of Veterans
Affairs for certain benefits despite their characterization of
service.
Section 530--Consistent Access to Special Victims' Counsel for Former
Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces
This section would direct the Secretary of the Navy to
revise the Navy Victims' Legal Counsel policy to allow certain
former dependents of service members to receive Victims' Legal
Counsel representation.
Subtitle D--Member Education, Training, Resilience, and Transition
Section 541--Prohibition on Release of Military Service Academy
Graduates To Participate in Professional Athletics
This section would amend sections 4348(a), 6959(a), and
9348(a) of title 10, United States Code, to require that any
graduate from a military service academy program must fulfill
their military service commitments without exception before
being released to participate in professional sports.
Section 542--ROTC Cyber Institutes at the Senior Military Colleges
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out a program to establish a Reserve Officers' Training
Corps Cyber Institute at each of the senior military colleges.
Section 543--Lieutenant Henry Ossian Flipper Leadership Scholarship
Program
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
establish the Lieutenant Henry Ossian Flipper Leadership
Scholarship Program. The scholarship program would provide
financial assistance to an individual pursuing a recognized
post-secondary credential at a minority-serving institution,
who enters into an agreement for active duty service with the
Army. This section would also require the Secretary to report
to the congressional defense committees within one year
following the date of enactment of this Act on the progress of
the program.
Subtitle E--Defense Dependents' Education and Military Family Readiness
Matters
Section 551--Continuation of Authority to Assist Local Educational
Agencies That Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense Civilian Employees
This section would authorize $30.0 million for the
continuation of Department of Defense assistance in fiscal year
2018 to local educational agencies that are impacted by the
enrollment of dependent children of military members and
Department of Defense civilian employees. Elsewhere in this
Act, the funding table in Division D would authorize an
additional $20.0 million, for a total of $50.0 million, for
such purposes.
Section 552--Education for Dependents of Certain Retired Members of the
Armed Forces
This section would amend section 2164 of title 10, United
States Code, to allow dependents of retired members of the
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps residing on military
installations in the United States to attend Department of
Defense schools on those bases.
Section 553--Codification of Authority to Conduct Family Support
Programs for Immediate Family Members of Members of the Armed Forces
Assigned to Special Operations Forces
This section would make permanent the authority provided by
section 554 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), as modified by section
574(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92) by adding a new section to
chapter 88 of title 10, United States Code. The section would
provide the Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command the
authority to conduct programs for immediate family members of
members of the Armed Forces assigned to special operations
forces.
Section 554--Reimbursement for State Licensure and Certification Costs
of a Spouse of a Member of the Armed Forces Arising from Relocation to
Another State
This section would amend section 476 of title 37, United
States Code, to permit the Secretary of a military department
or the Secretary of Homeland Security to reimburse a member of
the Armed Forces up to $500 for a spouse's expenses related to
obtaining licensing or certification in another State incident
to a permanent change of station. This section would also
require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland
Security to work with States to improve the portability of
licenses and certifications between States.
Subtitle F--Decorations and Awards
Section 561--Replacement of Military Decorations at the Request of
Relatives of Deceased Members of the Armed Forces
This section would amend section 1135 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to replace the
military decorations of a deceased recipient to certain
relatives at no cost to the Department of Defense.
Section 562--Congressional Defense Service Medal
This section would amend chapter 57 of title 10, United
States Code, to establish the Congressional Defense Service
Medal. The medal would be awarded by the Secretary of Defense
on the behest and behalf of Congress to groups or other
entities that have distinguished themselves by exemplary
service or achievement advancing the defense or national
security of the United States. The committee believes that
Congress will direct the Secretary to bestow these awards by
passage of a law or concurrent resolution and that all awards
will be approved on a bipartisan basis.
Section 563--Limitations on Authority to Revoke Certain Military
Decorations Awarded to Members of the Armed Forces
This section would amend chapters 357, 567, and 857 of
title 10, United States Code, to limit the authority of the
President or Secretary of a military department to revoke
certain military decorations after the presentation of the
award to the service member.
Subtitle G--Miscellaneous Reports and Other Matters
Section 571--Expansion of United States Air Force Institute of
Technology Enrollment Authority to Include Civilian Employees of the
Homeland Security Industry
The section would amend section 9314a of title 10, United
States Code, to allow homeland security industry employees
employed by a private firm in one of the critical
infrastructure sectors identified in Presidential Policy
Directive 21 to attend the United States Air Force Institute of
Technology.
Section 572--Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
This section would amend section 1967(f)(4) of title 38,
United States Code, by striking the second sentence of such
paragraph, regarding the failure to notify a member's spouse in
a timely manner of certain elections and beneficiary
designations.
Section 573--Voter Registration
This section would amend section 705 of the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. 4025), to allow service members
stationed in a State pursuant to military orders to vote in
Federal, State and local elections in that State instead of
their State of permanent residence.
Section 574--Sense of Congress regarding Section 504 of Title 10,
United States Code, on Existing Authority of the Department of Defense
To Enlist Individuals, Not Otherwise Eligible for Enlistment, Whose
Enlistment is Vital to the National Interest
This section would express a sense of Congress that there
is currently a statute, specifically paragraph (2) of
subsection (b) of section 504 of title 10, United States Code,
that allows the Secretary concerned to authorize the enlistment
of certain non-citizens if the Secretary determines that such
enlistment is vital to the national interest.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Local Purchasing Contracts for the Defense Commissary Agency
The committee is aware that significant savings in Second
Destination Travel costs may be realized by the Defense
Commissary Agency (DeCA) by pursuing contracts with local
distributors and vendors in the Pacific region. The Department
of Defense Inspector General has recently verified that DeCA
can maintain quality, selection and cost savings by exercising
local purchase with Fresh Fruits and Vegetable. The committee
believes that DeCA should explore every opportunity available
to reduce second destination transportation cost and that
utilizing existing contracts could provide commissary customers
with greater variety while providing significant transportation
savings to the Department of Defense. Additionally, an
expansion of local products and distributor contracts will
strengthen local economic partnerships with DeCA. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the committee not later than January 1, 2018, on
the following:
(1) The current percentage of goods that are provided by
local vendors, to include commodity category and dollar value
of sales, and an analysis of historical data for the past five
years.
(2) The cost of Second Destination Transportation to
provide commissary goods to the Commissaries on Guam.
(3) The feasibility of whether using local distributors for
items other than Fresh Fruits and Vegetables will reduce the
cost of Second Destination Transportation while maintaining
savings to beneficiaries.
(4) Initiatives undertaken or explored that seek to
encourage and promote local vendor and distributor access to
commissaries on Guam.
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Assessment
The committee recognizes that the continued support for
service members and families is vital to their quality of life
as operational requirements and budgetary pressures continue
unabated. The committee is concerned that the military services
have not complied with established Department of Defense policy
to ensure appropriate financial support of family, welfare, and
recreational programs for the past several years, particularly
for programs within Category B, which relies on both
appropriated and nonappropriated funding.
The committee recognizes that all programs, including
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) programs, need to be
constantly reviewed to ensure that they are necessary,
effective, and cost efficient. Therefore, the committee directs
the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a
review of the Department of Defense's MWR programs by category
to assess the Department's current Category A, B, and C
appropriated and nonappropriated funding policies and
priorities. The review should include a baseline assessment of
the programs; the budgeting, funding, and accounting processes
used by the services; an analysis and assessment of the review
process by which services ensure that programs continue to be
effective and cost-effective; and whether the organizational
structure of the services are adequate to provide the
appropriate oversight of these important programs. The
committee further directs the Comptroller General to submit a
report to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than
April 1, 2018, on the results of the assessment.
Reserve Component Benefits Parity Under 12304b Mobilization Authority
The committee recognizes that Reserve Component units
ordered to Active Duty should receive the same benefits for the
same duty as their Active Duty counterparts. The committee
understands that Reserve Component units involuntarily ordered
to Active Duty under the authority provided by section 12304b
of title 10, United States Code, are not entitled to several
benefits that other deployed service members are provided,
including the Post 9/11 GI Bill, pre-mobilization TRICARE
health care, reduced age for retirement, Federal civilian
differential pay and high deployment allowance. Even though
this mobilization authority was established by Congress at the
Department of Defense's request to support non-contingency
operations, the committee believes that these benefits should
be made available to the Reserve Component units that are
ordered to Active Duty under any authority. Section 515 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92) required the Secretary of Defense to assess the
viability of consolidating the number of authorities to order
members of the Reserve Components to perform duty. Once the
recommendation from the Secretary of Defense is received, the
committee expects that the benefits disparity will be
corrected.
Review of Department of Defense Debt Collection Practices
The committee notes that the Department of Defense operates
a debt collection process to recoup erroneous payments. While
debt collection is sometimes necessary, the committee is
concerned that some Department of Defense debt collection
practices may place an undue burden on service members and
their families. The committee therefore 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 not later than June 1, 2018, on debt collection
procedures of the Department of Defense. The report shall
include an analysis of the following:
(1) policies of the Department that govern such
overpayments and debt collection actions, including the extent
to which such policies ensure uniform enforcement and due
process for members of the Armed Forces;
(2) the extent to which the Department has processes or
controls in place to ensure compliance with applicable laws
related to debt collection;
(3) means by which the Department may be flexible in the
enforcement of debt collection practices regarding members of
the Armed Forces, including the ability to grant debt
forgiveness or provide other forms of debt relief;
(4) how the Department reports such overpayments and
related debt collection actions to credit rating agencies,
including whether and how such agencies distinguish between
types of delinquency; and
(5) policies and procedures of the Department that allow
members of the Armed Forces to challenge alleged overpayments
or debt collection actions by the Department before the
Department reports such overpayments or actions to credit
rating agencies.
Service Member Financial Planning
The Committee is concerned with the ensuring the Department
of Defense provides sufficient assistance to service members
retiring under the new Blended Retirement System beginning in
January 2018. Specifically, current service members will have
the option to opt into the Blended Retirement System and will
be authorized to elect to take a lump sum disbursement of their
retirement pay. The Committee remains concerned about ensuring
service members are fully aware of their options and able to
make the best choice for themselves and their families.
Therefore, the Secretary of Defense will provide a briefing to
the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives, no later than March 1, 2018, on the number of
financial planners the Department has available to service
members and how service members are informed or advised
concerning professional financial planning and the availability
of professional financial planners.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Section 601--Annual Adjustment of Basic Monthly Pay
This section would direct that the rates of basic pay under
section 203(a) of title 37, United States Code, be increased in
accordance with section 1009 of title 37, United States Code,
notwithstanding a determination made by the President under
subsection (e) of section 1009.
Section 602--Limitation on Basic Allowance for Housing Modification
Authority for Members of the Uniformed Services Residing in Military
Housing Privatization Initiative Housing
This section would amend section 403(b) of title 37, United
States Code, to temporarily prohibit the Secretary of Defense
from further reducing the basic allowance for housing (BAH)
below the current level for service members residing in
Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) housing until
2019. The committee remains concerned about the reduction in
BAH and its effect on the recapitalization of these housing
units. The committee believes that military families must be
provided with on-base housing that is safe and periodically
modernized. Therefore, this section would also require the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives not later than March 1, 2018, on the Department
of Defense's management of MHPI, and plans and alternatives
considered for ensuring the continued viability of MHPI
projects for the life of the housing project.
Section 603--Housing Treatment for Certain Members of the Armed Forces,
and Their Spouses and Other Dependents, Undergoing a Permanent Change
of Station Within the United States
This section would amend chapter 7 of title 37, United
States Code, to allow a member of the Armed Forces undergoing a
permanent change of station within the United States to request
that their spouse or other dependents continue to reside at the
current duty station or move ahead of them to the new duty
station if it is advantageous to the member and their family
due to spousal employment, dependent schooling needs, dependent
special medical needs or immediate family long term care needs.
Section 604--Per Diem Allowance Policies
This section would prohibit a Secretary of a military
departments from implementing a flat rate per diem policy for
long term temporary duty described in a certain policy
memorandum. This section would also prohibit a Secretary of a
military department from implementing a new per diem allowance
policy under section 474 of title 10, United States Code, until
a report is issued by the Secretary of Defense to the
congressional defense committees and the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives and until a period of 30 days has elapsed after
notifying such congressional committees regarding any new
policy.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay
Authorities for Reserve Forces
This section would extend the authority, through December
31, 2018, for 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, the
authority to reimburse travel expenses for inactive duty
training outside of normal commuting distance, and income
replacement payments for Reserve Component members experiencing
extended and frequent mobilization for Active Duty service.
Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay
Authorities for Health Care Professionals
This section would extend the authority for the nurse
officer candidate accession program, repayment of educational
loans for certain health professionals who serve in the
Selected Reserve, the accession and retention bonuses for
psychologists, the accession bonus for registered nurses, the
incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, the special pay
for Selected Reserve health care 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,
until December 31, 2018.
Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities
for Nuclear Officers
This section would extend the authority for the special pay
for nuclear-qualified officers extending a period of active
service, the nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear
career annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2018.
Section 614--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Title 37
Consolidated Special Pay, Incentive Pay, and Bonus Authorities
This section would extend the general bonus authority for
enlisted members, the general bonus authority for officers, the
special bonus and incentive pay authority for nuclear officers,
special aviation incentive pay and bonus authorities, the
special health professions incentive pay and bonus authorities,
contracting bonus for Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps
cadets and midshipmen, hazardous duty pay, assignment pay or
special duty pay, skill incentive pay or proficiency bonus, and
the retention bonus for members with critical military skills
or assigned to high-priority units, until December 31, 2018.
Section 615--One-Year Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of
Other Title 37 Bonuses and Special Pays
This section would extend the authority for the aviation
officer retention bonus, assignment incentive pay, the
reenlistment bonus for active members, the enlistment bonus for
active members, the incentive pay for members of
precommissioning programs pursuing 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, until December 31,
2018.
Section 616--Reimbursement for State Licensure and Certification Costs
of a Member of the Armed Forces Arising from Separation from the Armed
Forces
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of Homeland Security to reimburse a service
member up to $500 for relicensing costs incurred upon
separation from the Armed Services. The section would also
require the Secretaries to work with States on improving
portability of licenses between States and to report
recommendations on this matter to appropriate congressional
committees and the States.
Section 617--Increase in Maximum Amount of Aviation Bonus for 12-Month
Period of Obligated Service
This section would amend section 334(c)(1)(B) of title 37,
United States Code, to increase the statutory limits for the
aviation retention bonus to $50,000 and allow the Secretary
concerned the flexibility to increase the aviation incentive
pay limit set forth in regulations issued by the Secretary of
Defense under section 374 of title 37, United States Code. The
Secretary of Defense should revise applicable regulations as
required.
Section 618--Technical and Clerical Amendments Relating to 2008
Consolidation of Certain Special Pay Authorities
This section would make technical and clerical corrections
to titles 10, 14, 37, and 42, United States Code, as part of
the Department of Defense's transition to the consolidated
authorities described in section 661 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181),
which provided eight consolidated statutory special and
incentive pay authorities to replace those currently in use.
Subtitle C--Disability Pay, Retired Pay, and Survivor Benefits
Section 621--Findings and Sense of Congress regarding the Special
Survivor Indemnity Allowance
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance was created as a stop gap
measure to assist widowed spouses by reducing the Survivor
Benefit Plan/Dependency Indemnity Compensation offset required
by law. This section would also state that the dollar-for-
dollar reduction in payment to surviving spouses should be
fully repealed at the first opportunity.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 631--Land Conveyance Authority, Army and Air Force Exchange
Service Property, Dallas, Texas
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to
authorize the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) to
divest itself of real property owned by AAFES at 8901 Autobahn
Drive, Dallas, Texas, as part of its consolidation into one
headquarters building in Dallas, Texas. Additionally, this
section would authorize AAFES to retain the nonappropriated
funds derived from the divestiture since AAFES acquired the
property with nonappropriated funds.
Section 632--Advisory Boards regarding Military Commissaries and
Exchanges
The section would require the Secretary of Defense to
direct installation commanders to establish an advisory board
regarding the interests of patrons and beneficiaries of
military commissaries and exchanges.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Educational Opportunities for Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to
establish educational opportunities for Certified Registered
Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) to attend accredited CRNA post
graduate pain management fellowships.
Force of the Future Pilot Program on Cryopreservation of Gametes
The committee is aware that nearly 2,000 servicemembers
suffered injuries to the genitourinary tract while deployed to
Iraq and Afghanistan. These injuries and other blast injuries
to the spine and brain can have a profound impact on
servicemembers' reproductive health.
In order to preserve the ability to start a family, some
servicemembers have elected to freeze reproductive material
pre-deployment, paying for the cost out of pocket. Recognizing
this demand, the Department of Defense proposed a pilot program
to allow individuals to cryopreserve gametes, but has not moved
forward with this initiative. The committee is supportive of
this pilot program because it preserves deploying
servicemembers' options for the future in the event of a
catastrophic injury, and provides deploying servicemembers with
important peace of mind. Therefore the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, not later than January 31, 2018, to brief
the House Armed Services Committee on the program and the
status of implementation.
Improving Access to Para Health Professional Extenders
The committee notes the Department of Defense continues to
seek ways to improve health care delivery and facilitate access
to health care services for military beneficiaries and lower
the total cost of care. The committee is aware that certain
para health professionals may be used as physician and health
professional extenders within the Military Health System if
they meet and comply with specific professional qualification
and licensing criteria. However the Committee is concerned that
the Department does not have a common standard for hiring or
reimbursing para health professionals. The Committee is also
concerned with the delineated process that reviews the
feasibility of using certain para health professionals or
adding them to the list of individual professional providers of
medical care who are authorized to provide services to TRICARE
beneficiaries on an annual basis. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report not later
than 1 April 2018 to the House Committee on Armed Services,
outlining the process used by the Department to include para
health professionals as healthcare providers within the
Military Health System. The review shall also determine the
feasibility of incorporating physical therapist assistants,
occupational health therapy and mental health counselors, and
other para health professionals determined by the Secretary
into the Military Health System to improve beneficiary access
to health care services, while ensuring quality and outcome
standards are maintained, supervision by appropriate health
professionals, and reasonable reimbursement for services
provided.
Medical Blood Volume Diagnostics
The committee is aware that medical research has shown
improved patient outcomes when providers can access more
accurate and faster direct blood-volume measurements. Recent
breakthroughs in direct blood-volume analysis and management
can improve care for congestive heart failure, sepsis, burns,
trauma, and other life-threatening conditions by informing
critical lifesaving medical decisions needing speedy
resolution. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense
to fully leverage new direct blood-volume analysis to improve
patient outcomes.
Medical Simulation and Training with First Responders
The committee notes the efforts of the Navy bioskills
simulation training centers to provide state-of-the-art
simulation based medical training and the continued need to
maintain critical trauma care skills. The centers provided a
unique and realistic environment for training medical personnel
who treat critical battlefield injuries. In particular, the
committee recognizes training center partnerships with local
first responders and the local medical community to enhance
training realism and provide train-the-trainer opportunities
leveraging and sharing valuable real world experience. The
committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue
investing in this crucial capability and expanding local
partnerships.
Military Caregivers
The committee is aware that the Military Caregiver Heart of
Recovery (MCHR) program provides much needed support to
military caregivers, who are tireless in their support of their
loved ones in uniform. The committee appreciates the value of
military caregiver service and believes the MCHR is helping to
lessen their burden. The committee has learned of several
challenges facing the MCHR program as it develops, including
ensuring a warm handoff to the Department of Veterans Affairs,
approval of a critical caregiver survey, and stable funding and
placement within the Department of Defense. The committee urges
the Secretary of Defense to resolve these issues as quickly as
possible.
Military Family Wellness and Suicide Prevention
The Committee is concerned with the behavioral health and
wellness of service members to include suicide risk factors and
believes that an evaluation must be done on ways to inform the
dependents' of service members of the suicide risk factors. The
Committee seeks a report on the methods and resources in order
to train and educate dependents on suicide risk factors and
ways to support their service member, promote healthy
environments, and reduce the overall risk factors for suicide.
Emphasis should be placed on dependents living with service
members that have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD). Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary
of Defense to evaluate the resources, methods, and approaches
for such training and education of dependents. The Secretary of
Defense shall provide the results of the evaluation in a
briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives no later than December 1, 2018.
Motion Sickness Research
The committee believes that motion sickness is a pervasive
problem spanning a variety of mission sets across the services,
and poses a real safety and readiness threat to aviation,
seaborne, and ground combat missions, as well as simulator and
remote vehicle operations. An estimated 11.5 percent of
aviation training attrition is due to motion sickness. As the
military moves towards smaller, leaner crews operating in
complex, technological environments, the impacts of motion
sickness are amplified as the loss of even a single crew member
could cease operations or cause a human factors catastrophe.
The committee is encouraged by the Navy's efforts in
developing and testing intranasal scopolamine (INSCOP) for use
in operational environments in which cognitive and human
performance must be maintained at high levels. INSCOP shows
promise as a rapid-acting, safe, and effective treatment, and
meets requirements for a medication that is easy for personnel
to self-administer, has no special storage requirements, and
has a long stable shelf life.
The committee encourages the Navy to accelerate the next
stage of advanced INSCOP testing and development.
Opioid--Chronic Pain and Recruiting
The committee notes with concern the growing number of
servicemembers with chronic pain and musculoskeletal disorders
caused in part by the physical stress of heavy kits, body armor
and strain associated with training and deployment-related
activities. Chronic pain is particularly pronounced among
younger veterans returning from deployments to the Middle East
and older generations of veterans. The Committee is also
concerned that growing rates of addiction among young
Americans, especially those in rural communities, can impact
current and future recruitment, threatening the overall
readiness and operational effectiveness of our military. The
Committee has previously expressed its concern about the
growing opioid epidemic at the national level and has asked the
Department of Defense to submit a report to the House Committee
on Armed Services that describes DOD's efforts to prevent,
educate and treat prescription drug abuse by military
servicemembers (House Report 114-537).
The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense is
designing a gap-driven musculoskeletal and pain research
portfolio which includes a diverse collection of studies
examining improved management of pain from the point of injury
to chronic pain management. The committee is also concerned
with the potential challenges that opioid abuse may be having
on recruitment. Therefore, the Committee directs Secretary of
Defense to brief the House Armed Services Committee by December
31, 2017 on efforts underway to provide opioid-alternative
treatments and therapies to manage chronic pain and to address
the adverse side effects and consequences of classic opioid use
and/or abuse. The briefing shall also address the emerging and
ongoing challenges to recruitment by prescription opioid use
and include any information regarding departmental
collaboration with schools, law enforcement, and health care
professionals.
Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine
The committee is aware of research regarding the
effectiveness of Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine (OMM) in
reducing recovery time for injured athletes and as an adjunct
therapy for pain management. OMM is a non-invasive, drug free
treatment that can improve readiness and reduce the need for
opioid pain medication in the armed services. While the
committee understands that OMM has been used to limited degree
in the Military Health System, the committee encourages the
Department of Defense to further explore OMM as an adjunct to
manage pain and expedite recovery for warfighters.
Personnel Policies Regarding Members of the Armed Forces Infected With
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)
On September 22, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD)
submitted a report to Congress in response to section 572 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014
(Public Law 113-66) on personnel policies regarding members of
the Armed Forces infected with human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV) and hepatitis B (HBV). The Committee notes that while the
report received did outline the current DOD policies, it failed
to include how current policies reflect the evidence base and
medical advances in the fields of HIV. The report also fell
short in describing the criteria for which these policies are
implemented throughout different branches and among commanding
officers. Therefore, not later than March 1, 2018, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on Department of Defense personnel policies regarding
members of the Armed Forces infected with human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The report shall include the
following:
(1) A description of policies addressing the enlistment or
commissioning of individuals with these conditions and
retention policies, deployment policies, discharge policies,
and disciplinary policies regarding individuals with these
conditions.
(2) An update on the status of the Department of Army's HIV
policy, which was under review during the issuance of the 2014
report.
(3) An assessment of these policies, with reference to
medical experts and literature, which includes how the policies
reflect an evidence-based, medically accurate understanding of
how this condition is contracted; how this condition can be
transmitted to other individuals; the risk of transmission; and
treatment regimens available.
(4) The feasibility of allowing an individual who is
currently serving as an enlisted member of the Armed Forces to
become a commissioned officer of the Armed Forces and what
restrictions are different for an officer.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
The committee acknowledges the efforts of the Department of
Defense and the military services to diagnose and treat
military members suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD). Despite the progress that has been made, the committee
believes that more needs to be done to ensure service members
seek and receive the treatment they deserve. The committee
continues to believe PTSD is underreported and underdiagnosed,
leading to unnecessary suffering and some service members
receiving other than honorable discharges that are unwarranted.
The committee wishes to stay informed of the Department's
progress in addressing these concerns and directs the Secretary
of Defense to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives not later than
December 1, 2017, on the extent to which service members are
seeking PTSD treatment; steps the military services are taking
to eliminate the stigma sometimes associated with seeking
treatment; and efforts by the military services to ensure
commanders carefully weigh a diagnosis of PTSD when
adjudicating involuntary separations.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Initiatives
The committee notes that the Defense Centers of Excellence
for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury collaborate
with a wide variety of research institutions, both military and
civilian, to better understand the impacts and improve
treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and
traumatic brain injury (TBI). The committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to continue to explore complementary and
integrative PTSD therapies that benefit patients, such as art
or music therapy, and to pursue research into appropriate
therapy drugs that are under development. With regard to TBI,
the committee is heartened by the creation of the Center for
Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine Brain Tissue Repository
that will allow service members to donate their brain for
research after death, but is concerned by the Department's slow
pace in publicizing the effort and the process involved.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives by June 1, 2018, on his plan for
informing service members about the Brain Tissue Repository,
donor qualifications, and the donation process.
Promising Burn Therapies
The committee notes that deployed service members are at
risk of suffering burn and smoke inhalation injuries in remote
locations and are not yet benefiting from promising new burn
treatment therapies using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). MSCs,
which can come from a variety of sources, offer improved
efficiency for wound healing and reduce long-term scarring,
particularly with early application, and help treat multiple
injuries simultaneously. The committee is heartened to learn
that the Army and Defense Health Program recognize the value of
MSCs and are conducting research into several potential
applications. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of the Army to develop and deploy these therapies
to theaters of operation as soon as possible.
TRICARE Pharmacy Pilot Program
The committee notes that section 743 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) authorizes the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot
program to evaluate whether extending additional discounts for
prescription drugs filled at retail pharmacies will maintain or
reduce cost for the Department of Defense. This pilot gives the
Secretary of Defense the authority to implement a pilot program
that would test prescription drug acquisition cost parity in
the TRICARE pharmacy program. The committee believes there is
merit in executing the pilot program in order to determine if
TRICARE pharmacy costs to the Department can be reduced through
decreased acquisition costs, lower administrative fees, and
competition, while restoring beneficiary access to brand-name
maintenance prescription drugs at all dispensing retail
pharmacies. Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary
to promptly utilize the authority granted under section 743 and
implement the pilot program. In the event the Secretary
declines to conduct the pilot, the committee directs the
Secretary to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by September 15, 2017, on the analytical basis for
that decision.
Use of Data Analytics Within the Defense Medical Surveillance System
for Complex Epidemiology and Pathology Research
The Committee notes the persisting concerns of many
veterans and current service members regarding possible
linkages between their service and medically unexplained
illnesses and/or diagnosed diseases with difficult to identify
causes such as many forms of cancer. The committee supports the
efforts of the Department to maximize data collection within
the Defense Medical Surveillance System, as well as the use of
this data by the Epidemiology and Analysis Section of the Armed
Forces Health Surveillance Branch to improve our understanding
of service member epidemiology.
Given recent advances in data processing and analytics, the
Committee is hopeful that continued collection and improved
analysis of the dataset within the Defense Medical Surveillance
System will help confirm or disprove the statistical
significance of a veteran's service as a causal factor in
contracting certain diseases. However, the Committee also
recognizes that the immense scale of the data contained within
the Defense Medical Surveillance System would likely require
significant processing power and advanced modeling systems to
fully understand the patterns contained within its records.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Director of the
Defense Health Agency to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by December 31, 2017, on:
(1) the data processing systems currently employed to
analyze records within the Defense Medical Surveillance System;
(2) any research completed or currently in progress using
the Defense Medical Surveillance System to identify linkages
between veterans' service and medically unexplained illnesses,
and;
(3) current limitations or restrictions on research due to
insufficient data processing capability.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Tricare and Other Health Care Benefits
Section 701--Physical Examinations for Members of a Reserve Component
Who Are Separating From the Armed Forces
This section would amend section 1145 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to provide a
physical examination upon request to a member of a Reserve
Component upon separation from service, provided that the
member had deployed for more than 30 days within the last 2
years prior to the service member's separation date.
Section 702--Mental Health Examinations Before Members Separate From
the Armed Forces
This section would amend section 1145 of title 10, United
States Code, to require that service members receive a mental
health examination, as well as a physical examination, before
separation from active duty.
Section 703--Provision of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Certain Members
of the Armed Forces
This section would amend chapter 55 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to furnish
hyperbaric oxygen therapy at a military medical treatment
facility to a covered member if such therapy is prescribed by a
physician to treat post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic
brain injury.
Subtitle B--Health Care Administration
Section 711--Clarification of Roles of Commanders of Military Medical
Treatment Facilities and Surgeons General
This section would amend section 1073c of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify that the commanders of military medical
treatment facilities are responsible for the operation of the
military medical treatment facility they supervise. This
section would also amend sections 3036, 5137, and 8036 of title
10, United States Code, to clarify that the surgeons general
are responsible for the medical readiness provided by the
military medical treatment facilities and maintaining a ready
medical force within their respective military departments.
Section 712--Maintenance of Inpatient Capabilities of Military Medical
Treatment Facilities Located Outside the United States
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
reducing inpatient capacity at military medical facilities
located outside the United States. The committee understands
that reductions are being considered and believes further
review is required before such reductions may proceed.
Section 713--Regular Update of Prescription Drug Pricing Standards
Under TRICARE Retail Pharmacy Program
This section would amend section 1074g of title 10, United
States Code, to require that contracts with a TRICARE pharmacy
program contractor include requirements to ensure regular
updates to the provision of information regarding the pricing
standard for prescription drugs.
Section 714--Residency Requirements for Podiatrists
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure podiatrists in the Armed Forces have successfully
completed a three year podiatric medicine and surgical
residency.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 721--One Year Extension of Pilot Program for Prescription Drug
Acquisition Cost Parity in the TRICARE Pharmacy Benefits Program
This section would amend section 743 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) to extend the authority of the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a pilot program for prescription drug acquisition cost
parity in the TRICARE pharmacy program until September 30,
2019.
Section 722--Pilot Program on Health Care Assistance System
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
carry out a pilot program for health care assistance services
for certain TRICARE beneficiaries and that the Secretary
provide the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
House of Representatives an evaluation of the success of the
pilot by January 1, 2021.
Section 723--Research of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy
This section would authorize not more than $25.0 million in
funds for the Defense Health Program to be appropriated for
advanced development for research, development, test, and
evaluation for early detection of chronic traumatic
encephalopathy, as reflected in Division D of this Act.
Section 724--Sense of Congress on Eligibility of Victims of Acts of
Terror for Evaluation and Treatment at Military Treatment Facilities
This section would amend section 717 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) to express the sense of Congress that civilians covered by
this section would include United States victims of domestic
and international terrorism.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Accuracy of Pricing in Responses to Letters of Request for Pricing and
Availability in Foreign Military Sales
The committee is concerned about the pricing and
availability (P&A) process for foreign military sales.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than November 1, 2017, on P&A responses. The briefing
should address the process for contractors to provide input,
feedback, and adjudication of any differences regarding the
appropriateness of governmental P&A estimates prior to delivery
to potential foreign customers of formal responses to letters
of request for P&A as required by section 1297(b) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328), as well as the methodology used to determine
pricing for P&A responses.
Best Value Criteria for Complex Acquisitions and Information Technology
Lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) source selection
criteria are legitimate and useful in acquisitions with well-
defined and non-complex requirements that are not expected to
evolve over the life of a contract. However, the committee
remains concerned that the Department of Defense continues to
use LPTA criteria for other acquisitions, including those for
innovative professional services and high-performance
technologies. Maintaining our military's technological edge
requires technical superiority rather than mere acceptability.
As the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics noted in a memorandum on ``Appropriate Use of
Lowest Priced, Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process
and Associated Contract Type'' dated March 4, 2015, ``If not
applied appropriately, however, the Department can miss an
opportunity to secure an innovative, cost effective solution to
meet warfighter needs to help maintain our technological
edge.'' Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to ensure that the Department's acquisition policies
clearly specify that best value source selection criteria
should be used in acquisitions for complex services, complex
electronics, and advanced innovative technologies. The
committee also encourages the Secretary to carefully consider
whether lowest price technically acceptable source selection
processes are appropriate for the award of contracts related to
major defense acquisition programs, given the technological
complexity of the weapon systems being acquired.
Collecting Historical Data on Rescinded Solicitations
The committee is aware that the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) released a report in June 2016 titled ``Defense
Contracting: Complete Historical Data Not Available on Canceled
DOD Solicitations'', in response to a provision in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. In this
provision, the committee specifically directed the Comptroller
General to determine: (1) the number of solicitations that were
canceled after bids were received, (2) whether these
cancellations are increasing or decreasing and their
distribution by Agency or military service and contracting
command, (3) the bid and proposal incurred costs by the
companies and the government resources committed to these
solicitations, (4) the extent to which, if any, the bid and
proposal costs for these solicitations have reduced the funding
available for independent research and development, and (5) the
reasons for the cancellation of the solicitations.
However, the committee is concerned that complete
historical data are not available to assess patterns in the
Department's cancellation of solicitations. The committee
continues to be concerned with the significant cost of canceled
solicitations to industry and government. Furthermore, the
committee is concerned that the bid protest process is often an
insufficient mechanism for contractors to contest circumstances
of canceled solicitations. The GAO report noted that the
federal business opportunities (FBO) webpage is the ``best
potential source for information on canceled solicitations'';
however, ``the FAR does not require contracting officials to
publicize notices of canceled solicitations'', and ``the
information from FBO is not available in a format that would
allow for a reliable trend analysis of DOD's canceled
solicitations''.
Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator, General
Services Administration, in coordination with the
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services not later than December 1, 2017 regarding how
this data could be collected via the FBO web page.
Congressional Notification for Direct Commercial Sales
The committee notes that as part of the U.S. Export Control
Reform initiative, the House Committee on Armed Services
supports the review of Categories I-III of the U.S. Munitions
List (USML) of International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)
to describe more precisely the firearms and related articles
controlled by the USML. Category I of the USML currently covers
firearms with a caliber up to .50 inches (other than non-combat
shotguns with barrel length of 18 inches or longer), combat
shotguns, close assault weapons systems, and related parts,
components, and accessories. The committee understands that
draft regulations to revise this category were developed more
than two years ago, but final interagency approval has not
occurred and thus a draft rule has never been published. Under
the Export Control Reform Initiative, only firearms that are
designed, manufactured, and exported for military end-use and
otherwise warrant control on the USML or, if it is a type
common to non-military firearms applications, possess
parameters or characteristics that provide a critical military
or intelligence advantage to the United States should continue
to be subject to ITAR controls. Those items not warranting USML
control would shift to the more flexible licensing authorities
of the Department of Commerce. Likewise, the committee supports
review by the committee of jurisdiction of the current $1
million Congressional notification threshold for exports of
USML-controlled firearms. The committee directs the Secretary
of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, and Secretary of State
to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Affairs
of the House of Representatives by September 30, 2017,
detailing how current export controls on firearms and
ammunition, to include the processing of licenses for direct
commercial sales, may impact U.S. businesses, U.S. national
security and foreign policy interests, and provide for
effective monitoring of the end-uses of USML-controlled
firearms.
Other Transaction Consortia
The committee remains committed to providing the Department
of Defense needed flexibility to acquire advanced capabilities
through streamlined and expedited processes. Toward that end,
the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than November 1, 2017, on ways to improve the use of other
transactions (OT) authorized in section 2371 of title 10,
United States Code. The briefing should address the value and
successes of OT, including development of OT consortia of
willing companies, non-profit organizations, and academic
institutions; potential areas where OT consortia may enable
more effective, flexible, and agile acquisitions; opportunities
for OT consortia to be used for emerging research and
prototyping to develop better modeling, simulation, and
training tools; and recommendations the Secretary may have for
improving OT authorities.
Outcome-Based Services Contracts
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense
awards input-oriented services contracts that require, for
example, the number of personnel to be contracted, as well as
the education and experience levels, skill sets, and work
locations of the contracted personnel. An alternative approach
to services contracting is to require the outcomes that must be
achieved in a specified time, along with associated milestones
and standards by which success will be measured. This outcome-
based approach could allow contractors the flexibility to
deliver services in the most cost-effective manner using
advancements in business processes, including innovations in
automation and other technology. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to evaluate the use of outcome-based
services contracts within the Department and provide a briefing
to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2018, on
the results. The evaluation and briefing should include a
comparison of the Department's use of outcome-based services
contracts versus input-based services contracts, the
limitations of outcome-based services contracts, a description
of the obstacles to the use of outcome-based requirements in
lieu of specified personnel requirements, and an analysis of
the cost implications of both approaches.
Procurement Technical Assistance Centers
The committee is concerned about reports that for-profit
companies are selling services to assist other businesses in
registering in the System for Award Management of the General
Services Administration (GSA), a service that Procurement
Technical Assistance Centers (PTACs) offer for free. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than September 1, 2017, on ways to best inform businesses about
free services available from PTACs. In developing the briefing,
the Secretary should coordinate with the Administrator of GSA
and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
Report on Commercial Acquisition Transparency
The committee is concerned that some contractors of the
Department of Defense may be disguising their identities and
cost structures from procurement officers, in effect acting as
hidden monopolists with unreasonable prices or establishing
anonymous or opaque ownership structures for other benefits
that are contrary to the government's interests. Therefore, the
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to conduct a study of Department of Defense processes to
determine the identities and cost structures of contractors,
how anonymous or opaque ownership structures can circumvent
these processes, potential abuses by companies with anonymous
or opaque ownership structures, and means of improving such
processes to enhance transparency and prevent such abuses. The
committee further directs the Comptroller General to provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees by February 1,
2018, with a report to follow, on the results of the study.
Review of Implementation of Online Marketplace Procurement
Elsewhere in this title, the committee includes a provision
that would require the General Services Administration (GSA) to
contract with multiple commercial online marketplaces for the
procurement of certain commercial-off-the-shelf products. The
committee anticipates that opportunities to purchase additional
products through online marketplaces may arise as GSA gains
familiarity with the use of online marketplaces. Toward that
end, the committee directs the Administrator of GSA to provide
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, not later
than 6 months after the first contract with a marketplace is
awarded, on the results of online marketplace purchasing. The
briefing should address the dollar value of purchases through
each marketplace, lessons learned from implementation, any
limitations on product purchases that were established in
implementation guidance, potential means of addressing or
overcoming such limitations, and potential means of procuring
through marketplaces products referenced in section 2410n of
title 10, United States Code.
Reviews of Acquisition Statute and the Federal Acquisition Regulation
The committee strongly supports efforts to thoroughly
review the defense acquisition process by the Section 809 Panel
on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations, which
was established in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92). The Panel produced an
interim report in May, 2017, that recommended several revisions
to acquisition statutes and regulations. Elsewhere in this Act,
the committee includes provisions related to the recommended
statutory changes. The committee directs the Administrator of
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to review the
recommended changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
and provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform not
later than December 1, 2017, on the findings of the review. The
briefing should include recommendations for modifying the FAR
consistent with the Panel recommendations or reasons that the
Panel's recommendations cannot be adopted.
In addition to the Panel's recommendations, the committee
is concerned that process requirements have built up in
acquisition statutes over time and may now impair effective
procurement practices and decision making. The committee
recognizes that each individual process requirement was
intended to effect a specific change in acquisition outcomes.
However, the amalgamation of processes may contribute to a
culture of compliance within the defense acquisition system and
hinder agile acquisitions that provide better capabilities to
warfighters more quickly.
For example, section 2377 of title 10, United States Code,
establishes a preference for acquisition of commercial items.
However, it also stipulates processes for how requirements must
be stated; how market research is to be conducted by government
personnel and prime contractors; and required training. Section
2384a of title 10, United States Code, requires agencies to
procure supplies in economically efficient quantities. However,
it also requires solicitations to invite contractors to submit
alternative quantities that may be economically efficient,
which may increase proposal costs and acquisition decision
timelines.
The committee encourages the Panel to review such process
requirements during its deliberations. It also directs the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a review of process
requirements in the acquisition sections of title 10, United
States Code, and submit a report to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not
later than April 1, 2018, on the findings of the review. The
review should:
(1) identify process requirements in acquisition statutes
that hinder agile acquisitions;
(2) identify any obsolete statute (elsewhere in this Act,
the committee includes an example provision to repeal an
expired pilot program); and
(3) recommend any related statutory changes that should be
considered to simplify or improve the agility of the defense
acquisition system.
Should-Cost Analysis Methodology and Transparency
Since 2010, the Department of Defense has promoted
``should-cost'' management to identify process efficiencies and
technical trade-offs that can reduce acquisition costs without
compromising performance requirements. The committee is
concerned, however, that the Department may not be sufficiently
transparent with should cost-cost analyses, thereby reducing
associated benefits to the Department. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by September 30, 2017, on
should-cost processes. At a minimum, the briefing shall address
the following issues:
(1) a description of the features distinguishing should-
cost reviews from analyses of program direct and indirect
costs;
(2) the process for communicating with the contractor the
elements of a proposed should-cost review;
(3) the method for ensuring that every identified should-
cost savings opportunity is based on accurate, complete, and
current information and is tied to a specific engineering or
business change that can be quantified and tracked;
(4) a description of the training, skills, and experience,
including cross-functional experience, that Department and
contractor officials carrying out a should-cost review should
possess;
(5) the method for ensuring appropriate collaboration with
the contractor throughout the review process; and
(6) a description of review process requirements that
provide for sufficient analysis and minimize any impact on
program schedule.
Soldier and Marine Equipment Requirements
Ensuring that military service members receive the best
available organizational clothing, individual equipment (OCIE),
and personal protective equipment (PPE) without unnecessary
delays has been a long-standing high priority for the
committee. The committee believes that any OCIE and PPE
solution must meet validated capability requirements and be
certified through first article testing before being fielded to
the warfighter. The committee commends the Army for actively
pursuing process efficiencies and acquisition reform for PPE
and OCIE where feasible. The committee encourages the Army to
continue taking necessary actions to help streamline the
requirements development and acquisition process. The committee
encourages the Army to routinely solicit the industrial base,
and when appropriate leverage commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)
and modified COTS that could potentially meet OCIE and PPE
validated capability requirements.
Technical Exchanges on Independent Research and Development Projects
The committee supports efforts to increase mutually
beneficial communications between government and industry and
ensure the vital flow of information on technology needs and
areas of research. The committee is aware that exchanges of
information on independent research and development (IR&D)
projects currently occur in many areas. Contractors often seek
out information about the technology needs of the Department of
Defense and inform the Department about IR&D projects in order
to enhance their competitiveness.
The committee is concerned, however, that a recent Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) rule links
the technical exchange of information on IR&D projects to the
determination of allowable costs for those projects. While
having greater visibility of IR&D projects early in the process
can be beneficial to the Department, the committee questions
the necessity of creating a direct linkage between technical
exchanges and the determination of allowable costs. Further,
the committee believes this linkage results in practical
difficulties in implementation for both the Department and
industry that could potentially disrupt ongoing research and
development efforts that are vital to improving our
warfighters' technological edge.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by October 1, 2017, on technical exchanges for IR&D projects.
The briefing should include:
(1) the extent to which technical exchanges occur presently
with contractors, including contractor IR&D reviews, and how
the Department uses the information received through these
reviews;
(2) the extent to which IR&D information submitted to the
Defense Technical Information Center database in accordance
with the DFARS rule is used by the Department;
(3) a description of the additional information that is
expected to be obtained through the technical exchanges
required by the DFARS rule and how this information would be
used by the Department;
(4) the rationale for linking the determination of cost
allowability to technical exchanges and the advantages and
disadvantages of such linkage; and
(5) a detailed plan for how the Department would implement
the DFARS rule, including staffing, IT infrastructure, the
implementation timeline, and required funding.
The committee expects the Secretary will consider
suspending implementation of the DFARS rule until this
implementation plan and briefing is completed.
Transparency in Department of Defense Contract Negotiations
The Federal Government requires defense contractors to
submit substantial cost and pricing data in proposals for major
defense acquisition programs. Contractors are also required to
submit substantial amounts of information for business case
analyses that support Government decision making. The committee
is concerned that the Department of Defense may not be, in
turn, providing appropriate transparency for industry to
understand, evaluate, and respond to departmental counteroffers
and requests for additional information. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than September 30, 2017, on efforts to improve transparency
during contract negotiations and business case analyses.
Vendor Vetting Process and Guidance
The committee continues to believe that a comprehensive
vendor vetting process is essential to prevent the Department
of Defense from awarding contracts to companies having ties to
violent extremist organizations or other inappropriate
entities. The committee is encouraged by the fact that two
combatant commands, U.S. Central Command and U.S.
Transportation Command, have established vendor vetting cells
to determine whether potential vendors actively support any
terrorist, criminal, or other sanctioned organization, but is
concerned about the extent to which the Department has
developed an approach to institutionalize vendor vetting across
the Department and geographic combatant commands, including
guidance and the information systems involved in vendor
vetting. For example, the committee notes that the U.S.
Government Accountability Office reported in December 2015 that
the Department lacks guidance specifying conditions under which
combatant commands should have a vendor vetting process or cell
in place, and has identified other deficiencies in the vendor
vetting process (GAO-16-105).
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to assess the Department's efforts to
institutionalize vendor vetting across the Department and
geographic combatant commands. At a minimum, the review shall
address:
(1) the extent to which the Department and its geographic
combatant commands have developed guidance on vendor vetting;
(2) the extent to which the Department and its geographic
combatant commands have established and are implementing vendor
vetting processes, including information systems involved in
vendor vetting;
(3) the sufficiency of the internal controls the Department
has in place to ensure that the information used to make
determinations of vendor risk is complete, accurate, and
timely, including appeals processes, if any, available to
vendors; and
(4) the challenges, if any, the Department faces with
regard to vendor vetting.
The committee further directs the Comptroller General to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than January 31, 2018, on the Comptroller General's
preliminary findings and to submit a final report to the
congressional defense committees on a date agreed to at the
time of the briefing.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Defense Acquisition Streamlining and Transparency
Part I--Acquisition System Streamlining
Section 801--Procurement through Online Marketplaces
This section would require the General Services
Administration (GSA) to contract with multiple commercial
online marketplaces for the procurement of certain commercial-
off-the-shelf (COTS) products. Marketplaces would be limited to
those that are commonly used in the private sector; provide a
dynamic selection of products and prices from numerous
suppliers; provide procurement oversight controls, such as two-
person approval for purchases; and can screen suppliers and
products to ensure compliance with suspension and debarment,
domestic sourcing, and other similar statutes. Online
marketplaces primarily provide streamlined and automated access
to various suppliers; suppliers therefore would be considered
prime vendors for purposes of the Small Business Act. This
section would require the Comptroller General to provide a
report to the relevant congressional committees on small
business participation in the marketplaces not later than 3
years after a contract with an online marketplace provider is
awarded.
The committee expects that by contracting with numerous
marketplaces, there will be competition between marketplaces
for procurement of COTS products, and government personnel will
have streamlined access to suppliers, products, and prices from
varying marketplaces. The section therefore would not require
GSA to use competitive procedures to contract with each
marketplace. This section would require marketplaces to provide
electronic access to information about products that are
purchased, including the date of each purchase, the price paid,
the person or entity within the department or agency that made
the purchase, the delivery address, and the number of sellers
that offered the same or similar product at the same time. The
committee believes that such information would provide much
better transparency into the Federal Government's purchasing
and thereby enable more thorough oversight and accountability.
This section would require each contract with a marketplace to
prohibit the sale or other use of such purchase information to
a third party in a manner that identifies the Federal
Government, or any of its departments or agencies, as the
purchaser.
The committee believes that online marketplaces provide a
substantial opportunity to greatly streamline procurement of
COTS products. Namely, marketplaces generally ensure
competition and price reasonableness, and therefore would
obviate many of the time-consuming government-unique
procurement processes GSA and the Department of Defense perform
today. Additionally, departments and agencies would be required
to accept the standard terms and conditions related to
purchases on each marketplace. The committee understands,
however, that it may be prudent to procure some commercial
products through traditional acquisition processes. Therefore,
this section would require the Department of Defense to
purchase COTS products from the marketplaces only in
appropriate circumstances. The committee expects the Secretary
of Defense to issue implementation guidance that may limit the
products that the Department of Defense may purchase on
marketplaces. The committee expects, however, that
opportunities to purchase additional products through
marketplaces may arise as GSA gains familiarity with the use of
online marketplaces. Elsewhere in this report, the committee
includes an item directing the Administrator of GSA to provide
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the
results of online marketplace purchasing.
Section 802--Performance of Incurred Cost Audits
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
adhere to commercial standards for risk and materiality when
auditing costs incurred under flexibly priced contracts. The
committee is concerned that current incurred cost auditing
processes in the Department of Defense are too slow, impede
effective contract management, and may not provide good value
to the taxpayer. The committee also understands that commercial
auditors used by other Federal agencies may cost less and
complete incurred cost audits sooner.
The section would authorize contract management personnel
in the Department to choose either the Defense Contract Audit
Agency (DCAA) or a qualified private auditor (QPA) to audit
incurred costs, subject to guidelines of an audit planning
committee. The section would require the Department to enter
into an indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity task order
contract with QPAs, and that QPAs audit at least 25 percent of
incurred costs on flexibly priced contracts after September 1,
2020. The section would prohibit DCAA from further auditing
audits performed by QPAs and would require the Secretary to
treat DCAA and QPA audits equally. The section also would
require DCAA to pass a peer review by a commercial auditor,
which is consistent with commercial practice, to continue to
issue unqualified audit findings after September 1, 2022. The
section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives not later than September 1, 2019, on the
progress on finding a commercial auditor to perform the peer
review.
This section also would specify a materiality standard for
incurred cost audits effective September 1, 2020, based on
private sector norms, for both DCAA and QPAs. The Comptroller
General of the United States would be required to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees not later than
March 1, 2019, describing private sector and government
standards for risk and materiality and providing
recommendations as necessary to adjust the materiality
standards in this section. On September 1, 2019, and every 5
years thereafter, the Department would be required to review
private sector materiality standards and propose changes to the
materiality standards in this section, as necessary.
The section would require incurred cost audits to be
completed within 1 year after receipt of qualified cost
submissions, or the submissions would be accepted in their
entirety, unless the Department could demonstrate that the
contractor withheld information necessary to perform the audit.
The committee intends for the Department to redefine its
incurred cost backlog to include all audits that are not
completed within 1 year of receipt of qualified incurred cost
submissions. The committee further intends the Department to
allocate DCAA and QPA audit resources to the highest risk
audits consistent with completing incurred cost audits within 1
year.
Toward that end, the section would direct the Comptroller
General of the United States to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees by April 1, 2025, that
evaluates the relative timeliness, costs, and quality of
incurred cost audits performed by DCAA and QPAs; relative
contractor costs of incurred cost audits performed by DCAA and
QPAs; any effects on other types of audits; and the capability
and capacity of commercial auditors to perform incurred cost
audits for the Department.
Section 803--Modifications to Cost or Pricing Data and Reporting
Requirements
This section would amend section 2306a of title 10, United
States Code, and section 3502 of title 41, United States Code,
to raise contract dollar thresholds that require submission of
certified cost and pricing data. The threshold for non-
competitive prime contracts, modifications of such contracts,
subcontracts, and modifications of subcontracts would increase
from $500,000 to $2.5 million, while the threshold for
modifications to legacy contracts would increase from $100,000
to $750,000. Raising certified cost and pricing data thresholds
would reduce administrative burdens, improve process timelines
for smaller contracts, and make thresholds approximately
consistent with standard auditing thresholds. The section would
further amend section 2306a of title 10, United States Code, to
require offerors to submit other than certified cost or pricing
data sufficient to determine price reasonableness when
certified cost or pricing data is not required.
This section would also require the Comptroller General of
the United States to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees not later than March 1, 2022, on the
implementation and effect of these modifications to cost or
pricing data submission requirements.
This section also would amend section 2313a of title 10,
United States Code, to revise reporting requirements of the
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) to provide more clarity on
the cost effectiveness of different types of audits. It would
require DCAA to report separately for incurred cost, forward
pricing, and other audits with regard to the number and dollar
value of audits completed and pending, sustained questioned
costs, the costs of performing audits, and the return on
investment of conducting audits. This section also would change
the inflation calculation for the thresholds for certified cost
and pricing data, as well as covered contracts related to
allowable costs, to be consistent with the inflation
methodology in section 1908 of title 41, United States Code.
Part II--Early Investments in Acquisition Programs
Section 811--Requirement to Emphasize Reliability and Maintainability
in Weapon System Design
This section would emphasize reliability and
maintainability (R&M) in the system design of a major defense
acquisition program (MDAP). First, the section would require
the Secretary of Defense to include R&M as attributes of the
existing key performance parameter on sustainment during the
requirements development process. Second, when contracting for
engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) or production
of an MDAP, the program manager would be required to include
clearly defined and measurable requirements for engineering
activities and design specifications for R&M in the contract
solicitation and contract terms unless he or she determines R&M
should not be a contract requirement. Third, the section would
require the Secretary to encourage the use of objective R&M
criteria in the source selection process. Fourth, the section
would authorize the use of incentive fees and would require the
use of recovery options when practicable to encourage
contractor performance in R&M for EMD and production contracts.
The Department would be able to exercise incentive fees and
recovery options until the date of acceptance of the last item
under the contract. Finally, the section would establish a
program through which program managers would compete for
additional funding to invest in R&M during the EMD or
production of an MDAP to reduce future operating and support
(O&S) costs.
The committee notes that the design of a major weapon
system directly affects its life-cycle sustainment activities
and consequently drives its O&S costs. Elements of sustainment
that are highly dependent on the system design, namely R&M, are
easier and less costly to address during the development of an
MDAP than after a weapon system is fielded. Therefore, the
committee believes the Department should emphasize R&M in early
engineering decisions.
Section 812--Licensing of Appropriate Intellectual Property to Support
Major Weapon Systems
This section would require the Department of Defense to
work with contractors to determine prices for technical data
the Department plans to acquire or license before selecting a
contractor for the engineering and manufacturing development
phase or the production phase of a major weapon system.
Obtaining prices for technical data while competition exists
among contractors encourages the Department to plan early for
the technical data it needs to maintain a weapon system and
affords the Department more competitive prices than it might
pay later during the sustainment phase. Additionally, this
section would encourage program managers to negotiate with
industry to obtain the custom set of technical data necessary
to support each major defense acquisition program rather than,
as a default approach, seeking greater rights to more
extensive, detailed technical data than is necessary.
The committee believes that acquiring broad rights to most
or all of the technical data in a weapon system can be cost-
prohibitive and deter contractors from bidding on defense
programs. Not acquiring enough technical data, however, can
reduce subsequent competition and increase sustainment costs.
Therefore, the committee urges program managers when seeking
technical data to consider the particular data that is
required, the level of detail necessary, the purpose for which
it will be used, with whom the government needs to share it,
and for how long the government needs it. Program managers
should also consider the unique characteristics of the weapon
system and its components, the product support strategy for the
weapon system, the organic industrial base strategy of the
military department, and the commercial market.
Section 813--Management of Intellectual Property Matters within the
Department of Defense
This section would create a small cadre of experts in
intellectual property (IP) that would advise, assist, and
provide resources to program offices as they develop their IP
strategies and negotiate with industry. The section would also
establish a centralized Office of Intellectual Property within
the Department of Defense to standardize the Department's
approach toward obtaining technical data, promulgate policy on
IP, oversee the cadre of IP experts, and serve as a single
point of contact for industry on IP matters. Finally, this
section would add IP positions to the acquisition workforce and
would revise the training provided to the acquisition workforce
on IP matters.
The committee has observed within the Department divergent
philosophies toward acquiring technical data and varying
knowledge of IP matters, including laws, regulations, and best
practices. The committee is concerned that this inconsistency
and lack of coordination disadvantages the Department.
Additionally, because a provision elsewhere in this title would
establish a preference for ``specially negotiated licenses'' to
obtain the appropriate technical data customized to each weapon
system, the committee believes the Department requires tools to
improve its ability to negotiate with industry. A centralized
Office of Intellectual Property and cadre of IP experts are
warranted to address these issues. The committee intends that
the office and cadre would provide advice and assistance to
facilitate acquisitions. This section would not require the
office or cadre to approve IP strategies, contracting actions,
or other program office activities.
The committee also intends for the Office of Intellectual
Property to maintain Department of Defense policy on Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) data rights, particularly
as it pertains to the transition from Phase I and II awards to
Phase III awards, and to serve as a liaison between the
Department of Defense and SBIR companies when IP issues arise
related to SBIR.
Section 814--Improvement of Planning for Acquisition of Services
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure that the appropriate information is available and that
the right factors are considered to enable the most effective
business decisions regarding the procurement of services. This
section would require the Secretaries of the Department of
Defense and of the military departments to analyze spending
patterns and projected future requirements for contracted
services and use this analysis to inform future decisions on
services acquisition. Additionally, the section would require
the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress with the annual
budget clear and detailed information on the amounts requested
for contracted services organized according to the common
enterprise data structure required elsewhere in this Act.
This section also would require the Services Requirements
Review Boards (SRRBs) that the Department of Defense
established last year to focus primarily on evaluating the need
for contracted services, rather than the contracting action.
The SRRBs would be required to critically examine requirements
in light of total force management, available resources,
analysis of past spending, and contracting best practices.
Finally, this section would require the entities that need
contracted services to plan appropriately, whenever possible,
to receive validation of the requirement, secure the needed
funding, and complete the contracting action before the service
is needed. A requirements owner that does not adequately plan
for contracted services and consequently relies on a bridge
contract would be required to provide an update and explanation
to a relevant senior official. Upon the second use of a bridge
contract for the same service, the senior official would be
required to notify senior leadership within the relevant
military department, Defense Agency, Department of Defense
Field Activity, or combatant command.
The committee believes that greater data and analytics
would enable the Department of Defense to make more enterprise-
oriented, strategic decisions about its acquisition of
services. The committee also believes that if departmental
organizations were encouraged to identify their known or
enduring requirements earlier in the process, it would enable
more thorough examination of the requirements, better and
timelier alignment of resources, and opportunities to use
contracting best practices. Additionally, improved planning
processes would empower local installations and commands to
better manage individual contracts and their associated
funding. The committee notes that this legislation would
improve headquarters analysis and management of the acquisition
of services but would retain the decentralized nature of
procuring services at local installations.
Section 815--Improvements to Test and Evaluation Processes and Tools
This section would amend sections 2366b and 2366c of title
10, United States Code, to require an assessment of the
sufficiency of the developmental test plan and resources for
each major defense acquisition program (MDAP) be included in
the ``acquisition scorecards'' that were created in section 808
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328). The committee believes that developmental
testing is critical to reducing acquisition program risk by
providing valuable information to support sound decision
making. However, the committee is concerned that some MDAPs do
not conduct enough developmental testing, so too many problems
are first identified during operational testing, when they are
expensive and time-consuming to fix. This section also would
require the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the Department of
Defense's strategy for developing and expanding the use of
tools that facilitate cost-effective developmental testing,
including automated test methods and tools, modeling and
simulation tools, and big data analytics technologies. The
Secretary of Defense would be required to provide a briefing to
the House Committee on Armed Services,not later than 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act, on the Secretary's
evaluation. The committee believes that emerging technologies
and tools, such as Automated Test and Retest and modeling and
simulation, can reduce program risk by facilitating rigorous
system testing early in the life of a program.
Part III--Acquisition Workforce Improvements
Section 821--Enhancements to the Civilian Program Management Workforce
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
implement a new career development program for highly
qualified, competitively selected civilian employees to
increase the pool of experienced civilian employees qualified
to serve as program managers for major defense acquisition
programs (MDAPs). The committee believes that a focus on career
development and incentive structures for program managers would
increase the number of personnel ready and willing to
successfully manage MDAPs, thereby increasing the
professionalization and tenure of personnel in these critical
positions. The new career development program would include
selection criteria for personnel in the program, necessary
human capital flexibilities, and structured training and career
paths. The Secretary would be required to provide a design for
the program to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives within 1 year after the date
of the enactment of this Act. This section would also require
an independent study of personnel policies and incentives
needed to attract, retain, and hold accountable civilian and
military program managers for the largest and most complex
acquisition programs in the Department. The study would be
required to be completed within 9 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and the Secretary would be required to
provide the study to the congressional defense committees
within 30 days thereafter.
Section 822--Improvements to the Hiring and Training of the Acquisition
Workforce
This section would amend section 1705 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the use of the Defense Acquisition
Workforce Development Fund to pay salaries of personnel to
manage the Fund. The committee expects that this authorization
would improve the Department of Defense's ability to
effectively sustain its acquisition workforce.
The section also would require the Comptroller General of
the United States to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees by June 30, 2019, on the effectiveness of
existing hiring flexibilities for the acquisition workforce, as
well as the need for acquisition training for personnel who
work in acquisition programs but are not formally considered
part of the acquisition workforce.
The section would require the Department to evaluate gaps
in knowledge of industry operations, industry motivation, and
business acumen in the acquisition workforce, and would require
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment
to submit a report on this evaluation to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives
by December 31, 2018.
Lastly, the section would require the Director of the
Defense Contract Audit Agency to provide a briefing to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, on strategies to enhance the
professionalization of the Agency's workforce.
The committee believes that the hiring, training, and
retention of highly qualified civilian personnel for the
defense acquisition workforce is vital to maintaining military
readiness, increasing the Department's buying power, and
achieving substantial long-term savings through systems
engineering and contracting. Therefore, the committee urges
that planning for any workforce reduction that would affect the
civilian acquisition workforce takes into consideration
potential long-term effects of those reductions on cost,
technical baseline, and warfighting capability.
Section 823--Extension and Modifications to Acquisition Demonstration
Project
This section would amend section 1762 of title 10, United
States Code, to extend, through December 2023, the Acquisition
Demonstration (AcqDemo) personnel demonstration project that
was established in section 4308 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106).
AcqDemo allows the Department of Defense flexibility in setting
compensation for recruiting and retaining high-performing
acquisition personnel. The section also would require the
Secretary of Defense to develop an implementation strategy to
address potential AcqDemo improvements that were identified in
a recent RAND assessment, and to provide a briefing to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform of the House of Representatives on the implementation
strategy within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
Section 824--Acquisition Positions in the Offices of the Secretaries of
the Military Departments
This section would help to retain qualified acquisition
personnel within the Department of Defense by amending sections
3014, 5014, and 8014 of title 10, United States Code, to
authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to exceed
statutory personnel caps for civilian employees when hiring
acquisition oversight personnel from the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
or requirements personnel from the Joint Staff that supported
the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. For the caps to be
exceeded, a determination would be required that a position was
no longer needed due to restructuring required by the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) and that the position would not be refilled by the Office
of the Secretary of Defense or the Joint Staff.
Part IV--Transparency Improvements
Section 831--Transparency of Defense Business System Data
This section would amend section 2222 of title 10, United
States Code, to require that all data within Department of
Defense business systems be considered owned by the Department
and be readily available to the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Joint Staff, and the military departments. To
facilitate the management and analysis of data from across the
military departments and defense agencies, the section would
require the creation and maintenance of common enterprise data
structures (CEDS) into which business system data could be
mapped to populate common data sets. The section would assign
responsibility to the Deputy Chief Management Officer for
creation of CEDS and would amend section 139a of title 10,
United States Code, to require that the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation maintain the CEDS and
establish and maintain access to all related data. The section
would also require the Deputy Chief Management Officer, with
the concurrence of the Director, Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation, to develop a plan to implement the data
transparency requirements in this section and to submit the
plan to the congressional defense committees not later than 6
months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The committee is concerned that the Department lags well
behind the private sector in effectively incorporating
enterprise-wide data analyses into decision making and
oversight. The committee therefore believes that a statutory
requirement that the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
Joint Staff, and the military departments be given access to
business system data is necessary to overcome institutional and
cultural barriers to information sharing. The committee further
believes that to bring about this significant culture change,
it is necessary to assign responsibility at the highest levels
of the Department for creating and maintaining CEDS.
The committee recommends $25.0 million in funding for the
implementation of the data transparency requirements in this
section.
Section 832--Major Defense Acquisition Programs: Display of Budget
Information
This section would require greater transparency in the
budget requests for major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs).
Budget justification documents for MDAPs would be required to
separately depict funding for developmental and operational
testing and evaluation, the purchase of cost data from
contractors, and the purchase or license of technical data. The
committee believes that testing and evaluation, cost data, and
intellectual property are necessary investments made early in a
program. However, the committee is concerned that associated
funding is often decremented when cost, schedule, or
performance risks materialize. Improving transparency of
funding for these items would improve the ability of the
committee to conduct oversight.
Section 833--Enhancements to Transparency in Test and Evaluation
Processes and Data
This section would require several improvements to the
transparency of test and evaluation (T&E) processes and data.
It would amend section 139 of title 10, United States Code, to
require the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E)
to document specific circumstances that require the addition of
smaller programs to the OT&E oversight list and to summarize
those circumstances in the annual OT&E report. The section also
would amend section 2399 of title 10, United States Code, to
require the Director of OT&E to provide data in test reports on
how the capabilities of new systems being tested compare to
those of legacy systems.
The committee recognizes the value of an independent
operational testing office in identifying potential
vulnerabilities of weapon systems before such systems are
purchased in significant quantity or deployed operationally.
The committee believes that this information is critical to
facilitate risk-based fielding decisions by senior Department
of Defense leadership. However, the committee is concerned
that, in recent years, operational test reports have provided
evaluations of effectiveness and suitability but have not
provided sufficient information to Congress on the performance
improvements a system may provide when compared to legacy
systems. The committee believes that more information on such
comparisons, where appropriate and available, would provide
useful context for evaluating a system's overall performance in
operational testing.
This section also would amend section 139 of title 10,
United States Code, to enhance the opportunity of the military
departments to comment on the annual OT&E report to ensure that
OT&E information is complete, accurate, and timely. The section
also would require improved transparency of T&E cost data to
enable oversight entities to better evaluate the adequacy of a
program's T&E plans and resources. It would require the
Department of Defense to develop an enterprise approach to T&E
knowledge management to leverage T&E data across programs. The
Director of the Test Resource Management Center and the senior
Department official responsible for developmental testing would
be required to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees, within 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this Act, on the Department's enterprise approach.
Subtitle B--Streamlining of Defense Acquisition Statutes and
Regulations
Section 841--Modifications to the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and
Codifying Acquisition Regulations
This section would amend section 809 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) to require the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying
Acquisition Regulations to transmit its final report on January
15, 2019, rather than 2 years after the panel was established.
It also would require the panel to transmit its final report
simultaneously to the Secretary of Defense and the
congressional defense committees. The section would extend the
period of time for the Secretary to submit comments on the
final report from 30 to 60 days, and would establish a
termination date for the panel 180 days after transmittal of
the final report.
Section 842--Extension of Maximum Duration of Fuel Storage Contracts
This section would extend from 20 to 30 years the maximum
total period of Department of Defense contracts for storage,
handling, or distribution of liquid fuels and natural gas. This
provision was recommended by the Section 809 Panel on
Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulations, which was
established in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), as an example of updating
acquisition regulations to be consistent with modern technology
and business practices.
Section 843--Exception for Business Operations From Requirement to
Accept $1 Coins
This section would exempt government contractors from the
requirement of section 5112(p) of title 31, United States Code,
that business operations performed on Federal Government
premises provide for accepting and dispensing of existing and
proposed dollar coins. This provision was recommended by the
Section 809 Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition
Regulations, which was established in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), as
an example of an unnecessary contract clause.
Section 844--Repeal of Expired Pilot Program
This section would repeal an expired pilot program in
section 2401a of title 10, United States Code, related to
leasing utility cargo vehicles.
Subtitle C--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures,
and Limitations
Section 851--Limitation on Unilateral Definitization
This section would amend section 2326 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the approval of the agency head before
a Department of Defense contracting officer can unilaterally
definitize the specifications, terms, or price of undefinitized
contractual actions (UCAs) valued greater than $1.0 billion.
Currently, departmental regulations allow contracting officers
to unilaterally determine reasonable prices and applicable
clauses governing definitized contracts, with approval from the
head of contracting activity. The committee believes that this
level of scrutiny is sufficient for low dollar value UCAs.
However, for high dollar value UCAs, particularly those
involving the development or production of major defense
acquisition programs, the committee believes that greater
oversight is warranted. This section would also require that
the unilateral definitization not take effect until 30 calendar
days after the approval by the agency head. The committee
believes that a 30-day waiting period would result in the
contractor and the government having additional time and
incentive to reach agreement on the contract and avoid the
negative consequences of unilateral definitization.
Section 852--Codification of Requirements Pertaining to Assessment,
Management, and Control of Operating and Support Costs for Major Weapon
Systems
This section would codify section 832 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81; 10 U.S.C. 2430 note) on assessing and controlling operating
and support costs for major weapons systems.
Section 853--Use of Program Income by Eligible Entities That Carry Out
Procurement Technical Assistance Programs
This section would amend section 2414 of title 10, United
States Code, to give Procurement Technical Assistance Centers
limited authority to carry over program income into the next
fiscal year to further program objectives.
Section 854--Amendment to Sustainment Reviews
This section would amend section 2441 of title 10, United
States Code, pertaining to sustainment reviews of major weapon
systems. It would require the Secretaries of the military
departments to make the results of sustainment reviews and
supporting documentation available to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. The committee believes
that data collected as part of sustainment reviews should be a
Department of Defense-wide asset that is available for analysis
and used to inform the Department's policies on sustainment of
major weapon systems.
Section 855--Clarification to Other Transaction Authority
This section would modify section 2371b of title 10, United
States Code, related to other transactions authority (OTA) to
ensure consistency across the language and improve clarity for
how the Department of Defense makes determinations when higher
level authority is needed to sign off on a specific OTA award.
The committee believes such changes will improve the speed and
efficiency of issuing these awards by reducing the numbers of
determinations requiring higher level signature. Due to the
changes that have been made to this authority in recent years,
the committee encourages the Department to revise and, if
necessary, reissue guidance on using OTA.
Section 856--Clarifying the Use of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
Source Selection Process
This section would amend section 813 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) to require the Secretary of Defense to amend the Defense
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to require that
lowest price technically acceptable source selection criteria
are only used in situations in which the Department would
realize no or minimal additional innovation or future
technological advantage, and, with respect to a contract for
procurement of goods, the goods procured are predominantly
expendable in nature, nontechnical, or have a short life
expectancy. The section would also require the avoidance of the
use of lowest price technically acceptable source selection
criteria when procuring certain types of electronic test and
measurement equipment.
Section 857--Amendment to Nontraditional and Small Contractor
Innovation Prototyping Program
This section would amend section 844(d) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) pertaining to the nontraditional and small contractor
innovation prototyping program. It would add unmanned ground
logistics and unmanned air logistics to the list of
capabilities to be included in the program.
Section 858--Modification to Annual Meeting Requirement of
Configuration Steering Boards
This section would amend section 814 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417) to remove the requirement for a configuration
steering board to meet annually to review an acquisition
program if the senior acquisition executive determines in
writing that there were no changes to the requirements of the
acquisition program during the preceding year.
Section 859--Change to Definition of Subcontract in Certain
Circumstances
This section would amend section 1906(c)(1) of title 41,
United States Code, to make the definition of subcontract in
that section consistent with the definition in section 2375 of
title 10, United States Code.
Section 860--Amendment Relating to Applicability of Inflation
Adjustments
This section would modify section 1908(d) of title 41,
United States Code, to ensure 5-year inflation adjustments
apply consistently to all subcontractors. Currently, inflation
adjustments impact only prime contractors, so that
subcontractors must maintain a compliance requirement for some
contracts but not others. The committee believes that
standardization will reduce regulatory and compliance
challenges for both prime and subcontractors.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 861--Exemption from Design-Build Selection Procedures
This section would amend section 2305a of title 10, United
States Code, to exempt solicitations issued pursuant to an
indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract from the
statutory limitation on the number of offerors that may proceed
to step-two of the procurement selection process.
Section 862--Requirement That Certain Ship Components Be Manufactured
in the National Technology and Industrial Base
This section would amend section 2534 of title 10, United
States Code, and would require certain auxiliary ship
components to be procured from a manufacturer in the national
technology and industrial base.
Section 863--Procurement of Aviation Critical Safety Items
This section would amend section 814 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) to include the procurement of aviation critical safety
items.
The committee is concerned the military services may be
interpreting the definition of personal protective equipment
too narrowly and are not considering aviation critical safety
items, such as military parachutes. This change ensures that to
the maximum extent practicable, the source selection criteria
used in the procurement of aviation critical safety items, such
as parachutes, would be best-value based, rather than reverse
auction or lowest price technically acceptable contracting
methods.
Section 864--Milestones and Timelines for Contracts for Foreign
Military Sales
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop standard timeline milestones for the foreign military
sales (FMS) process, including related contracting activities.
Timeline milestones would vary by the complexity of the FMS
case. The Secretary would report quarterly to the congressional
defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the
House of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate any FMS cases that require
congressional notification pursuant to section 36 of the Arms
Export Control Act that do not meet timeline milestones. The
Secretary would also report annually to the congressional
defense committees, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the
House of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate the number of FMS cases that did meet
timeline milestones during the preceding fiscal year, and the
number of FMS cases that failed to meet the timeline
milestones, categorized by milestone and reason for the delay.
Section 865--Notification Requirement for Certain Contracts for Audit
Services
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
notify the congressional defense committees when there is a
protest of a contract for auditing services that contribute to
the Department of Defense achieving auditable financial
statements and the Department decides not to use existing
authorities to continue performance of the contract while the
protest is pending. The committee remains committed to the
Department achieving auditable financial statements, and is
concerned that a delay in any one annual auditing contract
impairs the ability of the entire Department to achieve
consolidated audited financial statements.
Section 866--Training in Acquisition of Commercial Items
This section would require the President of the Defense
Acquisition University to establish a training program on part
12 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation pertaining to the
procurement of commercial items.
Section 867--Notice of Cost-Free Federal Procurement Technical
Assistance in Connection With Registration of Small Business Concerns
on Procurement Websites of the Department of Defense
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish procedures to include information about cost-free
services provided by a Federal procurement technical assistance
program in notices or direct communications regarding the
registration of a small business on a Department of Defense
procurement website.
Section 868--Comptroller General Report on Contractor Business System
Requirements
This section would require the Comptroller General of the
United States to issue a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act on the feasibility and effect of revising the
applicability of contractor business system rules contained in
section 893 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).
Section 869--Standard Guidelines for Evaluation of Requirements for
Services Contracts
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
encourage standardization of guidelines for the evaluation of
requirements for services contracts.
Section 870--Temporary Limitation on Aggregate Annual Amount Available
for Contract Services
This section would extend the cap on spending for services
contracts by the Department of Defense through fiscal year
2018.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Organization and Management of the Department of Defense
Generally
Section 901--Responsibility of the Chief Information Officer of the
Department of Defense for Risk Management Activities Regarding Supply
Chain for Information Technology Systems
This section would amend section 142(b)(1) of title 10,
United States Code, by making the Department of Defense Chief
Information Officer responsible for policy, oversight,
guidance, and coordination for supply chain risk management
activities for the Department's information technology (IT)
systems.
The committee remains concerned that the Department of
Defense is not adequately postured or resourced to conduct the
necessary planning, analysis, and assessment for supply chain
risk management of Department of Defense information technology
systems. This problem is exacerbated by the globalized nature
of both the hardware and software supply chains for IT, and by
the reliance of the Department on primarily commercial systems
that are the products of the globalized management and supply
chain. While the committee is aware that much progress has been
made in developing policies and guidance, as well as creating
the core of an analytic capability, the committee believes
there is more to be done. In addition to rethinking how to
address this problem with less manpower, the committee also
believes the Department should do more to invest in automated
information feeds, including from business and commercial
intelligence providers, to fuse with classified information
when needed, but also to provide stand-alone products more
easily shareable with industry, interagency, and international
partners.
Section 902--Repeal of Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight
This section would repeal section 2228 of title 10, United
States Code, requiring that there be an Office of Corrosion
Policy and Oversight within the Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
Section 903--Designation of Corrosion Control and Prevention Executives
for the Military Departments
This section would designate corrosion control and
prevention executives for the military departments.
Section 904--Maintaining Civilian Workforce Capabilities to Sustain
Readiness, the All Volunteer Force, and Operational Effectiveness
This section would amend section 912 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) to add civilian workforce matters to the report required
by that section.
Subtitle B--Designation of the Navy and Marine Corps
Section 911--Redesignation of the Department of the Navy as the
Department of the Navy and Marine Corps
This section would re-designate the Department of the Navy
as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps. Further, this
section would re-designate the Secretary of the Navy as the
Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps.
Section 912--Conforming Amendments to Title 10, United States Code
This section would make conforming amendments to Title 10,
United States Code, consistent with designating the Department
of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.
Section 913--Other Provisions of Law and Other References
This section would amend other references in the United
States Code consistent with the designation of the Department
of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.
Section 914--Effective Date
This section would make this subtitle effective on the
first day of the first month beginning more than 60 days after
the enactment of this Act.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 921--Transition of the Office of the Secretary of Defense To
Reflect Establishment of Positions of Under Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Sustainment, and Chief Management Officer
This section would allow the incumbent Principal Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to become the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment, and would allow the incumbent
Deputy Chief Management Officer to continue to serve as the
Chief Management Officer, once both positions come into effect
on February 1, 2018, consistent with section 901 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328.) Additionally, this section would clarify that any
statutory references to the positions established in the
aforementioned section 901 also take effect on February 1,
2018.
In the conference report (H. Rept. 114-840) accompanying
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017,
the conferees encouraged the President to move expeditiously on
nominations for the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Sustainment, and the Chief Management Officer. However, the
committee recognizes the difficulty of recruiting talented,
experienced individuals to the incumbent leadership positions
if the tenure of such positions is short and the individuals
are not retained for the newly established positions.
Therefore, the committee recommends that the individuals
appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to
the relevant incumbent positions be allowed to transition to
the newly established positions.
Section 922--Extension of Deadlines for Reporting and Briefing
Requirements for Commission on the National Defense Strategy for the
United States
This section would amend section 942 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328), which establishes a Commission on the National Defense
Strategy for the United States, to extend the deadlines for the
final report and interim briefing.
The committee recognizes that the commissioners had not yet
been appointed to the commission as of May 2017. To allow the
commission sufficient time to conduct the review and assessment
as required, the committee recommends revising the deadlines
for the final report and interim briefing.
Section 923--Briefing on Force Management Level Policy
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
Department of Defense should discourage the practice of
substituting contractor personnel for available members of the
Armed Forces when a unit deploys overseas. This section would
also require the Secretary of Defense to brief the
congressional defense committees on steps the Secretary is
taking to revise deployment guidelines to ensure readiness,
unit cohesion, and maintenance are prioritized as well as a
plan to establish a policy to avoid costly contractor practices
when practicable in the future.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Counter-Drug Activities
Narcotics Flow to the United States From Central and South America
Congress continues to be concerned regarding the flow
illegal narcotics trafficking into the U.S. from in Central and
South America. Congress notes the United States has a national
security interest in the narcotics trafficking of transnational
criminal organizations taking place in the Western Hemisphere
risking widening insecurity and instability. The continuing
efforts by U.S. Southern Command have been instrumental in
combating the threats posed by the transnational criminal
organizations. However, U.S. Southern Command could utilize
additional requisite manpower, assets, and resources to assist
the Office of National Drug Control Policy's mandated goal of
forty percent reduction of narcotics entering through U.S.
borders. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
continue to prioritize manpower, assets and resources to meet
the mission of U.S. Southern Command to increase stability and
security throughout the region. Therefore, the committee
requires the Secretary of Defense, to provide a briefing, to
the House Committee on Armed Services, no later than November
1, 2017 on the future manpower and resourcing needs in the U.S.
Southern Command area of responsibility and the Department's
plan to contribute to the interagency effort to reduce the
amount of illicit narcotics entering the United States.
National Guard Counterdrug Schools
The committee acknowledges the continued contributions of
the National Guard Counterdrug Schools as part of domestic
counterdrug initiatives. The National Guard, working with law
enforcement agencies and community-based organizations,
operates five regional counterdrug training centers across the
country to provide education and training to local, State, and
Federal law enforcement in counterdrug and global threat
reduction efforts.
The committee notes the importance of each school's
curriculum in addressing the counterdrug threat. Each course
provides students with training and skill set development to
better combat transnational criminal organizations, develop
intelligence gathering skills, and develop investigation
skills. The committee believes that the Department of Defense
should perform a thorough review process, to include feedback
from schools' leadership and instructors, of the effectiveness
of courses and overall curriculum strategy. The committee
encourages the Department, as it annually reviews the curricula
of each school, to evaluate the holistic approach each school
implements to train, educate, and assist its students.
Peace in Colombia
The committee lauds the Government of the Republic of
Colombia on the signing of the peace accords with the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia in September 2016. The
committee further congratulates the Government on its
implementation of the peace accords, beginning in November
2016. These accords lay the foundation for the peaceful
transition of a country dealing with internal war and terrorism
for 50 years to a country of stability.
The committee remains supportive of the U.S. mission in
Colombia and of the strides made through the U.S.-Colombian
partnership. Since 2000, the poverty rate in Colombia has
dropped by 44 percent and the Gross Domestic Product has grown
by 142 percent, while homicides have decreased by 53 percent.
There have also been setbacks, including increased coca
production and increased paramilitary attacks, as well as the
possible resurgence of the National Liberation Army, and a rise
in national violence and homicides. While an increase in coca
production has hindered some of the progress of the Colombian
Government over the past decade, the U.S. partnership with
Colombia to address this and other challenges remains vital.
The peace process is a generational transition with no easy
victories.
The committee encourages the Government of Colombia to
continue its efforts to promote and export stability, security,
and transparency. The committee further encourages the
Department of Defense and the Government of Colombia to
continue their enduring partnership. The committee recognizes
Colombia's work in Central America to train and assist
countries with rampant violence and instability, leveraging
lessons it has learned from 50 years of conflict, and to
emphasize the professionalization of the military. The
committee believes that, as Colombia evolves through its
peaceful transition, a stronger and more stable hemisphere will
emerge.
Venezuela Security and Stability
The committee is concerned about the growing economic and
political unrest occurring in the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela under President Nicolas Maduro. With reports of
famine, political uncertainty and corruption, a disintegrating
economy, and undue violent government action against its
citizens, the committee is concerned that instability in
Venezuela could lead to a government collapse and failed state.
In addition, this instability could result in portions of the
Venezuelan population migrating to neighboring countries,
including the Republic of Colombia, the Cooperative Republic of
Guyana, the Republic of Peru, and the Federative Republic of
Brazil, seeking humanitarian relief. The effects of a large
scale humanitarian crisis in the region could be catastrophic.
The committee is concerned about U.S. Government
contingency planning if a collapse of the Venezuelan Government
and economy occurs. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with other Federal
Government agencies and departments that the Secretary deems
appropriate, to provide a briefing, which may be classified, to
the House Committee on Armed Services not later than September
30, 2017, on U.S. Government contingency plans for a potential
humanitarian and migration crisis in Venezuela if its
Government and economy collapse, to include the Department of
Defense's roles and responsibilities and assets that would
contribute to such plans.
Other Matters
Assessment of Culture and Accountability in Special Operations Forces
The committee is aware of the integral role that Special
Operations Forces play in the defense of our Nation. Special
Operations Forces enjoy a stellar reputation as brave,
competent and quiet professionals. The committee is concerned,
however, that recent allegations of personal misconduct by a
limited number of service members may be detracting from the
honorable service of the vast majority of Special Operations
Forces. These allegations of misconduct include reports of
sexual assault and other sexual misconduct, as well as drug
use. Additional concerns have been raised about increased
public exposure of Special Operations Forces activities and
operations via unauthorized books and media.
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict and the
Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command, to provide a
briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives not later than January 1, 2018, on the
Department's assessment of the culture and accountability
within Special Operations Forces.
Botulinum Toxin Type A Countermeasures
The committee notes that the Department of Defense is
managing efforts to develop a vaccine to counter botulinum
toxin types A and B. There is evidence and discussion in the
scientific community stating that the use of the botulinum
neurotoxin (BoNT) type A vaccine, which the department is
pursuing, can limit future medical treatments for military
personnel in that it would prevent immunized warfighters and
veterans from receiving the benefit of the rapidly growing
number of important medical uses of botulinum toxin type A.
Several of these medical uses are critically important to the
military veteran population, including treatments for PTSD-
associated migraine and amputation pain. Furthermore, the
committee notes that advances in synthetic biology enhance both
the potential threat and potential treatments of biological
agents.
Therefore, the committee directs Secretary of Defense to
brief the House Committee on Armed Services within 90 days of
enactment of this act on the Department of Defense's research
and development plans to counter botulinum toxin type A, the
impact and/or potential drawbacks in using the BoNT/A vaccine,
and the potential future benefits and complications introduced
through the advances of synthetic biology for the treatment and
threat of biological agents.
Combat Helmets for Female Service Members
The committee encourages the Army and the Marine Corps to
continue its efforts to reduce the weight of combat helmets
issued to service members, while maintaining or enhancing
ballistic protection. The committee also recognizes the need
for the Department of Defense to ensure that the military
services are procuring properly fitting helmets for all
military servicemen and women. Specifically, the committee is
aware of the Army's efforts to develop and field improved
helmet fit and retention systems to account for female service
member needs.
Therefore, in finalizing the contracts for current and
future combat helmet production, the committee encourages the
Army and the Marine Corps to take into account the helmet needs
of all military service members when determining the number,
size variety, and fitting system designs, with the goal of
ensuring that the entirety of the male and female military
population have the appropriate size helmets.
Comptroller General Assessment of Emerging Threats of High National
Security Consequence
Within the next ten years, the committee believes that
several challenges could present emerging threats of high
national security consequence, such as: the proliferation of
disruptive and exponentially deployed technologies; the
introduction of novel asymmetric weapons; second and third-
order effects of environmental and climate-related issues;
global pandemic and public health issues; shifting demographics
and urbanization effects; and unanticipated state and non-state
acts of aggression.
Since the committee believes the Department of Defense must
be prepared to counter these threats, the committee directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to identify and assess
these and other emerging threats that could affect the national
security of the United States. Such an assessment should
provide a snapshot of critical emerging threats based on the
views of the intelligence community, combatant commands, and
other Department of Defense organizations, such as the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency. The assessment should identify:
(1) the emerging threats within each geographic combatant
commander's area of responsibility;
(2) the extent to which the threats are highlighted in
current national security defense strategies; and
(3) the Department's component(s), if any, tasked to
monitor and mitigate these threats.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees by February 1,
2018, on preliminary findings, with a report to follow.
Defense Department 501(c)3 Coordination and Strategy
The committee is aware that non-profit 501(c)3 entities may
provide a valuable utility when operating in concert with
Department of Defense and other U.S. government agencies and
plans, but that guidance for utilizing such entities is
inconsistent throughout the Department and Combatant Commands.
The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report by November 1, 2018, to the House Committee on
Armed Services on the utility of 501(c)3 organizations to
further the international goals and interests of the Department
of Defense in concert with other U.S. government agencies and
encourages the Department to issue standard guidance and
standard operating procedures for working with such non-federal
entities overseas.
Department of Defense Overmatch Strategy
The committee remains concerned that U.S. superiority in
some key warfare domains may be at risk with the advances in
technology being made by other nations that are designed to
counter U.S. overmatch. While the committee appreciates the
assessments conducted by the Department of Defense, including
the Office of Net Assessment, to characterize trends in
competitive capabilities, the committee also seeks to
understand the Department's efforts to address these
challenges.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than September 30, 2017, on the Department's strategy
to maintain overmatch, including the organizations, activities,
and resources involved in the development and implementation of
such strategy.
Disposal of Excess Agriculture-Related Equipment
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has a
disposal process for its excess or unused equipment. The
committee believes that veteran-owned farming operations could
benefit from greater awareness of equipment availability.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the Defense
Logistics Agency to provide a briefing, not later than December
31, 2017, to the House Committee on Armed Services on all
agriculture-related equipment disposals for the past five
years. The briefing shall include an itemized list of each item
disposed, a brief description of each farming-related item, and
whether the item was transferred to another government entity
or a private company or citizen.
High-Altitude Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
Capacity, Capability, and Force Structure
The committee recognizes that both the piloted U-2 Dragon
Lady and the remotely piloted RQ-4 Global Hawk fleets of
aircraft provide essential and extremely sought after high-
altitude airborne intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities for geographic combatant
commanders. Due to varying circumstances, both aircraft have
been viewed as competitors for resources with various
stakeholders trying to decide which should remain within the
Air Force inventory for the long-term. However, the committee
emphasizes that while both aircraft are highly capable and have
differing attributes that may make one aircraft preferable at
times over the other aircraft, the combination together
provides critical, complementary capabilities within the
Department's portfolio of high-altitude ISR capabilities.
Furthermore, retiring either aircraft would create a
significant capability gap and further exacerbate an existing
and significant capacity shortfall in meeting combatant
commanders' requirements.
Therefore, elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a
provision that would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force
from retiring either the U-2 or RQ-4 aircraft until at least
the beginning of fiscal year 2024. Additionally, the committee
also supports and expects the Secretary of the Air Force to
robustly continue current and future modernization efforts and
capability upgrades underway for the U-2 and RQ-4 to increase
capability, generate synergy, and foster commonality within the
high-altitude airborne ISR portfolio. Finally, the committee
discourages the Secretary of the Air Force or the Chief of
Staff of the Air Force from planning in the future or proposing
to Congress any aircraft retirement that would create a
capability deficit or capacity shortfall from existing levels
until a sufficient replacement capability declares full
operational capability.
National Biodefense Strategy
Section 1086 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) directed the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of
Agriculture to jointly develop a national biodefense strategy
and associated implementation plan. The strategy is also to
include a review and assessment of biodefense policies,
practices, programs, and initiatives, and is to be reviewed and
revised biennially. The committee is pleased with the
interagency coordination that has taken place thus far,
including periodic update briefs to all congressional oversight
committees and urges the continuation of these updates. The
committee looks forward to receiving the completed strategy as
required by section 1086, not later than its due date,
September 25, 2017, including the subsequent review by the
Comptroller General of the United States.
National Guard CBRN Enterprise Report
The committee is aware that since the 1998 report on
National Guard and WMD response, there has not been an updated
study on the readiness, roles and tasks of the National Guard
in both Title 10 and Title 32 as it relates to the Chemical
Biological and Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) threats has not
been conducted to mirror evolving threats and technology
including increased asymmetric threats, new chemical and
biological threats, UAV and drone technology, and cyber warfare
or maturing federal and state homeland defense architecture and
policies.
This Committee believes it is appropriate to re-examine our
National Guard CBRN enterprise and recommends that the Chief of
the National Guard Bureau conduct a comprehensive study of its
current federal, state and local Chemical, Biological,
Radiological and Nuclear operations, equipment and training
requirements in light of today's threats. The report should
highlight strengths as well as gaps and seams in the
interagency planning and execution process.
The committee directs the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau, working in close coordination with other state and
federal agencies and stakeholders across multiple levels of
government, to provide a report detailing the following, no
later than September 30, 2019:
(1) define and clarify the roles and missions, structure,
capabilities and training of the National Guard, as well as
identifying emerging gaps and shortfalls in light of current
CBRN threats to our country,
(2) by State and territory, comment on the resources each
state has (Title 32 and Title 10) that are available to respond
to a CBRN attack, proposing adaptions and updated response
plans to combat current threats,
(3) the readiness and resourcing status of forces listed in
(2),
(4) current strengths and areas of improvement in working
with State and Federal interagency partners,
(5) current assessments that are in place that address both
readiness and resourcing of Title 32 and Title 10 forces
postured to respond to CBRN incidents.
National Guard Use of Department of Defense Issued Unmanned Aircraft
Systems for Domestic Operations
The committee notes that the Deputy Secretary of Defense
issued policy memorandum (15-002) for the Department of Defense
on February 17, 2015, to provide guidance for the domestic use
of Department of Defense unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). The
policy's purpose is to ensure that Department UAS platforms are
used in accordance with U.S. law and Department policy, and to
ensure the appropriate use of Department UAS assets in domestic
operations, training, exercises, and testing within the
Department. The policy also covers use of Department UAS
platforms issued to the National Guard, in accordance with
subsection 710 of title 32, United States Code, which provides
accountability for property issued to the National Guard.
The committee supports the purpose and substantive issues
that are addressed by the UAS policy memorandum, but the
committee also believes that some of the coordination processes
and governance structure stipulated by the policy may not be
optimal and provides unclear guidance in support of certain
State and National Guard operations and missions. For example,
the policy states that Department UAS platforms may not be used
for Federal, State, or local immediate response, yet the policy
allows for State governors to consider Department UAS
employment in their planning for disaster response activities,
but only after a governor's response plan factors in the
procedures and time required for Federal Aviation
Administration consultation for access to the necessary
airspace, and to obtain Secretary of Defense authorization
through a formal request in writing. On the contrary, the
committee notes that Secretary of Defense approval is not
needed for Department UAS domestic operations for designated
search and rescue missions involving distress and potential
loss-of-life circumstances. However, the committee believes
that most disaster response activities that a governor would
undertake would likely involve distress and potential loss-of-
life circumstances in which immediate response may be
necessary. The committee is uncertain as to why Secretary of
Defense approval is necessary for a governor to use a
Department UAS related to disaster response activities, but
approval authority is delegated below the Secretary of Defense
for search and rescue missions involving distress and potential
loss-of-life.
Therefore, elsewhere in this title, the committee includes
a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, the
Commander, U.S. Northern Command, and the Commander, U.S.
Pacific Command, to perform a review of the Department policy
memorandum governing the domestic use of Department UAS
platforms not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment
of this Act, with a particular focus on efficiently and
effectively supporting State and National Guard operations and
missions.
Navy Reserve F/A-18 Aircraft
The committee remains concerned over the health and
readiness of the Navy Reserve combat air fleet. The committee
is aware that the Navy Reserve tactical aviation squadrons
provide critical adversary support and strike fighter weapons
training to Active Duty forces, and must maintain a high
mobilization readiness level as the sole strategic reserve
available to the U.S. Navy. The committee understands the Navy
Reserve currently operates 33 legacy F/A-18A+ aircraft that are
currently shared between 2 squadrons. The committee notes that
with an average airframe age of 30 years and onboard systems
that are no longer compatible with today's Carrier Air Wing,
these aircraft are increasingly less capable than the F/A-18E/F
Super Hornets. The committee believes this could impact the
ability of these two Navy Reserve squadrons in meeting
requirements for advanced strike employment, as well as
simulating current advanced threat aircraft. The committee also
believes these legacy F/A-18A+ aircraft need to be
recapitalized with next generation capability in order to
provide realistic threat-representative training for naval
aviators and to maintain operational readiness that provides a
relevant and deployable backstop to the Active Duty air wings.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy, in coordination with the Chief of the Navy Reserve, to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services,
not later than December 1, 2017, on its plans to recapitalize
the Navy Reserve combat air fleet.
Next Generation Immersive Cockpit Systems
The committee is aware of next-generation immersive
aircraft operator cockpit technologies, including advanced crew
stations, that may reduce aircraft operator risk, while
enabling new aircraft to be designed that achieve higher
performance at reduced costs when compared to conventional
cockpit technology. The committee encourages the Department of
Defense to pursue evaluation of such technologies if they are
deemed to be beneficial in meeting performance and cost
requirements for advanced next-generation aircraft.
Overseas Posture and Permanently Stationed Forces
The committee asserts that there is operational and
strategic value in maintaining forward presence of U.S.
military forces in both the U.S. European Command and U.S.
Pacific Command's areas of responsibilities. Forward-positioned
forces reduce time and space limitations by providing rapid
response capabilities to geographic combatant commanders, serve
as a deterrent to potential adversaries while assuring partners
and allies, and facilitate cooperative efforts to build and
develop partner-nation security capabilities. However, the
committee notes that several geographic combatant commands have
relied on rotational forces to meet requirements due to
reductions in the number of permanently stationed forces. While
rotational forces can maintain required force levels and help
exercise certain skill sets, the committee is concerned that an
over-reliance on rotational forces may come at a greater
financial cost and with limitations on meeting requirements for
our strategic and operational aims when compared to permanently
stationed forces.
For example, the use of rotational forces encumbers at
least three units to support the one rotation: the unit
currently performing the rotational mission, the unit training
to assume the rotational mission, and the unit undergoing reset
after completing the rotational mission. The committee is
concerned that this may have an adverse impact on the readiness
and availability of units. Unlike permanently stationed forces,
rotational forces are also not assigned to a geographic area
long enough to develop and sustain expertise on the terrain,
supporting infrastructure, sustainable lines of communication,
and regional security forces. This may adversely affect the
ability of rotational and partner-nation forces to effectively
coordinate responses to contingencies. The committee is also
concerned that partner nations may question the United States'
commitment, and partner forces may experience fatigue due to
the higher operational training tempo associated with
rotational forces. Finally, the committee is aware that the
financial costs of supporting ``heel-to-toe'' rotational units
over several years may be greater than correlating costs for
permanently forward-stationed units.
Due to these limitations, the committee asserts that it
better serves the United States' operational and strategic
interests to maintain additional permanently stationed forces
where the geographic combatant commanders have requirements for
persistent force presence to: provide rapid response
capabilities; deter potential adversaries; assure partners and
allies; or facilitate cooperative efforts to build and develop
partner-nation security capabilities. The committee is
concerned that the United States' posture may be out of balance
and lack sufficient emphasis on permanent forward-stationed
forces.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the service secretaries, to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees not later than
April 1, 2018, on the Department's strategy for balancing the
force structure of the U.S. Armed Forces as part of any planned
growth in end strength and force structure. The report shall be
unclassified, but may include a classified annex. At a minimum,
the report should address the following issues with respect to
U.S. European Command and U.S. Pacific Command's areas of
responsibility:
(1) an assessment of the additional permanently stationed
forces at overseas locations required to meet U.S. strategic
requirements and the operational requirements of the geographic
combatant commanders;
(2) an assessment of the infrastructure capacity of
existing overseas locations and their ability to accommodate
additional forces;
(3) an overview of new locations that might be considered
for permanently stationed forces and the estimated cost and
scope of infrastructure investments, to include improvements to
training areas, which would be required at those locations to
support permanently stationed forces. This should include an
assessment of what infrastructure investments might be provided
by the host-nation as well as new construction or modernization
of existing facilities that would be funded by the United
States;
(4) a detailed list of investments in equipment, supplies,
logistics, storage, and maintenance, at current and new
overseas locations, required to support additional permanently
stationed forces;
(5) an assessment of the readiness benefits and
disadvantages associated with stationing additional permanent
forces at overseas locations; and
(6) a discussion of potential challenges with stationing
additional permanent forces or developing new locations for
permanently stationed forces as a result of treaty obligations,
international agreements, or other legally binding instruments.
Report on the National Security Implications of Ukraine's Arbitration
Proceedings against Russia under Annex VII of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea
The Committee notes the September 14, 2016 announcement by
Ukraine that it had initiated arbitration proceedings against
Russia under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In bringing this suit, Ukraine is
seeking validation of its maritime rights in the vicinity of
Crimea in the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov, and the Kerch Strait.
The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that ``Ukraine
has asked the arbitral tribunal to enforce its maritime rights
by ordering the Russian Federation to cease its internationally
wrongful actions in the relevant waters, to provide Ukraine
with appropriate guarantees that it will respect Ukraine's
rights under UNCLOS, and to make full reparation to Ukraine for
the injuries the Russian Federation has caused.''
Additionally, the committee notes that the United States
was denied observer status to the tribunal's proceedings
between the Philippines and the Republic of China, which also
carried major national security implications. In its ruling on
that case, the tribunal determined that ```only interested
States parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea will be admitted as observers' and thus could not
accede to the U.S. request.''
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees by December 31, 2017
on:
(1) the national security implications of the arbitration
proceedings brought by Ukraine against Russia under UNCLOS;
(2) actions the U.S. can take to support the arbitration
proceedings brought by Ukraine;
(3) limitations to the U.S. position in this case given its
failure to ratify UNCLOS, and;
(4) a recommendation on whether the U.S. should ratify the
UNCLOS.
Requirement for Notification of Modifications Made to Presidential
Policy Guidance for Direct Action Against Terrorist Targets
When necessary, U.S. Armed Forces use lethal force abroad
to protect the American people, consistent with American values
and all applicable law, including the international laws of
armed conflict. In 2013, the Administration issued Presidential
Policy Guidance (PPG) establishing standard operating
procedures for direct action, which refers to lethal and non-
lethal uses of force, including capture operations against
terrorist targets in areas of active hostilities outside of the
United States. The committee is aware that the current
Administration has directed the Department of Defense and the
interagency to review the procedures for direct action against
terrorist targets established by the 2013 PPG, and that the
results of this review are forthcoming.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
within 30 days of any change made to procedures for direct
action against terrorist targets conducted under title 10,
United States Code, authorities, including any deviation,
variation, change, or termination of procedure outlined within
the 2013 PPG. Additionally, the committee expects the Secretary
of Defense to continue to comply with standing requirements to
notify the congressional defense committees of non-combatant
causalities associated with direct action activities conducted
under the auspices of the PPG, and all other title 10
operations, to include a year-end compilation by country.
Ring Wheel Drive
The committee is interested in advancements in power- and
drivetrain systems and whether these systems could offer
mechanical and electromechanical benefits to Department of
Defense procurements. This includes new ``hub-less''' or
``spoke-less''' technology that has been described as a ring
wheel drive. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the military services, to brief the
congressional defense committees by March 1, 2018, on current
commercial and government efforts to develop and deploy ring
wheel drive technology. In addition, the briefing should
include an assessment of the applicability of ring wheel drive
for military platforms, including the broad range of wheeled
vehicles and rotorcraft where ring wheel drive technology might
improve the efficiency of current power and drivetrain systems.
Special Operations Forces Demand, Priorities, and Over-Reliance
The committee recognizes the unique capabilities U.S.
Special Operations Forces (SOF) offer to combatant commanders
to achieve objectives in their assigned area of operations. The
committee acknowledges the value of SOF in carrying out
missions which the general purpose forces are not trained or
equipped to meet.
The committee understands that all military operational
units are pressed to meet current demand and maintain
readiness, but believes SOF should be preserved for SOF
specific missions as an elite, highly specialized, and small
force available for high priority operations. However, the
committee notes that SOF are increasingly assigned to missions
more appropriate for general purpose forces, and the committee
is concerned that the use of SOF for non-SOF specific missions
may degrade SOF readiness for core missions.
Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to
review the joint force allocation process in conjunction with
an assessment of SOF structure, and to recalibrate the
allocation of forces process as necessary to preserve essential
readiness of SOF.
Strategy To Counter Unconventional and Hybrid Warfare Threats
The committee is concerned by the Department of Defense's
failure to respond to the requirements of section 1097 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92). The committee continues to hear in open testimony
from outside experts and combatant commanders on the need for a
whole of government strategy to counter unconventional and
hybrid threats. For several years, the committee has expressed
concern over the growing sophistication of unconventional and
hybrid state-sponsored threats by the Russian Federation, the
People's Republic of China, and the Islamic Republic of Iran,
and that these adversaries continue to advance and integrate
conventional warfare, economic warfare, cyber and information
operations, intelligence operations, and other activities to
undermine U.S. national security objectives as well as the
objectives of U.S. allies.
Therefore, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense to
complete the strategy required by section 1097 of Public Law
114-92 as soon as possible.
U.S. Efforts to Train, Advise, Assist, and Equip the Iraqi
Counterterrorism Service and the Iraqi Special Operations Forces
The committee has received from the Inspector General of
the Department of Defense the report entitled, ``An Assessment
of U.S. and Coalition Plans and Efforts to Train, Advise,
Assist, and Equip the Iraqi Counterterrorism Service and the
Iraqi Special Operations Forces'' (DODIG-2017-074). Although
the report found no statutory anomalies with the implementation
of Iraqi train and equip efforts, the committee is concerned
that several findings indicated a lack of accountability with
materiel and equipment, training standards, and training
metrics specifically for the Iraqi Counterterrorism Service and
the Iraqi Special Operations Forces. Therefore, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services by September 1, 2017, on his
plan to implement the recommendations made in DODIG-2017-074
concerning efforts to train, advise, assist, and equip the
Iraqi Counterterrorism Service and the Iraqi Special Operations
Forces.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
Section 1001--General Transfer Authority
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense, with
certain limitations, to make transfers between amounts
authorized for fiscal year 2018 in division A of this Act. This
section would limit the total amount transferred under this
authority to $5.00 billion. This section would also require
prompt notification to Congress of each transfer made.
Section 1002--Preparation of Consolidated Corrective Action Plan and
Implementation of Centralized Reporting System
This section would direct the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller) to execute two recommendations identified in the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, ``DOD Financial
Management: Significant Efforts Still Needed for Remediating
Audit Readiness Deficiencies'' (GAO-17-85).
Section 1003--Additional Requirements Relating to Department of Defense
Audits
This section changes Section 1003(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public
Law 111-84; 10 U.S.C. 2222 note) regarding audits of the
Department of Defense.
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
Section 1011--National Defense Sealift Fund
This section would amend section 2218 of title 10, United
States Code, and strike the use of the fund for research and
development related to national defense sealift. Additionally,
this section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
purchase up to five used vessels, regardless of where
constructed, for the Ready Reserve Force component on a one-
for-one basis with new vessels authorized by the National
Defense Sealift Fund. Finally, prior to the purchase of a
vessel not constructed in the United States, the section would
require the Secretary to certify that there are no United
States constructed vessels available for purchase at a
reasonable price that are suitable for national defense or
military purposes.
Section 1012--National Defense Sealift Fund: Construction of National
Icebreaker Vessels
This section would amend section 2218 of title 10, United
States Code, and would authorize the obligation and expenditure
of funds associated with the National Defense Sealift Fund for
the construction, alteration, and conversion of national
icebreaker vessels.
Section 1013--Use of National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund for Multiyear
Procurement of Certain Critical Components
This section would expand the authority of the Secretary of
the Navy to enter into a multiyear contract for certain
nuclear-powered vessel components to include missile tubes,
torpedo tubes, and propulsors.
Section 1014--Restrictions on the Overhaul and Repair of Vessels in
Foreign Shipyards
This section would amend section 7310(b)(1) of title 10,
United States Code, to prohibit the Department of the Navy from
performing any overhaul, repair, or maintenance work that takes
longer than 6 months in foreign shipyards.
Section 1015--Availability of Funds for Retirement or Inactivation of
Ticonderoga-Class Cruisers or Dock Landing Ships
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from
using funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act to retire
a cruiser or dock landing ship or to place in a modernization
status more than six cruisers and one dock landing ship.
Section 1016--Policy of the United States on Minimum Number of Battle
Force Ships
This section would establish the policy of the United
States to have available, as soon as practicable, not fewer
than 355 battle force ships.
Subtitle C--Counterterrorism
Section 1021--Termination of Requirement to Submit Annual Budget
Justification Display for Department of Defense Combating Terrorism
Program
This section would terminate the requirement to submit an
annual budget justification display for Department of Defense
combating terrorism programs under section 229 of title 10,
United States Code, by December 31, 2020.
Section 1022--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Transfer or Release of
Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba to the United States
This section would prohibit the use of any amounts
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for
the Department of Defense to be used during the period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending
on December 31, 2018, to transfer or release detainees at U.S.
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United
States, its territories, or possessions.
Section 1023--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
This section would prohibit the use of any amounts
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for
the Department of Defense to be used during the period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending
on December 31, 2018, to construct or modify any facility in
the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any
detainee transferred from United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the purposes of detention or
imprisonment in the custody or under the effective control of
the Department of Defense.
Section 1024--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Transfer or Release of
Individuals Detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, to Certain Countries
This section would prohibit the use of any amounts
authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for
the Department of Defense to be used during the period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending
on December 31, 2018, to transfer, release, or assist in the
transfer or release of any individual detained at U.S. Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Libya, the Federal Republic
of Somalia, the Syrian Arab Republic, or the Republic of Yemen.
Section 1025--Biannual Report on Support of Special Operations to
Combat Terrorism
This section would modify the biannual reporting
requirements located in section 127e(g) of title 10, United
States Code.
Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Authorities and Limitations
Section 1031--Limitation on Expenditure of Funds for Emergency and
Extraordinary Expenses for Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence
Activities and Representation Allowances
This section would modify section 127 of title 10, United
States Code, to include an additional notification requirement
for intelligence and counter-intelligence activities.
Section 1032--Modifications to Humanitarian Demining Assistance
Authorities
This section would modify section 407, of title 10, United
States Code, to remove ``stockpiled conventional munitions''
from the limitations of training opportunities with partner
nations. This section would also modify the definitions of
``humanitarian demining assistance'' and ``stockpiled
conventional munitions assistance.''
Section 1033--Prohibition on Charge of Certain Tariffs on Aircraft
Traveling through Channel Routes
This section would prohibit U.S. Transportation Command
from charging a tariff when a military service uses their
aircraft on a route that is designated by U.S. Transportation
Command as a channel route.
Section 1034--Limitation on Divestment of U-2 or RQ-4 Aircraft
This section would repeal section 133 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), regarding limitation on retirement of U-2 aircraft, and
would prohibit the Department of Defense from retiring either
U-2 or RQ-4 aircraft until at least fiscal year 2024.
Section 1035--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Retirement of Legacy
Maritime Mine Countermeasures Platforms
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from
obligating or expending funds to deactivate, decommission, or
place in reduced operating status any mine countermeasures
ships or Sea Dragon (MH-53) helicopters. The limitation in this
section may be waived if the Secretary of the Navy certifies
that the replacement mine countermeasures capabilities are
available in sufficient quantity and capacity to meet the
combatant commander requirements that are currently fulfilled
by legacy mine countermeasures platforms.
Section 1036--Restriction on Use of Certain Funds Pending Solicitation
of Bids for Western Pacific Dry Dock
This section would withhold funding for the Office of
Secretary of the Navy until a request for proposal for a dry
dock in the Western Pacific has been issued.
Section 1037--National Guard Flyovers of Public Events
This section would require that National Guard flyovers of
public events be flown only as part of an approved training
mission and would make the Adjutant General the approval
authority for all Air National Guard and Army National Guard
flyovers in a state or territory.
Section 1038--Transfer of Funds to World War I Centennial Commission
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
transfer funding to the World War I Centennial Commission to
assist the Commission in carrying out activities in support of
the World War I Centennial Commission Act.
Section 1039--Rule of Construction Regarding Use of Department of
Defense Funding of a Border Wall
This section would prohibit funds authorized to be
appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2018
for the Department of Defense to be used to plan, develop, or
construct any barriers, including walls or fences along the
international border of the United States.
Subtitle E--Studies and Reports
Section 1051--Elimination of Reporting Requirements Terminated After
November 25, 2017, Pursuant to Section 1080 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
This section makes technical and conforming edits to
reflect the termination of certain Department of Defense
reporting requirements pursuant to section 1080 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92), as amended by section 1061 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328).
Section 1052--Report on Department of Defense Arctic Capability and
Resource Gaps
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report, not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, to the congressional defense committees
detailing the Department of Defense's efforts to resolve arctic
security capability and resource gaps.
Section 1053--Review and Assessment of Department of Defense Personnel
Recovery and Nonconventional Assisted Recovery Mechanisms
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees a review and
assessment of personnel recovery and nonconventional assisted
recovery programs, authorities, and policies not later than
March 1, 2018.
Section 1054--Mine Warfare Readiness Inspection Plan and Report
This section would require the Navy to submit a plan for a
readiness inspection of naval mine warfare units and report to
Congress on the results after the first inspection has been
completed. This section also repeals section 1090 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92).
Section 1055--Report on Civilian Casualties from Department of Defense
Strikes
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
strikes carried out by the Department of Defense against
terrorist targets.
Section 1056--Reports on Infrastructure and Capabilities of Lajes
Field, Portugal
This section requires the Department of Defense to submit
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives reports relating to Lajes Field, Portugal.
Section 1057--Report on Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex
Modernization
This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees
regarding proposed improvements to the Joint Pacific Alaska
Range Complex within 120 days after the date of enactment of
this Act.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Section 1061--Technical, Conforming, and Clerical Amendments
This section would make a number of technical and clerical
amendments of a non-substantive nature to existing law.
Section 1062--Workforce Issues for Relocation of Marines to Guam
This section would amend section 1806 of title 48, United
States Code, to permit the Director, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, to approve H-2B visa applications and
renewals through October 1, 2020, for contractors performing
work on the Territory of Guam for the construction program
supporting the realignment of U.S. Marines to Guam.
Section 1063--Protection of Second Amendment Rights of Military
Families
This section would require for the purposes of federal
firearms laws that the residency of members of the armed forces
and their spouses be determined in the same manner.
Section 1064--Transfer of Surplus Firearms to Corporation for the
Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety
This section would require the Secretary of the Army to
transfer surplus firearms to the Corporation for the Promotion
of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety. This section also would
terminate the pilot program established in section 1087 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 113-66).
Section 1065--National Guard Accessibility to Department of Defense
Issued Unmanned Aircraft
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, the
Commander, U.S. Northern Command, and the Commander, U.S.
Pacific Command, to complete an efficiency and effectiveness
review of the governance structure, coordination processes,
documentation, and timing requirements stipulated in Department
of Defense policy memorandum 15-002, titled ``Guidance for the
Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS).'' This section
would require the review to be completed not later than 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act and the Secretary
of Defense to submit the review to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives not
later than 30 days after its completion. This section also
would require the aforementioned officials to consider
information and data points from State governors and State
adjutant generals related to their assessment of the efficiency
and effectiveness of accessing Department of Defense UASes for
State and National Guard operations.
Section 1066--Sense of Congress Regarding Aircraft Carriers
This section would express the sense of Congress that U.S.
aircraft carriers are the preeminent power projection platform
and have served the Nation's interests in times of war and in
times of peace, adapting to the immediate and ever-changing
nature of the world for over 90 years.
Section 1067--Notice to Congress of Terms of Department of Defense
Settlement Agreements
This section would require that, upon the request of the
chairman of a specified committee, the Secretary of Defense
shall make available to that chairman a settlement agreement in
a civil action involving the Department of Defense, a military
department, or a Defense Agency, if, in the opinion of the
Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, the terms
of such settlement agreement could affect the congressional
authorization or appropriations process with respect to the
Department of Defense.
Section 1068--Sense of Congress Recognizing the United States Navy
Seabees
This section would establish a sense of congress that
recognizes the Navy Seabees and Navy personnel who comprise the
construction force for the Navy and Marine Corps as critical
elements in deterring conflict, overcoming aggression, and
rebuilding democratic institutions.
Section 1069--Recognition of the United States Special Operations
Command
This section recognizes contributions made by the U.S.
Special Operations Command.
Section 1070--Sense of Congress Regarding World War I
This section would provide a sense of Congress to honor
those members of the United States Armed Forces who served in
the First World War.
Section 1071--Findings and Sense of Congress Regarding the National
Guard Youth Challenge Program
This section would express findings and a sense of Congress
regarding the National Guard Youth Challenge Program and its
critical role in preparing qualified youth for military
service.
Section 1072--Sense of Congress Regarding National Purple Heart
Recognition Day
The section would express the sense of Congress that the
citizens of the United States should learn about the history of
the Purple Heart medal and conduct programs to support Purple
Heart medal recipients.
TITLE XI--CIVILIAN PERSONNEL MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Accelerated Promotion Program
The committee is aware that the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) formally approved the Navy's request to
establish a Naval Shipyards Engineer Accelerated Promotion
Program in December 2016, about 11 months after the Navy Office
of Civilian Human Resources directed naval shipyards to cease
accelerated promotions. The program is intended to help the
shipyards address geographically unique circumstances, such as
major in-state competitors or a single in-state university with
an engineering program from which to recruit. Given the
criticality of engineers to the shipyards' effective planning
and efficient and timely completion of ship maintenance
availabilities, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy
to brief the House Committee on Armed Services on the history
of the Accelerated Promotion Program and what consideration was
given to making accelerated promotions retroactive for shipyard
engineers hired between January 2016 and December 2016,
including any statutory or regulatory impediments to
implementation.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1101--Extension of Direct Hire Authority for Domestic Defense
Industrial Base Facilities and Major Range and Test Facilities Base
This section would extend the temporary direct hiring
authority granted in section 1125 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328)
until September 30, 2021.
Section 1102--Extension of Authority to Provide Voluntary Separation
Incentive Pay for Civilian Employees of the Department of Defense
This section would extend the temporary increase in
Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay granted in section 1107 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328) until September 30, 2021.
Section 1103--Additional Department of Defense Science and Technology
Reinvention Laboratories
This section would revise and update the list of
laboratories designated as Science and Technology Reinvention
Laboratories, to include the Naval Medical Research Center and
the Joint Warfighting Analysis Center.
Section 1104--One-Year Extension of Authority to Waive Annual
Limitation on Premium Pay and Aggregate Limitation on Pay for Federal
Civilian Employees Working Overseas
This section would amend section 1101 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417) to extend the authority to waive the annual
limitation on premium pay and aggregate limitation on pay for
Federal civilian employees working overseas until September 30,
2018.
Section 1105--Appointment of Retired Members of the Armed Forces to
Positions In or Under the Department of Defense
This section would amend section 3326 of title 5, United
States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to appoint
recently retired members of the Armed Forces to fill emergency
needs.
Section 1106--Direct Hire Authority for Financial Management Experts in
the Department of Defense Workforce
This section would amend section 1110 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) to expand the number of Department of Defense components
that may hire financial management experts using direct hire
authority.
Section 1107--Extension of Authority for Temporary Personnel
Flexibilities for Domestic Defense Industrial Base Facilities and Major
Range and Test Facilities Base Civilian Personnel
This section would amend subsection (a) of section 1132 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328) to extend authority for temporary civilian
personnel flexibilities for domestic defense industrial base
facilities and Major Range and Test Facilities through fiscal
year 2021.
Section 1108--One-Year Extension of Temporary Authority to Grant
Allowances, Benefits, and Gratuities to Civilian Personnel on Official
Duty in a Combat Zone
This section would amend section 1133 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) to extend temporary authority to grant allowances,
benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel on official duty
in a combat zone through fiscal year 2019.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN NATIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Assessment of Freedom of Navigation Operations in the South China Sea
The committee supports recent Freedom of Navigation
Operations (FONOP) in the South China Sea that challenge
arbitrary limitations that are in contravention of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, to provide a report to the
congressional defense committees, the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate, not later than November 30,
2017, that outlines U.S. policy and strategy regarding freedom
of navigation in the global commons and a plan for conducting
FONOPs in the South China Sea with regularity and frequency.
The report shall be submitted in unclassified form but may
contain a classified annex.
Attacks on U.S. Armed Forces Personnel by Partner Nation Security
Forces
U.S. military operations to train, advise, and assist
missions conducted by our partner nation security forces are a
core element of U.S. efforts to enhance security. Nevertheless,
the committee is concerned by the incidence of attacks on U.S.
military personnel by individuals affiliated with partner
nation security forces, so-called ``insider'' or ``green-on-
blue'' attacks.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and House of Representatives by March 1, 2018 on the
Department's efforts to mitigate the risk of attacks on U.S.
military personnel working with partner nation security forces.
The report should include:
(1) A description of each insider attack on U.S. Armed
Forces since September 2001, to include the date, location,
U.S. and partner nation security forces involved, associated
casualties (both U.S. and partner forces), and a description of
the circumstances surrounding each incident.
(2) A description of any training received or procedures
implemented by U.S. Armed Forces to mitigate the risk of
insider attacks (to include cultural awareness training).
(3) A description of any vetting procedures undertaken by
U.S. and partner nation security forces to identify possible
insider threats.
(4) Any recommendations the Secretary may have to further
counter insider threats.
Briefing on the Role of the Russian Military in Influence Operations
Targeting Democratic Elections and Disruption of Military Alliances and
Partnerships
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State and the Director of
National Intelligence, to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than October 1, 2017 on
the role of the Russian military in influence operations and
campaigns conducted by the Russian Federation targeting
democratic elections and disruption of military alliances and
partnerships of which the United States is a member. At a
minimum, the briefing should include;
(a) An assessment of the Russian Federation's objectives in
influence campaigns targeting democratic elections and
disruption of military alliances and partnerships of which the
United States is a member and how they relate to the Russian
Federation's broader strategic objectives;
(b) The role of the Russian military in influence
operations supporting such campaigns;
(c) Identification of the Russian military's tactics,
techniques, and procedures used in influence operations
supporting such campaigns;
(d) Identification of foreign countries with democratic
elections systems that may be targeted in future influence
operations and campaigns by the Russian Federation, an
assessment of the likelihood each such foreign country will be
targeted, and an analysis of the potential strategic advantage
gained by the Russian Federation by targeting those foreign
countries;
(e) Identification of the Russian military's tactics,
techniques, and procedures used in influence operations that
are likely to be applied in future influence campaigns
targeting democratic elections and disruption of military
alliances and partnerships of which the United States is a
member;
(f) An assessment of the Russian Federation's perception
and understanding of the security objectives of military
alliances and partnerships of which the United States is a
member and how that perception or understanding shapes the
Russian Federation's intelligence collection and influence
operations and campaigns; and
(g) Identification of any gaps in intelligence and warnings
and recommendations to address such gaps.
Countering Russian Aggression
The committee remains concerned about a resurgent,
revanchist Russian Federation. Over the past decade and more
acutely in the past 3 years, Russia has intervened in the
Syrian Arab Republic, illegally occupied and attempted to annex
Crimea, fomented conflict in eastern Ukraine through the
direction of combined Russian-separatist forces, interfered in
democratic elections in the United States and Europe, conducted
propaganda campaigns to undermine the legitimacy of democratic
governments, and aggressively sought to expand its global
influence and undermine international norms and organizations.
The committee remains committed to reassuring our European
partners and allies through the development, implementation,
and sustainment of an effective, credible deterrent to Russian
aggression, as well as measures to proactively address the
danger Russia poses to international principles and
institutions. The committee encourages the Department of
Defense and other executive agencies to focus their manpower,
resources, and capabilities toward the development a cohesive
strategy.
Counterterrorism Effectiveness Research
The committee recognizes that broad basic research into the
effectiveness of counterterrorism policies and strategy is
critical to informing and shaping future strategies. The
committee believes that there is currently a wide range of
social science research in these areas that should be
leveraged, including better use of and integration with
existing research by organizations maintaining databases of
terrorism incidents globally.
For example, the National Consortium for the Study of
Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) is a university-
based research and education center. The center is comprised of
an international network of scholars committed to the
scientific study of the causes and human consequences of
terrorism in the United States and around the world. START
supports the research efforts of leading social scientists at
more than 50 academic and research institutions across the
country and the globe and is headquartered at the University of
Maryland with partner institutions around the United States,
including the University of Nebraska.
The committee is aware the START program supports more than
14 terrorism and counterterrorism related datasets that are
used across civilian and defense agencies including the
Departments of Homeland Security and Department of Defense to
directly inform international, federal, state and local
training and educational programs. However, the budget request
for fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Homeland Security
does not include funding for this effort.
Therefore, the committee urges the Department of Defense to
foster academically rigorous studies of terrorism, like the
START initiative, to provide a foundational understanding for
how to assess the effectiveness of specific counterterrorism
program of the Department of Defense, and best practices to
inform the Department of Defense's counterterrorism policies.
Critical Shortfalls in the Indo-Asia-Pacific Region
The committee remains concerned about existing shortfalls
in critical preferred munitions inventories and the potential
impacts this could have on the ability of the Armed Forces to
perform required missions. The committee notes that all the
military services have expressed concerns about having
insufficient preferred munition stockpiles to meet global
combatant command contingency requirements, and the committee
believes this situation to be amplified for missions in the
Indo-Asia-Pacific region. The committee recognizes that
improvements in munition stockpiles and munition capacity will
require sustained long-term investment, and notes the budget
request does provide funding that will increase production
capacity for certain high-priority munitions like Joint Direct
Attack Munitions and Small Diameter Bombs. The committee
expects the Department of Defense to continue to prioritize
investment for critical munition capabilities such as long-
range anti-ship weapons, advanced air-to-air munitions, theater
ballistic missile defense, and torpedoes. The committee also
expects the Department to plan and program for improvements in
munition prepositioning arrangements, infrastructure for
munitions storage and security, and logistical requirements for
critical munitions, specifically in the Indo-Asia-Pacific
region.
Cultural Preservation in Armed Conflict
The committee recognizes Department of Defense policy,
including the Department Directive 2311.01E, ``Department of
Defense Law of War Program,'' which states it is Department
policy to comply with the law of war during all armed conflicts
and in all other military operations, including treaties and
international agreements to which the United States is a party,
such as the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of
Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. The committee
is encouraged by actions the Department has taken to protect
cultural property, including its training, education, and
cataloging efforts as discussed in the Department's 2015 report
relating to the protection of cultural property in the event of
armed conflict, required by section 1273 of the Carl Levin and
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291). However the
committee remains concerned that the development, application,
and oversight of policy and principles for cultural
preservation in armed conflict remains inconsistent.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by
September 29, 2017, that identifies:
(1) the specific Assistant Secretary of Defense or Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense responsible for managing and
evaluating compliance with the 1954 Hague Convention and other
relevant law of war requirements;
(2) the offices and agencies within the Department that
have responsibility for obtaining information related to
safeguarding cultural heritage sites during armed conflict and
other military operations;
(3) the funding mechanisms that the Department uses, or
would plan to use, to obtain relevant cultural heritage
information; and
(4) any other information the Secretary deems relevant.
Defense Support to the Global Engagement Center Mission
The committee recognizes that operating in the information
environment will be an increasingly important task for the
Department of Defense in dealing with future conflicts and
national security contingencies. The Department of Defense
Strategy for Operations in the Information Environment, dated
June 2016, provided a rudimentary framework for trying to
prepare for these kinds of operations. The key tenets of this
strategy remain relevant, including the importance of
information operations in all phases of future operations; the
need for policies and procedures that can manage information
activities appropriately across the spectrum of conflict; the
need for intelligence support to conduct effective information
operations; the need for increased resources and informed
resource prioritization to provide key capabilities, personnel
and approaches; and coordination of influence activities with
the interagency and international partners.
In order to meet those goals, and many of the specific
tasks needed to develop the ways to conduct operations in the
information environment, the Department will need to place
increased attention and resources to build the workforce,
technological capabilities and operational concepts, as well as
coordinate with technology companies. The Department is already
renewing its emphasis on traditional information operations
programs, but the committee also believes that the Department
should also actively explore how to, deconflict, contribute to,
as well as reap the benefits from, interagency and technology
companies activities in this space. For example, the committee
is aware that the Global Engagement Center (GEC) within the
Department of State is tasked with countering violent extremist
groups, as well as addressing threats posed by state-sponsored
and state-directed propaganda and misinformation activities. As
noted elsewhere in this report, the committee supports the
activities of the GEC, including through the development of a
strategy for fulfilling its roles and responsibilities. The
committee also believes that the Department should find
opportunities to increase support for, cooperation with, and
integration of efforts with the GEC. Increased cooperation
would help with integrating military and non-military efforts,
but also develop other pathways for career opportunity and
advancement that don't currently exist. Additionally, such
actions might also help ameliorate many of the challenges
described in testimony before the committee, such as ``lack of
accountability and oversight, bureaucracy resulting in
insufficient levels of resourcing, and the inability to absorb
cutting edge information and analytic tools, and access to
highly skilled personnel.''
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Armed Services Committee by
February 15, 2018 assessing the opportunities for support of
and integration with the Global Engagement Center to address
similar missions. This briefing should include identification
of personnel or technology that has been or is being shared
with the GEC, any requests for personnel or resources to the
Department from the GEC, identification of training or exercise
opportunities that might be beneficial for integrating GEC
participation, and assessment of requirements being generated
by the GEC for personnel or capabilities needs for future
years. Further, the report shall include coordination with
technology companies, specifically on understanding their
efforts to make platforms hostile to propaganda and violent
extremism.
Department of Defense Briefing on Crisis Response in Africa
The committee is concerned about the ability of the
Department of Defense to provide rapid response to crises in
Africa. The committee is aware that with current force posture
and resources, the United States may be accepting a high level
of risk in fulfilling crisis response support for U.S. posts
that have been determined to be ``high risk, high threat'' as
part of the ``New Normal'' requirements, as well as in
responding to other emergent threats. Moreover, the committee
is concerned that U.S. Africa Command may not have sufficient
forces, enablers, and other resources to meet the ``New
Normal'' requirements, particularly with the reduction in the
force structure of the Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task
Force-Crisis Response-Africa, while also meeting other
requirements.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
not later than October 31, 2017, on the Department's assessment
of its ability to respond to ``New Normal'' and other crisis
response requirements in Africa, and courses of action to
reduce risk.
DTRA International Countering WMD-Program
The committee notes with approval that the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency (DTRA) conducts programs to improve the
ability of partner nations to respond to the spread of
infectious disease, whether naturally occurring or the product
of biological attack. In support of this work, Section 1241 of
the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act
expanded DTRA authority to conduct these programs by
authorizing the Secretary of Defense to support programs that
build the capacity of foreign military forces to conduct
several types of operations, including counter-WMD and border
security. By working with partners in Africa and Asia, these
DTRA programs contribute to the national strategy for
countering weapons of mass destruction, including biological
attack and pandemic because stopping the spread of disease
early in an outbreak protects national security and saves
lives. Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the
DTRA, to brief the House Armed Services Committee not later
than September 30, 2017, on the agency's planned activities to
promote the ability of partner nations to respond to WMD,
including infectious disease.
Forward-Stationed Combat Aviation Brigade in South Korea
The committee supports the Army's decision to retain a
combat aviation brigade in the Republic of Korea. The committee
was earlier concerned that the Army's plan to begin rotational
sourcing in 2019 to meet the combat aviation brigade
requirement in South Korea would present a significant risk in
capabilities required for major contingencies, given terrain
and aviation mission complexities in South Korea.
Global Engagement Center
The committee remains concerned by the increasing
prevalence of propaganda, disinformation, and influence
activities aimed at undermining the decision-making of the
Department of Defense and confidence in its actions. For
several years, the committee has supported increasing the
Department of Defense's focus and attention on these matters.
To that end, the committee has directed actions to develop a
strategy for operating in the information environment, pressed
for technology development efforts to support this mission set,
and issued clear guidance to help direct military information
support operations.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328) included a provision to authorize and
expand the mission of the Global Engagement Center (GEC) within
the Department of State beyond countering violent extremist
groups to also address state-sponsored and state-directed
propaganda and misinformation activities. Recent news of
Russian efforts to influence elections in the United States and
Europe, as well as its continued support of state-run media and
proxy groups, highlights the need to focus attention and
resources on state-sponsored challenges to our national
security. The committee continues to support the efforts by the
GEC to address messaging of violent extremist groups, but
believes that the methodologies, tools, and expertise developed
in that fight can be adapted to address state-sponsored
misinformation campaigns.
The committee believes that the GEC should exert greater
leadership to better coordinate, synchronize, and leverage
interagency capabilities in order to lead and coordinate this
mission area across the Federal Government. In taking a long-
term view, the committee believes the GEC should begin to
develop a strategy for fulfilling its roles and
responsibilities for the recently expanded mission. The
strategy should include identification of additional required
resources, personnel, authorities, and capabilities. The
strategy should also include milestones for continually
evaluating and assessing the effectiveness of efforts and
available resources, and ensure transparency through regular
updates to key stakeholders. The strategy should also evaluate
how the GEC should leverage commercially available technology
to enhance its mission's capability. Further, the committee
encourages the Department of Defense to be involved with this
strategy in order to find ways to leverage the authorities,
people, and funding for mutual benefit.
Global Theater Security Cooperation Management Information System
The committee is concerned that the functionality and
effectiveness of the Global Theater Security Cooperation
Management Information System (G-TSCMIS) are hindered by the
lack of timely and regular input of high-quality security
cooperation event information. The value and functionality of
G-TSCMIS for all users is directly related to the input of
information by those responsible across the Department of
Defense. Inconsistent and late information creates an
inaccurate global operating picture of security cooperation
activities, thus hampering data analysis, planning, monitoring,
and resource allocation decisions. Further, the committee
believes that G-TSCMIS should be considered as a means to
capture and disseminate security cooperation assessment,
monitoring, and evaluation information, including lessons
learned.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, in coordination with the Deputy Chief
Management Officer, to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than October 1, 2017, on:
(1) measures the Department can take to improve data entry
in G-TSCMIS, including recommendations for G-TSCMIS business
process reengineering to streamline processes;
(2) other steps to improve the functionality, utility, and
effectiveness of G-TSCMIS; and
(3) the potential for incorporation of Assessment,
Monitoring, and Evaluation functionality in future releases of
G-TSCMIS, including an assessment of other technical means or
collaboration opportunities to increase functionality that the
Department of Defense may be pursuing.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision
that would require the Secretary of Defense to submit an
assessment to the congressional defense committees on the
effectiveness of measures taken to improve the functionality of
G-TSCMIS.
Impact of Foreign Laws on U.S. Defense Contractors
Partners and allies of the United States are vital to the
national security of the United States and the world. These
partnerships and alliances are the bedrock of global stability
and democratic principles. However, the committee is concerned
with legislative action by certain U.S. partners and allies to
prevent citizens and private groups to invest in the U.S.
defense industrial base. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to brief the House Committee on Armed
Services, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the House
Committee on Ways and Means, and the House Committee on
Financial Services, no later than October 1, 2017, on whether
any U.S. partners and allies have enacted domestic laws which
have created any adverse consequences for any U.S. defense
contractors, and, if so, the impact of said laws on such
contractors, and any policy recommendations the Secretary may
have to address such laws.
Implementation of Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based
Violence
The committee is aware of efforts by the Department of
Defense to implement the ``United States Strategy to Prevent
and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally,'' and
appreciates the Department's efforts to keep the committee
apprised of its implementation activities. However, the
committee remains concerned about the metrics used to assess,
monitor, and evaluate the activities, programs, and investments
employed to implement the strategy.
Therefore, the committee directs the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Stability and Humanitarian Affairs to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than October 2, 2017, on the Department's efforts to
effectively assess, monitor, and evaluate activities, programs,
and investments, to include the methodology used in the
formulation of metrics, related to the ``United States Strategy
to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally.''
Improvements to Transparency in the Technology Release Process in
Foreign Military Sales
The committee is encouraged by Department of Defense
initiatives to improve internal Department processes in Foreign
Military Sales (FMS) and urges the Department to continue to
seek improvements. The committee is aware that the Deputy
Secretary of Defense established a Defense Senior Steering
Group on Arms Transfers and Technology Release in August 2008
to review and improve the Department's decision-making on arms
transfers and release of sensitive technology. In July 2010,
the Deputy Secretary issued a memorandum to revise the
Department's Technology Security and Foreign Disclosure
processes, pursuant to the Steering Group's recommendations and
Presidential Study Directive 8, issued in December 2009. The
committee is aware that the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
and the Defense Technology Security Administration engage with
stakeholders through a variety of means; however, the committee
remains concerned about the extent to which these organizations
communicate with industry stakeholders regarding the technology
release processes. Therefore, the committee directs the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs not later than October 31, 2017, on
communication with industry stakeholders on relevant processes
for considering the release of sensitive technology and steps
to improve that communication.
Independent Security Cooperation Evaluation Office
The committee commends the Department of Defense for
issuing its policy, Department of Defense Instruction (DODI)
5132.14, requiring the assessment, monitoring, and evaluation
of security cooperation programs. High-quality, independent
evaluations of these programs can reveal important lessons for
improving the effectiveness of security cooperation programs.
The committee notes that DODI 5132.14 directs the establishment
of an independent evaluation office, consistent with
international best practices. Further, the committee believes
the establishment of such an office to be an important
prerequisite to effective implementation of the broader policy.
To ensure that evaluations are both useful and utilized for
decision-making, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy to provide a briefing to the House Committee
on Armed Services by October 1, 2017, on its progress toward
establishing an independent evaluation office.
NATO Defense Weapon System Development Cooperation
The committee recognizes the role that NATO defense
industries have played in weapon systems programs through
partnerships and supply chain activities. Joint weapon system
development with NATO defense industries can help maintain
stability and interoperability with partner defense forces. The
committee encourages the Department to continue seeking avenues
to provide the best weapon systems at the best cost for our
Nation's defense, and when appropriate, leverage NATO defense
industries to maximize joint force integration and
interoperability. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide a briefing on joint weapon system
development and coordination and interoperability efforts with
NATO members and defense industries by February 1, 2018.
Non-Lethal Weapons for European Theater Contingencies
The committee reaffirms its longstanding support for the
accelerated development, fielding, and deployment of non-lethal
technologies. Non-lethal systems are useful for both force
application and force protection missions, especially in
ambiguous environments where conflicts simmer below the
threshold of declared hostilities. The committee notes that
their employment is consistent with U.S. military strategy and
helps minimize damage to property and inadvertent civilian
casualties in the kinds of operational contingencies, including
irregular warfare and humanitarian crises, in which U.S. forces
are likely to be engaged. Their use provides commanders with
additional decision time and space before resorting to lethal
force, helps mitigate the negative consequences of unintended
non-combatant injuries and fatalities, and enhances the overall
prospects of mission success.
With the challenges posed by grey zone conflicts, irregular
warfare scenarios that co-mingle military and civilian militia
forces, and the continuing growth of megacities and other
expansive urban zones, the committee is concerned that
insufficient planning, preparation or doctrinal development has
been focused on the use of and integration of non-lethal
systems in some of these scenarios. In light of the continuing
importance of the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI) to
preventing and deterring hostile actions with Russia, the
committee believes that increased focus should be placed on how
best to integrate non-lethal weapons into the strategic
planning for regional scenarios, as well as the training and
equipping of regional partner forces.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2018, on the
integration of non-lethal weapons planning and training as part
of EDI. This briefing should examine current contingency
planning within European Command, and with North Atlantic
Treaty Organization partners, to determine if the level of
investment estimated across the Future Years Defense Program is
sufficient to support those plans, identification of training
or exercise opportunities for integrating non-lethal weapons
training and doctrinal development, as well as recommendations
for ways improving partner nation access to non-lethal systems
for military, border guard units, or other government
affiliated units.
Plan to Enhance Imagery Sharing with Allies in the Asia-Pacific Region
The committee supports enhancing imagery sharing with
allies in the Asia-Pacific region to improve joint non-
proliferation, counterproliferation, and ballistic missile
detection and defense capabilities. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of
National Intelligence, to develop and implement a plan for
enhancing the sharing of commercial imagery and national
technical means with the Governments of the Republic of Korea
and Japan, consistent with the national security of the United
States and with the protection of sources and methods. The
committee further directs the Secretary to provide a briefing
to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on this plan and its
implementation not later than November 30, 2017.
Report on Impact of Outsourcing on the U.S. Defense Industrial Base
The committee has long been concerned with the vitality of
the U.S. defense industrial base. The committee notes the
domestic manufacturing sector has been particularly affected by
the compounding deleterious effects of current market practices
and business trends regarding outsourcing. The committee
believes that large-scale outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing
requirements to receptive foreign countries, such as the
People's Republic of China, is having a damaging effect on the
U.S. defense industrial base and could endanger national
security.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to submit a report to the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives by November 1, 2018,
on the national security implications of private companies that
outsource their industrial and manufacturing capacities to
locations outside of the United States. The report shall
include the following elements:
(1) an assessment of the material effects of such
outsourcing on the U.S. defense industrial base;
(2) an assessment of the national security risks to the
U.S. defense industrial base of such outsourcing, including the
integrity of the Department of Defense acquisition system,
logistics network, or supply chains;
(3) an assessment of the risks posed by such outsourcing to
the readiness of U.S. military forces to field a full spectrum
of military capabilities; and
(4) the risks posed by such outsourcing and its effects on
the U.S. defense industrial base to the capacity of the United
States to sustain a protracted conflict against a near-peer
adversary.
Security Cooperation Assessment, Monitoring, and Evaluation
The committee notes the critical importance of assessment,
monitoring, and evaluation of security cooperation initiatives.
Section 1205 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) expressed the sense of
Congress that the Secretary of Defense should implement an
assessment, monitoring, and evaluation framework consistent
with interagency approaches and existing best practices, and
that it should be sufficiently resourced, and appropriately
organized and staffed to inform security cooperation planning,
policies, and resource decisions as well as ensure the
effectiveness and efficiency of security cooperation efforts.
The committee expects the Department of Defense will invest
sufficient resources to ensure that best practices and lessons
learned are incorporated into security cooperation policy,
plans, programs, program management, resources, and the
security cooperation workforce to ensure the best return on
investment for the Department's security cooperation
initiatives.
Security Cooperation Reform
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328) contained significant and extensive reform
of security cooperation authorities, programs, and funding of
the Department of Defense. The security cooperation reforms in
Public Law 114-328 sought to provide greater clarity and
consistency about the nature and scope of the Department's
security cooperation programs and activities to those who plan,
manage, implement, and conduct oversight of these programs. The
committee is aware of the Department's initial progress toward
implementing these reforms.
Of note, Public Law 114-328 consolidated multiple, similar
``train and equip'' authorities into a single authority to
build partner capacity to conduct specific missions identified
under section 333 of title 10, United States Code. Section 333
was crafted to synchronize and replace the so-called
``patchwork of authorities'' that previously existed for
``train and equip'' and to alleviate inefficiencies in design,
funding, management, and implementation of such programs. The
committee urges the Department to overcome bureaucratic
obstacles that hinder continued progress in aggressively
implementing the security cooperation reforms in Public Law
114-328.
Support for Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program
The Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives recognizes the importance of the Afghan Special
Immigrant Visa (SIV) program and the critical role these
partners play in assisting the United States mission in
Afghanistan. The Committee is concerned by reports that the
United States Embassy in Kabul is close to exhausting available
visas currently authorized to the program. Failing to authorize
additional visas would leave threatened local partners in
serious danger for many additional months beyond current
processing times sometimes exceeding one year. This exposes
these individuals and their families to attack, kidnapping, and
death. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, to brief the
committee on the importance of continuing the SIV program by
September 30, 2017.
Support for Other Departments and Agencies of the United States
Government that Advance Department of Defense Security Cooperation
Objectives
Section 385 of title 10, United States Code, authorizes the
Secretary of Defense to transfer up to $75 million to other
agencies in the United States Government for foreign assistance
programs and activities that ``(1) are necessary for the
effectiveness of one or more programs of the Department of
Defense relating to security cooperation conducted pursuant to
an authority in this chapter; and (2) cannot be carried out by
the Department.'' For example, programs within the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the
Department of State to counter violent extremism and terrorism
may be an appropriate use of funds, if they are identified as a
requirement by the Department and meet all of the conditions of
section 385.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than February 1, 2018 on the status of any funds transferred to
other departments and agencies.
Timor Sea Maritime Developments
The committee recognizes the strategic importance of the
Indo-Asia-Pacific region and has a strong interest in ensuring
processes to resolve territorial and maritime disputes are done
fairly and peacefully in accordance with international law.
Given the growing and complex regional maritime security issues
in the Pacific, the committee believes that negotiations
between Australia and Timor-Leste to establish permanent
maritime boundaries sends a positive signal to other states in
the region regarding adherence to a rules-based international
order. A mutually agreed upon resolution could serve as an
example for resolving other disputes peacefully and have
benefits to cooperative maritime efforts in the region. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Secretary of State, to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services, not later than September 30, 2017,
on the potential security benefits that may result from the
Australia-Timor Leste conciliation process and how a peaceful
resolution to the dispute might affect overall U.S. defense and
security interests in the region.
U.S. Civilian Contractors in Iraq
The committee notes that U.S. civilian contractors
supporting the U.S. military in the Republic of Iraq are
performing services absent a diplomatic agreement that provides
them with legal and financial safeguards. The committee is
concerned that U.S. civilian contractors may be subject to visa
denials, tax collection efforts, and other actions which may
hinder support to U.S. forces and coalition partners, including
their ability to provide U.S. forces and coalition partners
with timely access to critical supplies.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs not later than July 31, 2017, on:
tax collection, visa denials, and other issues that are
affecting U.S. civilian contractors in Iraq; the impact of such
issues; and, if necessary, any plans to mitigate such issues.
U.S. National Security Threats in Africa
The committee remains concerned about the ability of the
Department of Defense to address the broad range of current and
evolving threats to U.S. national security in Africa. Numerous
security threats challenge the United States and its partners,
such as stability in Libya, the Federal Republic of Somalia,
and the Republic of Mali; various terrorist organizations such
as Al Shabaab, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant, and Boko Haram; and many others.
Given the massive size of the continent, the array of
security challenges, partners that may be unable or unwilling
to address security challenges, and a constant shortage of
resources, the Department of Defense and U.S. Africa Command
must find innovative, effective, and efficient solutions to the
security challenges they face. Over the previous several years,
the committee has provided the Department with multiple new or
revised authorities, as well as significant funding, to address
these challenges. A comprehensive strategy for achieving the
Department of Defense's objectives on the continent will better
enable the Department to address and plan for these challenges,
as well as assist the committee in its oversight role. The
committee looks forward to receiving the strategy for U.S.
defense interests in Africa, as required by section 1273 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328), not later than its due date of December 23, 2017.
Utilizing Unmanned Aircraft Systems for International Humanitarian
Assistance and Disaster Relief
The Committee understands that over the last decade,
unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) have increased in both number
and capability in order to enhance warfighting operations. UAS
have proven vital to enhancing situational awareness, improving
mission performance, and minimizing risk to both civilian and
military personnel within the U.S. Armed Forces.
The Committee notes that effective use of these
technologies may also have the potential to improve military
operations such as Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic
Aid missions in support of humanitarian crises and disaster
relief. The Committee is also aware that UAS are being
increasingly accepted and utilized for international
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HA/DR).
The Committee believes that while unmanned aircraft systems
provide the United States' Armed Forces strategic ISR and
combat capabilities, these systems have additional potential to
enhance the speed and quality of localized needs assessments,
and to strengthen and revolutionize humanitarian assistance and
disaster relief efforts abroad, particularly when it comes to
mapping, lightweight essential item delivery, damage assessment
support, and increased situational awareness.
The Committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to
brief the House Committee on Armed Services and House Committee
on Foreign Affairs on potential ways in which the Department of
Defense can support increased utilization of unmanned aircraft
systems in support of humanitarian assistance and disaster
relief missions abroad understanding that such platforms are a
limited, high demand resource. This brief should include the
viability of UAS in support of these desired operations;
address the feasibility of information sharing between civil
authorities and multinational organizations for a common
humanitarian purpose; determine payload delivery effectiveness
or limitations; and identify any international regulations or
jurisdictional constraints, as well as any other topics the
Secretary deems appropriate, and should be delivered to the
Committee by October 1, 2017.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Assistance and Training
Section 1201--One-Year Extension of Logistical Support for Coalition
Forces Supporting Certain United States Military Operations
This section would amend section 1234 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), as most recently amended by section 1201 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328), by authorizing the Secretary of Defense to provide
supplies, services, transportation, and other logistical
support to coalition forces supporting U.S. operations in the
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan during
fiscal year 2018.
Section 1202--Modification to Special Defense Acquisition Fund
This section would amend section 114(c) of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify the use of funds for the procurement of
precision guided munitions with the Special Defense Acquisition
Fund (SDAF).
Section 1202 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) increased the size of the
SDAF from $1.07 billion to $2.50 billion. Section 1202(b)(2)
further required that $500.0 million of the SDAF may only be
used to procure and stock precision guided munitions that may
be required by partner and allied forces to enhance the
effectiveness of their contribution to overseas contingency
operations conducted or supported by the United States. The
intent of section 1202(b)(2) was to ensure that once SDAF funds
were used to purchase $2.00 billion of defense articles or
services in a fiscal year, the remaining $500.0 million was to
be used only for the purchase of precision guided munitions.
Prior to reaching the threshold of $2.00 billion of purchases
in any fiscal year, SDAF funds may be used to purchase
precision guided munitions, but are not required to be used to
purchase precision guided munitions.
Section 1203--Modification to Ministry of Defense Advisor Authority
This section would modify section 332 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign
military personnel as advisors or trainers under the Ministry
of Defense Advisor program to ensure that advisors or trainers
with the appropriate expertise and skills are assigned to
improve the institutional capacity of partner nations.
Section 1204--Modification of Authority to Build Capacity of Foreign
Security Forces
This section would amend section 333(c) of title 10, United
States Code, to modify the required elements associated with
the authority to build partner capacity by allowing human
rights training conducted by the Department of State to satisfy
the human rights training requirement, and clarifying the
requirement regarding respect for civilian control of the
military and institutional capacity building to ensure that
both are promoted as part of the capacity building programs of
the Department of Defense.
Section 1205--Extension and Modification of Authority on Training for
Eastern European National Military Forces in the Course of Multilateral
Exercises
This section would extend the authority provided the
Secretary of Defense by section 1251 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), as
amended by section 1233 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328), to train eastern
European national security forces until December 31, 2019. This
section would also modify the authority to address the payment
of incremental expenses of partner nations.
Section 1206--Extension of Participation in and Support of the Inter-
American Defense College
This section would extend for 1 year the authority in
section 1243(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) with respect to
participation in and support of the Inter-American Defense
College.
Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Afghanistan and Pakistan
Section 1211--Extension of Authority to Transfer Defense Articles and
Provide Defense Services to the Military and Security Forces of
Afghanistan
This section would extend through December 31, 2018, the
authority under section 1222 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239), as
amended, to transfer defense articles and provide defense
services to the military and security forces of the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan.
Section 1212--Report on United States Strategy in Afghanistan
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, to submit a report to
the appropriate congressional committees not later than
February 15, 2018, that describes the strategy of the United
States in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee is
concerned that the Department of Defense does not have a long-
term strategy for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan to complement
operational planning. A comprehensive strategy should look
beyond the next five years and should connect current lines of
effort to a steady state for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan
that meets U.S. objectives.
Section 1213--Extension and Modification of Authority for Reimbursement
of Certain Coalition Nations for Support Provided to United States
Military Operations
This section would amend section 1233 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181), as most recently amended by section 1218 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328), by extending the authority for reimbursement of coalition
nations for support provided to the United States for military
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan through
December 31, 2018.
This section would also extend, through December 31, 2018,
the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to notify the
appropriate congressional committees prior to making any
reimbursement to the Government of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan for any logistical, military or other support that
Pakistan provides to the United States.
Further, this section would extend the requirement for the
Secretary of Defense to certify, prior to making any
reimbursement to Pakistan, that Pakistan is maintaining
security along the Ground Lines of Communication through
Pakistan, taking demonstrable steps to support counterterrorism
operations, disrupting cross border attacks, and countering the
threat of improvised explosive devices.
This section would specify that, of the total amount of
reimbursement and support authorized for Pakistan during the
period beginning on October 1, 2017, and ending on December 31,
2018, $400.0 million would not be eligible for a national
security waiver unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that
Pakistan continues to conduct military operations against the
Haqqani Network in North Waziristan, is demonstrating
commitment to preventing the Haqqani network from using North
Waziristan as a safe haven, and is actively coordinating with
the Government of Afghanistan to restrict the movement of
militants, including the Haqqani Network, along the Pakistan-
Afghanistan border.
Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Syria, Iraq, and Iran
Section 1221--Report on United States Strategy in Syria
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit a report to
the appropriate congressional committees not later than
February 1, 2018, on the U.S. strategy in the Syrian Arab
Republic. This report would require the Secretary to describe
and prioritize interests, assess the ambitions of state actors
in Syria, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, assess the
threat to U.S. interests posed by Al Qaeda, the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant, and Hezbollah, assess the resources and
timeline required to achieve U.S. objectives, describe the
transition from military operations to stabilization
programming, and evaluate the risk to U.S. forces.
The committee understands that the political and military
situation in Syria is unpredictable and that the nature of U.S.
involvement may change as the result of such volatility. The
committee, however, believes it important to articulate the
United States' strategic objectives and describe a realistic
process for achieving such objectives.
Section 1222--Extension and Modification of Authority to Provide
Assistance to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
This section would extend section 1236 of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), as most recently
amended by section 1222 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328), which authorizes
the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of
State, to provide $1.3 billion in assistance in fiscal year
2018 to the military and other security forces of, or
associated with, the Government of the Republic of Iraq,
including Kurdish and Sunni tribal security forces or other
local security forces with a national security mission, through
December 31, 2019. This section would also require a quarterly
progress report that would detail the security in liberated
areas in Iraq, the preparedness of the Iraqi Security Forces to
conduct stabilization operations, and a description of the
forces providing security in liberated areas.
The committee notes that an inclusive and representative
Iraq is critical to achieving U.S. counterterrorism objectives
and that Iraq must take meaningful steps to ensure that
minorities' interests are represented by the central
Government. The committee encourages the Government of Iraq to
pursue efforts to include and promote ethnic and sectarian
minorities in the Iraqi Security Forces, and to ensure that
defense equipment and materiel are getting to Sunni, Kurdish,
and Christian groups, including the minority groups of the
Nineveh Plain that have a national security mission. To that
end, this section would express the sense of congress that the
United States should provide arms, training, and appropriate
equipment to vetted elements of the Nineveh Plain Council.
The committee notes that funding provided to the Kurdish
Regional Government (KRG) is to enhance Government of Iraq-KRG
cooperation and support a unified effort to counter the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Such funding should be
contingent upon KRG participation in the government of a
unified Iraq and on their continued good faith cooperation in
the anti-ISIL campaign.
Section 1223--Extension and Modification of Authority to Support
Operations and Activities of the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq
This section would amend section 1215 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), as most recently amended by section 1223 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328), by extending the authority for the Office of Security
Cooperation in the Republic of Iraq (OSC-I) for 1 year through
fiscal year 2018.
Section 1224--Sense of Congress on Threats Posed by the Government of
Iran
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
United States should counter the Islamic Republic of Iran's
malign activities in the Middle East; maintain a capable
military presence in the Arabian Gulf region to deter, and, if
necessary, respond to Iranian aggression; strengthen ballistic
missile defense capabilities; ensure freedom of navigation
through the Bab al Mandab and the Strait of Hormuz; and, renew
focus on countering Iranian efforts to illicitly proliferate
weapons in the region.
Subtitle D--Matters Relating to the Russian Federation
Section 1231--Extension of Limitation on Military Cooperation between
the United States and the Russian Federation
This section would extend, by 1 year, section 1232 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public
Law 114-328). This section would limit the use of fiscal year
2018 funds for bilateral military-to-military cooperation
between the Governments of the United States and the Russian
Federation until the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with
the Secretary of State, provides a certification to the
appropriate congressional committees relating to certain
actions by Russia. This section would also allow the Secretary
of Defense to waive the limitation under certain conditions.
Section 1232--Prohibition on Availability of Funds Relating to
Sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea
This section would extend by 1 year the prohibition imposed
by section 1245 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-270), as amended by section
1234 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2017 (Public Law 114-328). This section would prohibit the use
of fiscal year 2018 funds to implement any activity that
recognizes the sovereignty of the Russian Federation over
Crimea. This section would allow the Secretary of Defense, in
concurrence with the Secretary of State, to waive the
prohibition if the Secretary determines that doing so would be
in the national security interest of the United States and
submits a notification to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House of Representatives.
Section 1233--Statement of Policy on the Russian Federation
This section would state that it is the policy of the
United States to sustain credible deterrence against aggression
by the Government of the Russian Federation in order to enhance
regional and global security and stability. The section would
also include a series of findings highlighting continued
aggression and intimidation by the Russian Federation against
U.S. allies and partners in Europe.
Section 1234--Modification and Extension of Ukraine Security Assistance
Initiative
This section would extend by 1 year section 1250 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92), as amended by section 1237 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328), to
authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide security
assistance and intelligence support to the Government of
Ukraine.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision
that would authorize $150.0 million to carry out this authority
in fiscal year 2018.
As reflected in the past three National Defense
Authorization Acts, Congress has authorized and encouraged the
Department of Defense to provide defensive lethal assistance to
the Government of Ukraine. The committee urges the Department
to provide defensive lethal assistance to the Government of
Ukraine to support its efforts to protect and defend its
territorial integrity.
Section 1235--Limitation on Availability of Funds Relating to
Implementation of the Open Skies Treaty
This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized to
be appropriated by this Act, or otherwise made available for
fiscal year 2018, or any subsequent fiscal year, for Department
of Defense operations and maintenance, Defense-wide, or
operations and maintenance, Air Force, to conduct any flight
for the purposes of implementing the Open Skies Treaty until
the President submits a plan with respect to such fiscal year
to the appropriate congressional committees and 7 days have
elapsed. Such a plan would be required to be developed by the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of
State, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the
Director of National Intelligence, and would contain a
description of the objectives for each Open Skies Treaty flight
in the upcoming fiscal year. These requirements would terminate
5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
This section would also prohibit the use of funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act, or otherwise made
available for fiscal year 2018, for the digital visual imaging
system to carry out any activities to modify any U.S. aircraft
for purposes of implementing the Open Skies Treaty.
Section 1236--Sense of Congress on Importance of Nuclear Capabilities
of NATO
This section would make a series of findings and express
the sense of Congress regarding the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization's nuclear deterrence capability.
Section 1237--Sense of Congress on Support for Georgia
This section would express the sense of Congress regarding
the United States' support for Georgia's sovereignty and
territorial integrity as well as support for continued
cooperation between the United States and Georgia.
Section 1238--Sense of Congress on Support for Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania
This section would express the sense of Congress on U.S.
support for the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Latvia,
and the Republic of Lithuania, including support for their
sovereignty, concern over aggressive military actions of the
Russian Federation against these nations, and encouragement for
further defense cooperation between the United States and these
nations.
Subtitle E--Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty Preservation
Act of 2017
Section 1241--Short Title
This section would cite this subtitle as the
``Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty Preservation
Act of 2017.''
Section 1242--Findings
This section would make a series of findings by Congress
related to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the
Russian Federation's violations of that treaty.
Section 1243--Compliance Enforcement regarding Russian Violations of
the INF Treaty
This section would make a statement of U.S. policy
regarding Russian Federation compliance to the Intermediate-
Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. It would state:
(1) it is the policy of the United States that the actions
undertaken by Russia in violation of the INF Treaty constitute
a material breach of the treaty;
(2) in light of such a material breach, the United States
is legally entitled to suspend the operation of the INF Treaty
in whole or in part for so long as Russia continues to be in
material breach; and
(3) for so long as Russia remains in noncompliance with the
INF Treaty, the United States should take actions to encourage
a return to compliance, including by providing additional funds
for certain capabilities identified in section 1243(d) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92) and by seeking additional missile defense assets in
the European theater to protect United States and North
Atlantic Treaty Organization forces from missile systems of
Russia that are in noncompliance with the INF Treaty.
This section would also make available $50.0 million of the
funds authorized by this Act for fiscal year 2018, as specified
in the funding table in division D of this Act, for the
development of active defenses to counter ground-launched
missile systems with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers;
counterforce capabilities to prevent attacks from such
missiles; and, countervailing strike capabilities identified in
section 1243(d) of Public Law 114-92.
Lastly, this section would authorize $25.0 million of the
funds authorized by this section to be used for activities
undertaken to carry out research and development activities
contained elsewhere in this Act.
Section 1244--Development of INF Range Ground-Launched Missile System
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a program of record to develop a conventional road-
mobile ground-launched cruise missile system with a range of
between 500 to 5,500 kilometers. This section would further
require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees, Committee on Foreign Affairs
of the House of Representatives, and Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate within 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act on the cost, schedule, and feasibility to
modify existing and planned systems for ground launch with a
range of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers in order to meet the
capabilities specified.
Section 1245--Notification Requirement Related to Russian Federation
Development of Noncompliant Systems and United States Actions Regarding
Material Breach of INF Treaty by the Russian Federation
This section would state that Congress declares the Russian
Federation to be in material breach of the Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. This section would also require
the Director of National Intelligence to notify the appropriate
congressional committees of any development, deployment, or
test of a system by Russia that the Director determines is
inconsistent with the INF Treaty within 15 days of the Director
making such determination. This section would further direct
the President to submit a report within 15 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act to the appropriate
congressional committees that contains a determination by the
President whether Russia engaged in activity that would be
considered noncompliant with the INF Treaty during each of the
3 consecutive 120-day periods following the date of the
enactment of this Act.
If the determination is made by the President that Russia
has engaged in activities considered noncompliant with the INF
Treaty, this section would provide that the United States, as a
matter of law, would no longer be bound by the prohibitions set
forth in Article VI of the INF Treaty.
Section 1246--Limitation on Availability of Funds to Extend the
Implementation of the New START Treaty
This section would prohibit any funds authorized to be
appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2018
for the Department of Defense to be obligated or expended to
extend the implementation of the New Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty, unless the President certifies to the appropriate
congressional committees that the Russian Federation has
verifiably eliminated all missiles that are in violation of or
may be inconsistent with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty.
Section 1247--Review of RS-26 Ballistic Missile
This section would direct the President, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Director of
National Intelligence to conduct a review of the RS-26
ballistic missile of the Russian Federation and submit a report
to the appropriate congressional committees not later than 90
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Such a report would include a determination of whether the
RS-26 ballistic missile is covered under the New Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (NST) or would be a violation of the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty because Russia
has conducted flight tests to ranges prohibited by the INF
Treaty in more than one warhead configuration. If the President
determines that the RS-26 ballistic missile is covered under
the NST, the report would further include a determination
whether the Russian Federation has agreed that such a system is
limited under the NST central limits and has agreed to an
exhibition of such a system.
If the determination is made that the RS-26 ballistic
missile is covered under the NST and that Russia has not agreed
that such a system is limited under the NST or to an exhibition
under the treaty of the system, the U.S. Government would
consider such a system to be a violation of the INF Treaty for
purposes of all policies and decisions.
Section 1248--Definitions
This section would define the terms ``appropriate
congressional committees'', ``INF Treaty'', ``intelligence
community'', ``New START Treaty'', and ``Open Skies Treaty'',
among other terms in this subtitle.
Subtitle F--Fostering Unity Against Russian Aggression Act of 2017
Section 1251--Short Title
This section would cite this subtitle as the ``Fostering
Unity Against Russian Aggression Act of 2017''.
Section 1252--Findings and Sense of Congress
This section would express the sense of Congress on the
Russian Federation's ``escalate to de-escalate'' doctrine,
subversive and destabilizing activities of the Russian
Federation, the European Deterrence Initiative as a long-term
investment, and cooperation with North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) allies.
Section 1253--Strategy To Counter Threats by the Russian Federation
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit a strategy
to the appropriate congressional committees not later than 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act containing a
comprehensive strategy to counter threats by the Russian
Federation.
Section 1254--Strategy To Increase Conventional Precision Strike Weapon
Stockpiles in the United States European Command's Areas of
Responsibility
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit a
strategy to the appropriate congressional committees not later
than April 1, 2018, to increase conventional precision strike
weapon stockpiles in the United States European Command's Area
of Responsibility.
Section 1255--Plan To Counter the Military Capabilities of the Russian
Federation
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop and implement a plan to counter the military
capabilities of the Russian Federation and submit the plan to
the appropriate congressional committees not later than April
1, 2018.
Section 1256--Plan To Increase Cyber and Information Operations,
Deterrence, and Defense
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of State to jointly develop and submit a plan to
increase cyber and information operations deterrence and
defense to the appropriate committees not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 1257--Sense of Congress on Enhancing Maritime Capabilities
This section would express the sense of Congress on
enhancing maritime capabilities.
Section 1258--Plan To Reduce the Risks of Miscalculation and Unintended
Consequences That Could Precipitate a Nuclear War
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a plan not later than March 1, 2018, to the
congressional defense committees that includes options to
reduce the risk of miscalculation and unintended consequences
that could precipitate a nuclear war.
Section 1259--Definitions
This section would define the terms ``appropriate
congressional committees''', and ``NATO''.
Subtitle G--Matters Relating to the Indo-Asia-Pacific Region
Section 1261--Sense of Congress on the Indo-Asia-Pacific Region
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
United States has a national interest in maintaining the
stability and security of the Indo-Asia-Pacific region. It
expresses that the United States should maintain a military
capability to deter acts of aggression and respond to regional
threats. It expresses that continuing efforts to realign
forces, commit additional assets, and increase investments in
the region are necessary to maintain a robust U.S. commitment
to the region. The committee believes the United States should
continue to strengthen alliances and partnerships and support
regional institutions and bodies.
Section 1262--Report on Strategy To Prioritize United States Defense
Interests in the Indo-Asia-Pacific Region
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop a strategic plan that would prioritize the Department
of Defense's efforts in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region and to
submit a report on this plan to the appropriate congressional
committees by February 1, 2018. In preparing the report, the
Secretary should consider the strategy required by section 1261
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92). This section would also repeal section
1251 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-
291), even though the committee is disappointed that the
Secretary failed to submit the report required by that section.
Section 1263--Assessment of United States Force Posture and Basing
Needs in the Indo-Asia-Pacific Region
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
assess U.S. Pacific posture, deployment plans, and realignment
and basing needs to accomplish U.S. defense priorities and
respond to complex crises and contingencies. This section would
also require the Secretary to report the results of this
assessment to the congressional defense committees not later
than March 1, 2018. The required report should align with the
Department of Defense strategy to prioritize U.S. defense
interests in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region that would be
required elsewhere in this subtitle.
Section 1264--Extended Deterrence Commitment to the Asia-Pacific Region
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
United States is committed to providing extended deterrence to
allies in the Asia-Pacific, including Japan and the Republic of
Korea. This section would also assert that the United States
must maintain robust nuclear capabilities, including nuclear-
capable aircraft, to assure that the full spectrum of military
options associated with the extended deterrence commitments of
the United States remains credible and executable.
Section 1265--Authorization of Appropriations To Meet United States
Financial Obligations Under Compact of Free Association With Palau
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to meet the financial obligations of the United States under an
agreement with the Government of the Republic of Palau.
Section 1266--Sense of Congress Reaffirming Security Commitments to the
Governments of Japan and South Korea and Trilateral Cooperation Between
the United States, Japan, and South Korea
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
United States values its alliances with the Governments of
Japan and the Republic of Korea and that the United States
should continue further defense cooperation. Additionally, the
sense of Congress would convey the importance that the United
States places on strengthening bilateral cooperation between
Japan and South Korea and on trilateral cooperation among the
United States, Japan, and South Korea. This section would seek
to promote continued and strengthened bilateral and trilateral
cooperation on a full range of issues related to the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea and to other security challenges in
the Asia-Pacific region.
Section 1267--Sense of Congress on Freedom of Navigation Operations in
the South China Sea
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
United States should regularly and routinely conduct freedom of
navigation operations in the South China Sea.
Section 1268--Sense of Congress on Strengthening the Defense of Taiwan
This section would express the sense of Congress that the
United States should strengthen and enhance its long-standing
partnership and strategic cooperation with Taiwan, and that
Taiwan should take steps to optimize its self-defense. This
section would recommend that the United States should consider
opportunities to expand exchanges and encourage more frequent
provisioning of defense articles and services to Taiwan.
Section 1269--Sense of Congress on the Association on Southeast Asian
Nations
This section would provide the sense of Congress in support
of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on the
50th anniversary of its formation. It would recognize ASEAN
efforts to promote peace, stability and prosperity in the
region, including the steps taken to highlight the importance
of peaceful dispute resolution and the need for adherence to
international rules and standards. Finally, the section would
state that ASEAN and the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting Plus
should continue to be forums to discuss shared challenges in
the maritime domain and for greater information sharing.
Section 1270--Sense of Congress on Reaffirming the Importance of the
United States-Australia Defense Alliance
This section would provide the sense of Congress on the
strength of United States-Australia relations. It recognizes
that the United States and the Commonwealth of Australia
maintain a critical strategic relationship underpinned by
shared democratic values, common interests, and close defense
ties. The committee recognizes that 2017 marks the 75th
anniversary of the Battles of the Coral Sea, Midway, and
Guadalcanal, and Australia has been a loyal ally, particularly
with respect to international efforts in the Islamic Republic
of Afghanistan and against the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant. The committee also recognizes that the Force Posture
Agreement between the Government of Australia and the
Government of the United States, signed in 2014, strengthened
the relationship between the two countries, a relationship that
is an anchor for peace and security both in the Asia-Pacific
region and worldwide.
Subtitle H--Other Matters
Section 1271--NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence
This section would authorize up to $5.0 million for fiscal
year 2018 for the purposes of establishing the NATO Cooperative
Cyber Center of Excellence, and would direct the Secretary of
Defense to assign executive agent responsibilities to an
appropriate organization within the Department of Defense.
Section 1272--NATO Strategic Communications Center of Excellence
This section would authorize up to $5.0 million for fiscal
year 2018 for the purposes of establishing the NATO Strategic
Communications Center of Excellence, and would direct the
Secretary of Defense to assign executive agent responsibilities
to an appropriate organization within the Department of
Defense.
Section 1273--Security and Stability Strategy for Somalia
This section would require the President to submit a report
to the appropriate congressional committees not later than 120
days after the date of enactment of this Act containing a
comprehensive strategy to achieve long-term security and
stability in the Federal Republic of Somalia.
Section 1274--Assessment of Global Theater Security Cooperation
Management Information System
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
enter into an agreement with a federally funded research and
development center to conduct an assessment of the
effectiveness of measures taken to improve the functionality of
the Global Theater Security Cooperation Management Information
System (G-TSCMIS). The committee is aware of a July 2016 study
prepared for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)
that recommended that DSCA should ascertain the extent to which
security cooperation organizations are fully and accurately
entering information into G-TSCMIS. The study further concluded
that, if accurate and complete, data drawn from G-TSCMIS could
be a tremendous asset in the evaluation of security cooperation
impacts. This section would also require the Secretary of
Defense to submit the assessment to the congressional defense
committees not later than six months after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Section 1275--Future Years Plan for the European Deterrence Initiative
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop and submit a plan to the congressional defense
committees not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, for the U.S. military's role in the
European theater. This plan would include the allocation of
resources in Europe through the continuation of the European
Deterrence Initiative for fiscal year 2018 and four successive
fiscal years. The plan would also include the Department's
assessment of what would be required to fully resource U.S.
force posture and capabilities in the European theater, as well
as a plan to station additional permanent U.S. troops in
Europe, along with the necessary infrastructure and enablers.
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to
pause divestment of any remaining sites under the European
Infrastructure Consolidation (EIC) until the required plan is
submitted to Congress. Since the EIC was enacted into law in
2015, the strategic landscape of Europe has evolved with the
resurgence of aggression by the Russian Federation. The
committee notes that in a changing strategic environment, a re-
evaluation of the sites the Department is planning to divest is
necessary for long-term strategic planning.
The committee believes this section would provide the
Department a tool to further develop its transition of European
resources from reassurance to resources that develop,
implement, and sustain a credible deterrent against a resurgent
Russia.
Section 1276--Extension of Authority To Enter into Agreements With
Participating Countries in the American, British, Canadian, and
Australian Armies' Program
This section would extend by 5 years the authority in
section 1274(g) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239) to enter into agreements
with participating countries in the American, British,
Canadian, and Australian Armies Program.
Section 1277--Security Strategy for Yemen
This section would require the President to develop a
security strategy for the Republic of Yemen and to submit a
report on the required strategy to certain congressional
committees within 120 days of the date of the enactment of this
Act. The report required would include: discussion of the
strategy's compliance with applicable legal authorities; a
detailed description of the security environment; the threats
posed by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Islamic
State in Iraq and the Levant--Yemen; a detailed description of
the threat posed to maritime vessels at the Bab al Mandab
Strait; the role of the U.S. Armed Forces in implementing the
strategy; a discussion of the ends, ways, and means inherent to
the strategy and the strategy's objectives regarding
counterterrorism and long-term stability in Yemen; and a plan
to coordinate the U.S. resources necessary to implement the
strategy.
Section 1278--Limitation on Transfer of Excess Defense Articles That
Are High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
transferring any excess defense articles (EDA) that are high
mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs) until 30 days
after the Comptroller General of the United States submits a
report to the congressional defense committees, the Committee
on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives that assesses
the Department of Defense's efforts to evaluate the potential
impact of HMMWV EDA transfers on the U.S. industrial base
pursuant to section 2321j(b)(1)(E) of title 22, United States
Code, for fiscal years 2012 through 2016. The assessment shall
also review the timing, rigor, and procedures used by the
Department in conducting the industrial base analysis as
required by current statute and any other related matters the
Comptroller General considers appropriate.
The committee is concerned that the existing requirements
to determine the potential impact of EDA transfers on the U.S.
industrial base as required under section 2321j(b)(1)(E) of
title 22, United States Code, are not being enforced by the
Department of Defense, and as such there could be adverse
impacts to the U.S. industrial base or its workforce. The
committee is particularly concerned about the potential adverse
impacts of EDA transfers to the light tactical vehicle
industrial base.
The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to actively
engage the industrial base in a timely manner regarding any
potential EDA transfers to assist in the determination of
whether the transfer of such articles will have an adverse
impact on the national technology and industrial base, or
reduce the opportunities of entities in the national technology
and industrial base to sell new or used equipment to the
countries to which such articles are transferred. The committee
also expects the Secretary of Defense to engage the industrial
base in providing refurbishment and sustainment of EDA
equipment, to include supplies and parts, to the fullest extent
possible.
Section 1279--Department of Defense Program To Protect United States
Students Against Foreign Agents
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop and implement a program to prepare U.S. students
studying abroad through Department of Defense National Security
Education Programs to recognize and protect themselves against
recruitment efforts by foreign intelligence agents. This
section would also require the Secretary of Defense to provide
a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and
the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives
on the plan to develop and implement the program.
Section 1280--Extension of United States-Israel Anti-Tunnel Cooperation
Authority
This section would amend section 1279(f) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-
92) to extend the United States-Israel Anti-Tunnel Cooperation
Authority to December 31, 2020.
Section 1281--Anticorruption Strategy
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of State, and the Administrator of the United States
Agency for International Development, in consultation with the
heads of other relevant Federal agencies, to develop a strategy
to prevent corruption in reconstruction efforts and submit it
to the congressional defense committees, the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House of Representatives.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Funds
This section would specify that funds authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Defense for the Cooperative
Threat Reduction Program established under the Department of
Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Act (50 U.S.C. 3711) would
be available for obligation in fiscal years 2018, 2019, and
2020.
The committee also notes that section 1303 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) mandated the expenditure or obligation of semiannual
installments of funds available for Cooperative Threat
Reduction Activities in the People's Republic of China, and
that such semiannual installments should be made in accordance
with all applicable laws, to include chapter 39 of title 31,
United States Code, also known as the ``Prompt Payment Act.''
Section 1302--Funding Allocations
This section would allocate specific funding amounts for
each program under the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat
Reduction (CTR) Program from within the overall $324.6 million
that the committee would authorize for the CTR Program. The
allocation under this section reflects the amount of the budget
request for fiscal year 2018.
TITLE XIV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Assessment of the Realignment of the Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat
Organization under the Defense Threat Reduction Agency
The committee supports the transition of the Joint
Improvised-Threat Defeat Agency (JIDA) to the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency (DTRA) as the Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat
Organization (JIDO) under DTRA. The committee also appreciates
actions taken to achieve efficiencies and synergies while not
compromising the mission of either JIDO or DTRA and without
interruption of support to the warfighter. However, the
committee believes there may be opportunities for additional
efficiencies and collaboration that can be achieved as a result
of this transition.
For example, the committee is aware JIDO has taken on a
greater role in countering unmanned aerial systems (UAS). The
committee recognizes the nexus between UAS and improvised
explosive devices (IEDs). However, the committee is concerned
about mission creep to countering weapon systems and platforms
that may diminish focus on the mission of countering IEDs
employed in all forms. Additionally, the JIDO director remains
a two-star billet sourced by the Army. The committee is
concerned about whether this level of seniority for JIDO is
necessary given the leadership and oversight structures in
place at DTRA.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to assess the transition of JIDA as JIDO to
DTRA, to include an assessment of additional efficiencies that
may be achieved and recommendations for progress to that end in
the near-term, as well as an assessment of JIDA's primary
mission of countering current and future IED threats. The
Comptroller General shall provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees, not later than March 1, 2018,
on the results of the assessment with a report to follow on a
date agreed to at the time of the briefing.
Beryllium Supply Chain
The committee notes the continuing importance of the
strategic and critical material beryllium to national security.
The committee understands that, starting in 2004, the
Department of Defense took affirmative steps to invest in a
domestic beryllium manufacturing facility in order to maintain
security of supply, as well as the affordability of beryllium
for defense systems. These interventions have not only provided
security of supply, they have also stabilized the price for
beryllium metal in recent years, and the committee is
encouraged that the Department of Defense is considering
additional measures that would stabilize prices at the U.S.
beryllium metal facility.
However, the committee is concerned that individual program
managers within the Department of Defense are considering the
use of foreign-owned competitors. The committee believes there
is no security of supply with foreign beryllium, and there is
no realistic estimate for a supplier mine to be opened in the
foreseeable future. As a result, the Department of Defense
should exercise care when contractors or subcontractors seek to
supply national security needs through use of these foreign
manufacturers.
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to submit a report to
the House Committee on Armed Services by November 30, 2017, on
the supply chains for beryllium metal used by the Department of
Defense. Such a study shall include: (1) an analysis of the
economic viability and long-term supply potential of all
current beryllium metal suppliers; and (2) an analysis of when
foreign supplies of beryllium are expected to be exhausted.
Fiscal Stability of the National Defense Stockpile
The committee notes that the funds within the National
Defense Stockpile (NDS) Transaction Fund have been
significantly depleted due to the lack of excess materials
available for disposal. The fund was designed to allow for the
sale of excess materials, from which the funds in turn could be
used to acquire emergent strategic and critical materials for
national defense requirements. While this process has been
ongoing since just after World War II, the value of the
available inventory designated as ``excess''' is no longer
sufficient to acquire the strategic and critical material
requirements identified by the President. The committee
believes the current manager of the NDS, the Defense Logistics
Agency Office for Strategic Materials (DLA-SM), is hampered in
its acquisition strategy due to the lack of funds available for
the procurement of materials. The committee has observed that
the DLA-SM must determine which materials are most critical for
acquisition, leaving other material requirements unfunded. The
committee notes that the fund will become insolvent within the
next three to seven years, despite the careful management of
expenditures.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, in coordination with the NDS manager, to provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees not later than
January 31, 2018, on the plan to develop and implement a
funding strategy for sustaining a robust national defense
stockpile inventory when current funds in the transaction fund
are depleted. This strategy should include the incorporation of
acquisition requirements for strategic and critical materials
though the discretionary appropriations process.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Programs
Section 1401--Working Capital Funds
This section would authorize appropriations for Defense
Working Capital Funds at the levels identified in section 4501
of division D of this Act.
Section 1402--Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense
This section would authorize appropriations for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense at the levels
identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Section 1403--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
Wide
This section would authorize appropriations for Drug
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide at the
levels identified in section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Section 1404--Defense Inspector General
This section would authorize appropriations for the Office
of the Inspector General at the levels identified in section
4501 of division D of this Act.
Section 1405--Defense Health Program
This section would authorize appropriations for the Defense
Health Program at the levels identified in section 4501 of
division D of this Act.
Section 1406--National Defense Sealift Fund
This section would authorize appropriations for the
National Defense Sealift Fund at the levels identified in
section 4501 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Section 1411--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
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
transfer funds 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).
Section 1412--Authorization of Appropriations for Armed Forces
Retirement Home
This section would authorize $64.3 million to be
appropriated for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement
Home during fiscal year 2018.
TITLE XV--AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR OVERSEAS
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Account
The budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations
contained no funding for a National Guard and Reserve Component
equipment account. Elsewhere as reflected in division D of this
Act, the committee notes that the base budget request contained
$1.5 billion for procurement of National Guard and Reserve
Component equipment.
Given the uncertainty of the current and projected fiscal
environment, the committee remains concerned about the
availability of equipment needed to sustain and modernize the
National Guard and Reserve Components as an operational reserve
and for their domestic support missions. The committee
recognizes the National Guard and Reserve Components continue
to report significant shortages in modernized equipment and
challenges associated with efficiently fulfilling combat
readiness training requirements. For example, the committee
notes there are significant modernization, capability, and
training challenges associated with the current Air National
Guard aircraft assigned to the Aerospace Control Alert mission,
and those aircraft crews maintaining proficiency and readiness
in other mission areas critical to full-spectrum combat
readiness. The committee also notes the Army National Guard
continues to experience modernization shortfalls in utility
rotorcraft and heavy-lift rotorcraft.
The committee believes additional funds would help
eliminate identified critical dual-use equipment shortfalls.
The committee expects these funds to be used for the purposes
of, but not limited to, the procurement of rotorcraft, avionic
and radar upgrades for legacy strike fighter aircraft to
include Navy Reserve F-18 strike fighters, wheeled and tracked
combat vehicles, tactical wheeled vehicles, ammunition, small
arms, tactical radios (to include single channel ground and
airborne radio systems), non-system training devices, logistics
automation systems, sense and avoid system upgrades for
unmanned aerial systems, civil support communication systems,
hail and warning escalation of force systems, out of band
infrared pointer and illumination systems, near infrared aiming
and illumination systems, crashworthy and ballistically
tolerant auxiliary fuel systems, Engagement Skills Trainer II
systems, F-16 distributed-operations mission training centers,
mobile ad hoc network emergency communications equipment,
commercial Wi-Fi upgrades for operational support aircraft, and
other critical dual-use, unfunded procurement items for the
National Guard and Reserve Components.
The committee recommends additional funding for a National
Guard and Reserve Component equipment account within the
Overseas Contingency Operations budget request. The committee
also recommends $1.5 billion, the full amount of the base
budget request, for National Guard and Reserve equipment.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 1501--Purpose and Treatment of Certain Authorizations of
Appropriations
This section would establish the purpose of 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, to provide for
additional costs due to Overseas Contingency Operations and
other additional funding requirements.
Section 1502--Procurement
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
Procurement at the levels identified in section 4102 of
division D of this Act.
Section 1503--Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation at the levels
identified in section 4202 of division D of this Act.
Section 1504--Operation and Maintenance
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
operation and maintenance programs at the levels identified in
section 4302 of division D of this Act.
Section 1505--Military Personnel
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
military personnel at the levels identified in section 4402 of
division D of this Act.
Section 1506--Working Capital Funds
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
Defense Working Capital Funds at the levels identified in
section 4502 of division D of this Act.
Section 1507--Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-
Wide
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide, at
the levels identified in section 4502 of division D of this
Act.
Section 1508--Defense Inspector General
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
the Office of the Inspector General at the levels identified in
section 4502 of division D of this Act.
Section 1509--Defense Health Program
This section would authorize additional appropriations for
the Defense Health Program at the levels identified in section
4502 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Financial Matters
Section 1511--Treatment as Additional Authorizations
This section would state that amounts authorized to be
appropriated by this title are in addition to amounts otherwise
authorized to be appropriated by this Act.
Section 1512--Special Transfer Authority
This section would authorize the transfer of up to $2.50
billion of additional war-related funding authorizations in
this title among the accounts in this title.
Subtitle C--Limitations, Reports, and Other Matters
Section 1521--Afghanistan Security Forces Fund
This section would continue through December 31, 2018, the
existing limitation on the use of funds in the Afghanistan
Security Forces Fund, subject to certain conditions of section
1513 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended by section 1531(b) of the
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2011 (Public Law 111-383).
This section would also require the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretary of State, to conduct a
progress assessment on the efforts of the Afghan National
Defense and Security Forces. The assessment would focus on
accountability and anti-corruption efforts, the capability and
capacity of the security forces, the success of the security
forces in holding and defending territory, and the appropriate
distribution of equipment. Taking into account the results of
such an assessment, the Secretary of Defense may withhold
funding from the Afghan Security Forces Fund. The Secretaries
are required to notify the appropriate congressional committees
within 30 days of the decision to withhold such funds.
Section 1522--Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Fund
This section would amend subsections (b) and (c) of section
1514 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 109-364) to extend the use and
transfer authority for the Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Fund
through fiscal year 2018. This section would also extend the
authority for interdiction of improvised explosive device
precursor chemicals to December 31, 2018.
TITLE XVI--STRATEGIC PROGRAMS, CYBER, AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Space Activities
Overview on National Security Space Organization
The committee believes that, without significant
reorganization of the national security space enterprise, the
United States is at serious risk of losing the competitive
advantage it has maintained as a result of its use of space for
national security.
As noted by the Secretary of the Air Force, and other Air
Force leaders, in a joint testimony to Congress on May 17,
2017, ``space is now a warfighting domain, similar to the more
familiar air, land, and maritime domains our men and women are
fighting in today.'' The committee agrees with this statement
and recognizes the gravity of this fundamental shift.
The committee is concerned that our posture to address this
shift is inadequate. As noted by the Commander of U.S.
Strategic Command, ``[t]he space enterprise is not resilient
enough to successfully prosecute--or even survive--a high-end
conflict which extends to space,'' and that without space ``you
go back to industrial age warfare,'' which was fraught with
levels of casualties in military and civilian populations that
are simply unacceptable today.
The national security space enterprise is not sufficiently
structured to facilitate the evolution of the space domain into
a warfighting domain. And, the committee is concerned that the
current organization and management construct of the national
security space enterprise jeopardizes the sustainment of U.S.
dominance in space.
The committee notes that numerous studies and reports have
cited systemic flaws in the organization and management
structure of the national security space enterprise.
Specifically, these reports consistently point to a
fragmentation of leadership and authorities across the
enterprise, which result in insufficient focus and priority on
space and ineffective decision making.
The first major report, the ``Commission to Assess United
States National Security Space Management and Organization,''
also known as the Rumsfeld Commission, was mandated by section
1623 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000 (Public Law 106-65). The executive summary of the report
states, ``[t]he Commission has unanimously concluded that
organizational and management changes are needed . . . the
Commission concluded that a number of disparate space
activities should promptly be merged, chains of command
adjusted, lines of communication opened and policies modified
to achieve greater responsibility and accountability.''
Subsequent reports on national security space management,
oversight, and acquisition by the Institute for Defense
Analyses in 2008 and the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
in 2016, reaffirmed the issues raised by the 2001 Rumsfeld
Commission. In July of 2016, the GAO published a report titled,
``DOD Space Acquisition Management and Oversight,'' required by
a provision in the committee report (S. Rept. 114-49)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2016, which ``identified approximately 60 stakeholder
organizations involved in space acquisitions.'' This report
stated that ``[i]n general DOD has not made any significant
changes to space leadership over the last two decades.''
The committee further notes the conclusions made by these
reports are consistent with the testimony from former national
security space leaders during hearings the committee has held
on the space enterprise.
In September 2016, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
held a hearing titled, ``National Security Space: 21st Century
Challenges, 20th Century Organization'' with several retired
space experts. During the hearing, each witness was asked if he
believed, ``we are adequately postured to address the serious
challenges faced in space'' to which all three witnesses
responded unequivocally, ``[n]o.''
In March 2017, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a
joint hearing with the House Committee on Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and
Communications where several former national security leaders
testified on the severity of threats facing U.S. space systems,
the consequences of their loss, and an assessment of what has
been done to address such threats. During his testimony, the
former commander of Air Force Space Command summed up what has
been done to improve U.S. posture in space since the 2007
Chinese antisatellite weapon test, stating, ``10 years of
innumerable studies and policy debates have not produced
tangible improvements in our space protection posture.''
In May 2017, the Director of the National Reconnaissance
Office testified to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces,
stating, ``staying ahead of the adversaries who threaten our
space capabilities is a challenge. Those adversaries are making
space a priority. The U.S. has not been keeping pace. I believe
we have not made the investment that would indicate space is a
priority or fundamental to the U.S. Our requirements, budget,
and acquisition processes are disconnected, and none of them
moves quickly.''
The committee believes several guiding principles must be
addressed to solve these longstanding organization and
management issues. First, bureaucracy should be reduced, roles
and responsibilities clarified, and a person should be
empowered with the proper authorities to lead the national
security space enterprise. Second, space needs to be
prioritized equally with the land, air, and maritime domains of
conflict. Third, there needs to be a clearly identified cadre
of space professionals who are trained, promoted, and sustained
as space experts. Lastly, there needs to be an integrated
national security space program.
Therefore, the committee recommends a legislative
reorganization of the Department of Defense national security
space structure that would:
(1) create a Space Corps within the United States Air Force
to posture and properly focus the preponderance of our military
services to protect U.S. interests in space; deter aggression
in, from, and through space; and provide combat-ready space
forces that enable combatant commanders to fight and win wars;
(2) elevate national security space operations within the
combatant command structure by creating a subunified combatant
command for space within U.S. Strategic Command and strengthen
operational leadership of space in the Department; and
(3) eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy by terminating the
Principal Department of Defense Space Advisor office and
function, as well as the Defense Space Council construct.
Certification of Reusable Launch Vehicles for National Security Space
Missions
The committee is aware of the recent successful re-launch
of an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle-class launch vehicle
that had previously been used to deliver a payload to orbit.
The potential to reuse launch vehicles for orbital space launch
has the potential to significantly reduce the cost of space
launch in the commercial sector and for national security space
launches.
The committee believes that the Air Force should move
rapidly to evaluate how to leverage this commercial technology
in order to meet national security space requirements.
Reusability offers the potential to enable the Department of
Defense to further lower the price of national security space
launch.
The committee believes that the government should move
rapidly to evaluate the use of reusable space launch vehicles.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
brief the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives not later than March 1, 2018 on the
Department's plan to evaluate the risks, benefits, costs and
potential cost-savings of the use of reusable launch vehicles
for use in national security space missions.
Commercial Geospatial Intelligence
The committee supports the National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency's (NGA's) leadership in acquiring new and non-
traditional sources for geospatial intelligence, including
commercial geospatial intelligence data and services as part of
its combat support mission. Commercial geospatial intelligence
provides significant benefit to the Department of Defense,
particularly in terms of increasing capability, providing cost-
savings, and enhancing opportunities for sharing unclassified
products with multinational coalition partners. Additionally,
approximately 90 percent of NGA's foundational geospatial
intelligence, to include mapping, navigation, and aeronautical
charts, is derived from commercial imagery sources. Along with
evolving current commercial capabilities, there are new
commercial endeavors of space and ground exploitation which
will likely offer opportunities from which the Department can
benefit. For instance, there are commercial companies that are
utilizing machine learning techniques and capabilities to
automate and extract additional information from commercial
imagery, which will enhance and maximize analytical
capabilities. The committee encourages the NGA Director to
continue to lead the Department in current and new sources of
geospatial intelligence collection and exploitation, and to
keep the committee informed of its progress.
Comptroller General Review of Hosted Payloads
The committee is aware that the Air Force is working to
strengthen processes to ensure greater consideration of hosted
payloads in space-related analysis of alternatives and
architecture studies. Of note, the Air Force has undertaken
some efforts to study, contract for, and use hosted payloads
for technology development, but it appears the Air Force has
done little to operationally use hosted payloads. The committee
is concerned that the acquisition process may not fully
consider the use of hosted payloads. Therefore, the committee
directs the Comptroller General of the United States to provide
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by February
1, 2018, on the following:
(1) the Department of Defense's use of hosted payload
arrangements to date;
(2) the extent to which the Department has the knowledge it
needs, from the perspectives of cost, capability, and
resilience, to determine whether to expand its use of hosted
payloads;
(3) the extent that hosted payloads are appropriately
considered throughout the acquisition process, including how
acquisition requirements are written and how they impact the
option to use hosted payloads; and
(4) barriers or challenges the Department faces for
increasing its use of hosted payloads.
Global Positioning System
The committee is aware that the Air Force is developing an
acquisition strategy for Global Positioning System (GPS) block
III space vehicles 11 and beyond. The Air Force is anticipating
a full and open competition for up to 22 space vehicles, with
production starting in fiscal year 2019. The committee supports
the GPS III program, and recommends the Air Force leverage the
existing nonrecurring investment and technical risk reduction
when developing an acquisition plan for future space vehicles.
The committee continues to support evolutionary acquisition for
space vehicles with technology insertion plans to meet
warfighter requirements.
Multi-Band Satellite Communications Terminals
The committee is aware that satellite communications
provide significant capabilities to deployed forces to
communicate around the globe. The Department of Defense uses
various satellite communication frequency ranges, each with
advantages and drawbacks, to meet its mission. The committee
also recognizes that potential adversaries are developing
counter-space capabilities, to include but not limited to,
systems which are designed to interfere with satellite
communications. The committee therefore believes that
warfighters may benefit from flexible user terminals which can
communicate with a variety of government and commercial
satellite systems. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional
defense committees by December 1, 2017, on an assessment,
including benefits, costs, technology insertion opportunities,
and timelines to expand the use of dual or multi-band satellite
communication terminals. The briefing shall address:
(1) a review of fielded and projected Department of Defense
platforms and mission sets using satellite communications
terminals;
(2) a review of commercial and government satellite
communications capabilities;
(3) an assessment of the viability, benefits, and drawbacks
if applicable, of using dual or multi-band satellite
communications terminals for all or some of the identified
platforms and mission sets; and
(4) any other matter the Secretary deems appropriate.
Outer Space Cooperation With Japan
The committee encourages further outer space cooperation
between the United States and Japan. The committee notes that
the guidelines for defense cooperation between the United
States and Japan issued in April 2015 include openness to
cooperation in several areas, including areas relating to outer
space. The committee further notes the Japanese QZSS regional
navigation satellite system could potentially complement and
augment the coverage provided by the Global Positioning System
of the United States and improve availability of space-based
position, navigation, and timing signals in the Asia-Pacific
region.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
jointly with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and in
coordination with the Secretary of State, to submit a report to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House
of Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations of
the Senate by December 1, 2017, on the status of cooperation
between the United States and the Government of Japan regarding
outer space activities, including with respect to space-based
position, navigation, and timing.
Reliance on Global Positioning System for Defense of the Homeland
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
coordinating with the Department of Transportation and the
Department of Homeland Security on efforts to strengthen
positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) capabilities,
including considering redundant systems. The committee notes
that section 1618 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) required a report on
requirements and technology options to address PNT resilience.
In addition to this assessment, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Commander of
U.S. Northern Command, to provide a briefing to the Committee
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives by December
15, 2017, on the risks associated with disruptions to the
Global Positioning System (GPS) that could affect defense of
the homeland and other defense activities in the United States.
The briefing shall include the requirements for PNT reliability
and redundancy for Department of Defense operations in the
United States, an analysis of the extent to which defense of
the homeland operations rely on accurate PNT signals from GPS,
and an assessment of alternative sources of PNT that could be
used as a backup to ensure continuity of operations in the
event of a major disruption to GPS.
Responsive Launch
According to the Department of Defense budget request
documentation, U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) has
identified needs to:
(1) rapidly augment existing space capabilities when needed
to expand operational capability;
(2) rapidly reconstitute/replenish critical space
capabilities to preserve ``continuity of operations''
capability; and
(3) rapidly exploit and infuse space technological or
operational innovations to increase U.S. advantage.
There have been a variety of previous and ongoing
activities within the Air Force, Army, and the Defense Advanced
Projects Research Agency to develop responsive launch
capabilities. To date, none of these programs have matured to
the point of a military operational capability that meets
USSTRATCOM needs.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of
Defense to increase the priority and resources of this mission
area. This could include low-cost responsive launch for small
satellites and modifications of existing launch infrastructure,
including use of commercial capabilities. Additionally, the
committee believes that state-owned spaceports may provide an
opportunity to support this mission. The committee encourages
the Department to evaluate the contribution and necessary
investments in spaceports to support responsive launch.
The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives by December 1, 2017, on the warfighter
requirements and documented needs for reconstitution and
responsive launch; the current and projected activities to meet
those requirements, to include investments in launch systems,
infrastructure, and payloads; and the opportunities, risks, and
challenges in this mission area.
Small Satellite Technology Development
The committee supports the efforts of the Department of
Defense to include the Air Force, Army, and Navy in the
research and development of militarily relevant small
satellites. Industry has made significant advances in recent
years regarding the miniaturization of electronics and
satellite-related components. The military services have begun
to leverage this innovative technology. For instance, the Air
Force is planning to invest in key mission areas, such as
position, navigation, and timing, to develop a combination of
small satellites and rapidly procured payloads. In addition,
the Air Force's Space and Missile Systems Center has begun
planning for utilization of small satellites in fulfilling its
mission requirements. The Army Space and Missile Defense
Command is building and testing multiple small satellites for
warfighters' tactical use in contested, remote, and anti-
access/area denial regions. The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
has worked on unique satellite capabilities, such as thruster
technologies, to support efforts for smaller, less expensive
satellites.
The committee supports these activities and encourages
continued emphasis on the research and development of small
satellites, including the maturation of small satellite
technologies which support warfighter systems, as these systems
can provide lower-cost solutions and increase agility and
resiliency to address developing threats. The committee also
encourages the Department to initiate and use commercial
partnerships and demonstration efforts to procure small
satellites for demonstrations relevant to military missions.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Secretaries of the Air Force, Army,
and Navy, and the directors of defense agencies and offices as
appropriate, to provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives by December 1, 2017,
on the military applications of small satellites and a
coordinated Department-wide strategy for technology development
activities and investments in small satellites.
Space Commercial Antenna Service
The committee is aware that the Air Force is pursuing
activities that augment the Air Force Satellite Control Network
with commercial capabilities. The goal of these activities is
to enhance resiliency, reduce costs, and leverage commercial
systems in a timely, modern, and more automated fashion. The
committee supports the continued investments in this area and
encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to prioritize this
endeavor.
Space Security
The committee is aware of the significant and increasing
foreign threats to our national security space systems.
Officials in the Department of Defense recognize this counter-
space threat, and are taking steps to address it. However, as
stated by General John Hyten, former Commander of Air Force
Space Command and current Commander of U.S. Strategic Command,
the space enterprise which evolved in an uncontested
environment is not resilient enough to fight through and
deliver warfighting effects in, from, and through today's
contested space domain.
This lack of military preparedness for this new battlespace
domain is of serious concern to the committee. The committee
recognizes that the response to such threats will require a
range of activity to include, but not limited to, investments,
plans, training, allied partnerships, clear messaging, and
diplomatic engagement. The committee requires close oversight
of the progress being made in this area.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide two briefings to the congressional defense
committees in fiscal year 2018, the first by December 1, 2017,
and the second by July 1, 2018, on the plans and progress in
addressing counter-space threats. The briefings should address
the following areas:
(1) intelligence analysis regarding current and projected
foreign counter-space threats;
(2) status of the Department of Defense activities, plans,
policies, and programs to address the threat, including
effectively managing deterrence in space;
(3) areas of significant risk; and
(4) other areas the Secretary deems appropriate.
Space Situational Awareness and Battle Management Command and Control
The committee recognizes the importance of rapidly
developing robust space situational awareness (SSA) and space
battle management command and control (BMC2) capabilities in
order to successfully operate in the space warfighting domain.
The committee is aware that there are multiple acquisition and
development efforts underway in response to warfighter
requirements, including the Joint Space Operations Center
Mission System (JMS) and Enterprise BMC2 program, managed by
the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC); a Joint Emergent
Operational Need (JEON) spiral development program, managed by
the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL); and a common
standards and open mission system development program, managed
by the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (AFRCO). SMC is
serving as the enterprise manager for these BMC2 activities,
which, when developed and acquired, will be delivered to the
warfighter to operate at the Joint Space Operations Center
(JSpOC) and the National Space Defense Center (formerly called
the Joint Interagency Combined Space Operations Center).
The committee believes that, in addition to the
aforementioned activities, the use of commercial capabilities
can and should be increased to rapidly meet the warfighter
requirement. The committee understands that SMC, AFRL, and
AFRCO plan to, in the near term, competitively seek commercial
solutions and to form a consortia to include additional
commercial and defense industry partners in BMC2 efforts.
The committee supports these activities and plans, and
expects the Air Force to appropriately leverage commercial
capabilities, which may be able to address certain warfighter
requirements in the near term.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of Air Force
Space Command, in coordination with the Commander of U.S.
Strategic Command, to provide a briefing to the Committee on
Armed Services of the House of Representatives by October 1,
2017, on an assessment of relevant commercial capabilities and
the near-term plan to leverage existing and mature commercial
space situational awareness capabilities to rapidly address
validated warfighter capability gaps concerning foundational
SSA and BMC2. The briefing should include funding amounts,
including any unfunded requirements, for development,
operations, and sustainment of the following components:
(1) space surveillance sensor systems
(2) SSA software for operations centers
(3) BMC2 software for operations centers.
Additionally, considering the complexity and scope of this
activity, the committee directs the Comptroller General of the
United States to review the Air Force Enterprise Space BMC2
activities, to include JMS, and provide a briefing to the
congressional defense committees by November 1, 2017, with an
update briefing not more than 6 months later, on the status of
the program, the extent to which the Air Force is following
acquisition best practices for information technology, and
whether it is appropriately leveraging commercial capabilities.
Use of Surplus Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Motors for Commercial
Space Launches
In the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the
committee directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees on the range
of options and recommendations for modification of the existing
policy on the usage of intercontinental ballistic missile
(ICBM) motors for commercial sales that would support the
domestic industrial base. The committee has yet to receive this
briefing, or the subsequent assessment from the Comptroller
General of the United States.
The committee continues to believe that modification to the
law in order to allow for increased commercial use of
decommissioned U.S. ICBM motors could yield benefits for the
U.S. domestic launch industry and payload launching capacity
while also saving the U.S. Air Force excess motor storage
costs. However, the committee also recognizes the concerns
regarding unintended negative consequences for the U.S.
commercial space industrial base resulting from such a change
in policy.
The committee encourages the Secretary to finish the
comprehensive study and provide the results to Congress in
order to inform potential future legislation.
Missile Defense Programs
Hypersonic Defense
The budget request contained $75.3 million in PE 64181C for
the development of a defensive system to protect the nation
from rapidly evolving hypersonic glide vehicle threats. The
committee supports Missile Defense Agency (MDA) plans to
develop requirements, conduct necessary engineering, and
proceed with experiments that ultimately result in a fielded
defensive architecture or system of systems. However, the
committee is concerned that the current acquisition approach
may increase risk by relying on a single technical approach.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director, MDA, to
provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives by October 1, 2017 that details the
potential benefits, challenges, and associated costs of an
acquisition strategy allowing for at least two competitive
designs until the operational demonstration. Further, the
briefing should address whether this acquisition strategy
requires additional funds than the current program of record.
Improving Ground Testing of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System
The committee notes the congressional requirement included
in section 1664 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public
Law 113-291) for an independent report to improve the
effectiveness of the Ground-Based Midcourse Missile Defense
system testing. The committee received this classified report
from the Institute for Defense Analyses in 2016 which made
recommendations related to improving testing, and recommended
that the Director of the Missile Defense Agency develop a
strategy for making these improvements. The committee commends
the Director of the Missile Defense Agency for considering and
accepting these recommendations. The committee remains
interested in the implementation of these recommendations, and
whether and how they might improve cost-effectiveness, reduce
unnecessary risks, and increase the value of missile defense
flight intercept tests. Therefore, the committee directs the
Director of the Missile Defense Agency to provide a briefing to
the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives
not later than November 1, 2017, on the implementation of the
recommendations, any related funding requirements, and, any
associated risk-reduction that is expected to occur as a result
of implementing the recommendations.
Low Cost Missile Defense Initiative
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
undertaken a multiyear development effort referred to as the
Low Cost Missile Defeat (LCMD) study, which began in fiscal
year 2015 with technology development efforts under the purview
of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Emerging
Capability and Prototyping, driven by requirements of the
geographic combatant commands. The objective of this study is
to assess options for ballistic missile defense (BMD)
interceptors that cost between one-tenth to one-half of the
cost of current regional BMD interceptors, and to identify the
changes required for integration into an existing weapon
system. The committee notes that such interceptors are intended
to augment, not replace, the stockpile of existing
interceptors.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328) supported the budget request of $50.0
million to continue the LCMD studies. The committee is also
aware that the U.S. Army and the Missile Defense Agency have
undertaken an analysis of alternatives-like study of LCMD that
is due to be completed by July 31, 2017, concerning the path
forward for LCMD. The committee expects to be briefed on the
results of this study within 1 month of its completion. The
committee further expects that, consistent with established
means for reprogramming of funds, it will be consulted prior to
any transfer of funding authorized to be appropriated for the
LCMD study effort for any other purpose.
National Missile Defense Policy Change and Adversary Reactions
The Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act
changed the National Missile Defense Policy (NMDP) Act of 1999.
Since 1999, it had been the policy of the United States ``to
deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective
National Missile Defense system capable of defending the
territory of the United States against limited ballistic
missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or
deliberate).''
The NDAA changed this policy to state that it is now the
policy of the United States ``to maintain and improve an
effective, robust layered missile defense system capable of
defending the territory of the United States, allies, deployed
forces, and capabilities against the developing and
increasingly complex ballistic missile threat.''
The committee wishes to understand what, if any impact this
has had on Russian or Chinese defense policy, including nuclear
weapons and ballistic missile defense development programs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Director of the Defense Intelligence
Agency to submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services
of the House of Representatives and the Senate and the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence not later than December 15,
2017 on any impact to Russian or Chinese defense policy,
including nuclear weapons and ballistic missile defense
development programs resulting from past and present U.S.
missile defense policy. This report should be unclassified, but
may include a classified annex.
Plan To Assess the Acquisition of Missile Defense Targets
The committee is interested in assuring the most effective
and efficient acquisition of ballistic missile target vehicles
used for ballistic missile defense tests. The committee is
particularly mindful that, as the pace of ballistic missile
defense flight intercept testing increases, the Missile Defense
Agency will require the timely and cost-effective delivery of
additional ballistic missile targets.
Therefore, the committee directs the Director of the
Missile Defense Agency to submit a report to the Committee on
Armed Services of the House of Representatives, not later than
January 15, 2018, that assesses the options for acquisition
strategies that could lead to more affordable, threat-
representative, and reliable targets.
Sea-Based X-Band Radar
The Committee notes that the Fiscal Year 2018 budget
request contained $130.7M in Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide for the Sea-Based X-band (SBX) radar.
The committee is also aware that this request includes funding
to extend on-station time from 120 days at sea to 330 days at
the request of the U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Northern
Command.
The committee recognizes that the SBX radar is a critical
component of the U.S. ballistic missile defense system,
providing critical track and discrimination capabilities to the
Missile Defense Agency, combatant commanders, and the
intelligence community in defense of the United States homeland
and territories. In response to the intensifying ballistic
missile threat in the Asia-Pacific region, the committee
strongly supports full funding for the SBX Radar and extending
on-station time to 330 days. In particular, the SBX radar will
play an important role to provide continued track and
discrimination information for the ballistic missile defense of
Hawaii. The committee remains concerned about ballistic missile
defense coverage for Hawaii as the SBX system transitions into
depot maintenance in 2020, well ahead of the planned initial
operational capability of the planned Homeland Defense Radar-
Hawaii or equivalent capability.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Director of the
Missile Defense Agency to brief the congressional defense
committees by December 1, 2017 on the maintenance plan, and
near-term and long-term sustainment costs for the SBX radar
until an operational medium-range discrimination radar or
equivalent capability is available for the defense of Hawaii,
as well as the Agency's plans to more fully integrate the SBX
radar into the ballistic missile defense architecture, and how
it plans to mitigate any gaps in coverage resulting from the
SBX radar's depot maintenance availability.
Nuclear Forces
Briefing on Commonality Related to the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent
Program
The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a briefing to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives by February 1, 2018, on the degree of
commonality with other missile and rocket systems--such as
Trident II D5, Ground-based Missile Defense, civilian or
commercial rockets, and others--are included within the
concepts proposed by the contractors awarded technology
maturation and risk reduction contracts for the Ground-Based
Strategic Deterrent program. Such briefing should include a
discussion of:
(1) the degree and types of commonality within the concepts
proposed;
(2) the incentives that were included in the request for
proposals to encourage solutions and concepts that include
common technologies or components, where appropriate; and
(3) how the proposals were evaluated for commonality or
related savings in making contract awards.
Briefing on the 3+2 Strategy and Interoperable Warhead 1 (IW-1)
The Obama Administration's nuclear modernization plan
centered upon a ``3+2'' strategy that was intended to reduce
the number of nuclear weapons and types of nuclear weapons in
the U.S. stockpile. In the budget request for fiscal year 2018,
the Trump Administration has proposed continuing this strategy
for the coming year while evaluating its long-term plan within
the ongoing Nuclear Posture Review.
The first ballistic missile warhead in the 3+2 strategy is
the Interoperable Warhead 1 (IW-1), which would replace the
current W78 and W88 warheads and provide some degree of
interoperability or commonality between these sea-based and
land-based weapons. According to the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) Fiscal Year 2017 Stockpile Stewardship
and Management Plan, published in March 2016, the IW-1 is
estimated to cost between $9.0 billion and $13.8 billion (in
FY2016 dollars) and to enter production in 2029.
The committee is aware that the Nuclear Posture Review is
assessing the long-term nuclear modernization plan and
evaluating how this plan aligns with adversary threats to the
effectiveness and credibility of U.S. nuclear forces. As the
threat environment changes throughout the coming decades, the
committee believes a thorough evaluation of its impacts to
long-term programs, such as IW-1, is warranted.
To enable its oversight and inform its eventual
consideration of the Nuclear Posture Review, the committee
directs the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council to provide
a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by February
15, 2018 on both the 3+2 strategy and IW-1. The briefing should
include an assessment of:
(1) the costs, benefits, risks, and opportunities of the
3+2 strategy;
(2) the degree of interoperability or commonality within
the IW-1 concept, and the costs, benefits, risks, and
opportunities associated with that concept;
(3) the implications to certification requirements of the
IW-1 concept, including whether such concept increases the
potential need to resume nuclear explosive testing;
(4) the expected threats to U.S. nuclear forces in 2030 and
beyond, and whether such threats should affect or change the
3+2 strategy or the requirements for IW-1 and its associated
missile delivery vehicles; and
(5) whether and how the 3+2 strategy or IW-1 is driving
infrastructure or capability requirements within the NNSA or
DOD nuclear enterprises, and whether such infrastructure or
capabilities would not be required absent such strategy or IW-
1.
Comptroller General Review of Nuclear Forces Readiness During
Recapitalization and Transition
The Department of Defense is embarked on a large, complex,
and interdependent effort to sustain and modernize U.S. nuclear
forces. Current delivery systems, infrastructure, and nuclear
command, control, and communications (NC3) systems are all
aging, with many systems now deployed well beyond their
intended service lives. For example, the Minuteman III missile
system was first deployed in 1970 and, following multiple life
extension efforts, is intended to stay in service through 2030.
Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines will, by 2020, have
been in service longer than any other submarines and will still
have more than a decade until retirement. Meanwhile, the
youngest airplane in the B-52 bomber fleet was delivered to the
Air Force in 1962 and the B-2 bomber entered service 25 years
ago.
The Department's plans to recapitalize these major systems
concurrently are tightly scheduled and closely coupled to plans
to sustain and maintain the readiness of the current systems
until the new systems are fully operational. The committee
believes the success of maintaining the readiness of nuclear
forces at all times, but particularly during this transition
period, is vital to national security. Therefore, the committee
directs the Comptroller General of the United States to assess
the readiness of U.S. nuclear forces and provide a report to
the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by March 1, 2018. Such report should include an
assessment of:
(1) the historical and current status of nuclear forces
readiness, including how well such forces and NC3 systems are
meeting combatant commander requirements;
(2) the Department's strategy and plans, for maintaining
the readiness of legacy delivery systems and NC3 systems until
modern replacement systems are operational;
(3) the Department's risk mitigation plans for maintaining
nuclear forces readiness and meeting combatant commander
requirements during the transition from legacy systems,
including risk reduction plans if legacy systems expire sooner
than planned or new systems are delayed.
Continuation of Nuclear Command, Control and Communications Acquisition
Assessments by the Government Accountability Office
The committee values the ongoing work of the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) in reviewing the progress and
challenges facing the Department of Defense's nuclear command,
control, and communications (NC3) acquisition programs. Similar
to space acquisition programs, NC3 acquisition is a system of
systems process, which takes years to oversee on a continuous
basis to determine if the programs are achieving their cost,
schedule, and performance goals. The committee supports the
Department's continuing efforts to establish new and rigorous
NC3 acquisition oversight structures to address NC3 capability
gaps and weaknesses. However, much work remains to be done to
establish these oversight structures at both the departmental
and military services levels.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to assess the Department's NC3 acquisition
oversight and NC3 acquisition programs, as well as its progress
in developing and implementing an overall NC3 architecture. The
committee further directs the Comptroller General to provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees by March 1,
2018, on the results of GAO's assessment for fiscal year 2018.
In conducting the assessment, the Comptroller General should
include, as the Comptroller General deems appropriate, the
insights of both Department of Defense and non-Department
entities that have relevant NC3 knowledge. The Department
organizations include, but are not limited to, the Office of
the Secretary of Defense (Nuclear Matters, Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation, Chief Information Office), the military
services, the Joint Staff, U.S. Strategic Command, Defense
Information Systems Agency, and Department of Defense
independent test offices. The non-Department entities include
federally funded research and development centers, university
affiliated research centers such as the Johns Hopkins
University Applied Physics Laboratory, contractors, the White
House Military Office, and industry groups. Finally, the
committee encourages the Comptroller General to conduct
periodic updates of such an assessment in consultation with the
congressional defense committees.
Countering Threats From Unmanned Aircraft Systems
With their rapidly increasing ubiquity, ease of use, and
capabilities, the committee continues to be concerned that
unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are a
growing and significant threat to U.S. defense assets and U.S.
national security more broadly. Sections 1697 and 3112 of the
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328) represent a first step to provide clear
and direct authority to the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of Energy to protect the nation's most critical
defense facilities and assets from threats posed by UAS.
However, it appears that the administration has been slow
to implement this statutory authority into guidance and
directives that provide clear rules of engagement to security
forces on the ground. In testimony before the committee on
March 8, 2017, the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command noted
that progress has been slow. More recently, the commander
promulgated implementing guidance for countering UAS threats to
facilities and assets under the authority of U.S. Strategic
Command. The committee applauds this action and encourages the
broader Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to
take similar action without further delay.
Elsewhere in this Act, the committee includes a provision
that would expand the counter-UAS authority provided by section
1697 of Public Law 114-328, as contained in section 130i of
title 10, United States Code. The committee stresses that this
proposed expansion must not slow down implementation of the
existing authority.
Future of Nuclear Deterrence and the Joint Strategic Deterrence Review
Process
In late 2013 and early 2014, the Secretary of Energy tasked
the directors of the U.S. national security laboratories to
study the future of nuclear deterrence, saying in a tasking
memorandum dated May 9, 2014, ``The current stockpile was
designed to meet the needs of a bipolar world with roots in the
Cold War era. A more complex, chaotic, and dynamic security
environment is emerging . . . we must look ahead, using the
expertise of our laboratories, to how the capabilities that may
be employed by other nations could impact deterrence over the
next several decades [and] . . . we must challenge our thinking
about our programs of record.''
Later that year, the directors submitted to the Secretary
the study report, which was eventually submitted to Congress
pursuant to section 3138 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328). Subsequent to
the study, the Department of Defense and Department of Energy
continued to develop a framework for considering the changing
global strategic environment and how such changes may impact
U.S. nuclear deterrence requirements and capabilities. In
December 2016, the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Deputy
Secretary of Energy created the Joint Strategic Deterrence
Review (JSDR) process to institutionalize and perpetuate a
structure for considering these matters.
The committee believes the JSDR process is an important
tool for understanding the increasingly dynamic security
environment that has emerged regarding nuclear deterrence and
its implications for U.S. defense posture and policy. The
committee urges the current administration to review and
leverage this work and the JSDR process as it continues its
ongoing Nuclear Posture Review.
Nuclear Assurance and Deterrence Science, Technology, Innovation, and
Collaboration
Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) was established,
and later elevated to a four-star command, to help address
problems within the Air Force's nuclear enterprise and bring
sustained senior leadership focus to the nuclear deterrence
mission. AFGSC leads Air Force efforts for both nuclear
deterrence operations (NDO) and the National Leadership Command
Capabilities/Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications
(NLCC/NC3) system. The committee recognizes AFGSC's efforts,
and believes sustained, focused, and consolidated attention on
these issues will be required as the Air Force carries out its
portions of the nuclear modernization program.
The committee is aware of AFGSC's strategy to enhance
science, technology, innovation, and collaboration related to
its missions. This nascent strategy includes outreach to
academic institutions and researchers, cooperation and
investment in multidisciplinary teams and programs, and
creation of an institute for NLCC/NC3 and NDO. The committee
expects these efforts to provide AFGSC the analytical
foundation and access to expertise needed to carry out its
important NDO and NLCC/NC3 missions.
Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications Systems Modernization
The committee recognizes that maintaining and modernizing
the nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) system
is a critical effort in the overall modernization of the
nation's nuclear infrastructure. The committee notes the
ongoing challenges in recapitalizing the NC3 architecture and
expects continuous focus on these efforts after decades of
neglect. The committee encourages the Department of Defense,
and particularly the Air Force, which is responsible for
acquiring and sustaining the preponderance of these systems, to
move forward with NC3 modernization expeditiously to avoid
further delays and potential capability gaps. Given the
sensitive nature and prioritization of the mission, the
committee expects that the Air Force is planning appropriately
to ensure that secure facilities are available to enable NC3
recapitalization efforts.
Nuclear Security Collaboration and Harmonization
The committee continues to encourage the Department of
Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration to
collaborate and share expertise, resources, standards,
processes, and lessons learned to more effectively and
efficiently safeguard the nation's nuclear weapons and special
nuclear materials. This collaboration began pursuant to a
December 2011 memorandum of agreement between the Deputy
Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Energy, but it
took several years for implementation to truly begin. Recent
efforts to collaborate on development and validation of
security technologies, develop and implement tools like the
Joint Integrated Lifecycle Surety (JILS) system, and understand
threats, are positive.
The committee encourages the Department of Defense and
Department of Energy to recommit to the principles contained in
the 2011 memorandum and establish milestones and a roadmap to
carry out the activities called for within it. The committee
believes more can be done to take common approaches to
technology development and validation, share inspection and
force-on-force capabilities and approaches, and take more
consistent approaches to threat policies and security risk
analyses. The committee believes these steps will reduce costs,
improve consistency, and lead to improved nuclear security.
The committee directs the Administrator for Nuclear
Security, in coordination with the Chairman of the Nuclear
Weapons Council and appropriate representatives from the Navy
and Air Force, to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by
November 30, 2017, on progress in nuclear security
collaboration and their plan or roadmap for future activities.
Office of the Secretary of Defense Oversight and Organization for the
Nuclear Deterrence Mission
The committee recognizes and appreciates the importance and
priority placed by the Department of Defense on its nuclear
deterrence mission. The Department's Nuclear Enterprise Review
(NER) in 2014 brought renewed senior leadership attention to
the mission and made a variety of recommendations to make
improvements through increased focus, investment, and policy
adjustments.
To track and ensure meaningful implementation of the
recommendations of the NER, the Department created the Nuclear
Deterrence Enterprise Review Group (NDERG), headed by the
Deputy Secretary of Defense and supported by the Office of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE). The committee
believes the NDERG was instrumental in correcting many of the
longstanding problems and deficiencies identified by the NER.
But the committee also believes that key cultural problems
identified by the NER will take many years of continuous, high-
level engagement and follow-through to successfully address.
The committee is concerned that senior leader attention and
engagement on the nuclear mission could wane with the
transition of senior personnel between administrations.
The committee therefore directs the Deputy Secretary of
Defense to provide a briefing to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by
October 31, 2017, on the Department's approach to oversight and
organization for the nuclear deterrence mission. Such briefing
should include:
(1) a description of how the Department is following
through on the recommendations of the NER and the NDERG
process, and how the Department will ensure meaningful and
successful remedies are being applied now and in the future;
(2) the Department's approach to ensuring senior leader
engagement and focus continues for the nuclear deterrence
mission;
(3) remaining gaps and challenges that will require ongoing
attention, and metrics for measuring progress on those issues;
and
(4) how the Office of the Secretary of Defense will be
organized, taking into account recent legislation and executive
actions, to oversee and steward the nuclear deterrence mission.
Remote Visual Assessment System at Minuteman III Launch Facilities
The Air Force uses the Remote Visual Assessment (RVA)
system to maintain situational awareness of activity at
Minuteman III launch facilities. This important capability
allows missile crews to remotely assess certain alarms and
dispatch security forces accordingly. The system has provided a
significant improvement to the security and operations of the
missile fields.
The committee is aware of early efforts to upgrade and
modernize the RVA system as existing components become obsolete
and unsupported by their original manufacturers. Such age and
obsolescence can lead to increased failure rates and
sustainment costs. The committee encourages the Air Force to
closely examine its strategy for sustaining and upgrading the
components and subsystems of the RVA system, the system's
requirements and the ability of older technologies to meet
those requirements, the value of procuring new systems, and the
criteria used to determine schedules for component replacement.
Report on Ground Based Strategic Deterrent and Minuteman III
The United States currently deploys more than 400 LGM-30G
Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles. In the
nuclear modernization program laid out by the Obama
Administration and now continued by the Trump Administration's
budget request for fiscal year 2018, the Air Force plans to
replace the Minuteman III system with the Ground Based
Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) system.
In testimony and reports provided to the committee by
Department of Defense and Air Force officials, the total
development and procurement costs for the GBSD program,
including replacement of the missile flight system and
recapitalization of all support ground infrastructure and
command and control systems, will cost approximately $62.3
billion over the course of the 25+ year program. A separate
analysis of the GBSD program by the Department of Defense's
Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE)
estimated the cost of development and procurement of the GBSD
system in a range from $85.0 billion to significantly more than
$100.0 billion (in then-year dollars). Ultimately, at the
Milestone A decision for GBSD, the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics set a baseline cost
for the program at CAPE's lower estimate.
The committee acknowledges the challenge of estimating
replacement costs for a system first deployed 47 years ago,
particularly when historical data is largely absent and
present-day comparison systems are dissimilar. To ensure the
Department is seeking greater fidelity in its varying cost
estimates as the GBSD program moves forward, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Secretary of the Air Force and the Director of CAPE, to provide
a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1,
2018, on cost estimates and requirements related to the GBSD
program. Such report should include:
(1) Updates, based on information gathered from the
selected contractors for the technology maturation and risk
reduction phase of the GBSD program, from the Air Force and
CAPE regarding their cost estimates for the development and
procurement of the GBSD system;
(2) A detailed breakdown of the costs associated with life
extending Minuteman III as compared to the costs of GBSD,
including a breakdown of the costs to replace or extend the
life of relevant components until 2045, as well as until 2075;
and
(3) The trade-offs between requirements and costs,
including how GBSD and Minuteman III will meet military
effectiveness requirements over the course of their expected
lifecycles.
Status of Infrastructure Supporting NATO Nuclear Deterrence Mission
The committee appreciates the importance of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) deterrence and defense
mission, and the role that U.S. forward-deployed nuclear
weapons play in the Alliance. The committee understands that
NATO, the U.S., and individual host nations all bear
responsibilities for ensuring that the infrastructure
supporting NATO's nuclear deterrence mission and the U.S.
military personnel stationed in Europe enabling that mission,
are safe, secure, and modern. As NATO continues to strengthen
and update its deterrence posture following the Warsaw Summit
in July 2016, and based on the findings of the Department of
Defense's Nuclear Enterprise Review in 2014, the committee
believes it is imperative upon all stakeholders to ensure
NATO's nuclear-related infrastructure receives sufficient
funding and senior leadership attention.
The committee appreciates the ongoing dialogue with the
Department of Defense on this issue. To provide continuing and
close oversight of this issue, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Secretary of Defense
Advisor, Europe, and in consultation with the Secretary of
State and the Secretary of the Air Force, to provide two
briefings to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives, with the first such briefing to
be provided by October 1, 2017, on the status of U.S. and NATO
nuclear-related infrastructure in Europe, including efforts to
upgrade, modernize, and improve such infrastructure. The
briefings should also address plans to encourage NATO to adopt
and implement a common standard for perimeter security at
relevant sites. The final briefing should be provided by April
1, 2018. Specifically, the briefings should include:
(1) the status of nuclear-related infrastructure across
NATO, including descriptions of facilities' state of repair and
progress on efforts to recapitalize or replace outdated
facilities or equipment, and including a description of any
variances in perimeter security and infrastructure at relevant
sites;
(2) current or potential plans, programs, or activities
that would improve NATO's nuclear-related infrastructure,
including for safety, security, communications, or operations
for U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe or quality of life for U.S.
military personnel supporting this mission;
(3) actions taken by the U.S. Government to standardize or
improve NATO's nuclear-related infrastructure and adopt common
standards, such as for perimeter security, including
engagements bilaterally with host nations and multilaterally
through NATO; and
(4) such other matters as the Secretary of Defense
determines appropriate.
Cyber-Related Matters
Assessment of Effectiveness of Cyber Reporting
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
been working for several years to develop a new cyber security
and incident reporting scheme for defense contractors with
access to controlled, unclassified information stored on, or
processed by, their own information networks. While this
requirement is called for by section 941 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239), the Department has drafted and promulgated a new contract
clause in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement
(DFARS) as a means to implement the requirements of this
reporting.
The committee is aware that this new language, DFARS
252.204-7012 on Cyber Security and Incident Reporting, has been
the cause of concern and misunderstanding from many in
industry, particularly among small businesses, and those
businesses where defense revenue is a very small percentage of
their overall revenue. The committee acknowledges that the
Department has made efforts to make this new guidance as easy
to implement and track as possible, and understands that the
new process provides wide latitude and flexibility for
businesses to craft strategies for compliance. For example, the
Department has made available a number of tools to help small
businesses with implementation, and worked extensively with
Procurement Technical Assistance Centers so they can understand
the requirements and assist small businesses directly in the
course of their normal support. Additionally, the Department of
Homeland Security has updated and modified their Cyber Security
Evaluation Tool to provide a means for businesses to self-
evaluate their compliance with the new rules.
To ensure that these tools are effective at helping small
businesses and other non-traditional defense contractors meet
this requirement, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to conduct an assessment of the DFARS clause. The
Secretary should assess the compliance of industry, including
the extent to which these support tools have been effective.
This assessment should also identify any issues and concerns
with the quality of System Security Plans from the contractors,
and to the extent practicable, should include input from
affected contractors. The committee further directs the
Secretary to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services by December 7, 2018, on the results of this
assessment.
Assessment of Third-Party Cybersecurity Risk
The committee recognizes the work by the Defense Security
Service to clear defense contractors and believes advanced
capabilities would enhance their existing efforts. The
committee is aware of capabilities that exist in the private
sector, like cybersecurity ratings services, that can
effectively provide rapid, accurate initial assessments and
ongoing, continuous monitoring of defense contractors'
cybersecurity. The committee believes such assessments are
critical to protecting classified and controlled unclassified
defense information. The committee encourages the Department of
Defense to evaluate existing capabilities for assessment and
monitoring of the cybersecurity of defense contractors and
critical infrastructure providers prior to a contract award and
on an ongoing basis, and identify capability and tool options
currently in use and available in the private sector for such
purposes.
Cloud Computing
The committee believes the widespread adoption by the
Department of Defense of cloud computing technology would be
beneficial to both the management functions and operational
functions of the Department of Defense, resulting in cost
savings, increased flexibility and scalability, mobility, and
improved security. For example, cloud computing provides
enhanced data analytics capabilities, reduces the need for
physical data storage centers, and increases situational
awareness on the battlefield. The committee is pleased that the
military departments, particularly the Department of the Navy
and Department of the Army, have recognized cloud computing is
not only beneficial to the enterprise, but can also provide
increased warfighting capabilities for tactical and operational
advantages.
The committee encourages the continued use of cloud
computing to achieve battlefield advantages, and encourages the
Department of Defense to use cloud computing in military
exercises and wargaming. For example, the Department of Defense
could examine the use of cloud computing to support continuity
of operations planning or to support resilient operations in
the face of a degraded cyber environment. The committee also
encourages greater synergy and collaboration between the
acquisition community and information technology community, so
that future weapon systems and platforms take full advantage of
cloud computing benefits. In addition, the committee encourages
the Department to explore the benefits of hyperscale cloud
computing, which enables advanced capabilities such as big data
analytics, machine learning, and cognitive services while
providing advanced cybersecurity and continual updates to
services and cyber defense.
Additionally, the committee supports the less risk-averse
approach by the military services, than is traditionally
prevalent throughout the Department of Defense, to incorporate
cloud computing at the tactical, operational, strategic, and
enterprise-wide levels. The committee believes the Department
of Defense Chief Information Office should leverage lessons
learned by the military services on cloud computing, to include
security, capabilities, and criteria to appropriately determine
if commercial, government, or hybrid clouds are required to
update the Department's cloud strategy and assess current
Department of Defense cloud security requirements;
specifically, on-premise and off-premise requirements.
Finally, the committee directs the Department of Defense's
Chief Information Officer to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by March 5, 2018, on cloud
computing. The briefing should include efforts to coordinate
with the acquisition community, encourage the use of cloud
computing in wargaming and military exercises, and an
assessment of the Department of Defense's current cloud
strategy and security requirements.
Comply-to-Connect Policy
Section 1653 of the National Defense Authorization for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) required the Department
of Defense to develop and enforce a new automated continuous
monitoring compliance tracking system and policy referred to as
``Comply-to-Connect.'' The committee believes such automated
ways to enforce compliance, as well as to isolate and deny
access for systems that have not been adequately patched or
updated, will be necessary in the future to handle the
increasing numbers of new information technology systems, as
well as the manpower burdens that scale will impose. However,
the committee has become aware that there is some confusion
that this Comply-to-Connect language refers to a specific
technology offering and not a generic policy. The committee's
intent was not to endorse or limit the Department to any
specific technology product or provider with the inclusion of
section 1653. The committee expects the Department to continue
to comply with all applicable rules for open competition in the
acquisition of any technical solutions to meet the requirements
of that section.
Comptroller General Assessment of Cyber Training
The committee is aware that the military services have been
developing cyber training standards and establishing cyber
schools or centers of excellence to prepare their personnel for
operations in cyberspace. While the services have
responsibility to train their forces, these forces must be
trained to consistent and joint standards. The committee
believes that the military services should leverage each
other's training capabilities to the extent possible.
Therefore, the committee directs the Comptroller General of
the United States to assess the Department of Defense's current
and planned state of cyber training. The assessment should
identify the extent to which the military services:
(1) have established consistent cyber training standards
for Active and Reserve Component forces;
(2) have leveraged each other's cyber training
capabilities, to include training schools and ranges;
(3) are achieving training capability and capacity goals;
and
(4) are leveraging other cyber experience to meet training
requirements.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 15,
2018, on preliminary findings, with a report to follow on a
date agreed to at the time of the briefing.
Cyber Hardening
The committee recognizes the urgent need to harden our
major weapon systems and critical infrastructure against
cybersecurity threats. The committee notes that section 1647 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
(Public Law 114-92) directed an evaluation of cyber
vulnerabilities of each major weapon system by the Secretary of
Defense, while section 1650 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328)
directed an evaluation of cyber vulnerabilities of the critical
infrastructure of the Department of Defense. These reviews have
identified platforms in the field today that have aging
software and hardware components vulnerable to cyber threats
that could be extraordinarily costly to upgrade. The committee
understands that the Department has evaluated how to implement
a pilot project to cyber harden existing programs for fiscal
year 2018 that includes an estimate of both resources and time
required to carry out such efforts. This pilot project is
intended to meet cyber-hardening objectives while mitigating
the significant cost and time delays associated with
traditional planned upgrades.
The committee strongly supports the Department's efforts to
explore alternatives to traditional cyber defense architectures
and approaches. Elsewhere in this report, the committee
provides additional funds and guidance for cyber vulnerability
assessments and hardening. The committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to continue to explore and invest in cyber
technology that provides multi-tiered defensive capabilities,
including those that leverage software defined ``Moving Target
Defense'' technology and techniques.
Cyber Training and Talent Management
The committee is aware of the efforts of the Reserve
Components to develop cyber protection teams that can leverage
the best attributes, authorities, and capabilities of both
civilian and military cyber practitioners. The committee is
aware that the Department of Defense is considering a concept
for establishing Joint Reserve Cyber Centers as a way of
bringing together this expertise into a critical mass of
talent. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to
examine how this concept might be used to help cyber forces
evaluate and quickly integrate new technologies such as
autonomy, machine learning, and big data analytics. The
committee further encourages the Department to continue to
improve the processes to give cyber personnel credit for other
experience, certifications, or commercial training they may
have received that meets the joint training standard.
The committee remains concerned, however, that the current
training pipeline is a major bottleneck to fully manning and
training cyber mission teams. The committee continues to
believe that the Department of Defense should look at
additional ways to diversify the training pipeline available to
all cyber personnel to help relieve that bottleneck, to include
building public-private partnerships with academia, industry,
and non-profit institutions. Especially in specialized and
emerging areas like Internet-of-Things applications, building
and utility control systems, or other operational physical
systems, the Department should develop these kinds of
partnerships to support training and familiarization of these
operational physical systems through emulation technology. The
committee recognizes the role the National Security Agency
(NSA), through the National Centers of Academic Excellence in
Cyber Defense (CAE-CD) education, has in the establishment and
development of curriculum for cyber education. The committee
recognizes the value these university relationships have had,
and accordingly recommends an additional $8.0 million to the
NSA CAE-CD Program Office to support cyber defense education of
reservists across all military services and the National Guard.
Finally, the committee believes it is imperative for the
Department of Defense to have comprehensive visibility on the
cyber talent available in both the Active and Reserve
Components, as well as the civilian workforce. The committee is
aware of the Department of the Army's talent management
programs, including the Cyber Warrior Database (CWARD). CWARD
is intended to capture relevant expertise, knowledge, skills,
and abilities within the Army Cyber community in order to
enable effective mission planning and human resource
management. The committee supports this effort and encourages
widespread adoption of common cyber talent management tools.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by February
5, 2018, on cyber talent management tools in development and
use across the Department of Defense.
Cyber Vulnerability Disclosure Program
The committee supports the Department of Defense's recently
initiated vulnerability disclosure program and ``bug bounty''
program, which allow the Department to crowd-source security
and encourage security researchers to share their discoveries
responsibly while providing accountability for institutions
operating or developing software. Following the Pentagon's
initial bug bounty program, several of the services have taken
on their own similar programs under a Department-wide contract.
These projects are helping to provide for greater security
across the defense enterprise, with positive results.
Accordingly, it is critical that the Defense Cyber Crime
Center (DC3) is supported in order to effectively coordinate
vulnerability disclosure across the Department of Defense
Information Network. The DC3 is responsible for receiving
security vulnerabilities reported under the vulnerability
disclosure policy and facilitating their remediation. Without
sufficient resources, vulnerabilities may be found and never
rectified, ultimately handicapping the Department's positive
steps forward. The committee believes the DC3 must be supported
with the appropriate resources and authorities in order to
improve the Department's cybersecurity posture and strengthen
relationships with the security research community.
Data Protection
The committee remains concerned about continuing reports of
unauthorized disclosures of critical program and other
classified information, whether from insiders or from external
network intrusions. While the Department of Defense has made
significant investments to improve its cyber security posture,
the committee also remains concerned by the rate of progress
the Department is making in preventing unauthorized review,
redistribution, and modification of sensitive government
information. The committee recognizes that there are a number
of technologies, such as digital rights management (DRM) and
attribute-based access control (ABAC), that could provide
useful, needed capabilities in the Joint Information
Environment, and are specifically cited as new information
security policy requirements to help intelligence and civilian
agencies persistently protect their sensitive information and
high-value asset data both inside and outside of agency
networks.
Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense
Chief Information Officer, in coordination with the Director of
the Defense Information Systems Agency, to provide a briefing
to the House Committee on Armed Services by November 1, 2017,
on any current plans to demonstrate or incorporate Department-
wide DRM and ABAC capabilities into upgrades to key enabling
cyber capabilities inside the Joint Regional Security Stacks
initiative.
Evaluation of Commercial Cyber Threat Information Sources
The committee is aware that the availability of
commercially derived cyber threat information from various
service providers has the potential to be a tremendous force
multiplier for both the government and industry. Many of the
companies providing this information have been successful at
identifying new threats and reporting on them to broad
audiences more dynamically than the government, and without the
risk of disclosing sensitive intelligence or capabilities of
the government. The committee believes these providers could be
better integrated into a full-spectrum strategy that
synchronizes government, industry, and third-party capabilities
to increase cyber security.
However, the committee is concerned that many of the
components utilizing such services are not smart consumers of
such services, and it can be very difficult to evaluate the
utility or quality of said services across differing providers.
Additionally, since there is no view of assessing these
services, it can be difficult to figure out how best to
leverage these capabilities to supplement or even replace some
government capabilities. That task becomes even harder for
industry users hoping to incorporate this sort of threat
information or threat services into their cybersecurity
strategy.
Therefore, the committee directs the Department of Defense
Chief Information Officer (CIO), in coordination with the
Principal Cyber Adviser and the Commander of Cyber Command, to
create criteria for evaluating commercial threat information
service providers and sources. This assessment should look at
the following:
(1) what capabilities exist commercially for cyber threat
information providers;
(2) what criteria should the Department or defense industry
be using when assessing when and how to leverage these sources;
(3) in what ways can these types of services fit with the
Department's needs, or be integrated into the Department's
cyber defense construct; and
(4) an assessment of whether there is a need to develop
some joint enterprise license agreement or contractual
mechanism to more quickly and efficiently gain access to and
standardize the use of such activities.
The committee further directs the Department of Defense CIO
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by February 28, 2018, on the results of this evaluation.
Implementation of Recommendations by Defense Science Board Task Force
on Cyber Deterrence and Cyber Supply Chain
The committee has reviewed the findings and recommendations
contained in the Defense Science Board Task Force on Cyber
Deterrence report and the Defense Science Board Task Force on
Cyber Supply Chain report. The committee appreciates these
comprehensive and substantive reviews that contain tangible
recommendations for the Department of Defense in the areas of
cybersecurity, deterrence, supply chain vulnerabilities, and
other related issues. Over the previous several years, the
committee has provided the Department with multiple new or
revised authorities, as well as significant funding, to address
many of the challenges identified in these two reports. The
committee is concerned, however, that the Department
nonetheless lacks a comprehensive strategy to implement many of
the important recommendations contained in these two Defense
Science Board reports on cyber.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by September 1, 2017, on efforts to implement the
recommendations contained in the Defense Science Board Task
Force on Cyber Deterrence and the Defense Science Board Task
Force on Cyber Supply Chain reports.
Persistent Training Environment
The committee is aware that the development of a Persistent
Training Environment (PTE) for cyber is a significant priority
for U.S. Cyber Command. The committee recognizes that the
Department of Defense is currently struggling to train,
certify, and deploy sufficient personnel to man to the levels
called for by the Cyber Mission Force (CMF) construct.
Further, the committee recognizes the need for periodic
recertification for both individuals and teams to keep skills
sharp. In order to meet this demand, the committee believes it
will be critical to develop the PTE to provide the means to
enable thousands of military and civilian personnel to maintain
their skills and certification required to continue to work on
missions.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of U.S.
Cyber Command, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army,
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
by December 8, 2017, on the progress in developing the PTE.
This briefing should address the capability goals for the
program, funding profile, major projected milestones (including
any exercises PTE is expected to be used in conjunction with),
performers, and any significant risks to the program.
Report on Army Network Security Consolidation
The committees notes that the Army is shrinking the number
of vulnerable nodes by installing Joint Regional Security
Stacks (JRSS) to reduce the need for security enclaves at more
than 400 existing network access points by replacing them with
regional security stacks at 28 global ingress locations. In
addition to limiting the number of access points, the Army is
also installing Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)
technology to connect all of the 40 major posts in the United
States, with a more robust network that can run up to 100 GB
while providing substantial savings over the operation of
legacy circuits.
The committee supports the Army's goal to operate a single
network that is secure, integrated, standards-based, and which
ensures uninterrupted global access to enable collaboration and
decisive action. To achieve this result, the committee directs
the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the committee
no later than December 31, 2017 with a plan to carry out the
timely completion of network consolidation and installation of
JRSS and MPLS at key nodes in the United States per the three
strategic plans published to date. The plan should include the
milestones, timelines, and resources required to complete the
consolidation of networks.
Unified Platform
The committee notes that the Department of Defense is in
the process of developing the requirements for new systems for
the Cyber Mission Force (CMF) operators known as Unified
Platform (UP). UP is intended to unify existing or evolving
systems infrastructure, mission capabilities, data analytics,
and programs to meet current and future CMF mission
requirements. The committee recognizes that this system will
drive the concepts of operations and procedures for the CMF for
several years, so careful thought and consideration should go
into the requirements generation and acquisition development
process. The committee encourages the Department to use this
opportunity to implement UP as an open architecture concept
informed by agile development practices to make this system
sustainable and scalable in the future as new technological
capabilities become available. The committee also believes that
the Department should include, as part of the Request for
Information and Request for Proposals (RFP) process,
opportunities for industry to offer new and innovative concepts
above and beyond those formally articulated. The committee also
believes information technology programs such as this should
find new ways of responding to RFPs, such as the requirement to
provide working software code for evaluation in order to
determine which proposal is deserving of award.
Weapon System Cyber Vulnerabilities
The budget request contained $30.1 million in PE 64942D8Z
for conducting cyber vulnerability assessments for weapon
systems.
The committee continues to support the assessments of
weapon systems to understand and identify their cyber
vulnerabilities. The committee is aware of the prioritization
of these systems for review, and also that the fiscal year 2016
budget only included $100.0 million of the necessary funds to
carry out all of these assessments. The committee believes this
effort should be continued, and to the extent practical, the
Department of Defense should begin the remediation and
hardening of these systems. Further, the committee encourages
the Department of Defense to pay special attention to examining
software vulnerabilities in nuclear weapons systems, other
delivery vehicles, and other advanced weapons systems. The
committee believes that the Department of Defense should
develop a framework for industry to share information on these
threats. This framework should improve the methodology for the
assessment and prioritization of vulnerabilities in weapon
systems and embedded information technology systems.
Therefore, the committee recommends $50.1 million, an
increase of $20.0 million, in PE 64942D8Z to provide needed
additional funding to complete weapon system vulnerability
assessments, and as needed, to provide funding for hardening
these systems.
Intelligence Matters
Defense Clandestine Service
The committee commends the Defense Intelligence Agency's
work to improve the support the Defense Clandestine Service
(DCS) provides to the Defense Intelligence Enterprise. The
committee believes a human intelligence (HUMINT) capability
within the Department of Defense directly supporting the
integrated Department of Defense intelligence priorities
directed in section 922 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66) is preferable to
an option that places the capability outside of the Department.
The committee intends to continue to conduct oversight of the
Department of Defense's HUMINT capability as DCS evolves, and
believes consistent and improved career management of DCS
officers will further enhance such capability. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence not later than
December 1, 2017, on the posture of the Defense Clandestine
Service to address the integrated Department of Defense
intelligence priorities. The briefing should also include the
methodology the Department uses to assign officer locations to
fulfill priority requirements, efforts to improve the career
management of DCS officers and employees, and how the
Department will continue to increase support for officers in
the field, to include future information technology plans to
address their needs.
European Deterrence Initiative Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance
The Department of Defense has requested a significant
amount of funding for intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance (ISR) as a part of the European Deterrence
Initiative (EDI). The committee supports this request and
expects that the platforms and sensors developed with these
funds will be deployed to support U.S. European Command (EUCOM)
intelligence requirements, and not diverted to meet other
combatant commander (COCOM) ISR requirements. If unexpected
circumstances and requirements justify diversion of ISR assets
from EUCOM to another COCOM, the committee expects to be
notified in writing and provided an explanation for the action.
Improving Analytic Automation
The committee continues to support efforts like the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) program called
Expeditionary Large Data Object Repository for Analytics in
Deployed Operations that gather, analyze, manage, and store
large amounts of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
(ISR) data from remote sources. Managing data by making
information discoverable to analysts across the globe, while
reducing storage and analytical access costs, are critical
steps in Department of Defense efforts to leverage commercial
best practices in big data analytics. NGA is at the forefront
of such efforts, but the committee is concerned by the
Department's slow pace in developing formal requirements for
big data analytic capabilities.
For example, wide area motion imagery (WAMI) provides
extremely valuable ISR data, but ground processing and
integration of this data is currently very labor intensive.
While WAMI collection capabilities continue to evolve with
technology, much of the ground processing, automation, and
alert functions have fallen behind. The Department continues to
struggle to provide data analysis and machine learning
capabilities that have been available in the commercial sector
for several years that can process ISR data like WAMI. The
committee recognizes the significant challenges the Department
has in addressing combatant commanders' ISR requirements, but
new collection capabilities will produce ever larger volumes of
data. The Department's processing, exploitation and
dissemination (PED) shortfalls cannot be addressed without
integrating commercial data processing and access techniques,
and automating as much of the PED workflow as possible.
Therefore, the committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence, in concert with the Secretary of the
Army, Secretary of the Air Force, Secretary of the Navy, and
Director of National Intelligence, to provide a briefing to the
House Committee on Armed Services and the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence by December 1, 2017, on
efforts that allow for rapid adoption of data storage, access,
and automated processing and machine learning technologies and
techniques.
Intelligence Simulation Center
The committee supports the Defense Intelligence Agency's
efforts to develop an Intelligence Simulation Center. The
center will fulfill a critical intelligence community-wide need
for a collaborative venue for classified presentations within
the National Capital Region to support intelligence planning,
evaluation of Department of Defense and intelligence community
requirements, senior leader seminars, modeling and simulations,
and other high-level intelligence and operational events. The
co-location of the center with the National Intelligence
University will enhance Defense Intelligence Enterprise
capabilities, and the committee believes the other defense
intelligence agencies must be integrated into the center to
maximize the potential benefits. The committee directs the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to develop a plan
to integrate the other defense intelligence agencies into the
Intelligence Simulation Center, and to provide a briefing to
the House Committee on Armed Services and the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence not later than February 1,
2018, on the plan. The briefing should include plans to
integrate sources of intelligence, analytic capabilities, and
any agency-specific capabilities available to the intelligence
community and combatant commanders.
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Capability Imbalance
The committee is concerned about the Department of
Defense's intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
capability mix. Over the past 15 years, the Department has
rightfully focused its capability development on supporting
counterterrorism efforts in the Middle East, but emerging
intelligence challenges will require a renewed focus on
traditional military intelligence collection capabilities.
Understanding advanced foreign military capability development
activities, developing operational understanding of integrated
air defense networks, maintaining robust order of battle
information for potential nuclear and conventional adversaries,
and collection on traditional military activities undertaken by
foreign nations will require different collection capabilities
than are required to support counterterrorism operations. The
committee also notes that combatant commanders with the most
capable potential adversaries receive a disproportionately
small allocation of collection assets when compared to the
stated priorities of the Department. The committee directs the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide a briefing to
the House Committee on Armed Services and House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, by February 1, 2018 on
efforts to develop capabilities to collect ISR on foreign
military activities, and the ISR prioritization process.
Joint Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Management
The committee recognizes the importance of Department of
Defense intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
capabilities as vital enablers of U.S. military power. The
committee also recognizes that demand for ISR capabilities
continue to vastly outpace supply despite significant
investments over the past decade. In this context, the
committee views the effective and efficient management of joint
force ISR capabilities as an essential element of a national
military strategy capable of addressing transregional, multi-
functional, and multi-domain security challenges across the
spectrum of conflict. The committee also considers investments
made in developing, fielding, and leveraging fifth-generation
aircraft advanced sensors to be of immense value to joint force
employment and the intelligence enterprise.
The committee notes that the collection, analysis, and
dissemination of moving target indicator (MTI) ISR information
obtained through airborne active radar capability remains a
high-priority ISR requirement by many geographic combatant
commanders, and is woefully under-resourced by the Secretary of
the Air Force. Recent evolutions in the security environment
resulting from counterterror, counterinsurgency, contingency
ground-maneuver force, and steady-state operations have brought
renewed emphasis on the need for MTI ISR information as a
critical source of indicator, warning, and targeting
information. Additionally, the committee remains concerned that
the Department of Defense is highly constrained by the lack of
an integrated, interoperable joint framework for the tasking,
collection, processing, exploitation, and dissemination (TCPED)
of MTI information across the Department's intelligence
analysis enterprise.
Finally, the committee supports the decision to realign
joint force ISR management functions from U.S. Strategic
Command to a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS)
controlled activity under the Joint Staff, but is concerned
that the speed and scope of this transition has been
insufficient to facilitate effective coordination between the
military services, combatant commands, combat support agencies,
and key allies and partners in implementing the CJCS vision of
a single, integrated joint force ISR enterprise.
The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence not
later than December 1, 2017, on the following areas of joint
force ISR management:
(1) an assessment of joint force ISR effectiveness by
region;
(2) a summary of ISR global force management sourcing
trends by region and force category;
(3) a summary of progress, shortfalls, and challenges in
establishing an integrated and interoperable joint force TCPED
enterprise;
(4) a summary of joint force development initiatives that
should include new joint concepts and doctrine for ISR
employment, as well as development of automated tools and
processes to manage the joint ISR enterprise more effectively
and efficiently; and
(5) An explanation of the CJCS policy that governs how
combatant commanders should define and assign different levels
of priority to ISR capability requirements to inform the CJCS
global force management process that allocates ISR capabilities
and force structure to combatant commanders.
Further, the committee directs the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees and congressional intelligence committees not later
than March 1, 2018, that includes a Joint Force Sufficiency
Assessment (JFSA) for ISR capability and capacity based on a
stress test of current operationally fielded ISR assets and
capabilities for all approved level three and level four
warfighting plans. The JFSA for ISR should include a thorough
explanation of underlying assumptions and an analysis of
requirements and shortfalls of ISR platforms, sensors, multi-
intelligence TCPED capabilities, and related command, control,
and communications architectures. The JFSA should be
unclassified, but may include a classified annex.
The committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report to the congressional defense committees and
congressional intelligence committees not later than June 1,
2018, that includes a comprehensive strategy for the
coordinated development and integration of ISR capabilities
with key allies and partners as a means to enhance the
capability, capacity, access, agility, and resilience of the
joint ISR enterprise in support of U.S. national security
objectives. The strategy should address foreign military sales
of ISR platforms; integrated global force management processes;
combined basing strategies; TCPED and information-sharing
requirements; and integrated training and logistics support.
The strategy also should address, at a minimum, relationships
and information-sharing opportunities between the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, the
Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the Republic of
Korea, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services
and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by
March 1, 2018, that describes the Department of Defense's
strategy and implementation plan regarding the storage,
recovery, management, processing, exploitation, and
dissemination of ISR information collected by fifth-generation
aircraft sensors. The committee expects the strategy to address
data sharing and exchange with select allies and partners, as
well as integration into the U.S. intelligence enterprise at
large.
The committee also directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services and
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence not later
than March 1, 2018, that describes a strategy and
implementation plan to establish common standards and
management procedures among Department of Defense stakeholders
to ensure joint, integrated TCPED of MTI information collected
from Department of Defense aircraft. Elements of the strategy
and implementation plan should include achieving commonality
regarding joint TCPED training, analysis, and product
standards; enterprise management procedures that capture best
TCPED practices among MTI collection platforms, regardless of
service or organization; Department plans to integrate into
future programs and architectures the MTI and TCPED
capabilities funded with Overseas Contingency Operations
resources to meet various Operational Needs Statements/Joint
Urgent Operational Needs Statements; and common information
exchange and sharing policies, in accordance with applicable
U.S. national disclosure policy and export controls, that
enable and maximize cooperative MTI collection and TCPED
activities among North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies and
closest U.S. partners.
Finally, the committee, elsewhere in this title, includes a
provision that would require continuation of a current
Department of Defense plan to transition the roles, missions,
and responsibilities of Joint Functional Component Command for
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance from U.S.
Strategic Command to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
(CJCS) as a CJCS controlled activity, and designate the
Department of the Air Force as the controlled activity's
funding sponsor, not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Report on National Intelligence Program and Military Intelligence
Program Integration Against Hard Targets
The committee believes that the intelligence community is
underinvested in capabilities to understand the military
capabilities of hard target countries. Over the last 15 years,
the community has rightfully invested heavily in
counterterrorism capabilities, and has accepted risk in
understanding the emerging military capabilities of peer and
near-peer countries. Department of Defense leadership has
recently identified to the committee several emerging foreign
military developments that provide particularly grave
challenges. While the committee supports the efforts to
identify emerging threats and provide options for
countermeasures, it remains concerned about the need for
further coordination between the National Intelligence Program
and the Military Intelligence Program to develop capabilities
and programs to understand hard targets. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the Director of
National Intelligence to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services and the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence not later than November 1, 2017, on
the integration of programs funded by the National Intelligence
Program and programs funded by the Military Intelligence
program to address hard targets.
Review by Comptroller General of the United States of the General
Defense Intelligence Program
The committee is concerned about the ability of the Defense
Intelligence Enterprise to effectively prioritize and allocate
resources to address the strategic intelligence requirements of
the Department of Defense and the military departments. The
committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States
to review the prioritization processes of the General Defense
Intelligence Program (GDIP) managed by the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) and provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services and the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence not later than February 1, 2018. The briefing
shall:
(1) identify the processes and procedures for prioritizing
resource allocations across the Defense Intelligence
Enterprise, including with respect to the needs of the military
departments;
(2) identify the process and methodology used by the
Director of DIA to balance the internal priorities of DIA with
the needs of the Defense Intelligence Enterprise; and
(3) identify methods of recourse available to the military
departments to resolve prioritization disputes with DIA.
Secure Compartmented Information Facility Standardization
The committee is concerned by the duplication effort
imposed by the Department of Defense and the intelligence
community on the cleared contractor community to certify and
operate Secure Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs).
The committee notes that all SCIFs are constructed and
accredited to the same Intelligence Community Directive
standards, and believes the current practice of requiring co-
utilization agreements on a contract-by-contract, facility-by-
facility basis is unnecessarily costly, without providing
additional security benefits. Therefore, the committee directs
the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the
Director of National Intelligence to review current policy not
later than June 1, 2018. The committee further directs the
Under Secretary and the Director to make recommendations, as
part of the review, to maximize the co-utilization of SCIFs to
support Department of Defense and intelligence community work
within cleared contractor facilities. The review should include
potential consolidation or elimination of the duplicative
requirements for industry to certify a SCIF with multiple
agencies. In the event a specific agency has additional
requirements beyond those identified in the applicable
Intelligence Community Directive or Department of Defense
policy, the Under Secretary and Director should make
recommendations for addressing those requirements at the
enterprise level. Finally, the committee directs the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the Director of
National Intelligence to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services and House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence on the results of the review, not
later than 30 days after completion.
Strengthening Intelligence Input to Milestone Decisions
The committee is concerned about the Defense Intelligence
Enterprise's ability to provide accurate and timely information
to the acquisition community to make decisions about capability
development. Intelligence inputs are required for each
acquisition milestone and throughout each program's life cycle,
but often do not play a significant role in acquisition
decisions. Threat assessments are often developed out of cycle
with program timelines, creating data latency issues, and the
quality of intelligence data varies greatly across the
Department of Defense. The committee is aware of at least one
case in which a capability development requirement was
fundamentally incorrect because the program office did not have
access to highly classified threat information. This
uncertainty about the timeliness and accuracy of threat
information creates requirements instability, which in turn
drives up acquisition costs. Even after systems are fully
developed and fielded, many systems require regular
intelligence mission data support, such as electronic warfare
database updates and measurement and signatures intelligence
support.
The committee supports the Department's initial efforts to
plan for and prioritize intelligence mission data support and
encourages continued refinement of intelligence mission data
support processes. The committee directs the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Research and Engineering, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment, and the Director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services and the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence not later than March 1, 2018, on
proposals to ensure that intelligence support to acquisition is
relevant and provides value to the acquisition community. The
briefing should also include proposals to ensure adequate
access to compartmented information that may contain key
judgments that would change a program's understanding of a
threat.
Threat Awareness Programs
The committee has conducted multiple hearings and briefings
that have provided information on the sophistication and
increasing number of counterintelligence threats to the
Department of Defense. For example, the People's Republic of
China and other nation-state actors seek to impair U.S.
technology superiority through espionage and exploitation of
the regulatory processes that govern foreign investment,
technology transfer, and international scientific cooperation
to legally obtain access to technology and research. As noted
elsewhere in this report, Russian military intelligence
services are using influence operations to undermine global
democratic institutions and frameworks. Unrelenting pressure on
terrorist organizations overseas is leading them to prioritize
the radicalization of individuals in their country of origin,
resulting in increased homegrown threats. Therefore, the
committee encourages more investments in counterintelligence,
security, and insider threat programs to protect Department of
Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration
personnel, property, and technology. These increases should be
reinforced by policies that emphasize the responsibility of all
individuals to maintain awareness of potential threats. Further
discussion is contained in the classified annex to this report.
Underground Facility Targeting Capabilities
The committee is aware of gaps in the intelligence
community's capability to identify, characterize, and target
foreign underground facilities that force combatant commanders
to accept unacceptable risk in specific mission areas. The
committee is also aware of Department of Defense plans to
develop an automated analytic capability, but believes
additional underground facility analytic expertise is necessary
to provide adequate support to operational planning
requirements. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense
and the Director of National Intelligence to provide a briefing
to the House Committee on Armed Services and House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence not later than November 1,
2017, on intelligence community capabilities to characterize
and target adversary underground facilities. The briefing
should include an assessment of the capacity and efficacy of
National Intelligence Program and Military Intelligence Program
resources currently supporting combatant commander underground
facility target requirements, and an assessment of the analytic
workforce required to address those requirements that cannot be
addressed within the current resource framework. The committee
believes this capacity gap is not limited to the Underground
Facility Analysis Center at the Defense Intelligence Agency,
and expects the capabilities and resources of the other combat
support agencies to be reflected in the briefing.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Management and Organization of Space Programs
Section 1601--Establishment of Space Corps in the Department of the Air
Force
This section would authorize the creation of a Space Corps
within the Department of the Air Force and require the
Secretary of the Air Force to certify its establishment by
January 1, 2019. The Space Corps would be led by the Chief of
Staff of the Space Corps and would be composed of such offices
and officials determined appropriate by the Secretary of the
Air Force, in consultation with the Chief of Staff of the Space
Corps. This section would further provide that the Chief of
Staff of the Space Corps would be appointed for a term of 6
years, be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and would
report directly to the Secretary of the Air Force, as a co-
equal of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
The Secretary of the Air Force would be given Milestone
Decision Authority for space acquisition programs, including
with respect to research, development, test, and evaluation and
procurement. This section would not affect the authority of the
other Services to pursue Service-specific user terminals for
space programs. This section would also not affect the
authorities of the Director of the National Reconnaissance
Office and the Director of the National Geospatial-intelligence
Agency. This section would terminate the Principal Department
of Defense Space Advisor and Defense Space Council.
Nothing in this section would authorize or require the
relocation of any facilities, infrastructure, or military
installations of the Air Force.
Lastly, this section would require the Secretary of Defense
to provide to the congressional defense committees an interim
report by March 1, 2018, and a final report by August 1, 2018,
on the plan for the establishment of the Space Corps,
recommendations by the Secretary of Defense, and other
specified matters related to such.
Section 1602--Establishment of Subordinate Unified Command of the
United States Strategic Command
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
establish United States Space Command as a subordinate unified
command under United States Strategic Command not later than
January 1, 2019. This section would also require the commander
of such command to hold a four-star rank and be appointed by
the President and confirmed by the Senate. The commander would
exercise command of joint space activities or missions, and the
United States Space Command would be jointly staffed.
Subtitle B--Space Activities
Section 1611--Codification, Extension, and Modification of Limitation
on Construction on United States Territory of Satellite Positioning
Ground Monitoring Stations of Foreign Governments
This section would amend chapter 135 of title 10, United
States Code, by adding a new section, 2279c. Subsection (b) of
section 1602 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66), which is a limitation on
construction on United States territory of satellite
positioning ground monitoring stations of certain foreign
governments, would be transferred to section 2279c of title 10,
United States Code. This section would exclude foreign
governments that are allies of the United States from the
underlying limitation and would extend the underlying
limitation's sunset date to December 31, 2023.
Section 1612--Foreign Commercial Satellite Services: Cybersecurity
Threats and Launches
This section would amend section 2279 of title 10, United
States Code, by adding a new subsection concerning
cybersecurity risk for the Department of Defense. This section
would further amend section 2279 of title 10, United States
Code, by adding a subsection that would prohibit the Secretary
of Defense from entering into a contract for satellite services
with any entity if such services will be provided using
satellites launched from a covered foreign country or using a
launch vehicle that is designed or manufactured in a covered
foreign country, or that is provided by the government of a
covered foreign country or by an entity controlled in whole or
in part by, or acting on behalf of, the government of a covered
foreign country, regardless of the location of the launch. Such
prohibition would not apply to launches in the United States
using launch vehicles with engines designed or manufactured or
provided by any entity of the Russian Federation or affect any
other provision of law authorizing the use of Russian rocket
engines within a United States launch vehicle.
This section would also add the Russian Federation to the
list of covered foreign countries, and would make a number of
conforming and clerical amendments to section 2279 of title 10,
United States Code.
Section 1613--Extension of Pilot Program on Commercial Weather Data
This section would amend section 1613 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) by extending the pilot program on commercial weather data
by 1 year. This section would also add the congressional
intelligence committees to the existing reporting requirements.
Section 1614--Conditional Transfer of Acquisition and Funding Authority
of Certain Weather Missions to National Reconnaissance Office
This section would amend section 1614 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328), by requiring the Secretary of the Air Force and the
Director of the National Reconnaissance Office to execute the
transfer of certain weather missions from the Air Force to the
National Reconnaissance Office unless the Secretary and
Director both issued the waivers described in section 1614(c)
of Public Law 114-328.
Section 1615--Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Modernization and
Sustainment of Assured Access to Space
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
obligating or expending funds authorized by this Act or
otherwise made available for fiscal year 2018 for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Air Force, for the evolved
expendable launch vehicle (EELV) program for any use other than
the activities specified by this Act. This section would not
affect or prohibit the Secretary from procuring launch services
of EELV launch systems.
This section would require the Secretary to notify the
congressional defense committees, and, in some circumstances,
the congressional intelligence committees, not later than 30
days before the Secretary publishes a draft or final request
for proposals, or obligates funds, for the development
activities specified by this section. This section would
further direct the Secretary, in coordination with the Director
of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, to submit a report
to the congressional defense committees within 120 days after
the date of the date of the enactment of this Act, that
contains an assessment of the cost-effective method to meet the
assured access to space requirements pursuant to section 2273
of title 10, United States Code, with respect to several
specified time periods.
Lastly, this section would define the circumstances for
what the Government would pay for as unique to national
security space missions.
Section 1616--Commercial Satellite Communications Pathfinder Program
This section would state the sense of Congress regarding
the Air Force's commercial satellite communications pathfinder
program.
This section would also require the Secretary of the Air
Force to submit a report, by March 1, 2018, to the Committees
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the
Senate regarding the views and plans of the Secretary related
to carrying out a portion of the activities of such pathfinder
program under the transaction authority provided by section
2371 of title 10, United States Code.
The committee has been concerned for several years that the
Department of Defense is not using sound business practices to
procure commercial satellite communications, which has resulted
in millions of dollars in inefficient procurement of this key
resource. The committee believes that leveraging Other
Transaction Authority would further the activities of the
Department to more effectively and efficiently procure
commercial satellite communications.
Section 1617--Demonstration of Backup and Complementary Positioning,
Navigation, and Timing Capabilities of Global Positioning System
This section would require, during fiscal year 2018, the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Transportation, and the
Secretary of Homeland Security to jointly develop a plan for
carrying out a backup capability demonstration for the Global
Positioning System (GPS). The plan would be required to be
based on the results of the study conducted under section 1618
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328) and include the activities that the
Secretaries determine necessary to carry out such
demonstration. The Secretaries would be required to provide a
briefing on this plan to the appropriate congressional
committees within 120 days of the date of the enactment of this
Act.
This section would further state that, subject to the
availability of appropriations, the Secretaries would be
required to jointly initiate the backup GPS capability
demonstration and that the demonstration would terminate 18
months after the date of the enactment of this Act. At this
date of termination, the Secretaries would be required to
submit a report on the demonstration.
Finally, this section would authorize for this
demonstration, for fiscal year 2018, $10.0 million as specified
in the funding tables.
Section 1618--Enhancement of Positioning, Navigation, and Timing
Capacity
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop and implement a plan to increase resilience for the
positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) capacity for the
Department of Defense. This section would require the plan to
ensure that military Global Positioning System (GPS) user
equipment (MGUE) terminals have the capability to receive
signals from the Galileo satellites of the European Union and
the QZSS satellites of Japan, beginning with increment 2 of the
acquisition of such terminals.
This plan would also include an assessment of the
feasibility, benefits, and risks of military GPS MGUE terminals
having the capability to receive foreign PNT signals, beginning
with increment 2 of the acquisition of such terminals. Such
plan would also include an assessment of options to use hosted
payloads to provide redundancy for the GPS signal; ensure that
the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary
of State, engages with relevant U.S. allies to enable MGUE
terminals to receive allied signals and negotiates other
potential agreements relating to PNT enhancement; and include
any other options the Secretary of Defense determines
appropriate.
Finally, this section would require the Secretary of
Defense to submit the plan along with certain evaluations to
specified congressional committees not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 1619--Establishment of Space Flag Training Event
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish, not later than December 31, 2020, an annual capstone
training event titled ``Space Flag'' for space professionals to
develop and test doctrine, concepts of operation, and tactics,
techniques, and procedures. The event would also serve to
inform and develop the appropriate design of the operational
training infrastructure of the space domain. This section would
further require the Secretary to model the event on the Red
Flag and Cyber Flag exercises and ensure that Space Flag
includes live, virtual, and constructive training and on-orbit
threat replication, as appropriate.
Lastly, this section would require the Secretary, in
coordination with the Commander of Air Force Space Command,
Commander, Army Space and Missile Defense Command, and
Commander, Navy Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command to
submit a plan to the congressional defense committees, not
later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act,
on the establishment of Space Flag, including a description of
each of the objectives of the event.
The committee recognizes that the Air Force has started
initial activities for Space Flag training, but the committee
expects a more comprehensive, Department of Defense-wide
approach for exercise participation and infrastructure,
consistent with this provision. Additionally, the committee
notes the related ongoing testing and development activities in
the Air Force, such as the Big Top program, and fully supports
these activities.
Section 1620--Report on Operational and Contingency Plans for Loss or
Degradation of Space Capabilities
This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in coordination with
each commander of a combatant command, to assess the
implications of a loss or degradation of U.S. space
capabilities on operational and contingency plans. The
Secretary and Chairman, in coordination with the combatant
commanders, would then be required to submit a report of their
assessment to the appropriate congressional committees within
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 1621--Limitation on Availability of Funding for Joint Space
Operations Center Mission System
This section limits the funds authorized for fiscal year
2018 for the Joint Space Operations Center mission system until
the Secretary of the Air Force develops and implements a plan
to operationalize existing commercial space situational
awareness capabilities.
Section 1622--Limitation on Availability of Funds Relating to the
Advanced Extremely High Frequency Program
This section would limit the funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act for fiscal year 2018 for research,
development, test, and evaluation, Air Force, for protected
tactical enterprise, protected tactical service, or protected
satellite communication services for the Evolved Strategic
Satellite Communications (SATCOM) system until several
certifications, reports, and plans are submitted to the
congressional defense committees ensuring that a protected
SATCOM system other than Advanced Extremely High Frequency
(AEHF) will meet the relevant validated military requirements.
Subtitle C--Defense Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities
Section 1631--Security Clearances for Facilities of Certain Contractors
This section would provide the Department of Defense with
the authority to approve facility clearances for a company in
the event its senior management official does not have a
security clearance at the level of the facility clearance, if a
company designates an official with the appropriate clearance
to act as the senior management official for the purposes of
the facility clearance.
Section 1632--Extension of Authority to Engage in Certain Commercial
Activities
This section would amend section 431(a) of title 10, United
States Code, to extend the authority to engage in commercial
activities as security for intelligence collection activities
through December 31, 2023.
Section 1633--Submission of Audits of Commercial Activity Funds
This section would modify section 432 of title 10, United
States Code, for audits to be submitted to the congressional
defense committees and the congressional intelligence
committees by not later than December 31 of each year.
Section 1634--Clarification of Annual Briefing on the Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Requirements of the Combatant Commands
This section would modify section 1626 of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) by including
space-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in
the briefing.
Section 1635--Review of Support Provided by Defense Intelligence
Elements to Acquisition Activities of the Department
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
review the support provided by the defense intelligence
enterprise to Department of Defense acquisition activities, and
to develop a specific budget structure for intelligence support
to acquisition that would be implemented beginning with the
budget submission for fiscal year 2020. It also would require
the Secretary to provide a briefing to the congressional
defense committees and congressional intelligence committees
not later than May 1, 2018, on the results of the review and
the plan for the budget structure.
Section 1636--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Certain Offensive
Counterintelligence Activities
This section would limit the availability of funds for
certain offensive counterintelligence operation (OFCO)
activities until specified certification and briefing
requirements are fulfilled not later than March 1, 2018. It
would require the Secretary of Defense to certify that elements
of the Department of Defense with OFCO authorities have
appropriate oversight procedures. It would require the Director
of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to provide the
congressional defense committees and congressional intelligence
committees with an accounting of certain resources transferred
from the Defense Counterintelligence Field Activity. It also
would require a briefing to the same committees from the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the Director of DIA
on improvement of OFCO management. The committee has serious
concerns about the lack of rigorous internal oversight of the
Department's OFCO program. Recent briefings have shown several
elements of the OFCO community are exposing the Department to
unacceptable risk by failing to adhere to Department policies.
The committee expects the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence to conduct rigorous, proactive oversight of all
aspects of counterintelligence across the Department to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
Section 1637--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Certain
Relocation Activities for NATO Intelligence Fusion Center
This section would prohibit certain funds authorized to be
appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal
year 2018 from being used to support the relocation of the NATO
Intelligence Fusion Center from Royal Air Force Molesworth,
United Kingdom, to Royal Air Force Croughton, United Kingdom.
Section 1638--Establishment of Chairman's Controlled Activity Within
Joint Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
This section would require continuation of a current
Department of Defense plan to transition the roles, missions,
and responsibilities of Joint Functional Component Command for
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance from U.S.
Strategic Command to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
(CJCS) as a CJCS controlled activity, and designate the
Department of the Air Force as the controlled activity's
funding sponsor.
Section 1639--Sense of Congress and Report on Geospatial Commercial
Activities for Basic and Applied Research and Development
This section expresses the sense of Congress and requires a
report on authorities needed to establish commercial activities
for the purposes of Research and Technology development.
Section 1640--Department of Defense Counterintelligence Polygraph
Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
add dual citizens in positions with access to highly classified
information to their counterintelligence polygraph program, for
the purposes of assessing risk.
Section 1641--Security Clearance for Dual-Nationals
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
apply additional security reviews to dual citizens seeking
positions that require access to highly classified information.
Section 1642--Suspension or Revocation of Security Clearances Based on
Unlawful or Inappropriate Contacts With Representatives of a Foreign
Government
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
suspend or revoke the security clearances of individuals who
engage in unlawful or inappropriate contacts with
representatives of foreign governments.
Subtitle D--Cyberspace-Related Matters
Section 1651--Notification Requirements for Sensitive Military Cyber
Operations and Cyber Weapons
This section would amend title 10, United States Code, to
require the Secretary of Defense to promptly submit in writing
to the congressional defense committees notice of any sensitive
military cyber operation and notice of the results of the
review of any cyber capability that is intended for use as a
weapon. This section would also require the Secretary of
Defense to establish procedures for providing such notice in a
manner consistent with national security of the United States
and the protection of operational integrity.
The term ``sensitive military cyber operation'' would
include cyber actions carried out by the Armed Forces and
actions intended to cause effects outside a geographic location
where United States forces are involved in hostilities (as that
term is used in section 1543 of title 50, United States Code).
This section is not intended to create or alter reporting
requirements of any other agency or department of the
Department of Defense.
Section 1652--Modification to Quarterly Cyber Operations Briefings
This section would amend section 484 of title 10, United
States Code, related to quarterly cyber operations briefings by
including all of the congressional defense committees in the
requirement, as well as increasing the fidelity of the items to
be included in each quarterly briefing. In addition, the
committee encourages the Department of Defense to also include
reporting on the Cybersecurity Scorecard, how measures of
resilience may be addressed by this scorecard, and means for
measuring or tracking supply chain risk management activities.
Section 1653--Cyber Scholarship Program
This section would amend chapter 112 of title 10, United
States Code, to establish the Department of Defense Cyber
Scholarship Program, setting aside 5 percent of the available
funding for pursuit of associate degrees in cyber and
authorizing $10.0 million in fiscal year 2018 for such
scholarships.
The committee is concerned that lack of funding under this
program may further aggravate the challenges the Department is
experiencing in recruiting and retaining cyber security
personnel. The committee believes that providing additional
opportunities under the program will be beneficial in
continuing to address Department requirements for a qualified
cyber workforce. Further, the committee encourages the
Department to use the opportunity to educate the public on this
program and to focus on institutions with high-quality computer
science, engineering, and cyber security programs, including
historically black colleges and universities, and minority-
serving institutions, as a way to expand the pool of talented
applicants.
Section 1654--Plan To Increase Cyber and Information Operations,
Deterrence, and Defense
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
develop a plan to increase regional cyber planning and enhance
information operations and strategic communication strategies
to counter Chinese and North Korean information warfare, malign
influence, and propaganda activities. It would further direct
the Secretary to provide a briefing to the congressional
defense committees on the plan not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 1655--Report on Termination of Dual-Hat Arrangement for
Commander of the United States Cyber Command
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
provide a report on the Department of Defense's progress in
meeting the requirements of section 1642 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) to the congressional defense committees, the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence.
Subtitle E--Nuclear Forces
Section 1661--Notifications Regarding Dual-Capable F-35A Aircraft
This section would amend section 179(f) of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Nuclear Weapons Council to notify
the congressional defense committees if either the United
States Senate or the United States House of Representatives
adopts a bill authorizing or appropriating funds for the
Department of Defense that, as determined by the Council,
provides funds in an amount that will result in a delay in the
nuclear certification or delivery of F-35A dual-capable
aircraft.
Section 1662--Oversight of Delayed Acquisition Programs by Council on
Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, and
Communications System
This section would amend section 171a of title 10, United
States Code, to require each program manager of a covered
acquisition program to transmit quarterly reports to the co-
chairs of the Council on Oversight of the National Leadership
Command, Control, and Communications System that identify (1)
the covered acquisition program; (2) the requirements of the
program; (3) the development timeline of the program; and (4)
the status of the program, including whether the program is
delayed and whether such delay will result in a program
schedule delay.
This section would further require that, in the event an
acquisition program is delayed by more than 180 days or in the
event a program manager did not properly notify the Council,
the co-chairs of the Council shall notify the congressional
defense committees by not later than 7 days after the end of a
quarter.
Lastly, this section would require the Secretary of Defense
to issue or revise a Department of Defense Instruction to
ensure that program managers carry out subsection (k)(1) of
section 171a of title 10, United States Code, as amended by
this Act.
Section 1663--Establishment of Nuclear Command and Control Intelligence
Fusion Center
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense and the
Director of National Intelligence to jointly establish an
intelligence fusion center, not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, for the purpose of enhancing
the protection of nuclear command, control, and communications
programs, systems, and processes and continuity of government
programs, systems, and processes. In establishing the fusion
center, the Secretary and Director would be required to develop
a charter that includes the following:
(1) the roles and responsibilities of officials and
elements of the Federal Government that are key stakeholders;
(2) the organization reporting chain of the fusion center;
(3) the staffing of the fusion center;
(4) the processes of the fusion center;
(5) how the fusion center integrates with other elements of
the Federal Government;
(6) the management and administrative processes required to
carry out the fusion center; and
(7) procedures to ensure that the appropriate number of
staff of the fusion center have the security clearance
necessary, including with respect to programs that are
designated special access programs.
This section would further require the Secretary and the
Director to submit an initial report to the congressional
defense committees and the congressional intelligence
committees, not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, on the development of the charter and
the plan for budget and staffing of the fusion center.
Lastly, this section would require the Secretary and
Director to submit an annual report to the congressional
defense committees and the congressional intelligence
committees at the same time as the President's budget request
is submitted to Congress, beginning in fiscal year 2019 and
each fiscal year thereafter, on any updates to the plan on the
budget and staffing of the fusion center; any updates to the
charter; and a summary of the activities and accomplishments of
the fusion center. This reporting requirement would expire on
December 31, 2021.
Section 1664--Security of Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications
System From Commercial Dependencies
This section would make a series of findings related to
Department of Defense use of systems produced by Huawei
Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation. This section would
also require the Secretary of Defense to certify whether the
Secretary uses telecommunications equipment or services from
Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation to carry out the
Department's nuclear deterrence mission, including with respect
to the nuclear command, control, and communications, integrated
tactical warning and attack assessment, and continuity of
government, or the homeland defense mission, including with
respect to ballistic missile defense.
Beginning 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, this section would prohibit the Secretary from procuring,
obtaining, or renewing a contract to do so, any equipment,
system, or service that uses telecommunications equipment from
Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation to carry out the
Department's nuclear deterrence or homeland defense missions.
Lastly, this section would provide for a waiver for such
prohibition, on a case-by-case basis, for a single 1-year
period, if the Secretary determines it to be in the national
security interests of the United States and certifies to the
congressional defense committees that certain criteria are met.
Section 1665--Oversight of Aerial-Layer Programs by Council on
Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, and
Communications System
This section would establish that any analysis of
alternatives (AOA) for the Senior Leader Airborne Operations
Center, the executive airlift program of the Air Force, and the
E-6B modernization program may not receive final approval by
the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and the Director of
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation may not complete the AOA
sufficiency review unless:
(1) the Council on Oversight of the National Leadership
Command, Control, and Communications System determines that the
alternatives are capable of meeting the requirements for senior
leadership communications in support of the nuclear command,
control, and communications missions of the Department of
Defense and the continuity of government mission of the
Department;
(2) the Council submits to the congressional defense
committees such a determination; and
(3) a period of 30 days elapses following the date of such
submission.
Section 1666--Security Classification Guide for Programs Relating to
Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications and Nuclear Deterrence
This section would require that, not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall require the issuance of a security classification
guide for nuclear weapons, and nuclear command and control
programs and continuity of Government programs of the
Department of Defense to ensure the protection of sensitive
information of such programs. Such classification guides would
be jointly approved by the Nuclear Weapons Council and the
Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command,
Control, and Communications System and should be in place not
later than March 19, 2019.
Section 1667--Evaluation and Enhanced Security of Supply Chain for
Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications and Continuity of
Government Programs
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
evaluate by December 31, 2019, the supply chain vulnerabilities
of programs related to nuclear weapons; nuclear command,
control, and communications (NC3); continuity of Government;
and ballistic missile defense. As part of the evaluation, the
Secretary would be required to develop a plan to carry out such
evaluation and submit the plan to the congressional defense
committees not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act. This section would also provide a
waiver, on a case-by-case basis, for any program, weapon
system, or system of systems, that the Secretary certifies to
the congressional defense committees within 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act that all known supply chain
vulnerabilities have minimal consequences for the capability of
such systems.
This section would further require the Secretary to develop
strategies for mitigating the risks of supply chain
vulnerabilities identified in the course of the evaluation. The
Secretary would also be required to issue a Department of
Defense Instruction, or update such an Instruction, not later
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
establishing the prioritization of supply chain risk management
programs, including supply chain risk management threat
assessment reporting, to ensure that programs related to
nuclear weapons, NC3, continuity of Government, and ballistic
missile defense receive the highest priority of such supply
chain risk management programs and reporting.
Lastly, this section would direct the Secretary to
establish a requirement to carry out supply chain risk
management threat assessment collections and analyses under
acquisition and sustainment programs related to nuclear
weapons, NC3, continuity of government, and ballistic missile
defense programs and submit such requirement not later than 120
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Section 1668--Limitation on Pursuit of Certain Command and Control
Concept
This section would provide that the Secretary of the Air
Force may not award a contract for engineering and
manufacturing development for the Ground Based Strategic
Deterrent (GBSD) program that would result in a command and
control concept for such program that consists of less than 15
fixed launch control centers per missile wing unless the
Commander of U.S. Strategic Command determines that:
(1) the plans of the Secretary for a command and control
concept consisting of less than 15 fixed launch control centers
per missile wing are appropriate, meet requirements, and do not
contain excessive risk;
(2) the risks to schedules and costs from such concepts are
minimized and manageable;
(3) the strategy and plan of the Secretary for addressing
cyber threats for such concept are robust; and
(4) with respect to such concept, the Secretary has
established an appropriate process for considering and managing
trade-offs among requirements relating to survivability, long-
term operations and sustainment costs, procurement costs, and
military personnel needs.
This section would require the Commander to submit to the
Secretary and the congressional defense committees the
Commander's determination. If the Commander is unable to make
the determination under subsection (a), the Commander would be
required to submit the reasons for not making such
determination.
Finally, this section would state that the requirements of
this section shall not be construed to affect or prohibit the
ability of the Secretary to use fair and open competition
procedures in soliciting, evaluating, and awarding contracts
for this program.
The committee is concerned about cost, schedule, and
technology maturity risks in the GBSD program, particularly as
the program considers significant deviations from proven,
reliable, and survivable command and control concepts. The
committee believes this provision will enable the Commander of
U.S. Strategic Command to more closely track and assess how the
Air Force is implementing the Commander's requirements and
minimizing risk in this important nuclear modernization
program.
Section 1669--Procurement Authority for Certain Parts of
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Fuzes
This section would authorize $6.3 million of the funds made
available by this Act for Missile Procurement, Air Force, for
the procurement of certain commercially available parts of
intercontinental ballistic missile fuzes, notwithstanding
section 1502(a) of title 31, United States Code, under
contracts entered into under section 1645(a) of the Carl Levin
and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
Section 1670--Sense of Congress on Importance of Independent Nuclear
Deterrent of United Kingdom
This section would express the sense of Congress regarding
the independent nuclear deterrent of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Section 1671--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Mobile Variant
of Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent Missile
This section would provide that none of the funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made
available for fiscal years 2017 through 2019 may be obligated
or expended to retain the option for, or develop, a mobile
variant of the ground-based strategic deterrent missile.
This section would also repeal section 1664 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328).
Section 1672--Report on Impacts of Nuclear Proliferation
This section would express a Sense of Congress regarding
nuclear proliferation as a serious threat to national security
and require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees not later than 90 days after
enactment of this Act regarding the impacts of nuclear
proliferation, how the Department of Defense is contributing to
the current strategy to respond to the threat of nuclear
proliferation, and if and how nuclear proliferation is being
addressed in the Nuclear Posture Review and other pertinent
strategy reviews.
Subtitle F--Missile Defense Programs
Section 1681--Administration of Missile Defense and Defeat Programs
This section would amend chapter 9 of title 10, United
States Code, by creating a new section that would establish a
unified major force program for missile defense and missile
defeat programs. This section would require the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report on such programs for fiscal years
2019-2023, included with the budget materials submitted as part
of the President's budget request for such years.
This section would further require the Secretary to
transfer acquisition authority and total obligation authority
for each program covered by this section from the Missile
Defense Agency to a military department not later than the date
on which the President's budget is submitted for fiscal year
2020. The Secretary would also be required to submit a report,
not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, to the congressional defense committees on the plans for
such a transition.
Lastly, this section would change the term of the Director
of the Missile Defense Agency to 6 years and require that the
Director report to and be under the authority of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering.
Section 1682--Preservation of the Ballistic Missile Defense Capacity of
the Army
This section would prohibit the Army from obligating or
expending any funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act
or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2018 or any fiscal
year thereafter to demilitarize any Guidance Enhanced Missile
TBM (GEM-T) interceptor or remove any such interceptor from the
operational inventory of the Army until the date on which the
Secretary of the Army submits an evaluation to the
congressional defense committees of the ability of the Army to
meet warfighter requirements and operational needs if GEM-T
interceptors are removed from the operational inventory of the
Army. Such an evaluation shall consider whether the Army can
maintain such an inventory by either (1) recertifying GEM-T
interceptors either with or without modification; or (2)
developing, testing, and fielding a new low-cost interceptor
that can be added to the Army's inventory prior to the
retirement of GEM-T interceptors.
Section 1683--Modernization of Army Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense
Sensor
This section would direct the Secretary of the Army to
issue an acquisition strategy not later than April 15, 2018,
for a 360-degree lower tier air and missile defense sensor that
achieves initial operating capability by January 1, 2022. This
section would also establish the requirements, including the
use of competitive procedures, that must be satisfied by such
an acquisition strategy.
If the Secretary of the Army does not issue such an
acquisition strategy by April 15, 2018, the Secretary would no
longer be authorized to obligate or expend funding for the
lower tier air and missile defense sensor. Additionally, the
Secretary of Defense would be required to transfer the
acquisition responsibility for such a sensor to the Missile
Defense Agency, and its Director would be required to issue
such acquisition strategy by not later than December 15, 2018.
If the Secretary of Defense carries out such transfer, this
section would further require that after the 360-degree sensor
achieves milestone-B approval (or equivalent), but before such
sensor achieves milestone C approval (or equivalent), the
Secretary of Defense would transfer the responsibility to
procure such sensor and the funding authorized to carry out
such procurement from the Director of the Missile Defense
Agency to the Secretary of the Army.
Section 1684--Enhancement of Operational Test and Evaluation of
Ballistic Missile Defense System
This section would require that, not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of
the Missile Defense Agency, the Director of Operational Test
and Evaluation, the Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of
the Navy shall jointly ensure that the test plans of the
Integrated Master Test Plan of the ballistic missile defense
system prioritize the integration of missile defense
capabilities including Patriot, Aegis ballistic missile
defense, and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD).
The committee notes the recent emergency deployment of a
THAAD battery to the Republic of Korea to protect U.S. and
allied forces against the rapidly escalating ballistic missile
threat from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. While
the committee supports this deployment, it remains concerned
about substantial delays to the integration of and coordination
between THAAD and other critical forward-deployed integrated
air and missile defense systems, such as Patriot. The committee
believes it is imperative that the Department of Defense be
able to fully leverage forward-deployed missile defense assets
as part of one integrated system capable of discriminating,
tracking, and defeating advanced threats. Further, the
committee believes that field commanders should have access to
the full range of effectors and sensors to address any incoming
missile threat.
The committee will continue to monitor efforts by the
Department to fully integrate the various missile defense
capabilities that have been developed.
Additionally, the committee looks forward to receiving the
report on ``Integration and Interoperability of Allied Missile
Defense Capabilities'' required to be submitted not later than
December 31, 2017, by section 1676 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92).
Section 1685--Defense of Hawaii from North Korean Ballistic Missile
Attack
This section would state findings of Congress concerning
the North Korean ballistic missile threat, and the sense of
Congress concerning the improvement of the missile defense of
Hawaii. This section also would direct the Secretary of Defense
to protect the test and training operations of the Pacific
Missile Range Facility, and assess the siting and functionality
of a discrimination radar throughout the Hawaiian Islands
before assessing the feasibility of using existing missile
defense assets to improve the missile defense of Hawaii.
Further, this section would direct the Director of the
Missile Defense Agency to conduct a test to evaluate the
capability to defeat a simple intercontinental ballistic
missile (ICBM) using the standard missile 3 (SM-3) block IIA
interceptor and to develop a plan, as part of the integrated
master test plan for the ballistic missile defense system, to
defeat a complex ICBM threat, including a complex threat posed
by North Korean ICBMs.
Lastly, this section would require the Secretary of Defense
to submit a report to the congressional defense committees
within 120 days after the enactment of this Act that indicates
whether the nuclear deterrence capabilities of any adversary of
the United States would be undermined by a capability to defend
against North Korean ICBMs using SM-3 block IIA interceptors
and whether the Secretary has developed a strategy to address
any such effect upon an adversary's nuclear deterrent
capabilities.
Section 1686--Aegis Ashore Anti-Air Warfare Capability
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
use funds authorized by sections 101 and 201 of this Act or
otherwise made available for fiscal year 2018 for procurement,
research, development, test, and evaluation, to continue
development, procurement, and deployment of anti-air warfare
capabilities at each Aegis Ashore site in Romania and the
Republic of Poland.
This section would further require the Secretary to ensure
that such capabilities are deployed at the site in Romania by
not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act, and at the site in Poland by not later than 1 year after
the declaration of operational status of that site.
Any reprogramming or transfer made to carry out this
section would be carried out in accordance with established
procedures for reprogramming or transfers.
Section 1687--Iron Dome Short-Range Rocket Defense System, Israeli
Cooperative Missile Defense Program Codevelopment and Coproduction, and
Arrow 3 Testing
This section would make available $92.0 million of the
funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise
made available for fiscal year 2018 for procurement, defense-
wide, and for the Missile Defense Agency, for the Government of
the State of Israel for the procurement of Tamir interceptors
for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system.
This section would condition those funds subject to the
terms, conditions, and coproduction targets specified for
fiscal year 2018 in a bilateral international agreement
amending the ``Agreement Between the Department of Defense of
the United States of America and the Ministry of Defense of the
State of Israel Concerning Iron Dome Defense System
Procurement.''
This section would also require that not less than 30 days
prior to the initial obligation of these 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, the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, a certification
that such agreement is being implemented as provided in the
agreement and an assessment detailing any risks relating to the
implementation of such agreement.
This section would authorize $221.5 million and $287.3
million out of such funds as are authorized to be appropriated
by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2018
for procurement, defense-wide, and for the Missile Defense
Agency, for procurement and coproduction of the David's Sling
Weapon System and the Arrow 3 Upper Tier missile defense
system, respectively.
This section would further specify the terms and conditions
that shall be achieved by the Director of the Missile Defense
Agency and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics prior to the disbursement of the
authorized funds for David's Sling and Arrow 3. These terms and
conditions would include achievement of the knowledge points
and production readiness agreements within the current
bilateral research, development, test, and evaluation
agreements; matched funding by the Government of the State of
Israel; the successful negotiation of a bilateral international
agreement between the United States and the Government of
Israel; agreed coproduction targets based on the teaming
agreements for the codevelopment programs; and certain other
matters, including apportionment of the costs of any delays for
coproduction.
This section would also require the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to provide a
briefing to the congressional defense committees, the Committee
on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, on the plans for
improving the affordability of the David's Sling Weapon system
and the Arrow 3 Upper Tier Interceptor Program not later than
30 days after such plans are approved.
Lastly, this section would limit the funds to be authorized
by this Act or otherwise made available during fiscal year 2018
for the Missile Defense Agency for the testing of the Arrow 3
Upper Tier Development Program in ranges located in the United
States and expenses related to such testing to not more than
$105.0 million.
The committee recommends the authorization of these funds
for procurement of missile defense system batteries and
interceptors for the Government of Israel; however, it is not
establishing specific production goals or commitments.
Section 1688--Review of Proposed Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System
Contract
This section would prohibit the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency from changing the contracting strategy for the
systems integration, operations, and test of the Ground-based
Midcourse Defense (GMD) system until 30 days after the report
specified at the end of this section is submitted to the
congressional defense committees.
This section would require the Director of Cost Assessment
and Program Evaluation (CAPE) to conduct a review of the
contract for the systems integration, operations, and test of
the GMD system, and submit such review to the Under Secretary
of Defense for Research and Engineering and the Missile Defense
Executive Board.
Lastly, this section would direct the Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering and the Missile Defense
Executive Board to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees within 30 days after the review is received that
includes the review itself, without change, and any views and
recommendations of the Under Secretary and the Board on the
review.
The committee has previously imposed limits on the use of
lead system integrator (LSI) contracts. For example, section
807 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) prohibited the use of new
LSI contracts under most circumstances. The committee believes
that, generally, such contract arrangements have been of
limited utility. In the case of the contract for the Ground-
based Midcourse Defense System, which was in place at the time
section 807 of Public Law 109-364 was enacted, the committee is
concerned that while threats to the homeland are increasing,
not enough information is known about the potential risks of
disaggregating this contract. Moreover, the GMD system is in
the midst of robust and diverse modernization and test efforts.
Section 1689--Sense of Congress and Plan for Development of Space-Based
Sensor Layer for Ballistic Missile Defense
This section would express the sense of Congress on the
importance of a space-based missile defense sensor layer.
This section would require the Director of the Missile
Defense Agency, in coordination with the Secretary of the Air
Force and the heads of the appropriate Defense Agencies and
combat support agencies, to develop a space-based sensor layer
for ballistic missile defense that provides precision tracking
data of missiles beginning in the boost phase and continuing
throughout subsequent flight regimes; serves other
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance requirements;
and achieves an operational prototype payload at the earliest
practicable opportunity.
This section would require the Director to submit a plan
within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act to
the appropriate congressional committees that explains how the
Director will carry out the development of a space-based sensor
layer; the estimated costs of such a layer, including
development, acquisition, deployment, and operations and
sustainment; his assessment of the maturity of critical
technologies necessary to make such a sensor layer operational
and recommendations for any research and development
activities; his assessment of the capabilities that can be
provided by a space sensor layer that other ballistic missile
sensor layers cannot provide; how the Director will leverage
certain capabilities, including national technical means,
hosted payloads, small satellites, among others; and any other
matters the Director determines appropriate.
Section 1690--Sense of Congress and Plan for Development of Space-Based
Ballistic Missile Intercept Layer
This section expresses the sense of Congress regarding the
natural advantages of space systems and their potential
integration into ballistic missile defense systems. It directs
the Missile Defense Agency to submit a plan to develop a space-
based ballistic missile intercept layer and establishes a space
test bed for space-based ballistic missile intercept.
Section 1691--Limitation on Availability of Funds for Ground-Based
Midcourse Defense Element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System
This section would limit the funds authorized by this Act
for fiscal year 2018 for the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense
(GMD) System by $50 million until the Secretary of Defense
provides a written certification that risk of mission failure
of GMD enhanced kill vehicles due to foreign object debris has
been minimized; or if the certification cannot be made, a
briefing on the corrective measures that will be carried out to
minimize such risk.
Section 1692--Conventional Prompt Global Strike Weapon System
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to
plan to reach early operational capability for the conventional
prompt global strike weapon system by September 30, 2022.
Further, this section would limit the funds authorized by this
Act for fiscal year 2018 for the conventional prompt global
strike weapons system by 50% until the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs submits the report specified within this section to the
congressional defense committees.
Section 1693--Determination of Location of Continental United States
Interceptor Site
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
determine the location of a potential additional continental
United States interceptor site within 30 days after the
Ballistic Missile Defense Review is issued. The section would
also require the Secretary to consider specified contributing
factors when making such determination. Lastly, this section
would direct the Secretary to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees within 30 days after the site
determination is made.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 1695--Protection of Certain Facilities and Assets From Unmanned
Aircraft
This section would amend section 130i of title 10, United
States Code, to provide the authority to protect against a
threat posed by unmanned aircraft against certain military
ranges.
Section 1696--Use of Commercial Items in Distributed Common Ground
Systems
This section would require that procurement for each
Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) be carried out in
accordance with section 2377 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 1697--Independent Assessment of Costs Relating to Ammonium
Perchlorate
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to seek
to enter into a contract with a federally funded research and
development center (FFRDC) for an assessment of the costs to
the Department of Defense associated with Department
contractors and subcontractors utilizing a new supplier for
ammonium perchlorate in Department weapon systems that utilize
such materials. The Secretary would be required to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees containing the
FFRDC's assessment, unchanged, along with any comments or views
of the Secretary by not later than 120 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
Section 1698--Limitation and Business Case Analysis Regarding Ammonium
Perchlorate
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, acting
through the Director of the Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation, to conduct a business case analysis regarding the
options of the Federal Government to ensure a robust domestic
industrial base to supply ammonium perchlorate for use in solid
rocket motors and submit a report including such analysis to
the Comptroller General of the United States and the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by
March 1, 2018. This section would also require the Comptroller
General to review the report and provide a briefing to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives within 30 days after receiving the report. This
section would also prohibit the use of any funds authorized by
this Act for fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Defense to
be obligated or expended for the development or construction of
a new source for ammonium perchlorate until 45 days after the
report containing the business case analysis is submitted.
Section 1699--Industrial Base for Large Solid Rocket Motors and Related
Technologies
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Administrator of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, to develop a plan to ensure a robust
domestic industrial base for large solid rocket motors and
critical technologies, subsystems, components, and materials
related to such rocket motors. The Secretary would be required
to ensure the plan sustains not less than two domestic
suppliers of:
(1) large solid rocket motors;
(2) small liquid-fueled rocket engines;
(3) aeroshells for reentry vehicles or reentry bodies;
(4) strategic radiation-hardened microelectronics; and
(5) any other critical technologies, subsystems,
components, and materials within and relating to large solid
rocket motors that the Secretary determines appropriate.
The Secretary would be required to submit a report that
contains this plan and the views of the Secretary on various
related matters to pertinent congressional committees by
February 1, 2018.
Section 1699A--Pilot Program on Enhancing Information Sharing for
Security of Supply Chain
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
establish a pilot program by June 1, 2019, to enhance
information sharing with cleared defense contractors for the
purpose of ensuring supply chain security. This section would
require the Secretary to select 10 acquisition or sustainment
programs to participate in the pilot program and would further
provide criteria that the Secretary would be required to
satisfy when selecting the 10 programs.
This section would also require the Secretary to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees by March 1,
2018, that includes details on how the Secretary will establish
the pilot program and the identification of any legislative
action or administrative action required to provide the
Secretary with specific additional authorities required to
fully implement the pilot program.
Section 1699B--Commission to Assess the Threat To the United States
From Electromagnetic Pulse Attacks and Events
This section would establish a ``Commission to Assess the
Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attacks
and Events.'' Members of the Commission would be appointed by
the chairmen and ranking members of the House Committee on
Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Armed Services.
This section would state that the duties of the Commission
would be to review and assess various matters related to
electromagnetic pulse attacks and events, both natural and man-
made, that could be directed at or affect the United States
within the next 20 years. The Commission would be required to
submit a final report and interim briefing on its findings,
conclusions, and recommendations, and the Secretary of Defense
would be required to submit any views of the Secretary on the
Commission's final report. This section would authorize $3.0
million for the activities of the Commission, would terminate
the Commission 3 months after the Secretary submits views on
the Commission's report, and would state that the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) applies to the
Commission.
Finally, this section would repeal title XIV of the Floyd
D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2001 (Public Law 106-398).
Section 1699C--Pilot Program on Electromagnetic Spectrum Mapping
This section would establish a pilot program to assess the
viability of space-based mapping of the electromagnetic
spectrum used by the Department of Defense. It also directs an
interim and final briefing by the Secretary of the Defense
demonstrating how the Secretary plans to implement the pilot
program.
TITLE XVII--MATTERS RELATING TO SMALL BUSINESS PROCUREMENT
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Improving Transparency and Clarity for Small Businesses
Section 1701--Improving Reporting on Small Business Goals
This section would amend section 15(h) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(h)) to require the Small Business
Administration, using data already required to be collected
from contractors, to track companies that outgrow or no longer
qualify for a small business program, as well as identify how
prime contracting goals are met. The Small Business
Administration would provide this information in its annual
report, but only after relevant data systems have been modified
to facilitate data collection and reporting. The committee
expects the Office of Small Business Programs at the Department
of Defense to take a leadership role in ensuring that the
systems are appropriately modified.
Section 1702--Uniformity in Procurement Terminology
This section would amend section 3(m) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 632(m)) and section 15(j) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 644(j)) to update procurement terminology
consistent with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and with
terminology used in titles 10 and 41, United States Code.
Section 1703--Responsibilities of Commercial Market Representatives
This section would amend section 4(h) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 633(h)) to provide a clear definition of the
duties and responsibilities of the commercial market
representatives employed by the Small Business Administration.
Responsibilities would include providing assistance to small
business concerns seeking subcontracting opportunities on
Federal contracts and assisting prime contractors with meeting
the subcontracting obligations found in section 8(d) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)).
Section 1704--Responsibilities of Business Opportunity Specialists
This section would amend section 4(g) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 633(g)) to add a job description and reporting
hierarchy for business opportunity specialists of the Small
Business Administration.
Subtitle B--Women's Business Programs
Section 1711--Office of Women's Business Ownership
This section would amend section 29(g) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656(g)) to clarify the duties of the
Small Business Administration's Office of Women's Business
Ownership and require that the office establish an
accreditation program for its grant recipients.
Section 1712--Women's Business Center Program
This section would amend section 29 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 656), relating to the Women's Business Center
Program, to provide definitions of key terms relating to
eligibility; adjust the statutory cap on grants and requirement
for matching funds by $0.035 million; establish a mechanism for
use of unobligated grant funds at the end of the fiscal year;
and improve oversight of grant recipients. This section also
would require longer term planning, provide for continued
authorization levels, and improve the application process.
Section 1713--Matching Requirements Under Women's Business Center
Program
This section would amend section 29 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 656), relating to the Women's Business Center
Program, to limit the ability of the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration to waive the requirement for matching
funds by grant recipients. It also would provide that excess
non-Federal dollars obtained by a grant recipient will not be
subject to part 200 of title 2, Code of Federal Regulations, or
any successor regulations.
Subtitle C--SCORE Program
Section 1721--SCORE Reauthorization
This section would amend section 20 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 631 note) to authorize the SCORE program through
fiscal year 2019, and to permit the current level of
appropriations to extend through that period.
Section 1722--SCORE Program
This section would amend sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(b)-(c)) to rename the Service
Corps of Retired Executives program as the ``SCORE'' program.
This section would provide definitions for terms used in the
SCORE program, require an annual report on the effectiveness of
the program, and direct the Small Business Administration to
establish standards protecting the information of entrepreneurs
counseled by SCORE. Finally, this section would direct SCORE to
utilize webinars and electronic mentoring as a way to increase
SCORE's presence, and to engage in longer term strategic
planning.
Section 1723--Online Component
This section would amend section 8(c) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 637(c)) to require SCORE to utilize webinars and
electronic mentoring as a way to increase SCORE's presence. It
would further require SCORE to provide a report to the Senate
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and the House
Committee on Small Business regarding the results of the online
component requirement.
Section 1724--Study and Report on the Future Role of the SCORE Program
This section would require SCORE to engage in long-term
strategic planning for how the program will evolve to meet the
needs of America's entrepreneurs over the next 5 years.
Section 1725--Technical and Conforming Amendments
This section makes technical and conforming amendments to
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631) reflective of other
changes made in this title, such as the changing of name of
program from Services Corps of Retired Executives to SCORE.
Subtitle D--Small Business Development Centers Improvements
Section 1731--Use of Authorized Entrepreneurial Development Programs
This section would amend the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
631) by creating a new section to prohibit the Administrator of
the Small Business Administration (SBA) from using unauthorized
programs to deliver entrepreneurial development assistance. It
would further require the Administrator to issue a report to
the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the
Senate detailing all entrepreneurial development activities to
ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely and efficiently.
Section 1732--Marketing of Services
This section would amend section 21 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 648) by creating a new subsection to provide
more flexibility to Small Business Development Centers to
market and advertise their products and services.
Section 1733--Data Collection
This section would amend section 21(a)(3)(A) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(a)(3)(A)) to require the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration to
collaborate with the Association of Small Business Development
Centers, which acts as a resource partner, on the development
of data collection documents. It further creates a new
subsection that requires an annual report to the Committee on
Small Business of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate
on data collection activities and establishes a working group
on data collection.
Section 1734--Fees From Private Partnerships and Cosponsorships
This section would further amend Section 21(a)(3) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(a)(3)(C)), as amended by
section 104, to allow Small Business Development Centers to
collect fees for the operation of partnerships and
cosponsorships, which is currently not permissible.
Section 1735--Equity for Small Business Development Centers
This section would amend section 21(a)(4)(C)(v) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(a)(4)(C)(v)) to increase by
$100,000 the authorized funding level that could be used by the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration to pay the
Association of Small Business Development Centers for
accreditation services, which would help to ensure enhanced
Small Business Development Centers across the United States.
Section 1736--Confidentiality Requirements
This section would amend Section 21(a)(7)(A) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(a)(7)(A)) to prohibit the Small
Business Administration from sharing Small Business Development
Center client information with third parties. While the
collection of certain information enhances the ability to track
performance metrics, sharing sensitive information, such as the
name of a business, is not necessary.
Section 1737--Limitation on Award of Grants to Small Business
Development Centers
This section would amend Section 21 of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 648) by creating a new subsection that prohibits
entities other than higher education institutions from becoming
a Small Business Development Center grantee. It also would
provide an exception to those non-higher education entities
that are currently operating in the program. It would clarify
that Women's Business Centers may receive funds from Small
Business Development Center lead centers to act as subgrantees.
Subtitle E--Miscellaneous
Section 1741--Modification of Past Performance Pilot Program to Include
Consideration of Past Performance With Allies of the United States
This section would amend section 8(d)(17) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(17)) to require that the past
performance pilot program authorized in section 8(d) of the
Small Business Act allow small businesses to submit performance
of a contract for a sale of defense items to the Government of
a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally, the
Government of a major non-NATO ally, or the government of a
country with which the United States has a defense cooperation
agreement for consideration for a past performance rating. The
committee believes that this provision would improve the
ability of small businesses to compete for contracts with
Federal agencies.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
PURPOSE
Division B provides military construction, family housing,
and related authorities in support of the military departments
during fiscal year 2018. As recommended by the committee,
division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of
$10,221,942,000 for construction in support of the Active
Forces, Reserve Components, defense agencies, and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure fund for
fiscal year 2018.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND FAMILY HOUSING OVERVIEW
The Department of Defense requested $8,119,429,000 for
military construction, $255,867,000 for Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) activities, and $1,407,155,000 for family
housing for fiscal year 2018. The committee recommends
authorization of appropriations of $7,932,978,000 for military
construction, $290,867,000 for BRAC activities, and
$1,361,155,000 for family housing in fiscal year 2018. The
Department of Defense also requested $638,130,000 for Overseas
Contingency Operations military construction for fiscal year
2018. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations
of $636,942,000 for Overseas Contingency Operations military
construction within title XXIX.
Section 2001--Short Title
This section would cite division B of this Act as the
``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018.''
Section 2002--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required To Be
Specified by Law
This section would ensure that the authorizations provided
in titles XXI through XXVII and title XXIX of this Act shall
expire on October 1, 2020, or the date of the enactment of an
Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2021, whichever is later.
Section 2003--Effective Date
This section would provide that titles XXI through XXVII
and title XXIX of this Act shall take effect on October 1,
2017, or the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is
later.
TITLE XXI--ARMY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $920,394,000 for Army military
construction and $529,287,000 for family housing for fiscal
year 2018. The committee recommends authorization of
appropriations of $957,794,000 for military construction and
$511,287,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2018.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends an increase of funding for a
project contained in the budget request submitted by the
Department of the Army for military construction and family
housing. Specifically, this increase is:
(1) $10.0 million for Unspecified Minor Construction at
various worldwide locations. The budget request included $31.5
million in funding for this project. The committee recommends
$41.5 million, an increase of $10.0 million, for this project.
In addition, the committee recommends reduction of funding
for a project contained in the base budget request for military
construction and family housing and recommends a transfer of
this project to the Overseas Contingency Operations title of
this Act. This reductions is:
(1) $6.4 million for the Forward Operating Site at an
unspecified location in Turkey. The budget request included
$6.4 million to support the expansion of Life and Mission
support facilities for U.S. and host-nation personnel at a
Missile Defense forward operating site (FOS). The committee
supports this requirement. However, the committee recommends no
funds in the base budget, a reduction of $6.4 million, for this
project in order to transfer this project to Title XXIX,
Overseas Contingency Operations Military Construction.
Finally, the committee recommends the inclusion of funding
for several projects requested by the Department of the Army
but not contained in the budget request for military
construction and family housing. These increases include:
(1) $33.0 million for a Vehicle Maintenance Shop at Fort
Hood, Texas. The committee notes that this project was included
on a list of unfunded project requirements submitted by the
Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee recommends
$33.0 million, an increase of $33.0 million, for this project.
(2) $10.8 million for an Air Traffic Control Tower at Fort
Benning, Georgia. The committee notes that this project was
included on a list of unfunded project requirements submitted
by the Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee
recommends $10.8 million, an increase of $10.8 million, for
this project.
Army Power Projection Platforms
Army power projection platforms are critical to mission
readiness. Consistent review, sustainment, and timely
recapitalization are necessary to maintain airfield and rail
infrastructure at the required mission functional and readiness
ratings. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Army to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services, not later than March 1, 2018, detailing the Army's
power projection platform infrastructure investment strategy.
The briefing shall include an overview of the current mission
function and readiness ratings for the Infrastructure Mobility
Category at power project platforms as indicated in the
Installation Status Report and a current Army Power Projection
Platform Transportation Infrastructure Capability Assessment
Study with the Army's recommendations and associated cost
estimates for required infrastructure improvements.
Pohakuloa Training Area
The committee notes that the Pohakuloa Training Area
supports joint and combined arms training for military forces
in the Pacific region. Its 133,000 acres, cantonment area, and
airfield support company and battalion level live-fire training
using small-arms and crew-served weapons as well as artillery
and mortar live-fire training. The committee is aware that the
Department of the Army currently leases land from the State of
Hawaii that makes up a portion of the Pohakuloa Training Area.
The committee recognizes the important role that Pohakuloa
Training Area plays in support of building and sustaining Army
and Joint Force readiness and believes that ensuring continued
long-term access to Pohakuloa is in the Army's interests. While
the committee recognizes that the current lease is set to
expire in 2029, the committee believes the Army should begin
the process as soon as possible to ensure continued long-term
access to the land for training.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Army
construction projects for fiscal year 2018. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The State list contained in this Act is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2102--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year
2018.
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
make improvements to existing units of family housing for
fiscal year 2018.
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army
This section would authorize appropriations for Army
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601
of division D of this Act.
Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2014 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2014 (division B of Public Law 113-66) and authorize the
Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project.
Section 2106--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2015 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (division B of Public Law 113-291) to authorize the
Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project.
Section 2107--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2014
Project
This section would extend the authorization of a certain
project originally authorized by section 2101 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B
of Public Law 113-66) 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.
Section 2108--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2015
Projects
This section would extend the authorization of certain
projects originally authorized by section 2101 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B
of Public Law 113-291) 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. This
section was included in the President's request.
Section 2109--Additional Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal Year
2000, 2005, 2006, and 2007 Projects
This section provides additional authority to carry out
certain fiscal year 2000, 2005, 2006, and 2007 projects.
TITLE XXII--NAVY MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,616,665,000 for Navy
military construction and $411,964,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2018. The committee recommends authorization of
appropriations of $1,674,985,000 for military construction and
$403,964,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2018.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction of funding for a project
contained in the budget request submitted by the Department of
the Navy for military construction and family housing. This
reduction is:
(1) $45.19 million for Washington Navy Yard antiterrorism/
force protection at the Washington Navy Yard, District of
Columbia. The budget request included $60.0 million to enable
protection of critical assets from explosive threats, acoustic
and electronic surveillance and encroachment. The committee
believes the Navy should seek more fiscally responsible options
to address antiterrorism and force protection issues at the
Washington Navy Yard. The committee supports taking steps to
address force protection at Navy installations, but believes a
$45.19 million land acquisition for real property on which to
construct a museum is not a cost-effective or appropriate
approach. Therefore, the committee recommends $14.81 million, a
reduction of $45.19 million, for this project.
In addition, the committee recommends reduction of funding
for a project contained in the base budget request submitted by
the Department of the Navy for military construction and family
housing and recommends a transfer of this projects to the
Overseas Contingency Operations title of this Act. This
reduction is:
(1) $13.39 million for an Aircraft Parking Apron Expansion
at Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti. The budget request included $13.39
million to support transient and steady-state aircraft parking
requirements. The committee supports this requirement. However,
the committee recommends no funds in the base budget, a
reduction of $13.39 million, for this project in order to
transfer this project to Title XXIX, Overseas Contingency
Operations Military Construction.
Finally, the committee recommends the inclusion of funding
for several projects requested by the Department of the Navy
but not contained in the budget request for military
construction and family housing. These increases include:
(1) $47.6 million for an F-35 Simulator Facility at
Miramar, California. The committee notes that this project was
included on a list of unfunded project requirements submitted
by the Department of the Navy. Therefore, the committee
recommends $47.6 million, an increase of $47.6 million, for
this project.
(2) $43.3 million for a Combat Vehicle Warehouse at Albany,
Georgia. The committee notes that this project was included on
a list of unfunded project requirements submitted by the
Department of the Navy. Therefore, the committee recommends
$43.3 million, an increase of $43.3 million, for this project.
(3) $36.0 million for an Undersea Rescue Command Operations
Building at Coronado, California. The committee notes that this
project was included on a list of unfunded project requirements
submitted by the Department of the Navy. Therefore, the
committee recommends $36.0 million, an increase of $36.0
million, for this project.
Assessment of Department of Defense Equities for Operation and
Maintenance of the George P. Coleman Memorial Bridge, Yorktown, VA
The committee notes that the George P. Coleman Memorial
Bridge, spanning the York River between Yorktown and Gloucester
Point, Virginia, is critical to the efficient transport of
cargo to and from Naval Weapons Station Yorktown. The bridge's
unique double swing design allows transport vessels bound for
military installations upstream to reach their destinations
without delay. In 1996, the bridge became a toll bridge to
support construction of a new four-lane bridge to improve
traffic flow. Daily bridge commuters can pay upwards of $500
per year in toll fees, some of which may go to operate the
bridge's double swing span. The committee wishes to better
understand the benefit the Department is deriving from commuter
tolls and whether commuters are bearing an unfair burden.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services,
not later than March 1, 2018, that assesses the military value
of the span, including details on the utilization rate of the
span by the Department of Defense and other non-Department of
Defense up-river traffic. In addition, the briefing should
address the Department's discussions with local and State
stakeholders that have fiduciary responsibility for the
construction and management of the bridge, summarize any
Department of Defense authorities and opportunities to help
mitigate costs, and provide the Department's views whether such
mitigations are appropriate.
Red Hill Bulk Underground Fuel Storage Facility
The committee has previously noted the strategic value of
the Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility and the support
that it provides to U.S. Pacific Command operations in
peacetime and contingency. The committee continues to believe
that the Red Hill Underground Storage Facility is a national
strategic asset that supports combatant commander theater
security requirements, contingency operations, and routine
movements in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region. Despite its
importance, the committee notes that the facility faces long-
term challenges without adequate and timely resources to
recapitalize the storage tanks to ensure their long-term
integrity and environmental compliance.
The committee notes that in the committee report (H. Rept.
114-102) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016, the committee required the Director of
the Defense Logistics Agency to provide a briefing to the
committee 30 days after the approval of the best available and
practicable technology (BAPT) solutions and the proposed
recapitalization plan for the Red Hill Underground Storage
Facility. Similarly, in the committee report (H. Rept. 114-537)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017, the committee required the Secretary of the Navy to
brief the committee 30 days after the approval of the
completion of the Tank Upgrade Alternative decision document
for application of the BAPT that will be used for the Red Hill
Underground Storage Facility as well as address any updates to
the Ground Water Protection Plan. The committee believes these
briefing requirements remain valid and looks forward to
receiving these briefings within the specified timelines.
Finally, the committee believes it is important for the
Department of Defense to provide a detailed plan that
identifies funding requirements, scope of work, and timelines
for the application of the BAPT solutions that will be used in
the Red Hill Underground Storage Facility. The committee
expects that much of these details would be included in the
annual budget justification materials submitted to Congress in
support of the Department of Defense budget for a given fiscal
year, as well as the Future Years Defense Program. However, the
committee also believes that it is important the Department
make this information publicly available to ensure transparency
of the work being performed and ensure continued safe
operations while mitigating and preventing future fuel leaks at
the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility.
Requirements for Munitions and Explosives of Concern Clearance on Guam
The committee recognizes the efforts the Navy has
undertaken to improve communication with stakeholders regarding
the Explosive Safety Submission (ESS) requirements for
Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) clearance on military
construction projects on Guam. The committee is supportive of
these efforts and encourages the Navy to continue to hold
regular sessions with stakeholders to solicit feedback on the
ESS and its exemptions, consistency of application across
projects, and impacts on military construction projects. The
committee believes a key element to continuing to improve
communication with stakeholders is to hire a full-time civilian
employee to oversee, coordinate, and administer the
implementation of the ESS and its associated amendments. The
committee understands that the Navy has still not filled such a
position and encourages the Navy to expedite the hiring process
and consider temporarily assigning military or civilian
personnel to fill that role in the interim. In addition, the
committee believes the establishment of a Quality Assurance
Surveillance Program would help better standardize the quality
assurance requirements and streamline the implementation of the
written requirements related to MEC clearance in support of
military construction projects on Guam.
As this process has developed, the preponderance of
possible hazardous explosives found at construction sites on
Guam have been determined to be nonhazardous.
With that in mind, the committee believes the Navy should
continue to periodically revisit the ESS and consider issuing
additional exemptions that reflect stakeholder input and
conditions on the ground to balance the cost, schedule, and
efficacy of MEC clearance in support of military construction
projects on Guam. The committee also notes that the Navy has
not updated its MEC Likelihood Map for Guam to reflect data
that has been gathered since the ESS was initially approved in
2010. The committee believes the Navy should update this
document to better inform the ESS and additional exemptions to
better inform MEC clearance on Guam. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services not later than September 30, 2017,
on the status of the Navy's MEC response on Guam. Specifically
the briefing should provide an update on the Navy's efforts to
hire a full-time individual to oversee, coordinate, and
administer the implementation of the ESS on Guam; how the Navy
is addressing the Quality Assurance Surveillance Program
requirements for MEC clearance on Guam; its plans to update the
MEC Likelihood Map for Guam; and the data on hazardous versus
nonhazardous anomalies detected, to include inoperable
munitions, on Guam.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Navy
construction projects for fiscal year 2018. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The State list contained in this Act is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2202--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Department of the
Navy for fiscal year 2018.
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
make improvements to existing units of family housing for
fiscal year 2018.
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy
This section would authorize appropriations for Navy
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601
of division D of this Act.
Section 2205--Extension of Authorizations for Certain Fiscal Year 2014
Projects
This section would extend the authorization of certain
projects originally authorized by section 2201 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B
of Public Law 113-66) 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.
Section 2206--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2015
Projects
This section would extend the authorization of certain
projects originally authorized by section 2201 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B
of Public Law 113-291) 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.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,738,796,000 for Air Force
military construction and $403,386,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2018. The committee recommends authorization of
appropriations of $1,610,774,000 for military construction and
$383,386,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2018.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction of funding for a project
contained in the budget request submitted by the Department of
the Air Force for military construction and family housing.
This reduction is:
(1) $130.0 million for the Presidential Aircraft Recap
Complex at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. This budget request
included $254.0 million to construct a complex to support the
beddown of the new aircraft for the Presidential Airlift Group.
The committee supports the requirement for this project and
provides the full project authorization of $254.0 million
included in the budget request. However, the committee supports
the authorization of appropriations in an amount equivalent to
the ability of the Department to execute in the year of the
authorization for appropriations. For this project, the
committee believes that the Department of Defense has exceeded
its ability to fully expend the funding in fiscal year 2018.
Therefore, the committee recommends $124.0 million, a reduction
of $130.0 million, for this project.
In addition, the committee also recommends reduction of
funding for several projects contained in the base budget
request submitted by the Department of the Air Force for
military construction and family housing and recommends a
transfer of these projects to the Overseas Contingency
Operations title of this Act. These reductions include:
(1) $27.325 million for a Guardian Angel Operations
Facility at Aviano Air Base, Italy. The budget request included
$27.325 million to support the relocation of search and rescue
operations to Aviano Air Base, Italy. The committee supports
this requirement. However, the committee recommends no funds in
the base budget, a reduction of $27.325 million, for this
project in order to transfer this project to Title XXIX,
Overseas Contingency Operations Military Construction.
(2) $25.977 million for a 216 Person Dormitory at Incirlik
Air Base, Turkey. The budget request included $25.977 million
to construct a dormitory to support security forces and
required response times. The committee supports this
requirement. However, the committee recommends no funds in the
base budget, a reduction of $25.977 million, for this project
in order to transfer this project to Title XXIX, Overseas
Contingency Operations Military Construction.
(3) $15.0 million for a Consolidated Squadron Operations
Facility at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar. The budget request
included $15.0 million to support the consolidation of
administration and management functions from separated
temporary facilities into a consolidated permanent facility
that is properly sized and configured. The committee supports
this requirement. However, the committee recommends no funds in
the base budget, a reduction of $15.0 million, for this project
in order to transfer this project to Title XXIX, Overseas
Contingency Operations Military Construction.
The committee also recommends the inclusion of funding for
several projects requested by the Department of the Air Force
but not contained in the budget request for military
construction and family housing. These increases include:
(1) $44.0 million for Dormitories (288 RM) at Eglin Air
Force Base, Florida. The committee notes that this project was
included on a list of unfunded project requirements submitted
by the Department of the Air Force. Therefore, the committee
recommends $44.0 million, an increase of $44.0 million, for
this project.
(2) $17.0 million for a Fire Station at Tyndall Air Force
Base, Florida. The committee notes that this project was
included on a list of unfunded project requirements submitted
by the Department of the Air Force. Therefore, the committee
recommends $17.0 million, an increase of $17.0 million, for
this project.
(3) $9.3 million for a Fire Station at Kirtland Air Force
Base, New Mexico. The committee notes that this project was
included on a list of unfunded project requirements submitted
by the Department of the Air Force. Therefore, the committee
recommends $9.3 million, an increase of $9.3 million, for this
project.
Finally, the budget request submitted by the Department of
the Air Force for military construction and family housing
included $269.0 million for a KC-46A Main Operating Base 4 at
an unspecified location. The committee notes that on January
12, 2017, the Secretary of the Air Force announced Joint Base
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey, and Travis Air Force Base,
California, as preferred alternatives for KC-46A Main Operating
Base 4, with 24 primary assigned aircraft at each base.
Furthermore, on June 5, 2017, the Secretary of the Air Force
announced the decision to sequence the aircraft to Joint Base
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst with first aircraft arrival in fiscal
year 2021, and to Travis Air Force Base with first aircraft
arriving fiscal year 2023, pending KC-46 delivery schedule.
Based on these announcements, the Air Force provided the
committee with a list of specific military construction
projects to facilitate this basing action. Therefore, the
committee recommends a reduction of $269.0 million for the KC-
46A Main Operating Base 4 project at an unspecified location
and the inclusion of funding for several projects for the KC-
46A Main Operating Base 4 requested by the Department of the
Air Force but not contained in the budget request for military
construction and family housing. These projects include:
(1) $107.0 million for a KC-46A Aircraft 3-Bay Maintenance
Hangar at Travis Air Force Base, California;
(2) $72.0 million for a KC-46A Two-Bay General Purpose
Maintenance Hangar at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New
Jersey;
(3) $18.0 million for a KC-46A ADAL B2324 Regional MX
Training Facility at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New
Jersey;
(4) $17.0 million for a KC-46A Alter Apron & Fuel Hydrants
project at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey;
(5) $9.0 million for a KC-46A Alter Bldgs for Ops and TFI
AMU-AMXS project at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New
Jersey;
(6) $7.7 million for a KC-46A Alter B811 Corrosion Control
Hangar project at Travis Air Force Base, California;
(7) $6.9 million for KC-46A ADAL B1816 for Supply project
at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey;
(8) $6.4 million for a KC-46A Alter B181/185/187 Squad Ops/
AMU project at Travis Air Force Base, California;
(9) $6.1 million for KC-46A ADAL B2319 for Boom Operator
Trainer project at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New
Jersey;
(10) $5.8 million for a KC-46A Alter Facilities for
Maintenance project at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New
Jersey;
(11) $4.1 million for a KC-46A Aerospace Ground Equipment
Storage project at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New
Jersey;
(12) $3.3 million for a KC-46A ADAL B3209 for Fuselage
Trainer project at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New
Jersey;
(13) $2.3 million for KC-46A Add to B1837 for Body Tanks
Storage project at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New
Jersey;
(14) $2.0 million for KC-46A ADAL B1749 for ATGL & LST
Servicing project at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New
Jersey;
(15) $1.4 million for KC-46A ADAL B14 Fuel Cell Hangar
project at Travis Air Force Base, California.
Air Force Dormitory Master Plan
The committee is aware that the Air Force maintains 866
permanent party dormitories world-wide and is in the process of
developing an updated Dormitory Master Plan. The committee also
understands the Air Force is reviewing its current
unaccompanied housing strategy and policy as part of a working
group led by senior Air Force enlisted personnel, with an
emphasis on sustaining and improving the existing dormitory
inventory. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Air Force to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services by March 1, 2018, on the results of the senior
Airmen working group and the Air Force's updated Dormitory
Master Plan. The briefing should include the total amount of
military construction, sustainment, restoration, and
modernization funding required to recapitalize unaccompanied
dormitories by an Air Force determined date and the annual
sustainment funding required to maintain unaccompanied
dormitories. The briefing should also include an analysis of
the feasibility of privatizing dormitories in some locations to
speed improvements and reduce costs.
Lincoln Laboratory Recapitalization
The committee recognizes the critical role that Lincoln
Laboratory plays in conducting research and developing
technologies that address critical national security
challenges. The committee notes that the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328)
included $40.0 million, as requested by the Air Force, for the
planning and design of two military construction projects to
support the recapitalization of facilities to support Lincoln
Laboratory. The committee understands that the Air Force
intends to award an architectural and engineering contract for
the design of these facilities by early October 2017.
Furthermore, the committee notes that the Future Years Defense
Program submitted with the budget request for fiscal year 2018
has $225.0 million programmed for the construction of a West
Laboratory Compound Semi-Conductor Lab/Microelectronics
Integration Facility in fiscal year 2019, and $216.0 million
programmed for a West Laboratory Engineering Prototype Facility
in fiscal year 2022. The committee commends the Secretary of
the Air Force for programming these investments and for
committing to the recapitalization of the facilities and
Lincoln Laboratory. The committee supports these important
recapitalization efforts in order to keep the Department of
Defense and the military services at the cutting edge of
technology.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force
construction projects for fiscal year 2018. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The State list contained in this Act is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2302--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal
year 2018.
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to make improvements to existing units of family housing for
fiscal year 2018.
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force
This section would authorize appropriations for Air Force
military construction at the levels identified in section 4601
of division D of this Act.
Section 2305--Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2017 Projects
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2301 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017 (division B of Public Law 114-328) and authorize the
Secretary of the Air Force to make certain modifications to the
scope of previously authorized construction projects.
Section 2306--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2015
Projects
This section would extend the authorization of certain
projects originally authorized by section 2301 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B
of Public Law 113-291) 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.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $3,114,913,000 for defense
agency military construction and $62,518,000 for family housing
for fiscal year 2018. The committee recommends authorization of
appropriations of $2,763,832,000 for military construction and
$62,518,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2018.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction of funding for several
projects contained in the budget request submitted by the
Department of Defense for military construction and family
housing. These reductions include:
(1) $181.0 million for Next NGA West (N2W) Complex at St.
Louis, Missouri. The budget request included $381.0 million to
construct the first phase of a new complex for the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency as it relocates to a new
location in St. Louis, Missouri. The committee is aware that a
$439.1 million second phase is also required to support the
relocation. The committee believes it is more appropriate to
authorize the full scope of a military construction requirement
and provide incremental funding as opposed to bifurcating a
construction project into separate phases. Therefore, the
committee recommends combining the two phases into a single
project and provides a total authorization of $812.0 million
for the Next NGA West (N2W) Complex in St. Louis, Missouri.
However, the committee supports providing an authorization of
appropriations for fiscal year 2018 only in an amount
equivalent to the ability of the National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency to execute in the year of the authorization
of appropriations. Therefore, the committee recommends $200.0
million, a reduction of $181.0 million, for this project in
fiscal year 2018.
(2) $100.0 million for the Hospital Replacement at Fort
Leonard Wood, Missouri. The budget request includes $250.0
million to construct the first phase of a replacement hospital
at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. The committee is aware that a
$135.0 million second phase is also required to support the
medical requirements at Fort Leonard Wood. The committee
believes it is more appropriate to authorize the full scope of
a military construction requirement and provide incremental
funding as opposed to bifurcating a construction project into
separate phases. Therefore, the committee recommends combining
the two phases into a single project and provides a total
authorization of $381.3 million for the Hospital Replacement at
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. However, the committee supports
providing an authorization of appropriations for fiscal year
2018 only in an amount equivalent to the ability of the Defense
Health Agency to execute in the year of the authorization of
appropriations. Therefore, the committee recommends $150.0
million, a reduction of $100.0 million, for this project in
fiscal year 2018.
(3) $11.941 million for the Blood Processing Center
Replacement at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. The budget request
included $11.941 million to construct a new blood processing
center at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. The committee notes that
a project was also included in the budget request to construct
a hospital replacement at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. The
committee believes there is a valid requirement for a new blood
processing center, but believes the Defense Health Agency
should consider including it in the scope of the new hospital
as opposed to constructing it as a separate, stand-alone
project. Therefore, the committee recommends no funds, a
reduction of $11.941 million, for this project.
(4) $8.3 million for a Blood Processing Center at Fort
Bliss, Texas. The budget requests includes $8.3 million to
construct a new blood processing center at Fort Bliss, Texas.
The committee notes that a project was also included in the
budget request to provide an authorization of appropriations
for the 8th increment for a hospital replacement project at
Fort Bliss. The committee believes there is a valid requirement
for a new blood processing center, but believes the Defense
Health Agency should consider including it in the scope of the
new hospital as opposed to constructing it as a separate,
stand-alone project. Therefore, the committee recommends no
funds, a reduction of $8.3 million, for this project.
(5) $10.0 million for Contingency Construction at
Unspecified Worldwide Locations. The budget request included
$10.0 million to support contingency construction requirements
not previously authorized by law. The committee notes that the
Department of Defense has not requested a military construction
project using funds from this account since 2008. In addition,
the committee notes that unobligated balances remain available
in the military construction account and other authorities
exist to construct projects that are in keeping with a national
security interest. As such, the committee recommends no funds,
a reduction of $10.0 million, for this program.
In addition, the committee recommends reduction of funding
for a project contained in the base budget request for military
construction and family housing and recommends a transfer of
this project to the Overseas Contingency Operations title of
this Act. This reduction is:
(1) $22.4 million to Construct Hydrant System at Naval Air
Station Sigonella, Italy. The budget request included $22.4
million to replace an aging and inadequate jet fuel hydrant
system and piping loop needed to support U.S. and North
Atlantic Treaty Organization aircraft. The committee supports
this requirement. However, the committee recommends no funds in
the base budget, a reduction of $22.4 million, for this project
in order to transfer this project to Title XXIX, Overseas
Contingency Operations Military Construction.
Finally, the committee recommends an increase of funding
for a project for military construction and family housing.
Specifically, this increase is:
(1) $10.0 million for the Missile Defense Agency Military
Construction Planning and Design activities for an East Coast
site for homeland missile defense. The budget request did not
include funding for this project. The committee recommends
$10.0 million, an increase of $10.0 million, for this project.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized defense
agencies' construction projects for fiscal year 2018. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this Act is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2402--Authorized Energy Resiliency and Conservation Projects
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out energy conservation projects valued at a cost greater
than $3.0 million at the amounts authorized for each project at
a specific location. This section would also authorize the sum
total of projects across various locations, each project of
which is less than $3.0 million.
Section 2403--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies
This section would authorize appropriations for defense
agencies' military construction at the levels identified in
section 4601 of division D of this Act.
Section 2404--Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2017 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2401(b) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (division B of Public Law 114-328) and
authorize the Secretary of Defense to make certain
modifications to the scope of a previously authorized
construction project.
Section 2405--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2014
Projects
This section would extend the authorization of certain
projects originally authorized by section 2401 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (division B
of Public Law 113-66) 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.
Section 2406--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2015
Projects
This section would extend the authorization of certain
projects originally authorized by section 2401 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B
of Public Law 113-291) 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.
TITLE XXV--INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $154,000,000 for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program (NSIP)
for fiscal year 2018. The committee recommends authorization of
appropriations of $152,932,000 for NSIP for fiscal year 2018.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends an increase of funding for a
project contained in the budget request submitted by the
Department of Defense for the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program. Specifically,
this increase is:
(1) $23.932 million for the NATO Security Investment
Program. The budget request includes $154.0 for the NATO
Security Investment Program. The committee recommends $177.932
million, an increase of $23.932 million, for this program.
Infrastructure Capabilities, Capacity, and Investments
Elsewhere in this report, the committee notes its position
that there is operational and strategic value in maintaining
forward presence of U.S. military forces in the U.S. European
Command area of responsibility. As the Department of Defense
considers what infrastructure investments may be required in
Europe to support enduring and rotational U.S. forces, the
committee believes it is important to identify the
infrastructure capacity, capabilities, and planned investments
of our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) partners.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 1, 2018, on the capability and capacity of the current
and planned European infrastructure available to the Department
of Defense by our NATO allies and partners. The briefing should
address the current and planned capabilities and capacity of
our NATO allies' and partners' infrastructure (to include
transportation and logistics infrastructure); an assessment of
any capability and capacity gaps that limit military exercises
and operations with NATO allies and partners; and planned
investments.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
Program
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section 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 Act
and the amount collected from the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization as a result of construction previously financed by
the United States.
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO
This section would authorize appropriations for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program at the
levels identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Host Country In-Kind Contributions
Section 2511--Republic of Korea Funded Construction Projects
This section would authority the Secretary of Defense to
accept four military construction projects totaling $105.5
million pursuant to agreement with the Republic of Korea for
required in-kind contributions.
Section 2512--Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2017 Projects
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2511 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2017 (division B of Public Law 114-328) and authorize the
Secretary of Defense to make certain modifications to the scope
of previously authorized construction projects.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $574,661,000 for military
construction of National Guard and Reserve facilities for
fiscal year 2018. The committee recommends authorization of
appropriations of $772,661,000 for military construction for
fiscal year 2018.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends the inclusion of funding for
several projects requested by the Department of the Army for
the Army Reserve that were not contained in the budget request
for military construction and family housing. These increases
include:
(1) $30.0 million for a Reserve Center at Joint Base Lewis-
McChord, Washington. The committee notes that this project was
included on a list of unfunded project requirements submitted
by the Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee
recommends $30.0 million, an increase of $30.0 million, for
this project.
(2) $26.0 million for a Reserve Center at Fort Buchanan,
Puerto Rico. The committee notes that this project was included
on a list of unfunded project requirements submitted by the
Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee recommends
$26.0 million, an increase of $26.0 million, for this project.
In addition, the committee recommends the inclusion of
funding for several projects requested by the Department of the
Army for the Army National Guard that were not contained in the
budget request for military construction and family housing.
These increases include:
(1) $15.0 million for a Readiness Center Add/Alt at Fort
Belvoir, Virginia. The committee notes that this project was
included on a list of unfunded project requirements submitted
by the Department of the Army. Therefore, the committee
recommends $15.0 million, an increase of $15.0 million, for
this project.
(2) $32.0 million for an Aircraft Maintenance Hangar at
Springfield, Missouri. The committee notes that this project
was included on a list of unfunded project requirements
submitted by the Department of the Army. Therefore, the
committee recommends $32.0 million, an increase of $32.0
million, for this project.
(3) $9.0 million for an Enlisted Barracks Transient
Training at Mission Training Center Gowen, Idaho. The committee
notes that this project was included on a list of unfunded
project requirements submitted by the Department of the Army.
Therefore, the committee recommends $9.0 million, an increase
of $9.0 million, for this project.
In addition, the committee recommends the inclusion of
funding for several projects requested by the Department of the
Air Force for the Air Force Reserves that were not contained in
the budget request for military construction and family
housing. These increases include:
(1) $32.0 million for a Consolidated Mission Complex, Phase
2 at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia. The committee notes that
this project was included on a list of unfunded project
requirements submitted by the Department of the Air Force.
Therefore, the committee recommends $32.0 million, an increase
of $32.0 million, for this project.
(2) $3.1 million for a Munitions Training/Admin Facility at
Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, Texas. The
committee notes that this project was included on a list of
unfunded project requirements submitted by the Department of
the Air Force. Therefore, the committee recommends $3.1
million, an increase of $3.1 million, for this project.
(3) $9.0 million for an Indoor Small Arms Range at
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, Minnesota. The
committee notes that this project was included on a list of
unfunded project requirements submitted by the Department of
the Air Force. Therefore, the committee recommends $9.0
million, an increase of $9.0 million, for this project.
Finally, the committee recommends the inclusion of funding
for several projects requested by the Department of the Air
Force for the Air National Guard that were not contained in the
budget request for military construction and family housing.
These increases include:
(1) $8.0 million to Construct Small Arms Range at Hulman
Regional Airport, Indiana. The committee notes that this
project was included on a list of unfunded project requirements
submitted by the Department of the Air Force. Therefore, the
committee recommends $8.0 million, an increase of $8.0 million,
for this project.
(2) $8.0 million to Construct Small Arms Range at Tulsa
International Airport, Oklahoma. The committee notes that this
project was included on a list of unfunded project requirements
submitted by the Department of the Air Force. Therefore, the
committee recommends $8.0 million, an increase of $8.0 million,
for this project.
(3) $8.0 million to Construct Small Arms Range at Jackson
International Airport, Mississippi. The committee notes that
this project was included on a list of unfunded project
requirements submitted by the Department of the Air Force.
Therefore, the committee recommends $8.0 million, an increase
of $8.0 million, for this project.
(4) $8.0 million to Construct Small Arms Range at Dane
County Regional Airport/Truax Field, Wisconsin. The committee
notes that this project was included on a list of unfunded
project requirements submitted by the Department of the Air
Force. Therefore, the committee recommends $8.0 million, an
increase of $8.0 million, for this project.
(5) $1.9 million for an Addition to Building 764 for
Weapons Release at Fort Wayne International Airport, Indiana.
The committee notes that this project was included on a list of
unfunded project requirements submitted by the Department of
the Air Force. Therefore, the committee recommends $1.9
million, an increase of $1.9 million, for this project.
(6) $8.0 million to Construct Small Arms Range at
Rickenbacker International Airport, Ohio. The committee notes
that this project was included on a list of unfunded project
requirements submitted by the Department of the Air Force.
Therefore, the committee recommends $8.0 million, an increase
of $8.0 million, for this project.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Project Authorizations and Authorizations of Appropriations
Section 2601--Authorized Army National Guard Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Army
National Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2018. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The State list contained in this Act is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2602--Authorized Army Reserve Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Army
Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2018. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The State list contained in this Act is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2603--Authorized Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve
Construction and Land Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Navy
Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve construction projects for
fiscal year 2018. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis. The State list contained in
this Act is intended to be the binding list of the specific
projects authorized at each location.
Section 2604--Authorized Air National Guard Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Air
National Guard construction projects for fiscal year 2018. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The State list contained in this Act is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2605--Authorized Air Force Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would contain the list of authorized Air Force
Reserve construction projects for fiscal year 2018. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The State list contained in this Act is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2606--Authorization of Appropriations, National Guard and
Reserve
This section would authorize appropriations for the
National Guard and Reserve military construction at the levels
identified in section 4601 of division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Other Matters
Section 2611--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2015 Project
This section would modify the authority provided by section
2602 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2015 (division B of Public Law 113-291) to authorize the
Secretary of the Army to make certain modifications to the
scope of a previously authorized construction project.
Section 2612--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2014
Projects
This section would extend the authorization of certain
projects originally authorized by sections 2602, 2604, and 2605
of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2014 (division B of Public Law 113-66) 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.
Section 2613--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2015
Projects
This section would extend the authorization of certain
projects originally authorized by sections 2602 and 2604 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
(division B of Public Law 113-291) 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.
TITLE XXVII--BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $255,867,000 for activities
related to Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) activities. The
committee recommends authorization of appropriations of
$290,867,000 for BRAC activities.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends an increase of funding for a
project contained in the budget request submitted by the
Department of the Navy for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
activities from legacy rounds. Specifically, this increase is:
(1) $35.0 million for Base Realignment and Closure, Navy,
at various worldwide locations. The budget request contained
$93.474 million in funding for this project. The committee
recommends $128.474 million, an increase of $35.0 million, for
this project.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2701--Authorization of Appropriations for Base Realignment and
Closure Activities Funded Through Department of Defense Base Closure
Account
This section would authorize appropriations for ongoing
activities that are required to implement the Base Realignment
and Closure activities authorized by the Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law
101-510), at the levels identified in section 4601 of division
D of this Act.
Section 2702--Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) Round
This section would affirm that nothing in this Act shall be
construed to authorize an additional Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) round.
TITLE XXVIII--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Air Training Ranges in the Department of Defense
The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force is
in the process of developing an Enterprise Range Plan (ERP) to
support and implement the live portion of the Air Force
Operational Training Infrastructure Flight Plan. The ERP's ten-
year service-wide investment strategy addresses current
capabilities and training gaps for aircrew, mission crews, and
battlefield airmen across the live training spectrum. The ERP
proposes the establishment of 6 regional CONUS training ranges,
down from 32 Air Force training ranges currently. This regional
approach to investment in range capabilities addresses concerns
with the airspace and simulated threat environment needed to
train aircrews in 5th Generation weapon systems and advanced
munitions. The Air Force is including a comprehensive review of
the requirements for advanced training to include realistic
live simulations of threats, targets, and air adversaries, as
well as the efficiencies gained by proximity of regional ranges
to flying units, the availability of air refueling and command-
and-control assets, and instrumentation and range integration.
The Air Force further views regionalization as not just a 5th
Generation solution but one that can provide more opportunities
for sophisticated team training, optimize 4th and 5th
Generation integration opportunities, while continuing
investment and procurement of 5th Generation training
equipment.
The committee commends the Air Force for the frank
assessment that current training systems for Contested,
Degraded & Operationally Limited (CDO) operations have not kept
pace with adversary capabilities, that training is degraded by
lack of joint communication, review, and range control, and
that encroachment of frequencies, airspace, and land continues
to challenge the live enterprise. The committee is aware that
the other military services face similar air combat training
shortfalls which affect the readiness of their forces to
simulate the range of threats posed by potential adversaries.
These challenges are increased by reduced funding for
electronic warfare (EW) range equipment such as mobile Advanced
Long Range Strategic threat systems, an Advanced Medium Range
Tactical Threat System (Double Digit Replicators) and legacy
threat emitters to provide, along with simulated Integrated Air
Defense System, the density to be expected in a contested
environment.
Addressing these challenges, the committee notes that the
Air Force budget request for fiscal year 2018 includes $8.9
million to start development of versions 3 and 4 of an Advanced
Radar Threat System (ARTS) for combat training ranges,
leveraging in part the Navy's program system development and
demonstration of previous versions. The systems being developed
by the Air Force will provide their combat training ranges with
highly advanced surface-to-air threat simulation capabilities
replicating current tactical highly mobile threats that, with
the fielding of Joint Threat Emitters (JTE), will ensure
comprehensive EW training for aircrews of 5th Generation weapon
systems for all the services.
The committee is concerned, though, that current funding
plans at the six regional CONUS ranges for the installation of
ARTS and JTEs systems will not result in an operational
capability until 2026. Given the concerns of military leaders
about the readiness and preparedness of current forces to deter
or respond to the capabilities of near-peer competitors, the
committee believes the extended funding profile adds more risk
to readiness. In addition, the Air Force training systems may
not be compatible with the Navy's Electronic Warfare
Infrastructure Improvement Project intended to develop full
power, multi-function, threat emitters and threat simulators.
The committee is also concerned that the ERP will only
partially satisfy the need for expanded range capabilities and
training space for each of the Services in order to support 5th
Generation weapon systems and advanced munitions. In addition,
the new threat simulation assets being developed by each
Service are expensive to procure and operate. The committee is
aware that the concept of regional ranges in the ERP can
provide advanced training access to the largest number of users
based on proximity and regional density. Properly executed
regionalization for all the services can vastly improve the
ability of units to access advanced training from home station
with a Total Force and Joint approach.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to review the efforts of the Air Force to date and to submit a
briefing to the committee no later than December 1, 2017, on
the following items:
(1) A review of the aircrew training requirements for 5th
generation weapons systems and advanced munitions for each
service and the current capabilities of air ranges operated by
the service to meet emerging needs;
(2) To what extent the Air Force ERP, as linked to the
broader Operational Training Infrastructure Flight Plan, can
meet the aviation training requirements for the other services;
(3) The value of expanding the development of the ERP to
incorporate the training needs of the other services;
(4) A review of costs and benefits of combining service
development efforts and accelerating the acquisition timeline
for new combat air training systems;
(5) An assessment of the risk to aircrew readiness as a
result of deferred funding for investments in a complete array
of threat simulation systems; and
(6) A review of the extent to which the Secretary of
Defense can improve the effectiveness and efficient use of
resources by promoting a policy for the collaborative and joint
use of airspace range ranges by all the Services.
Aircraft Stationing, Basing, and Laydown Process
The committee believes that the military departments'
selection process for stationing, basing, and laydown decisions
for units and missions should be transparent, repeatable, and
defendable in nature. This includes transparency during the
initial evaluation of basing criteria at the installation
level. While the military departments each have their own
unique requirements that may require variations in their
stationing, basing, and laydown decisions, the committee notes
that the capacity of a military installation, its associated
training areas, and their ability to support mission
requirements remain the primary drivers in the process. The
committee believes this emphasis on mission requirements and
capacity is appropriate and believes that continued engagement
with the congressional defense committees at multiple points
throughout each of the military services' stationing, basing,
and laydown processes is critical.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report to the House Committee on Armed Services by January 31,
2018, on each military service's existing process for
stationing, basing, and laydown decisions for the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter. Specifically, the report should detail how the
current selection criteria take into consideration elements
such as capacity, availability, and access to training areas
and whether military requirements may drive changes to the
criteria for future stationing, basing, or laydown decisions.
The report shall address how each military service assesses the
importance of having immediate access to training areas and how
each service accounts for the impact of weather at the training
areas. Finally, the report shall also address how current
basing criteria consider the capacity, availability, and access
to training areas in support of the other services or to host
joint exercises to fully utilize the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter's capabilities when making their basing decision.
Collaboration with Federal Aviation Administration on Unmanned Aerial
Systems
The committee believes that the significant military
training demand for Unmanned Aerial Systems suggests that
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations regarding
line-of-sight requirements be reevaluated. The committee
encourages the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration to continue to collaborate
on the development of plans and policies that would allow the
Department's Unmanned Aerial Systems to operate within military
operating area airspace contiguous to existing restricted
airspace without line-of-sight requirements. Furthermore, the
committee is interested in understanding in detail the
Department's current engagement on this issue with the Federal
Aviation Administration. Therefore, the committee directs the
Chair of the Department of Defense's Policy Board on Federal
Aviation to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed
Services, not later than March 1, 2018, detailing the board's
efforts to advocate for the elimination regulatory restrictions
that prevent routine access to national airspace for the
Department of Defenses' Unmanned Aerial Systems.
Efficient and Integrated Military Installations
The committee notes that the Department of Transportation
initiated the Smart City Challenge in December 2015, seeking
innovative ideas for an integrated smart transportation system
to move people and goods more quickly, cheaply, and
efficiently. The committee notes that this program resulted in
seven cities being selected to further develop their proposals.
The committee is interested in how the Department of Defense
can leverage Smart City concepts and apply them to military
installations to improve military readiness and the delivery of
services to military personnel and military families, manage
infrastructure more efficiently, and enhance installation
physical and cyber security. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries
of the military departments, to provide a briefing to the House
Armed Services Committee not later than March 1, 2018. The
briefing should provide an overview of initiatives the
Department has undertaken to incorporate a broad range of
government, commercial, and other innovative technological and
processes that improve the performance, efficiency, and
effectiveness of military infrastructure and services provided
on military installations and how these initiatives are being
incorporated into installation master plans.
Enhanced Use Leases
The committee notes that the military departments have
authorities provided by section 2667 of title 10, United States
Code, to enter into long-term agreements commonly referred to
as ``enhanced use leases'' (EULs). Under these agreements, the
military departments are able to receive cash or in-kind
consideration for non-excess military land that is then
developed by a private entity. This authority has been used to
develop electricity generation, commercial and industrial
facilities, and other infrastructure projects that have
benefited both the military installation as well as the
surrounding communities. However, the committee notes that
concerns have been raised on the length of time it can take to
initiate, negotiate, and implement an EUL. The committee
encourages the military departments to seek opportunities to
streamline this process where possible while continuing to
ensure that agreements are in the Government's best interest.
If the Secretary of Defense believes legislative changes are
needed to speed the process, the committee welcomes any
recommendations he may choose to make.
Financial Institutions on Military Installations
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has
not established a standardized method of calculating and
considering the in-kind value of the financial education,
support, and services provided by financial institutions when
determining the terms of a facility lease to support the
operation of financial institutions on a military installation.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services,
not later than March 1, 2018, regarding the Department's
progress in establishing a standardized process. At a minimum,
the briefing should address how the Department calculates the
in-kind value of services provided by financial institutions on
military installations, as well as whether the in-kind value
calculated for these services can be used to partially or fully
satisfy the fair market value requirement for leasing non-
excess property on military installations pursuant to section
2667 of title 10, United States Code. It should also address
the Department's efforts to ensure appropriate policies and
instructions are in place to support the consistent calculation
of the in-kind value of services when negotiating facility
leases to support the operation of financial institutions on
military installations.
Infrastructure Master Plan for Defense Laboratory and Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation Infrastructure
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
laboratory enterprise and facilities supporting research,
development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) are critical to
ensuring the Department of Defense and the military services
are at the cutting edge of technology. The committee notes that
the National Defense Authorization for fiscal year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92) established a pilot program authorizing the use of
up to $150.0 million per year in RDT&E funding to support
military construction projects to support laboratory and
research and development infrastructure requirements. In
addition, the National Defense Authorization for fiscal year
2017 (Public Law 114-328) increased the minor military
construction threshold for laboratory facilities to $6.0
million. These authorities were provided as a supplement to the
traditional military construction process to provide additional
flexibility and options for recapitalizing laboratory and RDT&E
infrastructure. The committee encourages the Department to
utilize these authorities to sustain the health of
infrastructure critical to the in-house enterprise. However,
the committee notes that many of the laboratory and RDT&E
facilities do not currently have fully developed master plans
that synchronize required infrastructure investments with
current and emerging military requirements. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than March 1, 2018 on the Department's timeline and efforts to
develop infrastructure master plans to support laboratory and
RDT&E infrastructure requirements.
Overseas Infrastructure and Facility Investments
The committee asserts that there is operational and
strategic value in maintaining infrastructure and access to
facilities that can support forward presence of U.S. military
forces. Forward-positioned forces provide rapid response
capabilities to geographic combatant commanders, serve as a
deterrent to potential adversaries while assuring partners and
allies, and facilitate cooperative efforts to build and develop
partner-nation security capabilities. The committee recognizes
that infrastructure and facilities contribute to developing and
sustaining readiness, projecting military capabilities, and
supporting the quality-of-life for military personnel and their
families.
As the Department of Defense develops its military
construction and facility investment program, the committee
encourages the Department to propose military construction and
facility investments that support strategic or operational
requirements, including projects at overseas locations. The
committee welcomes overseas military construction projects or
facility investments connected to validated operational or
strategic requirements that support the forward-deployed
posture of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Railroads for National Defense
The committee is aware that the Military Surface Deployment
and Distribution Command Transportation Engineering Agency
manages the Railroads for National Defense Program. This
program helps ensure the readiness capability and capacity of
the national railroad network to support defense deployment and
peacetime needs. While the program has no funding to support
rail infrastructure investments, the committee notes that the
program helps to integrate defense rail needs into civil sector
planning, policies, and standards working in concert with the
Federal Railroad Administration through the establishment of
the Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET). The committee
notes that STRACNET is an interconnected and continuous rail
line network that is supplemented by defense connector lines
that serve locations that generate military rail shipments.
Together STRACNET and the defense connector lines consist of
over 36,000 miles of track serving over 100 defense
installations.
The committee is aware that the Railroads for National
Defense Program reviews, analyzes, and identifies rail line
requirements to support military rail service and movement of
oversize and overweight cargo. This analysis is updated every 5
years, with the most recent report published in October 2013.
Therefore, the committee directs the Commander of the Military
Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services, not later
than 30 days after completion of the next updated STRACNET
report, regarding the analysis and findings of the report. At
minimum, the briefing should address rail networks that have
been identified as part of the Strategic Rail Corridor Network
or defense connector lines, identify any rail infrastructure
capability or capacity gaps that impact military installations
requiring rail service, and discuss mitigations or plans to
address any rail infrastructure capability or capacity gaps
that have been identified.
Sentinel Landscapes Partnership Program
The committee notes the successful initial implementation
of the Sentinel Landscapes Partnership Program. The
interagency, intergovernmental, and public private partnership
approach of the Sentinel Landscapes Partnership Program
contributes to a strong rural economy, to advancing natural
resource goals, and to achieving the overall goal of the
Department of Defense's Readiness and Environmental Protection
Integration (REPI) program to address encroachment issues that
limit or restrict military training, testing, and operations.
Operating under an interagency Memorandum of Understanding
since 2013, six partner landscapes at military installations
around the country have been designated, which has provided
additional opportunities for collaboration to achieve mutually
beneficial outcomes both for the eligible landowners and
agricultural producers who voluntarily choose to participate
and for DoD and the other agencies participating in the
Sentinel Landscapes Partnership Program. The committee
encourages the Department to support the designation of
additional Sentinel Landscapes in order to further enhance
efforts to address current or potential restrictions on the
testing and training activities that are vital to preserving
military readiness.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than September 30, 2017:
(1) How the program has benefited the military and defense
communities in terms of limiting encroachment and protecting
training and other readiness development and sustainment
efforts, the benefits to landowners and agricultural producers
who have elected to participate;
(2) The process and criteria for designating an area as a
Sentinel Landscape;
(3) Steps taken or planned to expand the number of
designated Sentinel; Landscapes; and
(4) Whether codifying the Sentinel Landscapes Partnership
program would be beneficial
Sustainment and Recapitalization of Utilities
The committee believes that military installations must
have modern, efficient, resilient utility infrastructure. The
committee notes that while some installations have undergone a
modernization of their utility infrastructure, many continue to
rely on aging and inefficient systems that marginally support
today's missions. The committee observes that some
installations have utilized utility privatization authorities
to reinvest, operate, and sustain their utility systems and
other installations still maintain and operate their utility
systems.
The committee seeks to better understand the Department of
Defense's investment strategy to ensure military installations
are supported by modern, efficient, and resilient utility
infrastructure. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretaries of the military departments to provide a briefing
to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2018, on
their plans for recapitalizing aging utility infrastructure and
systems. The briefing should include a discussion of the
condition of utility systems that are currently owned,
sustained, and operated by the military departments and a
discussion on the military departments' plans for modernization
or recapitalizing aging utility systems through appropriated
funds or utility privatization authorities.
Use of Federal Facilities by Contractors
The Committee is aware that the Army is in the process of
reviewing real property accountability and facility utilization
with an eye towards reducing installation footprints and
eliminating under-used and unused excess facilities within the
United States. Part of the Army's review will result in
consolidating facility occupancy in accordance with Army
standards to the minimum space needed to accomplish missions.
The Army's planned completion date of the review and
consolidation actions is currently October 2021. The Committee
commends the Army for undertaking this endeavor and encourages
the Department of the Navy and Air Force to devote resources to
carry out reviews similar to the Army.
The Committee is concerned that contractors may occupy
space in a DOD-owned or leased space co-located with military
functions as a matter of convenience rather than a bona fide
contractual obligation. As a result, facilities may be
overcrowded even though the authorized number of personnel
assigned to the facility falls within Unified Facilities
Criteria standards. Also, in some cases, the military leases
trailers or other temporary facilities in order to meet
emerging mission requirements even as they accommodate
extraneous civilian contractor personnel occupying a government
facility.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense,
in coordination with the secretaries of the military
departments, to provide a briefing to the House Committee on
Armed Services not later than March 30, 2018. At a minimum, the
briefing shall quantify the amount of space currently occupied
by government contractors and whether or not their occupancy is
pursuant to a contractual obligation on the part of the
government, or whether their occupancy is provided as a
convenience for the contractor. The briefing shall include
statements by the departments regarding actions taken to
relocate contractors not required by federal contract to be co-
located with the military on DOD-owned installations or in a
federally leased space principally occupied by a DOD activity.
Veteran Apprenticeship Programs and Military Construction
The committee notes that section 2805 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) expressed the sense of Congress regarding the
establishment of a ``Veterans to Work'' pilot program to
provide an opportunity for apprentices, who are also veterans,
to work on military construction projects. The committee
continues to believe that state certified and Federally
recognized apprenticeship training programs can help with a
military service member's transition to a civilian career.
Therefore, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense
and the Secretaries of the military departments to seek
opportunities to increase the utilization of veterans'
apprenticeship programs on military construction projects.
Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure
The committee notes that the budget request includes a
number of military construction projects to provide potable
water and wastewater treatment infrastructure to support
military installations. The committee notes that the military
departments have leveraged existing authorities to enter into
intergovernmental support agreements with local municipalities
as well as utilizing the Utility Privatization authorities to
provide utility services to military installations. The
committee has been supportive of the use of these authorities,
and notes that they provide opportunities for military
installations and neighboring communities to work together to
provide mutually beneficial utility services in a more
efficient and cost-effective manner. The committee believes
that in certain cases, it may be in the interest of the
military installation to enter into mutually beneficial
agreements with local municipalities to provide utility
services, to include water and wastewater. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the secretaries of the military departments, to provide a
briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services not later
than March 30, 2018. At minimum, the briefing shall address the
process used to identify utility infrastructure investments
required to support a military installation, how the
development of those requirements is coordinated with local
municipalities, and how the Department makes a determination to
carry out a military construction project or enter into an
agreement with a local municipality or private partner to meet
the installation's requirement.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Section 2801--Elimination of Written Notice Requirement for Military
Construction Activities and Reliance on Electronic Submission of
Notifications and Reports
This section would modify sections of title 10, United
States Code, to eliminate the submission of a notification in
writing for certain infrastructure, facility, and real property
related investments while maintaining the requirement that the
notification be provided in an electronic medium pursuant to
section 480 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 2802--Modification of Thresholds Applicable to Unspecified
Minor Construction Projects
This section would modify section 2805(a) of title 10,
United States Code, to increase the unspecified minor military
construction project threshold from $3.0 million to $6.0
million and to remove the differentiation between
aforementioned unspecified minor military construction projects
and ``life-threatening, health-threatening, or safety-
threatening'' projects. This section would also modify section
2805(b) of title 10, United States Code, to decrease the
unspecified minor military construction project advance
approval threshold requirement for the service secretary
concerned from $1.0 million to $0.75 million and would increase
the threshold for use of operation and maintenance amounts to
carry out an unspecified minor military construction project
from $1.0 million to $2.0 million pursuant to section 2805(c)
of title 10, United States Code.
Section 2803--Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority To Use
Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects Outside the
United States
This section would provide continued authority for the
Secretary of Defense to use funds appropriated for Operation
and Maintenance for military construction to meet temporary
operational requirements during a time of declared war,
national emergency, or contingency operation through the end of
fiscal year 2018.
Section 2804--Use of Operation and Maintenance Funds for Military
Construction Projects To Replace Facilities Damaged or Destroyed by
Natural Disasters or Terrorism Incidents
This section would amend section 2854 of title 10, United
States Code, to enable use of operation and maintenance funds
to replace a facility damaged or destroyed by a natural
disaster or a terrorism incident.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Section 2811--Elimination of Written Notice Requirement for Military
Real Property Transactions and Reliance on Electronic Submission of
Notifications and Reports
This section would amend several sections of title 10,
United States Code, to eliminate the submission of a
notification in writing for certain real property related
transactions while maintaining the requirement that the
notification be provided in an electronic medium pursuant to
section 480 of title 10, United States Code.
Section 2812--Clarification of Applicability of Fair Market Value
Consideration in Grants of Easements on Military Lands for Rights-of-
Way
This section would clarify section 2668 of title 10, United
States Code, to ensure the Secretary of a military department
receives fair market value when granting easements.
Section 2813--Criteria for Exchanges of Property at Military
Installations
This section would amend section 2869 of title 10, United
States Code, to allow for the exchange of real property located
on a military installation when it is determined to be
advantageous to the United States.
Section 2814--Prohibiting Use of Updated Assessment of Public Schools
on Department of Defense Installations To Supersede Funding of Certain
Projects
This section would amend section 2814 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) to ensure that the schools contained in the top 33 highest
priority schools on the Department of Defense July 2011
assessment of public schools on military installations that
have not yet received funding would not be superseded by an
updated assessment.
The committee encourages the Office of Economic Adjustment
to work with school districts when administering the Public
Schools on Military Installations program to find innovative
funding solutions to meet State match requirements.
Section 2815--Requirements for Window Fall Prevention Devices in
Military Family Housing
This section would amend chapter 169 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Secretaries of the military
departments to provide for the installation of fall prevention
devices in windows meeting specific requirements at all current
military family housing units, including housing under the
Military Housing Privatization Initiative, family housing owned
by the military departments, family housing leased by the
Department of Defense, as well as units acquired or constructed
in the future. This section would also require the Secretaries
to brief the House Committee on Armed Services not later than
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act on matters
relating to the implementation of this section.
Section 2816--Authorizing Reimbursement of States for Costs of
Suppressing Wildfires Caused by Department of Defense Activities on
State Lands; Restoration of Lands of Other Federal Agencies for Damage
Caused by Department of Defense Vehicle Mishaps
This section would amend section 2691 of title 10, United
States Code, to allow the Secretary of Defense to reimburse a
State for the reasonable costs of the State in suppressing
wildland fires caused by the activities of the Department of
Defense on State lands. In addition, this section would allow
the Secretary of Defense to restore land under the
administrative jurisdiction of another Federal agency when that
land is damaged as the result of a mishap involving a vessel,
aircraft, or vehicle of the Department of Defense. Finally,
this section would also allow another Federal agency to restore
land under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Defense or a military department if damaged as the result of a
mishap involving a vessel, aircraft, or vehicle of a Federal
agency that is not part of the Department of Defense.
Section 2817--Prohibiting Collection of Additional Amounts from Members
Living in Units Under Military Housing Privatization Initiative
This section would add section 2879 to sub-chapter IV of
chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, to prohibit the
collection of additional out of pocket fees from service
members living in Military Housing Privatization Initiative
housing.
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances
Section 2821--Land Exchange, Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant,
Sunnyvale, California
This section would authorize a land exchange of the Naval
Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant located in Sunnyvale,
California, for property interests that meet the readiness
requirements of the Department of the Navy.
Section 2822--Land Conveyance, Naval Ship Repair Facility, Guam
This section would direct the Secretary of the Navy to
convey, without consideration, certain Navy real property to
the Guam Economic Development Authority for the purpose of
providing support for ship repair and other military
maintenance requirements.
Section 2823--Lease of Real Property to the United States Naval Academy
Alumni Association and Naval Academy Foundation at United States Naval
Academy, Annapolis, Maryland
This section would provide authority for the Secretary of
the Navy to lease approximately three acres at the United
States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, to the United
States Naval Academy Alumni Association and the United States
Naval Academy Foundation.
Section 2824--Land Conveyance, Natick Soldier Systems Center,
Massachusetts
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
sell and convey approximately 98 acres of real property in the
vicinity of Hudson, Wayland, and Needham, Massachusetts in
exchange for cash payment that is not less than the fair market
value of the property. This section would also authorize the
Secretary to use the proceeds of the sale to demolish,
construct, or rehabilitate military family housing,
unaccompanied soldier housing, or ancillary support facilities
to support military personnel assigned to the U.S. Army Natick
Soldier Systems Center.
Section 2825--Imposition of Additional Conditions on Land Conveyance,
Castner Range, Fort Bliss, Texas
This provision would amend section 2844 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-
239) to place additional conditions on an authorized conveyance
of 7,081 acres of real property at Fort Bliss to the Parks and
Wildlife Department of the State of Texas.
Section 2826--Land Conveyance, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Rich
County, Utah
This section would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
transfer 80 acres of U.S. Forest Service managed public land to
the Utah State University Space Dynamics Laboratory Research
Foundation, a non-profit organization exempt from Federal
income taxes under section 501(c)(3) of title 26, United States
Code.
Section 2827--Land Conveyance, Former Missile Alert Facility known as
Quebec-01, Laramie County, Wyoming
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to convey, without consideration, certain Air Force real
property to the State of Wyoming for the purpose of operating a
museum for the benefit of the public.
Subtitle D--Military Land Withdrawals
Section 2831--Indefinite Duration of Certain Military Land Withdrawals
and Reservations and Improved Management of Withdrawn and Reserved
Lands
This section would amend the existing statutory military
land withdrawals from Department of the Interior jurisdiction
by extending them for an indefinite time period while putting
in place a continuous review, coordinated between the
Department of Defense and the Department of Interior, and
public comment process regarding the resource management plans
and military use of such lands.
Section 2832--Temporary Segregation from Public Land Laws of Property
Subject to Proposed Military Land Withdrawal; Temporary Use Permits and
Transfers of Small Parcels of Land between Departments of Interior and
Military Departments; More Efficient Surveying of Lands
This section would amend chapter 6 of title 43, United
States Code, to allow the Secretary of the Interior to grant
permission to the Secretary of Defense to conduct military
training or testing on land under the jurisdiction of the
Department of the Interior for up to 30 days, provided such use
would be consistent with the purposes for which the Secretary
of the Interior manages the land. In addition, this section
would authorize the transfer of parcels of land smaller than
5,000 acres between the Department of Defense and the
Department of the Interior. Finally, this section would permit
the use of geographic coordinates for conducting original
surveys of land instead of using physical monuments.
Subtitle E--Military Memorials, Monuments, and Museums
Section 2841--Modification of Prohibition on Transfer of Veterans
Memorial Objects to Foreign Governments without Specific Authorization
in Law
This section would amend section 2572(e) of title 10,
United States Code, to limit the restrictions in that section
to veterans memorial objects brought to the United States prior
to 1907. This section would also extend the prohibition of the
return of veterans memorial objects to a foreign country or an
entity controlled by a foreign government until September 30,
2022.
Section 2842--Recognition of the National Museum of World War II
Aviation
This section would recognize the National Museum of World
War II Aviation in Colorado Springs, Colorado, as America's
National World War II Aviation Museum.
Section 2843--Principal Office of Aviation Hall of Fame
This section would amend section 23107 of title 36, United
States Code, to remove the requirement that the Principal
Office of the Aviation Hall of Fame be located in Dayton, Ohio,
while retaining the requirement that the office be located in
Ohio.
Subtitle F--Shiloh National Military Park
Section 2851--Short Title
This section would provide that this subtitle may be cited
as the ``Shiloh National Military Park Boundary Adjustment and
Parker's Crossroads Battlefield Designation Act.''
Section 2852--Definitions
This section would provide definitions for specific terms
used in this subtitle.
Section 2853--Areas to Be Added to Shiloh National Military Park
This section would modify the boundary of Shiloh National
Military Park and provide the Secretary of the Interior with
authority to acquire lands by donation, purchase from willing
sellers with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.
Section 2854--Establishment of Affiliated Area
This section would establish Parker's Crossroads
Battlefield in the State of Tennessee as an affiliated area of
the National Park System, authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to provide technical assistance and to enter into
cooperative agreements with the management entity, and require
the development of a general management plan for the affiliated
area.
Section 2855--Private Property Protection
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior
from acquiring land or interests in land by condemnation for
the purposes of this subtitle, would require written consent
from property owners prior to their property being included in
the Shiloh National Military Park, and prohibits the creation
of buffer zones outside of the park.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 2861--Modification of Department of Defense Guidance on Use of
Airfield Pavement Markings
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense modify
the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications for pavement
markings, or any other Department of Defense guidance on
airfield pavement markings, to prohibit the use of Type I glass
beads or any glass bead with a 1.6 refractive index or less
from use on airfield markings on airfields under the control of
the Secretary.
Section 2862--Authority of Chief Operating Officer of Armed Forces
Retirement Home to Acquire and Lease Property
This section would amend section 411 of title 24, United
States Code, to authorize the Chief Operating Officer of the
Armed Forces Retirement Home to acquire and lease property.
TITLE XXIX--OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $638,130,000 for Overseas
Contingency Operations military construction for fiscal year
2018. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations
of $636,942,000 for Overseas Contingency Operations military
construction for fiscal year 2018.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Explanation of Funding Adjustments
The committee recommends reduction of funding for several
projects contained in the budget request submitted by the
Department of Defense for military construction and family
housing. These reductions include:
(1) $30.0 million to Construct Parallel Taxiway at
Kecskemet Air Base, Hungary. The budget request included $30.0
million in funding for this project. The committee supports the
requirement for this project and provides the full project
authorization of $30.0 million included in the budget request.
However, the committee supports the authorization of
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
Department to execute in the year of the authorization for
appropriations. For this project, the committee is concerned
the Department may not be able to begin construction in fiscal
year 2018. Therefore, the committee recommends no funds, a
reduction of $30.0 million, for the authorization of
appropriation for this project.
(2) $22.0 million for Airfield Upgrades at Sliac Airport,
Slovakia. The budget request included $22.0 million in funding
for this project. The committee supports the requirement for
this project and provides the full project authorization of
$22.0 million included in the budget request. However, the
committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an
amount equivalent to the ability of the Department to execute
in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For this
project, the committee is concerned the Department may not be
able to begin construction in fiscal year 2018. Therefore, the
committee recommends no funds, a reduction of $22.0 million,
for the authorization of appropriation for this project.
(3) $20.0 million to Increase POL Storage Capacity at
Malacky, Slovakia. The budget request included $20.0 million in
funding for this project. The committee supports the
requirement for this project and provides the full project
authorization of $20.0 million included in the budget request.
However, the committee supports the authorization of
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
Department to execute in the year of the authorization for
appropriations. For this project, the committee is concerned
the Department may not be able to begin construction in fiscal
year 2018. Therefore, the committee recommends no funds, a
reduction of $20.0 million, for the authorization of
appropriation for this project.
(4) $12.9 million for Airfield Upgrades at Kecskemet Air
Base, Hungary. The budget request included $12.9 million in
funding for this project. The committee supports the
requirement for this project and provides the full project
authorization of $12.9 million included in the budget request.
However, the committee supports the authorization of
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
Department to execute in the year of the authorization for
appropriations. For this project, the committee is concerned
the Department may not be able to begin construction in fiscal
year 2018. Therefore, the committee recommends no funds, a
reduction of $12.9 million, for the authorization of
appropriation for this project.
(5) $12.5 million to Increase POL Storage Capacity at
Kecskemet Air Base, Hungary. The budget request included $12.5
million in funding for this project. The committee supports the
requirement for this project and provides the full project
authorization of $12.5 million included in the budget request.
However, the committee supports the authorization of
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
Department to execute in the year of the authorization for
appropriations. For this project, the committee is concerned
the Department may not be able to begin construction in fiscal
year 2018. Therefore, the committee recommends no funds, a
reduction of $12.5 million, for the authorization of
appropriation for this project.
(6) $10.3 million to Replace/Expand Quick Reaction Alert
Pad at Rygge, Norway. The budget request included $10.3 million
in funding for this project. The committee supports the
requirement for this project and provides the full project
authorization of $10.3 million included in the budget request.
However, the committee supports the authorization of
appropriations in an amount equivalent to the ability of the
Department to execute in the year of the authorization for
appropriations. For this project, the committee is concerned
the Department may not be able to begin construction in fiscal
year 2018. Therefore, the committee recommends no funds, a
reduction of $10.3 million, for the authorization of
appropriation for this project.
(7) $4.0 million for Airfield Upgrades at Malacky,
Slovakia. The budget request included $4.0 million in funding
for this project. The committee supports the requirement for
this project and provides the full project authorization of
$4.0 million included in the budget request. However, the
committee supports the authorization of appropriations in an
amount equivalent to the ability of the Department to execute
in the year of the authorization for appropriations. For this
project, the committee is concerned the Department may not be
able to begin construction in fiscal year 2018. Therefore, the
committee recommends no funds, a reduction of $4.0 million, for
the authorization of appropriation for this project.
As noted earlier in this report, the committee recommended
a reduction in funding for several projects included in the
base budget request in order to transfer them to the Overseas
Contingency Operations title of this Act. Therefore the
committee recommends a commensurate increase in the Overseas
Contingency Operations account to support these projects.
Specifically, these projects include:
(1) $27.325 million for a Guardian Angel Operations
Facility at Aviano Air Base, Italy.
(2) $25.997 million for a 216 Person Dormitory at Incirlik
Air Base, Turkey.
(3) $22.4 million to Construct Hydrant System at Naval Air
Station Sigonella, Italy.
(4) $15.0 million for a Consolidated Squadron Operations
Facility at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar.
(5) $13.39 million for an Aircraft Parking Apron Expansion
at Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti.
(6) $6.4 million for the Forward Operating Site at an
unspecified location in Turkey.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2901--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of certain authorized
Army construction projects for fiscal year 2018. These projects
represent a binding list of the specific projects authorized at
these locations.
Section 2902--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition Project
This section would contain the list of a certain authorized
Navy construction project for fiscal year 2018. This project
represents a binding list of the specific project authorized at
this location.
Section 2903--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would contain the list of certain authorized
Air Force construction projects for fiscal year 2018. These
projects represent a binding list of the specific projects
authorized at these locations.
Section 2904--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land
Acquisition Project
This section would contain the list of a certain authorized
defense agency's construction project for fiscal year 2018.
This project represents a binding list of the specific project
authorized at this location.
Section 2905--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize appropriations for Overseas
Contingency Operations military construction at the levels
identified in section 4602 of division D.
Section 2906--Extension of Authorization of Certain Fiscal Year 2015
Projects
This section would extend the authorizations of certain
projects originally authorized by section 2902 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (division B
of Public Law 113-291) 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.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
OVERVIEW
The budget request for fiscal year 2018 contained $20.31
billion for atomic energy defense activities. The committee
recommends $20.64 billion, an increase of $326.2 million to the
budget request.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
National Nuclear Security Administration
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2018 contained $13.93
billion for the programs of the National Nuclear Security
Administration. The committee recommends $14.18 billion, an
increase of $253.2 million to the budget request.
Weapons Activities
Advanced simulation and computing
The committee understands the central role high-performance
computing plays in stockpile stewardship, management, and
responsiveness efforts, particularly in the absence of nuclear
explosive testing. The committee acknowledges and supports
NNSA's push towards exascale computing technologies, but is
mindful of the need to ensure the long-term compatibility of
supercomputer hardware architectures and critical nuclear
weapons software codes. Accordingly, it will be essential to
ensure that the computing industry is aware of NNSA's unique
needs and that the industry develops the necessary technology.
Also central will be reworking or remaking software codes to
ensure future compatibility. Furthermore, trust in software
results must be tempered by comparison to nuclear test
histories and continued robust real-world, non-nuclear testing.
The committee recognizes that the Department of Energy's
Office of Science is a key partner with NNSA in developing
exascale computing and sustaining current high-performance
computing capabilities. The committee expects NNSA and the
Office of Science to remain closely linked and provide updates
to the committee on dislocations or cuts in either program that
could affect NNSA's nuclear weapons mission.
Analysis of alternatives for unobligated enriched uranium
The committee believes the Department of Energy must ensure
the availability of a long-term supply of unobligated enriched
uranium for national security purposes, notably for the
production of tritium and to power naval reactors. The
committee notes that in October 2015, the Department of Energy
released its report entitled ``Tritium and Enriched Uranium
Management Plan Through 2060'' that identified options the
Department of Energy is currently undertaking to extend its
existing inventory of unobligated low enriched uranium (LEU)
for tritium production. In addition, in December 2016, the
Department of Energy formally initiated an analysis of
alternatives process to assess technology and policy options
that could provide a supply of unobligated enriched uranium for
the long term.
As it proceeds with its analysis of alternatives on the
technology and policy options for providing future unobligated
enriched uranium, the committee expects the Department of
Energy to comprehensively and rigorously consider all
alternatives, consistent with Department of Energy guidance and
the Government Accountability Office's October 2015 report on
best practices for analysis of alternatives processes. Such
analysis of alternatives should comprehensively consider
construction costs, total life-cycle costs, scheduled need
dates, domestic industrial base impacts, opportunities to make
changes in existing policy, and risks and benefits across all
potential programs and options. The committee also expects that
the Department of Energy will work closely with other pertinent
departments and agencies to consider the options. The committee
expects the Department of Energy to keep the committee updated
on its progress related to these efforts.
Beryllium
Beryllium is a critical strategic material used by the
Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the
defense industry. If manufactured or processed improperly or
without adequate safety measures, it can cause fatal health
problems in exposed workers. While research efforts are
underway to determine the performance of possible alternative
materials, beryllium remains unique in its ability to fulfill
important material requirements, particularly for nuclear
weapons. The committee believes that elements of the U.S.
Government, in particular the Secretary of Energy, should be
mindful of the need to ensure a reliable and efficient supply
of beryllium and beryllium-oxide as long as such materials
remain crucial to national defense. The committee believes the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator for Nuclear Security
should consider whether to designate beryllium a strategic
material for the nuclear weapons stockpile, similar to
plutonium, uranium, lithium, and tritium, and apply similar
rigor and attention to ensuring sufficient capacity and
capability is available. The committee also expects the
Administrator to keep the committee informed on issues or plans
related to beryllium procurement and supply, including existing
stocks, as well as timelines and costs for future production or
procurement.
Defense nuclear security
The budget request contained $687.0 million for Defense
Nuclear Security at the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). This funding supports both day-to-day
security operations across the nuclear security enterprise, as
well as sustainment and recapitalization of physical security
infrastructure and equipment.
With the change in administrations and senior leadership at
NNSA and the Department of Energy, the committee emphasizes the
need for continued leadership attention on physical security
within the nuclear security enterprise. The committee believes
recent efforts, such as the Security Management Improvement
Program (S-MIP), the Security Infrastructure Revitalization
Program (SIRP) and associated 10-Year Revitalization Plan, and
the Center for Security Technology, Analysis, Response, and
Testing (CSTART) are encouraging steps towards resolving
longstanding deficiencies in NNSA's physical security program.
The committee believes that clarity on roles, responsibilities,
and accountability for physical security is essential. NNSA and
the Department of Energy must continue efforts to bring greater
effectiveness, clarity, and consistency to oversight and
management practices, requirements, standards, and policies for
physical security. Of particular importance will be efforts to
provide and clearly document physical security roles,
responsibilities, and accountability. The committee believes
that there has been limited progress on this front, but that it
is essential that a successful security program use scarce
resources for maximum benefit while appropriately assessing,
managing, mitigating, accepting, and overseeing risk. The
committee therefore urges the Administrator for Nuclear
Security, in consultation with appropriate officials from the
Department of Energy, to provide a briefing to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives by December 1, 2017, on efforts and plans to
align and clarify roles, responsibilities, and accountability
for physical security. The committee seeks additional
information on efforts related to security risk assessments and
acceptance, budgets, inspections, policy making, oversight, and
operations.
The committee recommends $720.0 million, an increase of
$33.0 million, for Defense Nuclear Security. The committee
expects this increase to support CSTART efforts, accelerate the
realization of significant cost savings via the Y-12 protected
area reduction project, and enable SIRP to accelerate projects
to recapitalize physical security infrastructure. Elsewhere in
this title, the committee includes a provision to ensure the
initiation of the Material Staging Facility at Pantex, which
would provide a significant boost to security and operations
while avoiding significant future costs to modernize outdated
security infrastructure.
Nuclear Survivability
The budget request contained $45.2 million for the Nuclear
Survivability subprogram, which is focused on ensuring U.S.
nuclear weapons can survive in even the most extreme hostile
environments.
In its December 2016 report, the Defense Science Board
stated, ``A consequence of the reduction in numbers of U.S.
nuclear weapons is that an even higher premium is placed on
reliability and survivability of the remaining force,'' and
noted that, ``It should be obvious that if U.S. nuclear forces
are to be part of a credible deterrent, they must be able to
survive and function in an adversary generated nuclear
environment.'' The committee has no doubt that current U.S.
nuclear forces and weapons meet this exacting and critical
requirement today and for the foreseeable future.
However, as it looks to the future, including the current
and planned major nuclear modernization programs before it, the
National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of
Defense must be mindful of effectively countering and
addressing the defensive capabilities that adversaries continue
to advance and change. U.S. nuclear warheads and forces of the
future must be capable of surviving and functioning for the
entirety of their expected design lives in a highly uncertain
and more dynamic adversary-generated nuclear environment,
particularly as the size of the stockpile declines. The
committee recognizes that the world-class experts and cutting-
edge capabilities in the national security laboratories and
plants will be key to understanding and meeting this challenge.
Robust capabilities and knowledge related to advanced
radiography, subcritical and scaled experiments, inertial
confinement fusion, pulsed power, high performance computing,
hardened microelectronics, materials, systems engineering, and
many more will all play a vital role for enhancing our
understanding of how U.S. nuclear weapons perform. In addition,
the plans and concepts of operation employed by U.S. Strategic
Command will also play an important role in addressing
requirements for a credible nuclear deterrent.
The committee recommends $49.2 million for Nuclear
Survivability, an increase of $4.0 million to the budget
request.
Secure transportation asset and mobile guardian transporter
The budget request for the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) Secure Transportation Asset includes
funding for the Mobile Guardian Transporter (MGT) program,
which will develop and procure new highly secure trailers for
the transportation of nuclear weapons, nuclear components, and
special nuclear material.
The committee notes NNSA's submission, pursuant to section
3142 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (Public Law 114-92), of its analysis of alternatives for
the MGT design and appreciates its thoroughness. The committee
believes a full understanding of requirements, risk, and cost
trade-offs is essential for the MGT program. As the current
Safeguards Transporter (SGT) trailers near the end of their 20-
year design life, the committee expects NNSA to execute the MGT
program on schedule and on budget to ensure that the Office of
Secure Transportation is prepared to support the coming
workload of the nuclear security enterprise. Efforts to extend
portions of the SGT fleet must also be made, but the committee
stresses that new trailers must be a priority to ensure safety
and security.
Single-point failures in the nuclear security enterprise
The committee supports the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) efforts to examine alternative means
for acquiring key capabilities, components, or materials from
industry partners when such alternative means make sense for
both budgets and national security. The committee is aware of
significant concerns regarding potential single-point failures
within the nuclear security enterprise. As NNSA has
appropriately sought to reduce redundancy within the enterprise
over the past several decades, the impact from such a failure
has increased and could potentially create large and long-term
impacts on NNSA's nuclear weapons mission.
To better understand these concerns and potential avenues
for addressing them, the committee directs the Administrator
for Nuclear Security to provide a briefing to the House
Committee on Armed Services by January 30, 2018, on what
operations are carried out in aging or inadequate facilities
within the nuclear security enterprise that are at significant
risk of single-point failures. As part of this briefing, the
Administrator should assess and describe the costs, benefits,
risks, opportunities, and national security implications of:
(1) recapitalizing or replacing these facilities, including how
these facilities are being prioritized for recapitalization or
replacement; (2) leveraging industry partners to provide the
necessary capabilities, components, or materials; and (3) other
courses of action the Administrator determines appropriate to
ensure a robust but cost effective enterprise.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program and emergency
preparedness
The committee has long highlighted the importance and value
of the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA)
programs that counter and respond to nuclear terrorism threats.
The unique capabilities and knowledge that NNSA's laboratories
provide to these programs enable the nation's first responders
and warfighters to detect, evaluate, and take decisive and
technically informed action against all types of nuclear
threats. The committee encourages continued close collaboration
among NNSA and its partner agencies to prioritize technology
development and deployment funding to ensure technical
information and leading-edge capabilities are in the field and
available.
The committee notes continued concerns about the Department
of Energy's emergency preparedness and response programs. The
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) has highlighted
these concerns in two formal recommendations since 2014. The
committee expects NNSA and the Department of Energy to take
robust action to follow through on the commitments made in the
implementation plans that were provided in response to these
DNFSB recommendations.
Nuclear detection and verification efforts
The committee is aware that nuclear detection and
verification efforts, and improving related cooperation and
engagement, were a focus of discussion at the May 2017
Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty Review Conference. To support the coming Review
Conference and increase international support for a successful
conference, the committee believes a comprehensive
understanding of U.S. Government efforts related to research,
development, policies, and plans is warranted.
In this context, the committee notes that section 3132 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
(Public Law 114-328) required an updated national roadmap for
nuclear detection and verification. The committee remains
concerned that, for a second year in a row, the report
delivered pursuant to this statutory requirement failed to
provide an adequate or comprehensive response. Instead, the
report only described initial steps and lacked a clear
explanation of the plan, current and planned capabilities,
near-term or long-term objectives, funding needs, actions, or
recommendations.
Therefore, as a step toward increasing understanding of
current and planned efforts, the committee directs the
Administrator for Nuclear Security, in coordination with the
relevant national security laboratories, to provide a briefing
to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives not later than December 1, 2017, on nuclear
verification and detection programs. In particular, such
briefing should include a description of relevant current or
potential research and development programs that could enhance
international cooperation with foreign partners, and the
opportunities, benefits, risks, and challenges associated with
such programs.
Naval Reactors
Naval Reactors program
The Naval Reactors program is responsible for all aspects
of naval nuclear propulsion efforts, including reactor plant
technology design and development, reactor plant operation and
maintenance, and reactor retirement and disposal. The program
ensures the safe and reliable operation of reactor plants in
nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers. These ships
comprise over 40 percent of the Navy's major combatants.
The committee notes that the recent identification of a
manufacturing problem with the prototype electric-drive motor
for the Columbia-class submarine will result in late delivery
of the prototype motor to the test facility. Naval Reactors
assures the committee that this delay will not delay delivery
of the shipboard motor for the lead ship of the Columbia class.
The committee understands that there is no margin left in the
Columbia-class schedule and expects Naval Reactors to take
strong action to ensure they meet all deliverables to the Navy.
The committee has long been supportive of the Naval
Reactors program and believes it is an exceptional example of a
nuclear-related government program that is safety-focused,
mission-driven, and well-managed. Due to this success, the
committee and the Navy will continue to have very high
expectations for performance by Naval Reactors. The committee
will continue its oversight of Naval Reactors' stewardship of
the Navy's nuclear mission.
Federal Salaries and Expenses
Comptroller General review of support service contracts
In 2015, the Department of Energy's Inspector General
conducted a review of the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) use and management of support service
contracts (SSC) and concluded that certain NNSA SSCs exhibited
characteristics that could create the appearance, depending on
how they are managed, of violating Federal acquisition
regulations. NNSA agreed to implement corrective actions in
response to the Inspector General's findings.
The committee remains concerned about NNSA's use and
management of SSCs, both from the perspective of compliance
with pertinent acquisition regulations and laws, as well as a
potential means to circumvent the intent of the statutory cap
on the number of Federal NNSA employees contained in section
3241A of the National Nuclear Security Administration Act (50
U.S.C. 2441a). The committee therefore directs the Comptroller
General of the United States to conduct a review of NNSA's use
and management of SSCs and to provide a briefing on such review
to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the House
of Representatives by March 1, 2018. This review should
include:
(1) the number and cost of NNSA's SSCs over the past 8
years, including the value of the contracts, the number of
personnel working under SSCs, and the cost of such personnel as
compared to costs of comparable Federal employees;
(2) the functions performed by SSC personnel and the type
of funding used to support SSCs, and the extent to which such
functions and funding sources were consistent with applicable
rules, guidance, directives, and laws;
(3) an assessment of NNSA's potential use of SSC personnel
to compensate for a perceived shortage in Federal employee
billets;
(4) actions taken by NNSA to address the findings and
recommendations made by the Inspector General in its 2015
review; and
(5) such other matters or additional opportunities for
improvement in the use and management of SSCs by NNSA as the
Comptroller General determines appropriate.
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Overview
The budget request for fiscal year 2018 contained $6.38
billion for environmental and other defense activities. The
committee recommends $6.46 billion, an increase of $73.0
million to the budget request.
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
The committee continues its oversight of recovery efforts
and operations at the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico. This unique
facility is central to the nation's immediate and long-term
plans for the disposal of transuranic nuclear waste created by
the nuclear weapons program. It suffered several incidents in
2014, one of which was caused by improper packaging of waste at
the Los Alamos National Laboratory that resulted in a release
of radioactive material and shutdown of the facility, costing
over $500.0 million in repairs and delaying shipments to the
facility for over 3 years.
The committee continues to monitor and oversee the
Department's efforts to recover from the 2014 incidents, and
acknowledges WIPP's resumption of limited waste emplacement
operations in January 2017. Shipments of waste to WIPP also
resumed in April. The committee believes that timely resumption
of full operations at WIPP is essential to eliminating the
risks posed by transuranic waste stored across the Department
of Energy defense enterprise, but cautions that such efforts
proceed with safety as the foremost priority. The committee
supports the Department's efforts to drill a new ventilation
shaft and build a new filter building. The committee encourages
the Department to explore options that would enable WIPP to be
more efficient, effective, and safe with its disposal of waste,
and expects the Department to keep Congress and the public
apprised of its continued recovery actions.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration
This section would authorize appropriations for the
National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2018,
including funds for weapons activities, defense nuclear
nonproliferation programs, naval reactor programs, and Federal
Salaries and Expenses (formerly known as the ``Office of the
Administrator''), at the levels specified in the funding table
in division D of this Act.
This section would also authorize several new plant
projects for the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Cleanup
This section would authorize appropriations for defense
environmental cleanup activities for fiscal year 2018 at the
levels specified in the funding table in division D of this
Act.
This section would also authorize several new plant
projects for the defense environmental cleanup program.
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities
This section would authorize appropriations for Other
Defense Activities for the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2018 at the levels specified in the funding table in division D
of this Act.
Section 3104--Nuclear Energy
This section would authorize appropriations for certain
nuclear energy programs for the Department of Energy for fiscal
year 2018 at the levels specified in the funding table in
division D of this Act.
Subtitle B--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 3111--Nuclear Security Enterprise Infrastructure
Recapitalization and Repair
This section would make a series of findings regarding the
need to address infrastructure problems within the nuclear
security enterprise.
This section would also require the Administrator for
Nuclear Security to establish, within 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, a program known as the Facilities
and Infrastructure Recapitalization and Repair Program (FIRRP)
with a goal of reducing the nuclear security enterprise backlog
of deferred maintenance and repair needs by at least 50 percent
within 5 years.
Furthermore, this section would require the Secretary of
Energy to provide the Administrator a process that will enhance
and streamline the ability of the Administrator to carry out
this program efficiently and effectively, including with
respect to:
(1) demolition or construction of non-nuclear facilities
where the total project cost is estimated to be less than
$100.0 million; and
(2) authority to decontaminate, decommission, and demolish
(to be performed in accordance with applicable health and
safety standards used by the defense environmental cleanup
program) process-contaminated facilities if the total project
cost is estimated to be less than $50.0 million.
This section would authorize the Administrator to carry out
this program without regard to certain requirements laid out in
Office of Management and Budget Management Procedures
Memorandum 2015-01. The Secretary and the Administrator would
be required to provide, alongside the President's budget
request for fiscal year 2019, a plan for achieving this goal.
The program would terminate 5 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
In addition, this section would require, within the annual
Stockpile Stewardship, Management, and Responsiveness Plan
mandated by section 2523 of title 50, United States Code, the
Administrator to report metrics related to infrastructure
deferred maintenance and repair needs based on industry best
practices.
Furthermore, this section would provide mechanisms such
that, for any line item plant projects authorized by Congress,
the Administrator ensures that all requirements that increase
scope, schedule, or budgets for such projects do not change
after certain steps in the design and construction process.
Finally, this section would also express the sense of
Congress regarding the program authorized by this section and
infrastructure needs within the nuclear security enterprise.
Section 3112--Incorporation of Integrated Surety Architecture in
Transportation
This section would create a new section, section 4222, in
the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2521) that would
require the Administrator for Nuclear Security, in coordination
with the Chairman of the Nuclear Weapons Council, to jointly
ensure that all nuclear warhead development programs, life
extension programs, and major alteration programs incorporate
integrated designs compatible with the Integrated Surety
Architecture (ISA) Program of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). The Administrator would further be
required to ensure that over-the-road shipments of the NNSA
involving any nuclear weapon planned to be in the active
stockpile after 2025 incorporates surety technologies relating
to transportation and shipping developed by the ISA Program.
If, on a case-by-case basis, the Administrator determines that
a shipment (or class of shipments) or program will not
incorporate some or all of the technologies, the Administrator
would be required to submit that determination and a documented
risk analysis to the congressional defense committees. The
requirements of this section would terminate on December 31,
2029, and the Administrator would be required to implement
direction relating to this section contained in the classified
annex accompanying this Act.
Section 3113--Cost Estimates for Life Extension Program and Major
Alteration Projects
This section would amend section 4217(b) of the Atomic
Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2537(b)) to require the Secretary
of Energy, acting through the Administrator for Nuclear
Security, to conduct an independent cost estimate or
independent cost review at various phases of warhead life
extension programs. The Administrator would be required to
submit the independent cost estimate or independent cost review
to the congressional defense committees not later than 30 days
after approval of the pertinent acquisition phase. Not later
than 30 days after that, the Administrator would be required to
submit any views of the Administrator regarding the cost
estimate or the program and whether the Administrator has
changed the baseline cost estimate and the future years nuclear
security program budget for the program.
Section 3114--Budget Requests and Certification regarding Nuclear
Weapons Dismantlement
This section would amend section 3125 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) to require that the Administrator for Nuclear Security
ensure that the President's request submitted to Congress under
section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for each of
the fiscal years 2019 through 2021 includes amounts for the
nuclear weapons dismantlement and disposition activities of the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in accordance
with the limitation in section 3125(a) of Public Law 114-328,
which prescribes a maximum amount of $56.0 million. This
section would also require the Administrator to certify to the
congressional defense committees by February 1, 2018, that the
Administrator is carrying out NNSA's nuclear weapons
dismantlement and disposition activities in accordance with the
limitations in subsections (a) and (b) of section 3125 of
Public Law 114-328.
Section 3115--Improved Information Relating to Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation Research and Development Program
This section would create a new section 4310 in the Atomic
Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2563) to require the
Administrator for Nuclear Security to track and document, for
efforts that are not focused on basic research, the
technologies and capabilities developed by the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation Research and Development (DNN R&D) program to
better understand whether such technologies are transitioned to
end users or deployed.
Furthermore, this section would require the Administrator,
in assessing projects within the DNN R&D program and the
Nonproliferation and Arms Control program, to compare the
status of each project, including the final results of such
projects, to baseline targets and goals established in the
initial project plan.
Lastly, this section would require the Administrator to
include, within the annual plan required by section 4309(b) of
the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2575(b)), information
related to these requirements.
Section 3116--Research and Development of Advanced Naval Reactor Fuel
Based on Low-Enriched Uranium
This section would provide that none of the funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made
available for fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Energy or
the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended to plan
or carry out research and development of an advanced naval
nuclear fuel system based on low-enriched uranium. However, the
section would authorize for these purposes, from within amounts
made available for fiscal year 2018 for defense nuclear
nonproliferation, $5.0 million for the Deputy Administrator for
Naval Reactors of the National Nuclear Security Administration.
This section would also authorize an additional $30.0 million
for these purposes from the amounts made available for defense
nuclear nonproliferation if the Secretary of Energy and
Secretary of the Navy determine under section 3118(c)(1) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (P.L.
114-92) that such research and development should continue.
This section would also create a new section, section 7319,
in title 10, United States Code, to provide that activities
related to planning or carrying out research and development of
an advanced naval nuclear fuel system based on low-enriched
uranium, and procuring of ships that use low-enriched uranium
in naval nuclear propulsion reactors, may only be carried out
using funding from the defense nuclear nonproliferation account
of the Department of Energy. This section would state that this
prohibition may not be superseded except by a provision of law
that specifically supersedes, repeals, or modifies this
section, section 7319.
Finally, this section would require two reports related to
this program.
Section 3117--Prohibition on Availability of Funds for Programs in
Russian Federation
This section would provide that none of the funds
authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made
available for fiscal year 2018 for atomic energy defense
activities may be obligated or expended to enter into a
contract with, or otherwise provide assistance to, the Russian
Federation. The Secretary of Energy, without delegation, would
be provided the authority to waive this prohibition if the
Secretary determines, in writing, that a nuclear-related threat
arising in the Russian Federation must be addressed urgently
and that it is necessary to waive the prohibition to address
that threat. The waiver could only be used if the Secretary of
State and the Secretary of Defense concur in that
determination, and the Secretary of Energy submits a report to
the appropriate congressional committees containing
notification that such waiver is in the national security
interest of the United States, a justification for such waiver,
a description of the activities to be carried out pursuant to
the waiver, and a period of 7 days elapses. The prohibition and
waiver contained in this section would not apply to up to $3.0
million that the Secretary of Energy may make available for the
Department of Energy's Russian Health Studies Program.
Section 3118--National Nuclear Security Administration Pay and
Performance System
This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear
Security to continue to carry out the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) Pay Banding and Performance-Based Pay
Adjustment Demonstration Project authorized under section 4703
of title 5, United States Code, for 5 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act. As part of this project, the
Administrator for Nuclear Security would be required to enable
and incentivize NNSA employees to undertake rotational
assignments and ensure that employees complete certain
requirements (as determined by the Administrator) related to
rotational assignments, professional training, and continuing
education before they may be considered for appointment to
senior-level positions.
This section would further require the Administrator to
take actions (as determined by the Administrator) to strengthen
and increase the use of rotational assignments through
intergovernmental personnel agreements or similar programs by
NNSA employees and the employees of its management and
operating contractors.
This section would also require the Director of the NNSA
Office of Cost Estimating and Program Evaluation to carry out a
red-team analysis of NNSA's Federal staffing structure.
Finally, the Administrator and the Director would be
required to provide briefings to the appropriate congressional
committees within 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act on the matters contained in this section.
Section 3119--Disposition of Weapons-Usable Plutonium
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to carry
out construction and project support activities for the Mixed
Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility with any funds authorized to be
appropriated or otherwise made available for such purposes for
fiscal year 2018. The Secretary would be allowed to waive this
requirement if the Secretary submits certain matters,
notifications, and certifications to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Section 3120--Modification of Minor Construction Threshold for Plant
Projects
This section would amend section 4701 of the Atomic Energy
Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2741) to increase the minor construction
threshold for projects authorized by a Department of Energy
national security authorization from $10.0 million to $20.0
million and index such threshold to inflation.
Section 3121--Design Competition
This section would make a series of findings and require
the Administrator for Nuclear Security to plan and carry out a
new and comprehensive design competition for a nuclear warhead
that could be employed on ballistic missiles of the United
States by 2030. The Administrator would be required to develop
a plan to carry out this design competition in fiscal year 2018
and implement such plan in fiscal year 2019. The Administrator
would be required to provide a briefing to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives by
March 1, 2018, on the plan to carry out this design
competition.
Section 3122--Department of Energy Counterintelligence Polygraph
Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to add
dual citizens in positions with access to highly classified
information to their counterintelligence polygraph program, for
the purposes of assessing risk.
Section 3123--Security Clearance for Dual-Nationals Employed by
National Nuclear Security Agency
This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to
apply additional security reviews to dual citizens seeking
positions that require access to highly classified information.
Subtitle C--Plans and Reports
Section 3131--Modification of Certain Reporting Requirements
This section would eliminate, consolidate, or modify
several existing reporting requirements.
Section 3132--Assessment of Management and Operating Contracts of
National Security Laboratories
This section would require, within 30 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator for Nuclear
Security to seek to enter into a contract with a federally
funded research and development center (FFRDC) to conduct an
assessment of the benefits, costs, challenges, risks,
efficiency, and effectiveness of the Administrator's strategy
with respect to management and operating contracts for national
security laboratories. This section would prohibit the
Administrator from awarding such contract to an FFRDC for which
the Department of Energy or the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) is the primary sponsor.
This section would further require the Administrator and
the director of each national security laboratory to provide
the FFRDC conducting the assessment full cooperation and access
to all information required to conduct the assessment. The
FFRDC would be required to submit a report to the Administrator
containing their assessment within 90 days of contract award.
Such report would be required to include the FFRDC's assessment
of matters related to the NNSA's acquisition strategy and
contract oversight process, particularly with respect to the
use of for-profit contracts as opposed to nonprofit approaches,
and whether the NNSA is appropriately using, managing, and
overseeing the laboratories with respect to their nature as
FFRDCs. The Administrator would be required to provide the
FFRDC report, unchanged, to the congressional defense
committees.
Finally, this section would prohibit any funds authorized
to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for
fiscal year 2018 for the NNSA to be obligated or expended to
award, or extend, a management and operating contract for a
national security laboratory until the Administrator submits
the FFRDC report to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives. The Secretary of
Energy would be authorized to waive this prohibition and extend
such a contract only if the Secretary determines it is required
in the interest of national security and notifies the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
This section would also express the sense of Congress that
states that this section should not be construed to mandate or
encourage an extension of an existing management and operating
contract for a national security laboratory.
Section 3133--Evaluation of Classification of Certain Defense Nuclear
Waste
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
conduct an evaluation of the feasibility, costs, and cost
savings of classifying, without decreasing safety requirements,
certain defense nuclear waste as other than high-level
radioactive waste. The Secretary would be required to submit a
report on this evaluation to the appropriate congressional
committees by February 1, 2018.
Section 3134--Report on Critical Decision-1 on Material Staging
Facility Project
This section would require that the Administrator for
Nuclear Security submit a report to the congressional defense
committees, not later than October 31, 2017, containing the
Administrator's decision memorandum for Critical Decision-1
(CD-1) on the Material Staging Facility project at the Pantex
Plant. The report would be required to contain the preferred
alternative approved by the Administrator for CD-1 and several
other key pieces of information regarding the project.
Section 3135--Modification to Stockpile Stewardship, Management, and
Responsiveness Plan
This section would amend section 4203 of the Atomic Energy
Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2523) to require the Administrator to
include, within the Stockpile Stewardship, Management, and
Responsiveness Plan (SSMRP), an assessment of whether the
programs described by the SSMRP can be executed with current
and projected budgets and any associated risks.
Section 3136--Improved Reporting for Anti-Smuggling Radiation Detection
Systems
This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear
Security to submit to the congressional defense committees,
with the President's budget request for fiscal years 2019
through 2021, a report regarding any anti-smuggling radiation
detection systems that the Administrator proposes to deploy
during the fiscal year covered by the budget request.
Section 3137--Annual Selected Acquisition Reports on Certain Hardware
Relating to Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
The section would require the Administrator for Nuclear
Security to submit to the congressional defense committees, at
the end of each fiscal year, selected acquisition reports for
certain projects carried out by the defense nuclear
nonproliferation research and development program that are
focused on the production and deployment of hardware (including
with respect to the development and deployment of satellites or
satellite payloads) and exceed $500.0 million in total program
cost over the course of five years.
Section 3138--Assessment of Design Trade Options of W80-4 Warhead
This section would require the Director for Cost Estimating
and Program Evaluation of the National Nuclear Security
Administration to conduct an assessment of the design trade
options, and the associated costs and benefits of each option,
for the W80-4 warhead. The Director would be required to submit
such assessment to the Administrator for Nuclear Security
within 60 days of enactment of this Act. The Administrator
would be required to provide a briefing to the congressional
defense committees 30 days later containing a copy of the
assessment and any views of the Administrator.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3201--Authorization
The budget request contained $30.6 million for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2018. The
committee recommends $30.6 million, the amount of the budget
request.
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize $4.9 million for fiscal year
2018 for operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum
Reserves.
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
National Security Multi-Mission Vessel
The committee continues to support the Maritime
Administration's efforts to develop and procure the National
Security Multi-Mission Vessel for the recapitalization of the
state maritime academies training vessels. The state maritime
academies play a vital role in the education and training of
United States merchant mariners. A substantial portion of the
training is done aboard training vessels provided by the
Maritime Administration. Most of these vessels have reached the
end of their service life and in some cases are over 50 years
old. The committee is disappointed that the administration did
not provide any funding in the budget request after 2 years of
requirements review and design funding. Therefore, the
committee recommends $36.0 million for the continued
development of the National Security Multi-Mission vessel.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3501--Authorization of the Maritime Administration
This section would authorize appropriations for the
national security aspects of the merchant marine for fiscal
year 2018.
Section 3502--Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946
This section would repeal the first section and sections 2,
3, 5, 12, and 14 of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946.
Additionally, the section transfers section 8(d) of the Act to
chapter 563, Emergency Acquisition of Vessels, of title 46,
United States Code. Finally, the section transfers section 11
of the Act to chapter 571, General Authority, of title 46,
United States Code.
Section 3503--Maritime Security Fleet Program; Restriction on Operation
for New Entrants
This section would amend section 53105 of title 46, United
States Code, and prohibit a maritime security program payment
to a vessel operating in the transportation of cargo between
points in the United States and its territories either directly
or via a foreign port. This section would further authorize the
replacement of vessels under an existing operating agreement.
Section 3504--Codification of Sections Relating to Acquisition,
Charter, and Requisition of Vessels
This section would move certain sections related to the
acquisition, charter and requisition of vessels from title 50
to title 46 and make additional conforming changes.
Section 3505--Assistance for Small Shipyards
This section would amend section 54101 of title 46, United
States Code, and limit small shipyard grants to organizations
relating to shipbuilding, ship repair and associated
industries. Additionally, this section would authorize funds
for small shipyard grants for fiscal years 2018 and 2019.
Section 3506--Report on Sexual Assault Victim Recovery in the Coast
Guard
This section would require the Commandant of the Coast
Guard to submit a report on sexual assault prevention and
response policies of the Coast Guard and strategic goals
related to sexual assault victim recovery to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure no later than 180 days after
the enactment of this Act.
Section 3507--Centers of Excellence
This section would amend chapter 541 of title 46, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to
designate centers of excellence for domestic maritime workforce
training and education.
DIVISION D--FUNDING TABLES
Section 4001--Authorization of Amounts in Funding Tables
This section 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
guidance in accordance with established procedures.
Consistent with the previously expressed views of the
committee, this section would also require that a decision by
an agency head to commit, obligate, or expend funds to a
specific entity on the basis of such funding tables be based on
merit-based selection procedures in accordance with the
requirements of section 2304(k) and section 2374 of title 10,
United States Code, and other applicable provisions of law.
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
(In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House
FY 2018 Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATIONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
National Defense Funding, Base Budget Request
Function 051, Department of Defense-Military
Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations
Title I--Procurement
Aircraft Procurement, Army.................................... 4,149,894 1,443,667 5,593,561
Missile Procurement, Army..................................... 2,519,054 559,247 3,078,301
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army....................... 2,423,608 2,535,039 4,958,647
Procurement of Ammunition, Army............................... 1,879,283 355,964 2,235,247
Other Procurement, Army....................................... 6,469,331 1,993,891 8,463,222
Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Fund........................... 14,442 14,442
Aircraft Procurement, Navy.................................... 15,056,235 3,358,550 18,414,785
Weapons Procurement, Navy..................................... 3,420,107 74,200 3,494,307
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps................ 792,345 792,345
Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy............................... 19,903,682 -680,300 19,223,382
Other Procurement, Navy....................................... 8,277,789 445,986 8,723,775
Procurement, Marine Corps..................................... 2,064,825 8,879 2,073,704
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force............................... 15,430,849 2,917,162 18,348,011
Missile Procurement, Air Force................................ 2,296,182 17,000 2,313,182
Space Procurement, Air Force.................................. 3,370,775 176,350 3,547,125
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.......................... 1,376,602 1,376,602
Other Procurement, Air Force.................................. 19,603,497 314,648 19,918,145
Procurement, Defense-Wide..................................... 4,835,418 457,100 5,292,518
Joint Urgent Operational Needs Fund........................... 99,795 -99,795 0
Subtotal, Title I--Procurement................................ 113,983,713 13,877,588 127,861,301
Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army................ 9,425,440 228,940 9,654,380
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy................ 17,675,035 309,200 17,984,235
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force........... 34,914,359 278,255 35,192,614
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide........ 20,490,902 505,326 20,996,228
Operational Test & Evaluation, Defense........................ 210,900 210,900
Subtotal, Title II--Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 82,716,636 1,321,721 84,038,357
Title III--Operation and Maintenance
Operation & Maintenance, Army................................. 38,945,417 1,494,172 40,439,589
Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve......................... 2,906,842 1,282 2,908,124
Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard.................. 7,307,170 74,410 7,381,580
Operation & Maintenance, Navy................................. 45,439,407 -3,689 45,435,718
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps......................... 6,933,408 123,733 7,057,141
Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve......................... 1,084,007 -9,800 1,074,207
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve................. 278,837 -300 278,537
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force............................ 39,429,232 954,826 40,384,058
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve.................... 3,267,507 -4,100 3,263,407
Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard................... 6,939,968 164,300 7,104,268
Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide......................... 34,585,817 207,025 34,792,842
US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Defense............. 14,538 14,538
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Aid................. 104,900 104,900
Cooperative Threat Reduction.................................. 324,600 324,600
Environmental Restoration, Army............................... 215,809 215,809
Environmental Restoration, Navy............................... 281,415 42,234 323,649
Environmental Restoration, Air Force.......................... 293,749 30,000 323,749
Environmental Restoration, Defense............................ 9,002 9,002
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Sites................ 208,673 208,673
Subtotal, Title III--Operation and Maintenance................ 188,570,298 3,074,093 191,644,391
Title IV--Military Personnel
Military Personnel Appropriations............................. 133,881,636 184,389 134,066,025
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions........... 7,804,427 7,804,427
Subtotal, Title IV--Military Personnel........................ 141,686,063 184,389 141,870,452
Title XIV--Other Authorizations
Working Capital Fund, Army.................................... 83,776 50,111 133,887
Working Capital Fund, Air Force............................... 66,462 66,462
Working Capital Fund, DECA.................................... 1,389,340 -45,000 1,344,340
Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide............................ 47,018 47,018
National Defense Sealift Fund................................. 509,327 7,000 516,327
Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction....................... 961,732 961,732
Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities................. 790,814 17,000 807,814
Office of the Inspector General............................... 336,887 336,887
Defense Health Program........................................ 33,664,466 -118,600 33,545,866
Subtotal, Title XIV--Other Authorizations..................... 37,849,822 -89,489 37,760,333
Total, Division A: Department of Defense Authorizations....... 564,806,532 18,368,302 583,174,834
Division B: Military Construction Authorizations
Military Construction
Army.......................................................... 920,394 37,400 957,794
Navy.......................................................... 1,616,665 58,320 1,674,985
Air Force..................................................... 1,738,796 -128,022 1,610,774
Defense-Wide.................................................. 3,114,913 -351,081 2,763,832
NATO Security Investment Program.............................. 154,000 -1,068 152,932
Army National Guard........................................... 210,652 56,000 266,652
Army Reserve.................................................. 73,712 56,000 129,712
Navy and Marine Corps Reserve................................. 65,271 65,271
Air National Guard............................................ 161,491 41,900 203,391
Air Force Reserve............................................. 63,535 44,100 107,635
Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund........................ 623 623
Subtotal, Military Construction............................... 8,120,052 -186,451 7,933,601
Family Housing
Construction, Army............................................ 182,662 -18,000 164,662
Operation & Maintenance, Army................................. 346,625 346,625
Construction, Navy and Marine Corps........................... 83,682 -8,000 75,682
Operation & Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps................ 328,282 328,282
Construction, Air Force....................................... 85,062 -20,000 65,062
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force............................ 318,324 318,324
Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide......................... 59,169 59,169
Improvement Fund.............................................. 2,726 2,726
Subtotal, Family Housing...................................... 1,406,532 -46,000 1,360,532
Base Realignment and Closure
Base Realignment and Closure--Army............................ 58,000 58,000
Base Realignment and Closure--Navy............................ 143,644 35,000 178,644
Base Realignment and Closure--Air Force....................... 54,223 54,223
Subtotal, Base Realignment and Closure........................ 255,867 35,000 290,867
Total, Division B: Military Construction Authorizations....... 9,782,451 -197,451 9,585,000
Total, 051, Department of Defense-Military.................... 574,588,983 18,170,851 592,759,834
Division C: Department of Energy National Security Authorization and Other Authorizations
Function 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Nuclear Energy................................................ 133,000 133,000
Weapons Activities............................................ 10,239,344 184,200 10,423,544
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.............................. 1,793,310 80,000 1,873,310
Naval Reactors................................................ 1,479,751 1,479,751
Federal Salaries and Expenses................................. 418,595 -11,000 407,595
Defense Environmental Cleanup................................. 5,537,186 70,000 5,607,186
Other Defense Activities...................................... 815,512 3,000 818,512
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal................................ 30,000 30,000
Subtotal, Environmental and Other Defense Activities.......... 20,446,698 326,200 20,772,898
Independent Federal Agency Authorization
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board....................... 30,600 30,600
Subtotal, Independent Federal Agency Authorization............ 30,600 0 30,600
Subtotal, 053, Atomic Energy Defense Activities............... 20,477,298 326,200 20,803,498
Function 054, Defense-Related Activities
Other Agency Authorizations
Maritime Security Program..................................... 210,000 210,000
Subtotal, Independent Federal Agency Authorization............ 210,000 0 210,000
Subtotal, 054, Defense-Related Activities..................... 210,000 0 210,000
Subtotal, Division C: Department of Energy National Security 20,687,298 326,200 21,013,498
Authorization and Other Authorizations.......................
Total, National Defense Funding, Base Budget Request.......... 595,276,281 18,497,051 613,773,332
National Defense Funding, Overseas Contingency Operations
National Defense Funding, Overseas Contingency Operations Funding for Base Requirements
Function 051, Department of Defense-Military
Procurement
Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy............................... 6,046,800 6,046,800
Subtotal, Procurement......................................... 0 6,046,800 6,046,800
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army................ 85,866 85,866
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy................ 38,500 38,500
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force........... 190,750 190,750
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide........ 463,500 463,500
Subtotal, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation.......... 0 778,616 778,616
Operation and Maintenance
Operation & Maintenance, Army................................. 629,047 629,047
Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve......................... 82,619 82,619
Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard.................. 173,900 173,900
Operation & Maintenance, Navy................................. 414,200 414,200
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps......................... 217,487 217,487
Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve......................... 11,500 11,500
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve................. 7,246 7,246
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force............................ 507,700 507,700
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve.................... 15,300 15,300
Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard................... 47,600 47,600
Subtotal, Operation and Maintenance........................... 0 2,106,599 2,106,599
Military Personnel
Military Personnel Appropriations............................. 1,017,700 1,017,700
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions........... 44,140 44,140
Subtotal, Military Personnel.................................. 0 1,061,840 1,061,840
Subtotal, 051, Department of Defense-Military................. 0 9,993,855 9,993,855
Total, National Defense Funding, Overseas Contingency 0 9,993,855 9,993,855
Operations Funding for Base Requirements.....................
National Defense Funding, Overseas Contingency Operations Budget Request
Function 051, Department of Defense-Military
Procurement
Aircraft Procurement, Army.................................... 424,686 110,234 534,920
Missile Procurement, Army..................................... 559,283 845,181 1,404,464
Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army....................... 1,191,139 -1,014,139 177,000
Procurement of Ammunition, Army............................... 193,436 552,320 745,756
Other Procurement, Army....................................... 405,575 172,378 577,953
Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Fund........................... 483,058 483,058
Aircraft Procurement, Navy.................................... 157,300 16,000 173,300
Weapons Procurement, Navy..................................... 152,373 12,000 164,373
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy & Marine Corps................ 225,587 42,500 268,087
Other Procurement, Navy....................................... 220,059 -58,586 161,473
Procurement, Marine Corps..................................... 65,274 149,129 214,403
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force............................... 740,778 14,183 754,961
Missile Procurement, Air Force................................ 395,400 395,400
Space Procurement, Air Force.................................. 2,256 2,256
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force.......................... 501,509 501,509
Other Procurement, Air Force.................................. 4,008,887 262,549 4,271,436
Procurement, Defense-Wide..................................... 518,026 67,525 585,551
National Guard & Reserve Equipment............................ 0 500,000 500,000
Subtotal, Procurement......................................... 10,244,626 1,671,274 11,915,900
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army................ 119,368 183,239 302,607
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy................ 130,365 -11,600 118,765
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Air Force........... 135,358 14,000 149,358
Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Defense-Wide........ 226,096 509,646 735,742
Subtotal, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation.......... 611,187 695,285 1,306,472
Operation and Maintenance
Operation & Maintenance, Army................................. 16,126,403 -1,427,940 14,698,463
Operation & Maintenance, Army Reserve......................... 24,699 33,279 57,978
Operation & Maintenance, Army National Guard.................. 108,111 108,111
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund.............................. 4,937,515 4,937,515
Counter-ISIS Train & Equip Fund............................... 1,769,000 1,769,000
Operation & Maintenance, Navy................................. 5,875,015 39,489 5,914,504
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps......................... 1,116,640 -164,733 951,907
Operation & Maintenance, Navy Reserve......................... 23,980 23,980
Operation & Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve................. 3,367 3,367
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force............................ 10,266,295 -313,426 9,952,869
Operation & Maintenance, Air Force Reserve.................... 58,523 58,523
Operation & Maintenance, Air National Guard................... 15,400 15,400
Operation & Maintenance, Defense-Wide......................... 7,712,080 -424,519 7,287,561
Ukraine Security Assistance................................... 0 150,000 150,000
Subtotal, Operation and Maintenance........................... 48,037,028 -2,107,850 45,929,178
Military Personnel
Military Personnel Appropriations............................. 4,276,276 -214,289 4,061,987
Subtotal, Military Personnel.................................. 4,276,276 -214,289 4,061,987
Other Authorizations
Working Capital Fund, Army.................................... 50,111 -50,111 0
Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide............................ 98,845 98,845
Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities................. 196,300 196,300
Office of the Inspector General............................... 24,692 24,692
Defense Health Program........................................ 395,805 395,805
Subtotal, Other Authorizations................................ 765,753 -50,111 715,642
Military Construction
Army.......................................................... 139,700 6,400 146,100
Navy.......................................................... 18,500 13,390 31,890
Air Force..................................................... 478,030 -43,378 434,652
Defense-Wide.................................................. 1,900 22,400 24,300
Subtotal, Military Construction............................... 638,130 -1,188 636,942
Total, Overseas Contingency Operations Budget Request......... 64,573,000 -6,879 64,566,121
Total, National Defense Funding, Overseas Contingency 64,573,000 9,986,976 74,559,976
Operations...................................................
Subtotal, 051, Department of Defense-Military................. 64,573,000 9,986,976 74,559,976
Total, National Defense Funding, Overseas Contingency 64,573,000 9,986,976 74,559,976
Operations...................................................
Total, National Defense....................................... 659,849,281 28,484,027 688,333,308
MEMORANDUM: NON-DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
Title XII--Financial oblications pursuant to Section 432 of 0 123,900 123,900
the Compact of Free Association with Palau (Function 800)....
Title XIV--Armed Forces Retirement Home (Function 600)........ 64,300 64,300
Title XXXIV--Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves (Function 4,900 4,900
270).........................................................
MEMORANDUM: TRANSFER AUTHORITIES (NON-ADD)
Title X--General Transfer Authority........................... [5,000,000] [5,000,000]
Title XV--Special Transfer Authority.......................... [4,500,000] [-2,000,000] [2,500,000]
MEMORANDUM: DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE (NON-ADD)
Defense Production Act........................................ [37,401] [37,401]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET AUTHORITY IMPLICATION
(In Thousands of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 House
Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary, Discretionary Authorizations Within the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee
SUBTOTAL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (051)........................... 574,588,983 18,170,851 592,759,834
SUBTOTAL, ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE PROGRAMS (053).................. 20,477,298 326,200 20,803,498
SUBTOTAL, DEFENSE-RELATED ACTIVITIES (054)...................... 210,000 210,000
TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE (050)--BASE BILL........................ 595,276,281 18,497,051 613,773,332
TOTAL, OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.......................... 64,573,000 9,986,976 74,559,976
GRAND TOTAL, NATIONAL DEFENSE................................... 659,849,281 28,484,027 688,333,308
Base National Defense Discretionary Programs that are Not In the Jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee or
Do Not Require Additional Authorization (CBO Estimates)
Defense Production Act Purchases................................ 37,000 37,000
Indefinite Account: Disposal Of DOD Real Property............... 8,000 8,000
Indefinite Account: Lease Of DOD Real Property.................. 38,000 38,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 051............................... 83,000 83,000
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program................. 118,000 118,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053............................... 118,000 118,000
Other Discretionary Programs.................................... 7,645,000 7,645,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054............................... 7,645,000 7,645,000
Total Defense Discretionary Adjustments (050)................... 7,846,000 7,846,000
Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary
Department of Defense--Military (051)........................... 639,244,983 28,157,827 667,402,810
Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053).......................... 20,595,298 326,200 20,921,498
Defense-Related Activities (054)................................ 7,855,000 7,855,000
Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary............ 667,695,281 28,484,027 696,179,308
National Defense Mandatory Programs, Current Law (CBO Baseline)
Concurrent receipt accrual payments to the Military Retirement 7,496,000 7,496,000
Fund...........................................................
Revolving, trust and other DOD Mandatory........................ 1,333,000 1,333,000
Offsetting receipts............................................. -1,889,000 -1,889,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 051............................... 6,940,000 6,940,000
Energy employees occupational illness compensation programs and 1,273,000 1,273,000
other..........................................................
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 053............................... 1,273,000 1,273,000
Radiation exposure compensation trust fund...................... 59,000 59,000
Payment to CIA retirement fund and other........................ 514,000 514,000
Subtotal, Budget Sub-Function 054............................... 573,000 573,000
BCA Mandatory Sequestration--Undistributed Plug................. -691,000 -691,000
Total National Defense Mandatory (050).......................... 8,095,000 8,095,000
Budget Authority Implication, National Defense Discretionary and Mandatory
Department of Defense--Military (051)........................... 646,184,983 28,157,827 674,342,810
Atomic Energy Defense Activities (053).......................... 21,868,298 326,200 22,194,498
Defense-Related Activities (054)................................ 8,428,000 8,428,000
Undistributed (050)............................................. -691,000 -691,000
Total BA Implication, National Defense Discretionary and 675,790,281 28,484,027 704,274,308
Mandatory......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLI--PROCUREMENT
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4101. PROCUREMENT (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Request House Change House Authorized
Line Item ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
FIXED WING
002 UTILITY F/W 4 75,115 4 75,115
AIRCRAFT.
004 MQ-1 UAV....... 2 30,206 6 60,000 8 90,206
Unfunded [6] [60,000]
requirement.
ROTARY
005 HELICOPTER, 13 108,383 13 108,383
LIGHT UTILITY
(LUH).
006 AH-64 APACHE 48 725,976 48 725,976
BLOCK IIIA
REMAN.
007 ADVANCE 170,910 170,910
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
008 AH-64 APACHE 13 374,100 8 274,400 21 648,500
BLOCK IIIB NEW
BUILD.
Unfunded [8] [274,400]
requirement.
009 ADVANCE 71,900 71,900
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
010 UH-60 BLACKHAWK 48 938,308 5 286,402 53 1,224,710
M MODEL (MYP).
Unfunded [5] [100,000]
requirement
-additional
5 for ARNG.
Unfunded [186,402]
requirement
-UH-60M
ECPs.
011 ADVANCE 86,295 86,295
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
012 UH-60 BLACK 36 76,516 3 16,700 39 93,216
HAWK A AND L
MODELS.
Unfunded [3] [16,700]
requirement
-UH-60Vs.
013 CH-47 6 202,576 8 354,500 14 557,076
HELICOPTER.
Emergent [4] [108,000]
requirement
s--addition
al 4 CH-47F
Block I.
Unfunded [4] [246,500]
requirement
-additional
4 MH-47Gs.
014 ADVANCE 17,820 17,820
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
015 MQ-1 PAYLOAD 5,910 10 24,000 10 29,910
(MIP).
Realign [8,000]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
Unfunded [10] [16,000]
requirement.
016 UNIVERSAL 15,000 15,000
GROUND CONTROL
EQUIPMENT
(UAS).
017 GRAY EAGLE 74,291 74,291
MODS2.
018 MULTI SENSOR 68,812 7 58,950 7 127,762
ABN RECON
(MIP).
Realign [29,475]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
Unfunded [7] [29,475]
requirement.
019 AH-64 MODS..... 238,141 144,800 382,941
Unfunded [144,800]
requirement.
020 CH-47 CARGO 20,166 61,000 81,166
HELICOPTER
MODS (MYP).
Unfunded [61,000]
requirement.
021 GRCS SEMA MODS 5,514 5,514
(MIP).
022 ARL SEMA MODS 11,650 11,650
(MIP).
023 EMARSS SEMA 15,279 15,279
MODS (MIP).
024 UTILITY/CARGO 57,737 57,737
AIRPLANE MODS.
025 UTILITY 5,900 5,900
HELICOPTER
MODS.
026 NETWORK AND 142,102 142,102
MISSION PLAN.
027 COMMS, NAV 166,050 505 41,580 505 207,630
SURVEILLANCE.
Unfunded [505] [41,580]
requirement
-ARC-201D
encrypted
radios.
028 GATM ROLLUP.... 37,403 37,403
029 RQ-7 UAV MODS.. 83,160 111,000 194,160
Unfunded [111,000]
requirement.
030 UAS MODS....... 26,109 320 26,429
Unfunded [320]
requirement.
GROUND SUPPORT
AVIONICS
031 AIRCRAFT 70,913 70,913
SURVIVABILITY
EQUIPMENT.
032 SURVIVABILITY 5,884 5,884
CM.
033 CMWS........... 26,825 26,825
034 COMMON INFRARED 6,337 6,337
COUNTERMEASURE
S (CIRCM).
OTHER SUPPORT
035 AVIONICS 7,038 7,038
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
036 COMMON GROUND 47,404 92 8,900 92 56,304
EQUIPMENT.
Unfunded [1,800]
requirement
-grow the
Army.
Unfunded [92] [7,100]
requirement
-Non
destructive
test equip.
037 AIRCREW 47,066 47,066
INTEGRATED
SYSTEMS.
038 AIR TRAFFIC 83,790 1,115 84,905
CONTROL.
Unfunded [1,115]
requirement.
039 INDUSTRIAL 1,397 1,397
FACILITIES.
040 LAUNCHER, 2.75 1,911 1,911
ROCKET.
TOTAL 170 4,149,894 644 1,443,667 814 5,593,561
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMEN
T, ARMY.
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
SURFACE-TO-AIR
MISSILE SYSTEM
001 LOWER TIER AIR 140,826 140,826
AND MISSILE
DEFENSE (AMD).
002 MSE MISSILE.... 93 459,040 93 459,040
003 INDIRECT FIRE 57,742 57,742
PROTECTION
CAPABILITY INC
2-I.
AIR-TO-SURFACE
MISSILE SYSTEM
005 HELLFIRE SYS 998 94,790 998 94,790
SUMMARY.
006 JOINT AIR-TO- 824 178,432 -5,000 824 173,432
GROUND MSLS
(JAGM).
Program [-5,000]
decrease.
ANTI-TANK/
ASSAULT
MISSILE SYS
008 JAVELIN (AAWS- 525 110,123 47 8,112 572 118,235
M) SYSTEM
SUMMARY.
Realign [47] [8,112]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
009 TOW 2 SYSTEM 1,156 85,851 49 3,907 1,205 89,758
SUMMARY.
Realign [49] [3,907]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
010 ADVANCE 19,949 19,949
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
011 GUIDED MLRS 4,458 595,182 -1,300 4,458 593,882
ROCKET (GMLRS).
Program [-2,800]
reduction--
unit cost
savings.
Unfunded [1,500]
requirement
-training
devices.
012 MLRS REDUCED 3,306 28,321 3,306 28,321
RANGE PRACTICE
ROCKETS (RRPR).
013 HIGH MOBILITY 64 476,728 64 476,728
ARTILLERY
ROCKET SYSTEM
(HIMARS.
Realign [41,000]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
Unfunded [32] [197,000]
requirement
-ERI.
Unfunded [32] [238,728]
requirement
-grow the
Army.
MODIFICATIONS
015 PATRIOT MODS... 329,073 329,073
016 ATACMS MODS.... 116,040 116,040
017 GMLRS MOD...... 531 531
018 STINGER MODS... 63,090 28,000 91,090
Realign [28,000]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
019 AVENGER MODS... 62,931 62,931
020 ITAS/TOW MODS.. 3,500 3,500
021 MLRS MODS...... 138,235 32 48,800 32 187,035
Unfunded [32] [48,800]
requirement.
022 HIMARS 9,566 9,566
MODIFICATIONS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
023 SPARES AND 18,915 18,915
REPAIR PARTS.
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
024 AIR DEFENSE 5,728 5,728
TARGETS.
026 PRODUCTION BASE 1,189 1,189
SUPPORT.
TOTAL 11,360 2,519,054 192 559,247 11,552 3,078,301
MISSILE
PROCUREMEN
T, ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF
W&TCV, ARMY
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
001 BRADLEY PROGRAM 60 200,000 60 200,000
Realign [60] [200,000]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
002 ARMORED MULTI 42 193,715 65 253,903 107 447,618
PURPOSE
VEHICLE (AMPV).
Realign [65] [253,903]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
MODIFICATION OF
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
004 STRYKER (MOD).. 97,552 97,552
005 STRYKER UPGRADE 348,000 348,000
Unfunded [348,000]
requirement
- completes
4th DVH
SBCT.
006 BRADLEY PROGRAM 444,851 33 141,000 33 585,851
(MOD).
Realign [30,000]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
Unfunded [33] [111,000]
requirement.
007 M109 FOV 64,230 64,230
MODIFICATIONS.
008 PALADIN 59 646,413 12 125,736 71 772,149
INTEGRATED
MANAGEMENT
(PIM).
Realign [12] [125,736]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
009 IMPROVED 16 72,402 35 122,000 51 194,402
RECOVERY
VEHICLE (M88A2
HERCULES).
Unfunded [35] [122,000]
requirement.
010 ASSAULT BRIDGE 5,855 5,855
(MOD).
011 ASSAULT 7 34,221 3 30,000 10 64,221
BREACHER
VEHICLE.
Unfunded [3] [30,000]
requirement.
012 M88 FOV MODS... 4,826 4,826
013 JOINT ASSAULT 27 128,350 27 128,350
BRIDGE.
014 M1 ABRAMS TANK 248,826 309,700 558,526
(MOD).
Realign [138,700]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
Unfunded [171,000]
requirement.
015 ABRAMS UPGRADE 20 275,000 65 817,800 85 1,092,800
PROGRAM.
Realign [36] [442,800]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
Unfunded [29] [375,000]
requirement.
WEAPONS & OTHER
COMBAT
VEHICLES
018 M240 MEDIUM 1,992 161 1,300 161 3,292
MACHINE GUN
(7.62MM).
Unfunded [161] [1,300]
requirement.
019 MULTI-ROLE ANTI- 6,520 742 52,000 742 58,520
ARMOR ANTI-
PERSONNEL
WEAPON S.
Unfunded [742] [52,000]
requirement.
020 MORTAR SYSTEMS. 21,452 13,100 34,552
Unfunded [13,100]
requirement
-120mm
mortars.
021 XM320 GRENADE 4,524 234 800 234 5,324
LAUNCHER
MODULE (GLM).
Unfunded [234] [800]
requirement.
023 CARBINE........ 43,150 12311 8,000 12,311 51,150
Unfunded [7,656] [5,000]
requirement.
Unfunded [4,655] [3,000]
requirement
-grow the
Army.
024 COMMON REMOTELY 750 10,000 10,750
OPERATED
WEAPONS
STATION.
Unfunded [10,000]
requirement
-modificati
ons.
025 HANDGUN........ 8,326 1389 400 1,389 8,726
Unfunded [1,389] [400]
requirement.
MOD OF WEAPONS
AND OTHER
COMBAT VEH
026 MK-19 GRENADE 2,000 2,000
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
027 M777 MODS...... 3,985 18 85,800 18 89,785
Unfunded [18] [85,800]
requirement.
028 M4 CARBINE MODS 31,315 31,315
029 M2 50 CAL 47,414 188 5,000 188 52,414
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
Unfunded [2,600]
requirement
-accessorie
s.
Unfunded [188] [2,400]
requirement
-M2A1
machine
guns.
030 M249 SAW 3,339 3,339
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
031 M240 MEDIUM 4,577 6,600 11,177
MACHINE GUN
MODS.
Unfunded [1,000]
requirement
-accessorie
s.
Unfunded [5,600]
requirement
-M240Ls.
032 SNIPER RIFLES 1,488 1,488
MODIFICATIONS.
033 M119 12,678 12,678
MODIFICATIONS.
034 MORTAR 3,998 3,998
MODIFICATION.
035 MODIFICATIONS 2,219 2,219
LESS THAN
$5.0M (WOCV-
WTCV).
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
036 ITEMS LESS THAN 5,075 2,700 7,775
$5.0M (WOCV-
WTCV).
Unfunded [2,700]
requirement.
037 PRODUCTION BASE 992 992
SUPPORT (WOCV-
WTCV).
039 SMALL ARMS 1,573 1,573
EQUIPMENT
(SOLDIER ENH
PROG).
UNDISTRIBUTED
042 UNDISTRIBUTED.. 1,200 1,200
Security [1,200]
Force
Assistance
Brigade.
TOTAL 171 2,423,608 15,316 2,535,039 15,487 4,958,647
PROCUREMEN
T OF
W&TCV,
ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION,
ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM
CAL AMMUNITION
001 CTG, 5.56MM, 39,767 39,767
ALL TYPES.
002 CTG, 7.62MM, 46,804 46,804
ALL TYPES.
003 CTG, HANDGUN, 10,413 5 10,418
ALL TYPES.
Realign [5]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
004 CTG, .50 CAL, 62,837 121 62,958
ALL TYPES.
Realign [121]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
005 CTG, 20MM, ALL 8,208 8,208
TYPES.
006 CTG, 25MM, ALL 8,640 8,640
TYPES.
007 CTG, 30MM, ALL 76,850 25,000 101,850
TYPES.
Realign [25,000]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
008 CTG, 40MM, ALL 108,189 108,189
TYPES.
MORTAR
AMMUNITION
009 60MM MORTAR, 57,359 57,359
ALL TYPES.
010 81MM MORTAR, 49,471 49,471
ALL TYPES.
011 120MM MORTAR, 91,528 91,528
ALL TYPES.
TANK AMMUNITION
012 CARTRIDGES, 133,500 133,500
TANK, 105MM
AND 120MM, ALL
TYPES.
ARTILLERY
AMMUNITION
013 ARTILLERY 44,200 44,200
CARTRIDGES,
75MM & 105MM,
ALL TYPES.
014 ARTILLERY 187,149 187,149
PROJECTILE,
155MM, ALL
TYPES.
015 PROJ 155MM 480 49,000 202,545 480 251,545
EXTENDED RANGE
M982.
Realign [19,045]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
Unfunded [183,500]
requirement.
016 ARTILLERY 83,046 16,678 99,724
PROPELLANTS,
FUZES AND
PRIMERS, ALL.
Realign [16,678]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
MINES
017 MINES & 3,942 11,615 15,557
CLEARING
CHARGES, ALL
TYPES.
Realign [11,615]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
ROCKETS
019 SHOULDER 5,000 5,000
LAUNCHED
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.
020 ROCKET, HYDRA 161,155 161,155
70, ALL TYPES.
OTHER
AMMUNITION
021 CAD/PAD, ALL 7,441 7,441
TYPES.
022 DEMOLITION 19,345 19,345
MUNITIONS, ALL
TYPES.
023 GRENADES, ALL 22,759 22,759
TYPES.
024 SIGNALS, ALL 2,583 2,583
TYPES.
025 SIMULATORS, ALL 13,084 13,084
TYPES.
MISCELLANEOUS
026 AMMO 12,237 12,237
COMPONENTS,
ALL TYPES.
027 NON-LETHAL 1,500 1,500
AMMUNITION,
ALL TYPES.
028 ITEMS LESS THAN 10,730 10,730
$5 MILLION
(AMMO).
029 AMMUNITION 16,425 16,425
PECULIAR
EQUIPMENT.
030 FIRST 15,221 15,221
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION
(AMMO).
PRODUCTION BASE
SUPPORT
032 INDUSTRIAL 329,356 100,000 429,356
FACILITIES.
Unfunded [100,000]
requirement.
033 CONVENTIONAL 197,825 197,825
MUNITIONS
DEMILITARIZATI
ON.
034 ARMS INITIATIVE 3,719 3,719
TOTAL 480 1,879,283 355,964 480 2,235,247
PROCUREMEN
T OF
AMMUNITION
, ARMY.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT,
ARMY
TACTICAL
VEHICLES
001 TACTICAL 9,716 9,716
TRAILERS/DOLLY
SETS.
002 SEMITRAILERS, 14,151 263 22,000 263 36,151
FLATBED:.
Unfunded [263] [22,000]
requirement
-additional
M872s.
003 AMBULANCE, 4 53,000 121 34,792 121 87,792
LITTER, 5/4
TON, 4X4.
Unfunded [121] [34,792]
requirement.
004 GROUND MOBILITY 40,935 40,935
VEHICLES (GMV).
006 JOINT LIGHT 2,110 804,440 2,110 804,440
TACTICAL
VEHICLE.
007 TRUCK, DUMP, 967 967
20T (CCE).
008 FAMILY OF 78,650 979 163,294 979 241,944
MEDIUM
TACTICAL VEH
(FMTV).
Unfunded [710] [154,100]
requirement
-FMTVs.
Unfunded [269] [9,194]
requirement
-trailers.
009 FIRETRUCKS & 19,404 19,404
ASSOCIATED
FIREFIGHTING
EQUIP.
010 FAMILY OF HEAVY 81,656 31 33,002 31 114,658
TACTICAL
VEHICLES
(FHTV).
Realign [25,874]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
Unfunded [31] [7,128]
requirement
-forward
repair
systems.
011 PLS ESP........ 7,129 90 52,600 90 59,729
Unfunded [90] [52,600]
requirement.
012 HVY EXPANDED 200 150,878 200 150,878
MOBILE
TACTICAL TRUCK
EXT SERV.
Realign [38,628]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
Unfunded [200] [112,250]
requirement.
013 TACTICAL 43,040 43,040
WHEELED
VEHICLE
PROTECTION
KITS.
014 MODIFICATION OF 83,940 5,530 89,470
IN SVC EQUIP.
Realign [2,599]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
Unfunded [2,931]
requirement
-CTE
equipment.
NON-TACTICAL
VEHICLES
016 HEAVY ARMORED 269 269
SEDAN.
017 PASSENGER 1,320 1,320
CARRYING
VEHICLES.
018 NONTACTICAL 6,964 6,964
VEHICLES,
OTHER.
COMM--JOINT
COMMUNICATIONS
019 WIN-T--GROUND 420,492 420,492
FORCES
TACTICAL
NETWORK.
020 SIGNAL 92,718 92,718
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
021 TACTICAL 150,497 89 77,500 89 227,997
NETWORK
TECHNOLOGY MOD
IN SVC.
Program [-10,000]
reduction.
Unfunded [89] [87,500]
requirement.
022 JOINT INCIDENT 6,065 6,065
SITE
COMMUNICATIONS
CAPABILITY.
023 JCSE EQUIPMENT 5,051 5,051
(USREDCOM).
COMM--SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
024 DEFENSE 161,383 161,383
ENTERPRISE
WIDEBAND
SATCOM SYSTEMS.
025 TRANSPORTABLE 62,600 62,600
TACTICAL
COMMAND
COMMUNICATIONS.
026 SHF TERM....... 11,622 11,622
028 SMART-T (SPACE) 6,799 6,799
029 GLOBAL BRDCST 7,065 7,065
SVC--GBS.
031 ENROUTE MISSION 21,667 21,667
COMMAND (EMC).
COMM--COMBAT
SUPPORT COMM
033 MOD-IN-SERVICE 70 70
PROFILER.
COMM--C3 SYSTEM
034 ARMY GLOBAL CMD 2,658 2,658
& CONTROL SYS
(AGCCS).
COMM--COMBAT
COMMUNICATIONS
036 HANDHELD 355,351 2565 8,409 2,565 363,760
MANPACK SMALL
FORM FIT (HMS).
Unfunded [2,565] [8,409]
requirement.
037 MID-TIER 25,100 25,100
NETWORKING
VEHICULAR
RADIO (MNVR).
038 RADIO TERMINAL 11,160 11,160
SET, MIDS
LVT(2).
040 TRACTOR DESK... 2,041 2,041
041 TRACTOR RIDE... 5,534 8,200 13,734
Unfunded [8,200]
requirement.
042 SPIDER APLA 996 996
REMOTE CONTROL
UNIT.
043 SPIDER FAMILY 4,500 18 2,358 18 6,858
OF NETWORKED
MUNITIONS INCR.
Unfunded [18] [2,358]
requirement.
045 TACTICAL 4,411 4,411
COMMUNICATIONS
AND PROTECTIVE
SYSTEM.
046 UNIFIED COMMAND 15,275 15,275
SUITE.
047 FAMILY OF MED 15,964 761 16,725
COMM FOR
COMBAT
CASUALTY CARE.
Unfunded [761]
requirement.
COMM--INTELLIGE
NCE COMM
049 CI AUTOMATION 9,560 9,560
ARCHITECTURE.
050 DEFENSE 4,030 4,030
MILITARY
DECEPTION
INITIATIVE.
INFORMATION
SECURITY
054 COMMUNICATIONS 107,804 5608 22,863 5,608 130,667
SECURITY
(COMSEC).
Unfunded [5,608] [22,863]
Requirement.
055 DEFENSIVE CYBER 53,436 4 8,000 4 61,436
OPERATIONS.
Unfunded [4] [8,000]
Requirement.
056 INSIDER THREAT 690 690
PROGRAM--UNIT
ACTIVITY
MONITO.
057 PERSISTENT 4,000 4,000
CYBER TRAINING
ENVIRONMENT.
COMM--LONG HAUL
COMMUNICATIONS
058 BASE SUPPORT 43,751 7,539 51,290
COMMUNICATIONS.
Unfunded [7,539]
requirement
-first
responder
communicati
on
equipment.
COMM--BASE
COMMUNICATIONS
059 INFORMATION 118,101 118,101
SYSTEMS.
060 EMERGENCY 4,490 4,490
MANAGEMENT
MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.
061 HOME STATION 20,050 20,050
MISSION
COMMAND
CENTERS
(HSMCC).
062 INSTALLATION 186,251 2,500 188,751
INFO
INFRASTRUCTURE
MOD PROGRAM.
Realign [2,500]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
ELECT EQUIP--
TACT INT REL
ACT (TIARA)
065 JTT/CIBS-M..... 12,154 7,600 19,754
Unfunded [7,600]
requirement.
068 DCGS-A (MIP)... 274,782 105 20,712 105 295,494
Unfunded [105] [20,712]
requirement.
070 TROJAN (MIP)... 16,052 7 19,160 7 35,212
Realign [6,000]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
Unfunded [7] [13,160]
requirement.
071 MOD OF IN-SVC 51,034 51,034
EQUIP (INTEL
SPT) (MIP).
072 CI HUMINT AUTO 7,815 7,815
REPRTING AND
COLL(CHARCS).
073 CLOSE ACCESS 8,050 8,050
TARGET
RECONNAISSANCE
(CATR).
074 MACHINE FOREIGN 567 567
LANGUAGE
TRANSLATION
SYSTEM-M.
ELECT EQUIP--
ELECTRONIC
WARFARE (EW)
076 LIGHTWEIGHT 20,459 20,459
COUNTER MORTAR
RADAR.
077 EW PLANNING & 5,805 5,805
MANAGEMENT
TOOLS (EWPMT).
078 AIR VIGILANCE 5,348 5,348
(AV).
081 COUNTERINTELLIG 469 5,900 6,369
ENCE/SECURITY
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
Realign [5,900]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
082 CI 285 285
MODERNIZATION.
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL SURV.
(TAC SURV)
083 SENTINEL MODS.. 28,491 12 72,000 12 100,491
Unfunded [12] [72,000]
requirement.
084 NIGHT VISION 166,493 449 62,896 449 229,389
DEVICES.
Unfunded [47,147]
requirement
-grow the
Army.
Unfunded [449] [15,749]
requirement
-LTLM
enhancement.
085 SMALL TACTICAL 13,947 13,947
OPTICAL RIFLE
MOUNTED MLRF.
087 INDIRECT FIRE 21,380 434,623 456,003
PROTECTION
FAMILY OF
SYSTEMS.
Unfunded [434,623]
requirement
-Air and
Missile
Defense
(SHORAD).
088 FAMILY OF 59,105 59,105
WEAPON SIGHTS
(FWS).
089 ARTILLERY 2,129 2,129
ACCURACY EQUIP.
091 JOINT BATTLE 282,549 3771 62,400 3,771 344,949
COMMAND--PLATF
ORM (JBC-P).
Realign [2,300]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
Unfunded [3,771] [60,100]
requirement.
092 JOINT EFFECTS 48,664 48,664
TARGETING
SYSTEM (JETS).
093 MOD OF IN-SVC 5,198 3,974 9,172
EQUIP (LLDR).
Realign [3,974]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
094 COMPUTER 8,117 8,117
BALLISTICS:
LHMBC XM32.
095 MORTAR FIRE 31,813 15,775 47,588
CONTROL SYSTEM.
Realign [75]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
Unfunded [15,700]
requirement.
096 COUNTERFIRE 329,057 4 64,200 4 393,257
RADARS.
Unfunded [4] [64,200]
requirement.
ELECT EQUIP--
TACTICAL C2
SYSTEMS
097 FIRE SUPPORT C2 8,700 99 4,758 99 13,458
FAMILY.
Unfunded [99] [4,758]
requirement.
098 AIR & MSL 26,635 133 106,078 133 132,713
DEFENSE
PLANNING &
CONTROL SYS.
Realign [9,100]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
Unfunded [133] [96,978]
requirement.
100 LIFE CYCLE 1,992 1,992
SOFTWARE
SUPPORT (LCSS).
101 NETWORK 15,179 15,179
MANAGEMENT
INITIALIZATION
AND SERVICE.
102 MANEUVER 132,572 575 4,602 575 137,174
CONTROL SYSTEM
(MCS).
Unfunded [575] [4,602]
requirement.
103 GLOBAL COMBAT 37,201 37,201
SUPPORT SYSTEM-
ARMY (GCSS-A).
104 INTEGRATED 16,140 16,140
PERSONNEL AND
PAY SYSTEM-
ARMY (IPP.
105 RECONNAISSANCE 6,093 12 14,755 12 20,848
AND SURVEYING
INSTRUMENT SET.
Unfunded [12] [14,755]
requirement.
106 MOD OF IN-SVC 1,134 1,134
EQUIPMENT
(ENFIRE).
ELECT EQUIP--
AUTOMATION
107 ARMY TRAINING 11,575 11,575
MODERNIZATION.
108 AUTOMATED DATA 91,983 91,983
PROCESSING
EQUIP.
109 GENERAL FUND 4,465 4,465
ENTERPRISE
BUSINESS
SYSTEMS FAM.
110 HIGH PERF 66,363 66,363
COMPUTING MOD
PGM (HPCMP).
111 CONTRACT 1,001 1,001
WRITING SYSTEM.
112 RESERVE 26,183 26,183
COMPONENT
AUTOMATION SYS
(RCAS).
ELECT EQUIP--
AUDIO VISUAL
SYS (A/V)
113 TACTICAL 4,441 4,441
DIGITAL MEDIA.
114 ITEMS LESS THAN 3,414 20 13,000 20 16,414
$5M (SURVEYING
EQUIPMENT).
Unfunded [10,000]
requirement.
Unfunded [20] [3,000]
requirement
-global
positioning
system.
ELECT EQUIP--
SUPPORT
115 PRODUCTION BASE 499 499
SUPPORT (C-E).
116 BCT EMERGING 25,050 25,050
TECHNOLOGIES.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
116A CLASSIFIED 4,819 4,819
PROGRAMS.
CHEMICAL
DEFENSIVE
EQUIPMENT
117 PROTECTIVE 1,613 1,613
SYSTEMS.
118 FAMILY OF NON- 9,696 500 14,000 500 23,696
LETHAL
EQUIPMENT
(FNLE).
Unfunded [500] [14,000]
Requirement.
120 CBRN DEFENSE... 11,110 11,110
BRIDGING
EQUIPMENT
121 TACTICAL 16,610 16,610
BRIDGING.
122 TACTICAL 21,761 28 22,000 28 43,761
BRIDGE, FLOAT-
RIBBON.
Unfunded [28] [22,000]
requirement.
124 COMMON BRIDGE 21,046 112 40,400 112 61,446
TRANSPORTER
(CBT) RECAP.
Unfunded [112] [40,400]
requirement.
ENGINEER (NON-
CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
125 HANDHELD 5,000 455 12,800 455 17,800
STANDOFF
MINEFIELD
DETECTION SYS-
HST.
Unfunded [227] [5,600]
requirement
-grow the
Army.
Unfunded [228] [7,200]
requirement
-PSS-14Cs.
126 GRND STANDOFF 32,442 32,442
MINE DETECTN
SYSM
(GSTAMIDS).
127 AREA MINE 10,571 10,571
DETECTION
SYSTEM (AMDS).
128 HUSKY MOUNTED 21,695 21,695
DETECTION
SYSTEM (HMDS).
129 ROBOTIC COMBAT 4,516 5 15,100 5 19,616
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(RCSS).
Unfunded [5] [15,100]
requirement
-M160s.
130 EOD ROBOTICS 10,073 5,000 15,073
SYSTEMS
RECAPITALIZATI
ON.
Unfunded [5,000]
requiremet.
131 ROBOTICS AND 3,000 3,000
APPLIQUE
SYSTEMS.
133 REMOTE 5,847 44 1,192 44 7,039
DEMOLITION
SYSTEMS.
Unfunded [44] [1,192]
requirement
-radio
frequency
remote
activated
munitions.
134 < $5M, 1,530 1,530
COUNTERMINE
EQUIPMENT.
135 FAMILY OF BOATS 4,302 8,000 12,302
AND MOTORS.
Unfunded [8,000]
requirement.
COMBAT SERVICE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
136 HEATERS AND 7,405 9,056 16,461
ECU'S.
Unfunded [9,056]
requirement.
137 SOLDIER 1,095 1,095
ENHANCEMENT.
138 PERSONNEL 5,390 5,390
RECOVERY
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(PRSS).
139 GROUND SOLDIER 38,219 4,589 42,808
SYSTEM.
Unfunded [4,589]
requirement.
140 MOBILE SOLDIER 10,456 419 1,562 419 12,018
POWER.
Unfunded [419] [1,562]
requirement.
141 FORCE PROVIDER. 6 13,850 6 13,850
Unfunded [6] [13,850]
requirement.
142 FIELD FEEDING 15,340 14,400 29,740
EQUIPMENT.
Unfunded [14,400]
requirement.
143 CARGO AERIAL 30,607 30,607
DEL &
PERSONNEL
PARACHUTE
SYSTEM.
144 FAMILY OF ENGR 10,426 8,474 18,900
COMBAT AND
CONSTRUCTION
SETS.
Unfunded [8,474]
requirement.
PETROLEUM
EQUIPMENT
146 QUALITY 6,903 6,903
SURVEILLANCE
EQUIPMENT.
147 DISTRIBUTION 47,597 47,597
SYSTEMS,
PETROLEUM &
WATER.
MEDICAL
EQUIPMENT
148 COMBAT SUPPORT 43,343 190 22,919 190 66,262
MEDICAL.
Realign [21,122]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
Unfunded [190] [1,797]
requirement.
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
149 MOBILE 33,774 14,420 48,194
MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT
SYSTEMS.
Realign [1,124]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
Unfunded [13,296]
requirement
-metal
working and
machine
shop sets.
150 ITEMS LESS THAN 2,728 954 3,682
$5.0M (MAINT
EQ).
Unfunded [954]
requirement.
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT
151 GRADER, ROAD 989 48 14,730 48 15,719
MTZD, HVY, 6X4
(CCE).
Unfunded [48] [14,730]
requirement.
152 SCRAPERS, 11,180 11,180
EARTHMOVING.
154 TRACTOR, FULL 48,679 48,679
TRACKED.
Unfunded [48,679]
requirement
-T9 Dozers.
155 ALL TERRAIN 8,935 2 3,000 2 11,935
CRANES.
Unfunded [2] [3,000]
requiremnt.
157 HIGH MOBILITY 64,339 40 20,560 40 84,899
ENGINEER
EXCAVATOR
(HMEE).
Unfunded [40] [20,560]
requirement.
158 ENHANCED RAPID 2,563 2,563
AIRFIELD
CONSTRUCTION
CAPAP.
160 CONST EQUIP ESP 19,032 65 7,000 65 26,032
Unfunded [65] [7,000]
requirement
-Engineer
Mission
Modules and
Vibratory
Rollers.
161 ITEMS LESS THAN 6,899 5,012 11,911
$5.0M (CONST
EQUIP).
Unfunded [5,012]
requirement
-water well
drill
systems.
RAIL FLOAT
CONTAINERIZATI
ON EQUIPMENT
162 ARMY WATERCRAFT 20,110 20,110
ESP.
163 ITEMS LESS THAN 2,877 2,877
$5.0M (FLOAT/
RAIL).
GENERATORS
164 GENERATORS AND 115,635 17,210 132,845
ASSOCIATED
EQUIP.
Unfunded [17,210]
requirement.
165 TACTICAL 7,436 7,436
ELECTRIC POWER
RECAPITALIZATI
ON.
MATERIAL
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
166 FAMILY OF 9,000 15 1,635 15 10,635
FORKLIFTS.
Unfunded [15] [1,635]
requirement.
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT
167 COMBAT TRAINING 88,888 37,750 126,638
CENTERS
SUPPORT.
Unfunded [37,750]
requirement.
168 TRAINING 285,989 2,700 288,689
DEVICES,
NONSYSTEM.
Realign [2,700]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
169 CLOSE COMBAT 45,718 45,718
TACTICAL
TRAINER.
170 AVIATION 30,568 30,568
COMBINED ARMS
TACTICAL
TRAINER.
171 GAMING 5,406 11,500 16,906
TECHNOLOGY IN
SUPPORT OF
ARMY TRAINING.
Unfunded [11,500]
requirement
-SVCT
systems.
TEST MEASURE
AND DIG
EQUIPMENT
(TMD)
172 CALIBRATION 5,564 5,564
SETS EQUIPMENT.
173 INTEGRATED 30,144 7,500 37,644
FAMILY OF TEST
EQUIPMENT
(IFTE).
Realign [7,500]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
174 TEST EQUIPMENT 7,771 7,771
MODERNIZATION
(TEMOD).
OTHER SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
175 M25 STABILIZED 3,956 3,956
BINOCULAR.
176 RAPID EQUIPPING 5,000 5,000
SOLDIER
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
177 PHYSICAL 60,047 60,047
SECURITY
SYSTEMS (OPA3).
178 BASE LEVEL 13,239 13,239
COMMON
EQUIPMENT.
179 MODIFICATION OF 60,192 538 39,240 538 99,432
IN-SVC
EQUIPMENT (OPA-
3).
Unfunded [538] [29,240]
requirement
-EOD
Technician
Tool Kits.
Unfunded [2,000]
requirement
-Rapidly
Emplaced
Bridge
System
Arctic Kit
Technical
Manual (TM)
update.
Unfunded [8,000]
requirement
-Service
Life
Extension
Program for
the VOLCANO
system.
180 PRODUCTION BASE 2,271 2,271
SUPPORT (OTH).
181 SPECIAL 5,319 5,319
EQUIPMENT FOR
USER TESTING.
182 TRACTOR YARD... 5,935 5,935
OPA2
184 INITIAL SPARES-- 38,269 38,269
C&E.
UNDISTRIBUTED
185 UNDISTRIBUTED.. 56,000 56,000
Security [56,000]
Force
Assistance
Brigade.
TOTAL 2,110 6,469,331 17,622 1,993,891 19,732 8,463,222
OTHER
PROCUREMEN
T, ARMY.
JOINT
IMPROVISED
EXPLOSIVE
DEVICE DEFEAT
FUND
NETWORK ATTACK
001 RAPID 14,442 14,442
ACQUISITION
AND THREAT
RESPONSE.
TOTAL 14,442 14,442
JOINT
IMPROVISED-
THREAT
DEFEAT
FUND.
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
COMBAT AIRCRAFT
002 F/A-18E/F 14 1,200,146 8 591,200 22 1,791,346
(FIGHTER)
HORNET.
Unfunded [8] [591,200]
Requirement.
003 ADVANCE 52,971 52,971
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
004 JOINT STRIKE 4 582,324 4 520,000 8 1,102,324
FIGHTER CV.
Unfunded [2] [260,000]
Requirement
-Marine
Corps.
Unfunded [2] [260,000]
Requirement
-Navy.
005 ADVANCE 263,112 263,112
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
006 JSF STOVL...... 20 2,398,139 3 462,600 23 2,860,739
Unfunded [3] [462,600]
Requirement.
007 ADVANCE 413,450 413,450
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
008 CH-53K (HEAVY 4 567,605 4 567,605
LIFT).
009 ADVANCE 147,046 147,046
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
010 V-22 (MEDIUM 6 677,404 4 351,500 10 1,028,904
LIFT).
Multiyear [-25,000]
procurement
contract
savings.
Unfunded [4] [376,500]
Requirement.
011 ADVANCE 27,422 27,422
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
012 H-1 UPGRADES 22 678,429 5 151,000 27 829,429
(UH-1Y/AH-1Z).
Unfunded [5] [157,500]
requirement
-
additional
AH-1Zs.
Unit cost [-6,500]
savings.
013 ADVANCE 42,082 42,082
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
016 P-8A POSEIDON.. 7 1,245,251 3 506,500 10 1,751,751
P-8A....... [3] [506,500]
017 ADVANCE 140,333 -17,000 123,333
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
Excess to [-17,000]
need.
018 E-2D ADV 5 733,910 2 191,800 7 925,710
HAWKEYE.
E-2D....... [2] [201,800]
Excessive [-10,000]
growth.
019 ADVANCE 102,026 102,026
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
OTHER AIRCRAFT
022 KC-130J........ 2 129,577 4 355,300 6 484,877
KC-130J.... [4] [355,300]
023 ADVANCE 25,497 25,497
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
024 MQ-4 TRITON.... 3 522,126 -5,000 3 517,126
Excess cost [-5,000]
growth.
025 ADVANCE 57,266 57,266
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
026 MQ-8 UAV....... 49,472 49,472
027 STUASL0 UAV.... 880 880
MODIFICATION OF
AIRCRAFT
030 AEA SYSTEMS.... 52,960 52,960
031 AV-8 SERIES.... 43,555 43,555
032 ADVERSARY...... 2,565 2,565
033 F-18 SERIES.... 1,043,661 14 32,550 14 1,076,211
Unfunded [14] [32,550]
requirement
-ALQ-214
Retrofits.
034 H-53 SERIES.... 38,712 38,712
035 SH-60 SERIES... 95,333 95,333
036 H-1 SERIES..... 101,886 101,886
037 EP-3 SERIES.... 7,231 7,231
038 P-3 SERIES..... 700 700
039 E-2 SERIES..... 97,563 97,563
040 TRAINER A/C 8,184 8,184
SERIES.
041 C-2A........... 18,673 18,673
042 C-130 SERIES... 83,541 83,541
043 FEWSG.......... 630 630
044 CARGO/TRANSPORT 10,075 10,075
A/C SERIES.
045 E-6 SERIES..... 223,508 223,508
046 EXECUTIVE 38,787 38,787
HELICOPTERS
SERIES.
047 SPECIAL PROJECT 8,304 8,304
AIRCRAFT.
048 T-45 SERIES.... 148,071 148,071
049 POWER PLANT 19,827 19,827
CHANGES.
050 JPATS SERIES... 27,007 27,007
051 COMMON ECM 146,642 146,642
EQUIPMENT.
052 COMMON AVIONICS 123,507 123,507
CHANGES.
053 COMMON 2,317 2,317
DEFENSIVE
WEAPON SYSTEM.
054 ID SYSTEMS..... 49,524 49,524
055 P-8 SERIES..... 18,665 18,665
056 MAGTF EW FOR 10,111 10,111
AVIATION.
057 MQ-8 SERIES.... 32,361 32,361
059 V-22 (TILT/ 228,321 228,321
ROTOR ACFT)
OSPREY.
060 F-35 STOVL 34,963 34,963
SERIES.
061 F-35 CV SERIES. 31,689 31,689
062 QRC............ 24,766 24,766
063 MQ-4 SERIES.... 39,996 39,996
AIRCRAFT SPARES
AND REPAIR
PARTS
064 SPARES AND 1,681,914 200,600 1,882,514
REPAIR PARTS.
Additional [32,600]
F-35
Initial
Spares.
Unfunded [168,000]
requirement.
AIRCRAFT
SUPPORT EQUIP
& FACILITIES
065 COMMON GROUND 388,052 10 17,500 10 405,552
EQUIPMENT.
Unfunded [10] [17,500]
requirement
-F-18C/D
H12C
Training
Systems for
USMC.
066 AIRCRAFT 24,613 24,613
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
067 WAR CONSUMABLES 39,614 39,614
068 OTHER 1,463 1,463
PRODUCTION
CHARGES.
069 SPECIAL SUPPORT 48,500 48,500
EQUIPMENT.
070 FIRST 1,976 1,976
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION.
TOTAL 87 15,056,235 57 3,358,550 144 18,414,785
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMEN
T, NAVY.
WEAPONS
PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
001 TRIDENT II MODS 1,143,595 1,143,595
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
002 MISSILE 7,086 7,086
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
STRATEGIC
MISSILES
003 TOMAHAWK....... 34 134,375 34 134,375
TACTICAL
MISSILES
004 AMRAAM......... 120 197,109 120 197,109
005 SIDEWINDER..... 185 79,692 185 79,692
006 JSOW........... 5,487 5,487
007 STANDARD 117 510,875 117 510,875
MISSILE.
008 SMALL DIAMETER 90 20,968 90 20,968
BOMB II.
009 RAM............ 60 58,587 60 48,000 120 106,587
RAM BLK II. [60] [48,000]
010 JOINT AIR 3,789 3,789
GROUND MISSILE
(JAGM).
013 STAND OFF 19 3,122 19 3,122
PRECISION
GUIDED
MUNITIONS
(SOPGM).
014 AERIAL TARGETS. 124,757 124,757
015 OTHER MISSILE 3,420 3,420
SUPPORT.
016 LRASM.......... 25 74,733 25 74,733
MODIFICATION OF
MISSILES
017 ESSM........... 30 74,524 30 74,524
019 HARPOON MODS... 17,300 17,300
020 HARM MODS...... 183,368 183,368
021 STANDARD 11,729 11,729
MISSILES MODS.
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT &
FACILITIES
022 WEAPONS 4,021 4,021
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES.
023 FLEET SATELLITE 46,357 46,357
COMM FOLLOW-ON.
ORDNANCE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
025 ORDNANCE 47,159 47,159
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
TORPEDOES AND
RELATED EQUIP
026 SSTD........... 5,240 5,240
027 MK-48 TORPEDO.. 17 44,771 10 26,200 27 70,971
MK 48 HWT.. [10] [26,200]
028 ASW TARGETS.... 12,399 12,399
MOD OF
TORPEDOES AND
RELATED EQUIP
029 MK-54 TORPEDO 104,044 104,044
MODS.
030 MK-48 TORPEDO 38,954 38,954
ADCAP MODS.
031 QUICKSTRIKE 10,337 10,337
MINE.
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
032 TORPEDO SUPPORT 70,383 70,383
EQUIPMENT.
033 ASW RANGE 3,864 3,864
SUPPORT.
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION
034 FIRST 3,961 3,961
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION.
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
035 SMALL ARMS AND 11,332 11,332
WEAPONS.
MODIFICATION OF
GUNS AND GUN
MOUNTS
036 CIWS MODS...... 72,698 72,698
037 COAST GUARD 38,931 38,931
WEAPONS.
038 GUN MOUNT MODS. 76,025 76,025
039 LCS MODULE 110 13,110 110 13,110
WEAPONS.
040 CRUISER 34,825 34,825
MODERNIZATION
WEAPONS.
041 AIRBORNE MINE 16,925 16,925
NEUTRALIZATION
SYSTEMS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
043 SPARES AND 110,255 110,255
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 807 3,420,107 70 74,200 877 3,494,307
WEAPONS
PROCUREMEN
T, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMO, NAVY &
MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
001 GENERAL PURPOSE 34,882 34,882
BOMBS.
002 JDAM........... 2,492 57,343 2,492 57,343
003 AIRBORNE 79,318 79,318
ROCKETS, ALL
TYPES.
004 MACHINE GUN 14,112 14,112
AMMUNITION.
005 PRACTICE BOMBS. 47,027 47,027
006 CARTRIDGES & 57,718 57,718
CART ACTUATED
DEVICES.
007 AIR EXPENDABLE 65,908 65,908
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
008 JATOS.......... 2,895 2,895
010 5 INCH/54 GUN 22,112 22,112
AMMUNITION.
011 INTERMEDIATE 12,804 12,804
CALIBER GUN
AMMUNITION.
012 OTHER SHIP GUN 41,594 41,594
AMMUNITION.
013 SMALL ARMS & 49,401 49,401
LANDING PARTY
AMMO.
014 PYROTECHNIC AND 9,495 9,495
DEMOLITION.
016 AMMUNITION LESS 3,080 3,080
THAN $5
MILLION.
MARINE CORPS
AMMUNITION
020 MORTARS........ 24,118 24,118
023 DIRECT SUPPORT 64,045 64,045
MUNITIONS.
024 INFANTRY 91,456 91,456
WEAPONS
AMMUNITION.
029 COMBAT SUPPORT 11,788 11,788
MUNITIONS.
032 AMMO 17,862 17,862
MODERNIZATION.
033 ARTILLERY 79,427 79,427
MUNITIONS.
034 ITEMS LESS THAN 5,960 5,960
$5 MILLION.
TOTAL 2,492 792,345 2,492 792,345
PROCUREMEN
T OF AMMO,
NAVY & MC.
SHIPBUILDING
AND
CONVERSION,
NAVY
FLEET BALLISTIC
MISSILE SHIPS
001 ADVANCE 842,853 842,853
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
OTHER WARSHIPS
002 CARRIER 1 4,441,772 -700,000 1 3,741,772
REPLACEMENT
PROGRAM.
Early to [-700,000]
need.
004 VIRGINIA CLASS 2 3,305,315 2 3,305,315
SUBMARINE.
005 ADVANCE 1,920,596 943,000 2,863,596
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
VA Class AP [693,000]
VA Class [250,000]
EOQ.
006 CVN REFUELING 1,604,890 -423,300 1,181,590
OVERHAULS.
CVN 73 MQ- [26,700]
25
integration.
Early to [-450,000]
need.
007 ADVANCE 75,897 75,897
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
008 DDG 1000....... 223,968 223,968
009 DDG-51......... 2 3,499,079 2 3,499,079
010 ADVANCE 90,336 90,336
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
011 LITTORAL COMBAT 1 636,146 1 636,146
SHIP.
AMPHIBIOUS
SHIPS
015 LHA REPLACEMENT 1,710,927 -500,000 1,210,927
Early to [-500,000]
need.
AUXILIARIES,
CRAFT AND
PRIOR YR
PROGRAM COST
018 TAO FLEET OILER 1 465,988 1 465,988
019 ADVANCE 75,068 75,068
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
020 TOWING, 1 76,204 1 76,204
SALVAGE, AND
RESCUE SHIP
(ATS).
023 LCU 1700....... 1 31,850 1 31,850
024 OUTFITTING..... 548,703 548,703
025 SHIP TO SHORE 3 212,554 3 212,554
CONNECTOR.
026 SERVICE CRAFT.. 23,994 23,994
029 COMPLETION OF 117,542 117,542
PY
SHIPBUILDING
PROGRAMS.
TOTAL 12 19,903,682 -680,300 12 19,223,382
SHIPBUILDI
NG AND
CONVERSION
, NAVY.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT,
NAVY
SHIP PROPULSION
EQUIPMENT
003 SURFACE POWER 41,910 41,910
EQUIPMENT.
004 HYBRID ELECTRIC 6,331 6,331
DRIVE (HED).
GENERATORS
005 SURFACE 27,392 27,392
COMBATANT HM&E.
NAVIGATION
EQUIPMENT
006 OTHER 65,943 65,943
NAVIGATION
EQUIPMENT.
PERISCOPES
007 SUB PERISCOPES 76,000 76,000
& IMAGING
EQUIP.
Submarine [76,000]
Warfare
Federated
Tactial
Systems.
OTHER SHIPBOARD
EQUIPMENT
008 SUB PERISCOPE, 151,240 151,240
IMAGING AND
SUPT EQUIP
PROG.
009 DDG MOD........ 603,355 99,000 702,355
CEC IFF [4,000]
Mode 5
Acceleratio
n.
Destroyer [65,000]
modernizati
on.
SPY-1 [30,000]
refurbishme
nt.
010 FIREFIGHTING 15,887 15,887
EQUIPMENT.
011 COMMAND AND 2,240 2,240
CONTROL
SWITCHBOARD.
012 LHA/LHD MIDLIFE 30,287 30,287
014 POLLUTION 17,293 17,293
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT.
015 SUBMARINE 27,990 27,990
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
016 VIRGINIA CLASS 46,610 46,610
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
017 LCS CLASS 47,955 47,955
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
018 SUBMARINE 17,594 17,594
BATTERIES.
019 LPD CLASS 61,908 61,908
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
021 STRATEGIC 15,812 15,812
PLATFORM
SUPPORT EQUIP.
022 DSSP EQUIPMENT. 4,178 4,178
023 CG 306,050 306,050
MODERNIZATION.
024 LCAC........... 5,507 5,507
025 UNDERWATER EOD 55,922 4,016 59,938
PROGRAMS.
Realign [4,016]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
026 ITEMS LESS THAN 96,909 96,909
$5 MILLION.
027 CHEMICAL 3,036 3,036
WARFARE
DETECTORS.
028 SUBMARINE LIFE 10,364 10,364
SUPPORT SYSTEM.
REACTOR PLANT
EQUIPMENT
029 REACTOR POWER 324,925 324,925
UNITS.
030 REACTOR 534,468 534,468
COMPONENTS.
OCEAN
ENGINEERING
031 DIVING AND 10,619 10,619
SALVAGE
EQUIPMENT.
SMALL BOATS
032 STANDARD BOATS. 46,094 46,094
PRODUCTION
FACILITIES
EQUIPMENT
034 OPERATING 191,541 191,541
FORCES IPE.
OTHER SHIP
SUPPORT
036 LCS COMMON 34,666 2 34,000 2 68,666
MISSION
MODULES
EQUIPMENT.
MCM-USV.... [2] [34,000]
037 LCS MCM MISSION 55,870 55,870
MODULES.
039 LCS SUW MISSION 52,960 52,960
MODULES.
040 LCS IN-SERVICE 74,426 84,000 158,426
MODERNIZATION.
LCS [84,000]
Modernizati
on.
LOGISTIC
SUPPORT
042 LSD MIDLIFE & 89,536 89,536
MODERNIZATION.
SHIP SONARS
043 SPQ-9B RADAR... 30,086 30,086
044 AN/SQQ-89 SURF 102,222 102,222
ASW COMBAT
SYSTEM.
046 SSN ACOUSTIC 287,553 43,500 331,053
EQUIPMENT.
Realign [43,500]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
047 UNDERSEA 13,653 13,653
WARFARE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
ASW ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
049 SUBMARINE 21,449 21,449
ACOUSTIC
WARFARE SYSTEM.
050 SSTD........... 12,867 12,867
051 FIXED 300,102 300,102
SURVEILLANCE
SYSTEM.
052 SURTASS........ 30,180 1 10,000 1 40,180
SURTASS [1] [10,000]
Array.
ELECTRONIC
WARFARE
EQUIPMENT
054 AN/SLQ-32...... 240,433 240,433
RECONNAISSANCE
EQUIPMENT
055 SHIPBOARD IW 187,007 40,000 227,007
EXPLOIT.
Ship Signal [40,000]
Exploitatio
n Equipment.
056 AUTOMATED 510 510
IDENTIFICATION
SYSTEM (AIS).
OTHER SHIP
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
058 COOPERATIVE 23,892 23,892
ENGAGEMENT
CAPABILITY.
060 NAVAL TACTICAL 10,741 10,741
COMMAND
SUPPORT SYSTEM
(NTCSS).
061 ATDLS.......... 38,016 38,016
062 NAVY COMMAND 4,512 4,512
AND CONTROL
SYSTEM (NCCS).
063 MINESWEEPING 31,531 31,531
SYSTEM
REPLACEMENT.
064 SHALLOW WATER 8,796 8,796
MCM.
065 NAVSTAR GPS 15,923 15,923
RECEIVERS
(SPACE).
066 AMERICAN FORCES 2,730 2,730
RADIO AND TV
SERVICE.
067 STRATEGIC 6,889 6,889
PLATFORM
SUPPORT EQUIP.
AVIATION
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
070 ASHORE ATC 71,882 71,882
EQUIPMENT.
071 AFLOAT ATC 44,611 44,611
EQUIPMENT.
077 ID SYSTEMS..... 21,239 21,239
078 NAVAL MISSION 11,976 11,976
PLANNING
SYSTEMS.
OTHER SHORE
ELECTRONIC
EQUIPMENT
080 TACTICAL/MOBILE 32,425 7,900 40,325
C4I SYSTEMS.
Realign [7,900]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
081 DCGS-N......... 13,790 1,900 15,690
Realign [1,900]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
082 CANES.......... 322,754 322,754
083 RADIAC......... 10,718 10,718
084 CANES-INTELL... 48,028 48,028
085 GPETE.......... 6,861 6,861
086 MASF........... 8,081 8,081
087 INTEG COMBAT 5,019 5,019
SYSTEM TEST
FACILITY.
088 EMI CONTROL 4,188 4,188
INSTRUMENTATIO
N.
089 ITEMS LESS THAN 105,292 105,292
$5 MILLION.
SHIPBOARD
COMMUNICATIONS
090 SHIPBOARD 23,695 23,695
TACTICAL
COMMUNICATIONS.
091 SHIP 103,990 103,990
COMMUNICATIONS
AUTOMATION.
092 COMMUNICATIONS 18,577 18,577
ITEMS UNDER
$5M.
SUBMARINE
COMMUNICATIONS
093 SUBMARINE 29,669 29,669
BROADCAST
SUPPORT.
094 SUBMARINE 86,204 86,204
COMMUNICATION
EQUIPMENT.
SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
095 SATELLITE 14,654 14,654
COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS.
096 NAVY MULTIBAND 69,764 69,764
TERMINAL (NMT).
SHORE
COMMUNICATIONS
097 JOINT 4,256 4,256
COMMUNICATIONS
SUPPORT
ELEMENT (JCSE).
CRYPTOGRAPHIC
EQUIPMENT
099 INFO SYSTEMS 89,663 89,663
SECURITY
PROGRAM (ISSP).
100 MIO INTEL 961 961
EXPLOITATION
TEAM.
CRYPTOLOGIC
EQUIPMENT
101 CRYPTOLOGIC 11,287 11,287
COMMUNICATIONS
EQUIP.
OTHER
ELECTRONIC
SUPPORT
110 COAST GUARD 36,584 36,584
EQUIPMENT.
SONOBUOYS
112 SONOBUOYS--ALL 173,616 24,900 198,516
TYPES.
Sonobuoys.. [24,900]
AIRCRAFT
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
113 WEAPONS RANGE 72,110 72,110
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
114 AIRCRAFT 108,482 7,500 115,982
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
EMALS [7,500]
initial
spares.
115 ADVANCED 10,900 10,900
ARRESTING GEAR
(AAG).
116 METEOROLOGICAL 21,137 21,137
EQUIPMENT.
117 DCRS/DPL....... 660 660
118 AIRBORNE MINE 20,605 20,605
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
119 AVIATION 34,032 34,032
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
SHIP GUN SYSTEM
EQUIPMENT
120 SHIP GUN 5,277 5,277
SYSTEMS
EQUIPMENT.
SHIP MISSILE
SYSTEMS
EQUIPMENT
121 SHIP MISSILE 272,359 272,359
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
122 TOMAHAWK 73,184 73,184
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
FBM SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
123 STRATEGIC 246,221 246,221
MISSILE
SYSTEMS EQUIP.
ASW SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
124 SSN COMBAT 129,972 129,972
CONTROL
SYSTEMS.
125 ASW SUPPORT 23,209 23,209
EQUIPMENT.
OTHER ORDNANCE
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
126 EXPLOSIVE 15,596 15,596
ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL EQUIP.
127 ITEMS LESS THAN 5,981 5,981
$5 MILLION.
OTHER
EXPENDABLE
ORDNANCE
128 SUBMARINE 74,550 74,550
TRAINING
DEVICE MODS.
130 SURFACE 83,022 83,022
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT.
CIVIL
ENGINEERING
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
131 PASSENGER 5,299 5,299
CARRYING
VEHICLES.
132 GENERAL PURPOSE 2,946 106 3,052
TRUCKS.
Realign [106]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
133 CONSTRUCTION & 34,970 34,970
MAINTENANCE
EQUIP.
134 FIRE FIGHTING 2,541 2,541
EQUIPMENT.
135 TACTICAL 19,699 19,699
VEHICLES.
136 AMPHIBIOUS 12,162 12,162
EQUIPMENT.
137 POLLUTION 2,748 2,748
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT.
138 ITEMS UNDER $5 18,084 18,084
MILLION.
139 PHYSICAL 1,170 1,170
SECURITY
VEHICLES.
SUPPLY SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
141 SUPPLY 21,797 164 21,961
EQUIPMENT.
Realign [164]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
143 FIRST 5,572 5,572
DESTINATION
TRANSPORTATION.
144 SPECIAL PURPOSE 482,916 482,916
SUPPLY SYSTEMS.
TRAINING
DEVICES
146 TRAINING AND 25,624 25,624
EDUCATION
EQUIPMENT.
COMMAND SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
147 COMMAND SUPPORT 59,076 59,076
EQUIPMENT.
149 MEDICAL SUPPORT 4,383 4,383
EQUIPMENT.
151 NAVAL MIP 2,030 2,030
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
152 OPERATING 7,500 7,500
FORCES SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
153 C4ISR EQUIPMENT 4,010 4,010
154 ENVIRONMENTAL 23,644 1,000 24,644
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
Realign [1,000]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
155 PHYSICAL 101,982 101,982
SECURITY
EQUIPMENT.
156 ENTERPRISE 19,789 19,789
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.
OTHER
160 NEXT GENERATION 104,584 104,584
ENTERPRISE
SERVICE.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
161A CLASSIFIED 23,707 23,707
PROGRAMS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
161 SPARES AND 278,565 12,000 290,565
REPAIR PARTS.
E-2D AHE... [12,000]
TOTAL 8,277,789 3 445,986 3 8,723,775
OTHER
PROCUREMEN
T, NAVY.
PROCUREMENT,
MARINE CORPS
TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
001 AAV7A1 PIP..... 107,665 107,665
002 AMPHIBIOUS 26 161,511 26 161,511
COMBAT VEHICLE
1.1.
003 LAV PIP........ 17,244 17,244
ARTILLERY AND
OTHER WEAPONS
004 EXPEDITIONARY 626 626
FIRE SUPPORT
SYSTEM.
005 155MM 20,259 20,259
LIGHTWEIGHT
TOWED HOWITZER.
006 HIGH MOBILITY 59,943 59,943
ARTILLERY
ROCKET SYSTEM.
007 WEAPONS AND 19,616 19,616
COMBAT
VEHICLES UNDER
$5 MILLION.
OTHER SUPPORT
008 MODIFICATION 17,778 17,778
KITS.
GUIDED MISSILES
010 GROUND BASED 9,432 9,432
AIR DEFENSE.
011 JAVELIN........ 222 41,159 222 41,159
012 FOLLOW ON TO 25,125 25,125
SMAW.
013 ANTI-ARMOR 51,553 51,553
WEAPONS SYSTEM-
HEAVY (AAWS-H).
COMMAND AND
CONTROL
SYSTEMS
016 COMMON AVIATION 44,928 44,928
COMMAND AND
CONTROL SYSTEM
(C.
REPAIR AND TEST
EQUIPMENT
017 REPAIR AND TEST 33,056 33,056
EQUIPMENT.
COMMAND AND
CONTROL SYSTEM
(NON-TEL)
020 ITEMS UNDER $5 17,644 17,644
MILLION (COMM
& ELEC).
021 AIR OPERATIONS 18,393 18,393
C2 SYSTEMS.
RADAR +
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
022 RADAR SYSTEMS.. 12,411 12,411
023 GROUND/AIR TASK 3 139,167 3 139,167
ORIENTED RADAR
(G/ATOR).
024 RQ-21 UAS...... 4 77,841 4 77,841
INTELL/COMM
EQUIPMENT (NON-
TEL)
025 GCSS-MC........ 1,990 1,990
026 FIRE SUPPORT 22,260 22,260
SYSTEM.
027 INTELLIGENCE 55,759 55,759
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
029 UNMANNED AIR 10,154 10,154
SYSTEMS
(INTEL).
030 DCGS-MC........ 13,462 13,462
031 UAS PAYLOADS... 14,193 14,193
OTHER SUPPORT
(NON-TEL)
035 NEXT GENERATION 98,511 98,511
ENTERPRISE
NETWORK (NGEN).
036 COMMON COMPUTER 66,894 66,894
RESOURCES.
037 COMMAND POST 186,912 186,912
SYSTEMS.
038 RADIO SYSTEMS.. 34,361 34,361
039 COMM SWITCHING 54,615 54,615
& CONTROL
SYSTEMS.
040 COMM & ELEC 44,455 44,455
INFRASTRUCTURE
SUPPORT.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
040A CLASSIFIED 4,214 4,214
PROGRAMS.
ADMINISTRATIVE
VEHICLES
042 COMMERCIAL 66,951 66,951
CARGO VEHICLES.
TACTICAL
VEHICLES
043 MOTOR TRANSPORT 21,824 21,824
MODIFICATIONS.
044 JOINT LIGHT 527 233,639 527 233,639
TACTICAL
VEHICLE.
045 FAMILY OF 1,938 1,938
TACTICAL
TRAILERS.
046 TRAILERS....... 10,282 10,282
ENGINEER AND
OTHER
EQUIPMENT
048 ENVIRONMENTAL 1,405 1,405
CONTROL EQUIP
ASSORT.
050 TACTICAL FUEL 1,788 1,788
SYSTEMS.
051 POWER EQUIPMENT 9,910 9,910
ASSORTED.
052 AMPHIBIOUS 5,830 5,830
SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT.
053 EOD SYSTEMS.... 27,240 27,240
MATERIALS
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
054 PHYSICAL 53,477 53,477
SECURITY
EQUIPMENT.
GENERAL
PROPERTY
056 TRAINING 76,185 8,879 85,064
DEVICES.
Unfunded [8,879]
requirement.
058 FAMILY OF 26,286 26,286
CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT.
059 FAMILY OF 1,583 1,583
INTERNALLY
TRANSPORTABLE
VEH (ITV).
OTHER SUPPORT
060 ITEMS LESS THAN 7,716 7,716
$5 MILLION.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
062 SPARES AND 35,640 35,640
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 782 2,064,825 8,879 782 2,073,704
PROCUREMEN
T, MARINE
CORPS.
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
TACTICAL FORCES
001 F-35........... 46 4,544,684 10 1,260,000 56 5,804,684
Additional [60,000]
Tooling in
Support of
Unfunded
Priority.
Unfunded [10] [1,200,000]
requirement.
002 ADVANCE 780,300 780,300
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
TACTICAL
AIRLIFT
003 KC-46A TANKER.. 15 2,545,674 2 400,000 17 2,945,674
KC-46A..... [2] [400,000]
OTHER AIRLIFT
004 C-130J......... 57,708 57,708
006 HC-130J........ 2 198,502 1 100,000 3 298,502
HC-130J.... [1] [100,000]
008 MC-130J........ 5 379,373 6 600,000 11 979,373
MC-130J.... [6] [600,000]
009 ADVANCE 30,000 30,000
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
MISSION SUPPORT
AIRCRAFT
012 CIVIL AIR 6 2,695 6 2,695
PATROL A/C.
OTHER AIRCRAFT
014 TARGET DRONES.. 42 109,841 42 109,841
017 MQ-9........... 117,141 117,141
STRATEGIC
AIRCRAFT
018 B-2A........... 96,727 54 9,000 54 105,727
B-2 Rotary [54] [9,000]
Launcher
assembly.
019 B-1B........... 155,634 -34,000 121,634
Duplicate [-34,000]
funding of
F101 engine
kits.
020 B-52........... 109,295 109,295
021 LARGE AIRCRAFT 4,046 50 118,945 50 122,991
INFRARED
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
C-130 [18,900]
LAIRCM.
C-17 LAIRCM [40] [76,145]
C-5 LAIRCM. [10] [23,900]
TACTICAL
AIRCRAFT
022 A-10........... 6,010 4 103,000 4 109,010
Unfunded [4] [103,000]
Requirement.
023 F-15........... 417,193 417,193
024 F-16........... 203,864 203,864
025 F-22A.......... 161,630 161,630
026 ADVANCE 15,000 15,000
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
027 F-35 68,270 68,270
MODIFICATIONS.
028 INCREMENT 3.2B. 72 105,756 72 105,756
030 KC-46A TANKER.. 6,213 6,213
AIRLIFT
AIRCRAFT
031 C-5............ 36,592 36,592
032 C-5M........... 6,817 6,817
033 C-17A.......... 125,522 125,522
034 C-21........... 13,253 13,253
035 C-32A.......... 79,449 79,449
036 C-37A.......... 15,423 15,423
037 C-130J......... 10,727 10,727
TRAINER
AIRCRAFT
038 GLIDER MODS.... 136 136
039 T-6............ 35,706 35,706
040 T-1............ 21,477 21,477
041 T-38........... 51,641 51,641
OTHER AIRCRAFT
042 U-2 MODS....... 36,406 36,406
043 KC-10A (ATCA).. 4,243 4,243
044 C-12........... 5,846 65,000 70,846
MC-12W [65,000]
upgrades
for Air
National
Guard.
045 VC-25A MOD..... 52,107 52,107
046 C-40........... 31,119 31,119
047 C-130.......... 66,310 264 147,000 264 213,310
C-130H [88] [18,000]
Inflight
rebalance
system.
C-130H [88] [55,000]
NP2000 Prop.
C-130H T56 [88] [74,000]
3.5.
048 C-130J MODS.... 171,230 171,230
049 C-135.......... 69,428 69,428
050 OC-135B........ 23,091 23,091
051 COMPASS CALL 166,541 166,541
MODS.
052 COMBAT FLIGHT 495 495
INSPECTION
(CFIN).
053 RC-135......... 201,559 201,559
054 E-3............ 189,772 189,772
055 E-4............ 30,493 30,493
056 E-8............ 13,232 13,232
057 AIRBORNE 164,786 164,786
WARNING AND
CONTROL SYSTEM.
058 FAMILY OF 24,716 24,716
BEYOND LINE-OF-
SIGHT
TERMINALS.
059 H-1............ 3,730 3,730
060 H-60........... 75,989 16,100 92,089
Unfunded [16,100]
requirement.
061 RQ-4 MODS...... 43,968 18,300 62,268
HA-ISR [18,300]
Payload
Adapters.
062 HC/MC-130 67,674 67,674
MODIFICATIONS.
063 OTHER AIRCRAFT. 59,068 59,068
065 MQ-9 MODS...... 264,740 5,200 269,940
FY17 10th [5,200]
Pod Set
Procurement
Shortfall.
066 CV-22 MODS..... 60,990 60,990
AIRCRAFT SPARES
AND REPAIR
PARTS
067 INITIAL SPARES/ 1,041,569 79,600 1,121,169
REPAIR PARTS.
Additional [79,600]
F-35
Initial
Spares.
COMMON SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
068 AIRCRAFT 75,846 25,417 101,263
REPLACEMENT
SUPPORT EQUIP.
Realign [25,417]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
069 OTHER 8,524 8,524
PRODUCTION
CHARGES.
071 T-53A TRAINER.. 501 501
POST PRODUCTION
SUPPORT
072 B-2A........... 447 447
073 B-2A........... 38,509 38,509
074 B-52........... 199 199
075 C-17A.......... 12,028 12,028
078 RC-135......... 29,700 29,700
079 F-15........... 20,000 20,000
080 F-15........... 2,524 2,524
081 F-16........... 18,051 -12,400 5,651
Program [-12,400]
reduction.
082 F-22A.......... 119,566 119,566
083 OTHER AIRCRAFT. 85,000 85,000
085 RQ-4 POST 86,695 86,695
PRODUCTION
CHARGES.
086 CV-22 MODS..... 4,500 4,500
INDUSTRIAL
PREPAREDNESS
087 INDUSTRIAL 14,739 16,000 30,739
RESPONSIVENESS.
Program [16,000]
increase.
088 C-130J......... 102,000 102,000
WAR CONSUMABLES
089 WAR CONSUMABLES 37,647 37,647
OTHER
PRODUCTION
CHARGES
090 OTHER 1,339,160 1,339,160
PRODUCTION
CHARGES.
092 OTHER AIRCRAFT. 600 600
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
092A CLASSIFIED 53,212 53,212
PROGRAMS.
TOTAL 188 15,430,849 391 2,917,162 579 18,348,011
AIRCRAFT
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
MISSILE
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
MISSILE
REPLACEMENT
EQUIPMENT--BAL
LISTIC
001 MISSILE 99,098 99,098
REPLACEMENT EQ-
BALLISTIC.
TACTICAL
002 JOINT AIR- 360 441,367 360 441,367
SURFACE
STANDOFF
MISSILE.
003 LRASM0......... 15 44,728 17,000 15 61,728
LRASM...... [17,000]
004 SIDEWINDER (AIM- 310 125,350 310 125,350
9X).
005 AMRAAM......... 205 304,327 205 304,327
006 PREDATOR 399 34,867 399 34,867
HELLFIRE
MISSILE.
007 SMALL DIAMETER 5,039 266,030 5,039 266,030
BOMB.
INDUSTRIAL
FACILITIES
008 INDUSTR'L 926 926
PREPAREDNS/POL
PREVENTION.
CLASS IV
009 ICBM FUZE MOD.. 6,334 6,334
010 MM III 80,109 80,109
MODIFICATIONS.
011 AGM-65D 289 289
MAVERICK.
013 AIR LAUNCH 36,425 36,425
CRUISE MISSILE
(ALCM).
014 SMALL DIAMETER 14,086 14,086
BOMB.
MISSILE SPARES
AND REPAIR
PARTS
015 INITIAL SPARES/ 101,153 101,153
REPAIR PARTS.
SPECIAL
PROGRAMS
020 SPECIAL UPDATE 32,917 32,917
PROGRAMS.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
020A CLASSIFIED 708,176 708,176
PROGRAMS.
TOTAL 6,328 2,296,182 17,000 6,328 2,313,182
MISSILE
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
SPACE
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
SPACE PROGRAMS
001 ADVANCED EHF... 56,974 56,974
002 AF SATELLITE 57,516 57,516
COMM SYSTEM.
003 COUNTERSPACE 28,798 28,798
SYSTEMS.
004 FAMILY OF 146,972 146,972
BEYOND LINE-OF-
SIGHT
TERMINALS.
005 WIDEBAND 80,849 100,000 180,849
GAPFILLER
SATELLITES(SPA
CE).
Long-lead [100,000]
procurement
for
protecting
supply
chain and
schedule
for WGS
communicati
ons.
006 GPS III SPACE 85,894 85,894
SEGMENT.
007 GLOBAL 2,198 2,198
POSTIONING
(SPACE).
008 SPACEBORNE 25,048 25,048
EQUIP (COMSEC).
010 MILSATCOM...... 33,033 33,033
011 EVOLVED 957,420 957,420
EXPENDABLE
LAUNCH
CAPABILITY.
012 EVOLVED 3 606,488 3 606,488
EXPENDABLE
LAUNCH
VEH(SPACE).
013 SBIR HIGH 981,009 76,350 1,057,359
(SPACE).
AF UPL-- [44,900]
fully fund
emerging
cyber
security
requirement.
AF UPL-- [15,450]
procure
commerciall
y available
antenna.
AF UPL [16,000]
upgrades
ground
antenna.
014 ADVANCE 132,420 132,420
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
015 NUDET DETECTION 6,370 6,370
SYSTEM.
016 SPACE MODS..... 37,203 37,203
017 SPACELIFT RANGE 113,874 113,874
SYSTEM SPACE.
SSPARES
018 INITIAL SPARES/ 18,709 18,709
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 3 3,370,775 176,350 3 3,547,125
SPACE
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT OF
AMMUNITION,
AIR FORCE
ROCKETS
001 ROCKETS........ 147,454 147,454
CARTRIDGES
002 CARTRIDGES..... 161,744 161,744
BOMBS
003 PRACTICE BOMBS. 28,509 28,509
004 GENERAL PURPOSE 329,501 329,501
BOMBS.
005 MASSIVE 38,382 38,382
ORDNANCE
PENETRATOR
(MOP).
006 JOINT DIRECT 10,330 319,525 10,330 319,525
ATTACK
MUNITION.
007 B61............ 30 77,068 30 77,068
008 ADVANCE 11,239 11,239
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
OTHER ITEMS
009 CAD/PAD........ 53,469 53,469
010 EXPLOSIVE 5,921 5,921
ORDNANCE
DISPOSAL (EOD).
011 SPARES AND 678 678
REPAIR PARTS.
012 MODIFICATIONS.. 1,409 1,409
013 ITEMS LESS THAN 5,047 5,047
$5 MILLION.
FLARES
015 FLARES......... 143,983 143,983
FUZES
016 FUZES.......... 24,062 24,062
SMALL ARMS
017 SMALL ARMS..... 28,611 28,611
TOTAL 10,360 1,376,602 10,360 1,376,602
PROCUREMEN
T OF
AMMUNITION
, AIR
FORCE.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT,
AIR FORCE
PASSENGER
CARRYING
VEHICLES
001 PASSENGER 15,651 1,350 17,001
CARRYING
VEHICLES.
Realign [1,350]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
CARGO AND
UTILITY
VEHICLES
002 MEDIUM TACTICAL 54,607 54,607
VEHICLE.
003 CAP VEHICLES... 1,011 1,011
004 CARGO AND 28,670 28,670
UTILITY
VEHICLES.
SPECIAL PURPOSE
VEHICLES
005 SECURITY AND 59,398 59,398
TACTICAL
VEHICLES.
006 SPECIAL PURPOSE 19,784 31,821 51,605
VEHICLES.
Realign [31,821]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
FIRE FIGHTING
EQUIPMENT
007 FIRE FIGHTING/ 14,768 22,583 37,351
CRASH RESCUE
VEHICLES.
Realign [22,583]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
MATERIALS
HANDLING
EQUIPMENT
008 MATERIALS 13,561 4,026 17,587
HANDLING
VEHICLES.
Realign [4,026]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
BASE
MAINTENANCE
SUPPORT
009 RUNWAY SNOW 3,429 9,161 12,590
REMOV &
CLEANING EQUIP.
Realign [9,161]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
010 BASE 60,075 39,692 99,767
MAINTENANCE
SUPPORT
VEHICLES.
Realign [39,692]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
COMM SECURITY
EQUIPMENT(COMS
EC)
011 COMSEC 115,000 8,000 123,000
EQUIPMENT.
Unfunded [8,000]
requirement.
INTELLIGENCE
PROGRAMS
013 INTERNATIONAL 22,335 22,335
INTEL TECH &
ARCHITECTURES.
014 INTELLIGENCE 5,892 5,892
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT.
015 INTELLIGENCE 34,072 34,072
COMM EQUIPMENT.
ELECTRONICS
PROGRAMS
016 AIR TRAFFIC 66,143 66,143
CONTROL &
LANDING SYS.
017 NATIONAL 12,641 12,641
AIRSPACE
SYSTEM.
018 BATTLE CONTROL 6,415 6,415
SYSTEM--FIXED.
019 THEATER AIR 23,233 23,233
CONTROL SYS
IMPROVEMENTS.
020 WEATHER 40,116 40,116
OBSERVATION
FORECAST.
021 STRATEGIC 72,810 72,810
COMMAND AND
CONTROL.
022 CHEYENNE 9,864 9,864
MOUNTAIN
COMPLEX.
023 MISSION 15,486 15,486
PLANNING
SYSTEMS.
025 INTEGRATED 9,187 9,187
STRAT PLAN &
ANALY NETWORK
(ISPAN).
SPCL COMM-
ELECTRONICS
PROJECTS
026 GENERAL 51,826 51,826
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.
027 AF GLOBAL 3,634 3,634
COMMAND &
CONTROL SYS.
028 MOBILITY 10,083 10,083
COMMAND AND
CONTROL.
029 AIR FORCE 201,866 201,866
PHYSICAL
SECURITY
SYSTEM.
030 COMBAT TRAINING 115,198 115,198
RANGES.
031 MINIMUM 292 292
ESSENTIAL
EMERGENCY COMM
N.
032 WIDE AREA 62,087 62,087
SURVEILLANCE
(WAS).
033 C3 37,764 37,764
COUNTERMEASURE
S.
034 GCSS-AF FOS.... 2,826 2,826
035 DEFENSE 1,514 1,514
ENTERPRISE
ACCOUNTING AND
MGMT SYSTEM.
036 THEATER BATTLE 9,646 9,646
MGT C2 SYSTEM.
037 AIR & SPACE 25,533 25,533
OPERATIONS CTR-
WPN SYS.
AIR FORCE
COMMUNICATIONS
040 BASE 28,159 28,159
INFORMATION
TRANSPT
INFRAST (BITI)
WIRED.
041 AFNET.......... 160,820 26,000 186,820
Unfunded [26,000]
requirement.
042 JOINT 5,135 5,135
COMMUNICATIONS
SUPPORT
ELEMENT (JCSE).
043 USCENTCOM...... 18,719 18,719
ORGANIZATION
AND BASE
044 TACTICAL C-E 123,206 123,206
EQUIPMENT.
045 COMBAT SURVIVOR 3,004 3,004
EVADER LOCATER.
046 RADIO EQUIPMENT 15,736 15,736
047 CCTV/ 5,480 5,480
AUDIOVISUAL
EQUIPMENT.
048 BASE COMM 130,539 55,000 185,539
INFRASTRUCTURE.
Realign [55,000]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
MODIFICATIONS
049 COMM ELECT MODS 70,798 70,798
PERSONAL SAFETY
& RESCUE EQUIP
051 ITEMS LESS THAN 52,964 500 53,464
$5 MILLION.
Unfunded [500]
requirement
-Instructor
Training
Parachutes.
DEPOT
PLANT+MTRLS
HANDLING EQ
052 MECHANIZED 10,381 10,381
MATERIAL
HANDLING EQUIP.
BASE SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
053 BASE PROCURED 15,038 12,500 27,538
EQUIPMENT.
Program [5,000]
increase--C
ivil
Engineers
Constructio
n,
Surveying,
and Mapping
Equipment.
Realign [7,500]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
054 ENGINEERING AND 26,287 26,287
EOD EQUIPMENT.
055 MOBILITY 8,470 8,470
EQUIPMENT.
056 ITEMS LESS THAN 28,768 104,015 132,783
$5 MILLION.
Realign [104,015]
European
Reassurance
Initiative
to Base.
SPECIAL SUPPORT
PROJECTS
058 DARP RC135..... 25,985 25,985
059 DCGS-AF........ 178,423 178,423
061 SPECIAL UPDATE 840,980 840,980
PROGRAM.
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
062A CLASSIFIED 16,601,513 16,601,513
PROGRAMS.
SPARES AND
REPAIR PARTS
064 SPARES AND 26,675 26,675
REPAIR PARTS.
TOTAL 19,603,497 314,648 19,918,145
OTHER
PROCUREMEN
T, AIR
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT,
DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, OSD
042 MAJOR 20 36,999 20 36,999
EQUIPMENT, OSD.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, NSA
041 INFORMATION 5,938 5,938
SYSTEMS
SECURITY
PROGRAM (ISSP).
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, WHS
045 MAJOR 10,529 10,529
EQUIPMENT, WHS.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DISA
007 INFORMATION 24,805 24,805
SYSTEMS
SECURITY.
008 TELEPORT 46,638 46,638
PROGRAM.
009 ITEMS LESS THAN 15,541 15,541
$5 MILLION.
010 NET CENTRIC 1,161 1,161
ENTERPRISE
SERVICES
(NCES).
011 DEFENSE 126,345 126,345
INFORMATION
SYSTEM NETWORK.
012 CYBER SECURITY 1,817 1,817
INITIATIVE.
013 WHITE HOUSE 45,243 45,243
COMMUNICATION
AGENCY.
014 SENIOR 294,139 294,139
LEADERSHIP
ENTERPRISE.
016 JOINT REGIONAL 188,483 188,483
SECURITY
STACKS (JRSS).
017 JOINT SERVICE 100,783 100,783
PROVIDER.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, DLA
019 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 2,951 2,951
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, DSS
023 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 1,073 1,073
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DCAA
001 ITEMS LESS THAN 1,475 1,475
$5 MILLION.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT, TJS
043 MAJOR 9,341 9,341
EQUIPMENT, TJS.
044 MAJOR 903 903
EQUIPMENT,
TJS--CE2T2.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
MISSILE
DEFENSE AGENCY
027 THAAD.......... 34 451,592 24 319,400 58 770,992
Procure [24] [319,400]
additional
THAAD
interceptor
s.
028 AEGIS BMD...... 34 425,018 11 158,000 45 583,018
Additional [11] [158,000]
SM-3 Block
1B.
029 ADVANCE 38,738 38,738
PROCUREMENT
(CY).
030 BMDS AN/TPY-2 947 947
RADARS.
033 AEGIS ASHORE 59,739 59,739
PHASE III.
034 IRON DOME...... 1 42,000 1 42,000
035 AEGIS BMD 21 160,330 21 160,330
HARDWARE AND
SOFTWARE.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DHRA
003 PERSONNEL 14,588 14,588
ADMINISTRATION.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DEFENSE THREAT
REDUCTION
AGENCY
025 VEHICLES....... 204 204
026 OTHER MAJOR 12,363 12,363
EQUIPMENT.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DODEA
021 AUTOMATION/ 1,910 1,910
EDUCATIONAL
SUPPORT &
LOGISTICS.
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DCMA
002 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 4,347 4,347
MAJOR
EQUIPMENT,
DMACT
020 MAJOR EQUIPMENT 3 13,464 3 13,464
CLASSIFIED
PROGRAMS
045A CLASSIFIED 657,759 657,759
PROGRAMS.
AVIATION
PROGRAMS
049 ROTARY WING 158,988 -7,500 151,488
UPGRADES AND
SUSTAINMENT.
Per SOCOM [-7,500]
requested
realignment.
050 UNMANNED ISR... 13,295 13,295
051 NON-STANDARD 4,892 4,892
AVIATION.
052 U-28........... 5,769 5,769
053 MH-47 CHINOOK.. 87,345 87,345
055 CV-22 42,178 42,178
MODIFICATION.
057 MQ-9 UNMANNED 21,660 21,660
AERIAL VEHICLE.
059 PRECISION 229,728 229,728
STRIKE PACKAGE.
060 AC/MC-130J..... 179,934 179,934
061 C-130 28,059 28,059
MODIFICATIONS.
SHIPBUILDING
062 UNDERWATER 92,606 -12,800 79,806
SYSTEMS.
Per SOCOM [-12,800]
requested
realignment.
AMMUNITION
PROGRAMS
063 ORDNANCE ITEMS 112,331 112,331
<$5M.
OTHER
PROCUREMENT
PROGRAMS
064 INTELLIGENCE 82,538 82,538
SYSTEMS.
065 DISTRIBUTED 11,042 11,042
COMMON GROUND/
SURFACE
SYSTEMS.
066 OTHER ITEMS 54,592 54,592
<$5M.
067 COMBATANT CRAFT 23,272 23,272
SYSTEMS.
068 SPECIAL 16,053 16,053
PROGRAMS.
069 TACTICAL 63,304 63,304
VEHICLES.
070 WARRIOR SYSTEMS 252,070 252,070
<$5M.
071 COMBAT MISSION 19,570 19,570
REQUIREMENTS.
072 GLOBAL VIDEO 3,589 3,589
SURVEILLANCE
ACTIVITIES.
073 OPERATIONAL 17,953 17,953
ENHANCEMENTS
INTELLIGENCE.
075 OPERATIONAL 241,429 241,429
ENHANCEMENTS.
CBDP
076 CHEMICAL 135,031 135,031
BIOLOGICAL
SITUATIONAL
AWARENESS.
077 CB PROTECTION & 141,027 141,027
HAZARD
MITIGATION.
TOTAL 113 4,835,418 35 457,100 148 5,292,518
PROCUREMEN
T, DEFENSE-
WIDE.
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL
NEEDS FUND
JOINT URGENT
OPERATIONAL
NEEDS FUND
001 JOINT URGENT 99,795 -99,795 0
OPERATIONAL
NEEDS FUND.
Program [-99,795]
reduction.
TOTAL 99,795 -99,795 0
JOINT
URGENT
OPERATIONA
L NEEDS
FUND.
TOTAL 35,463 113,983,713 34,330 13,877,588 69,793 127,861,301
PROCUREMEN
T.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4102. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Request House Change House Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY
FIXED WING
004 MQ-1 UAV.......................... 9 87,300 9 87,300
ROTARY
006 AH-64 APACHE BLOCK IIIA REMAN..... 4 39,040 39,000 4 78,040
Unfunded requirement.......... [39,000]
MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT
015 MQ-1 PAYLOAD (MIP)................ 41,400 -8,000 33,400
Realign European Reassurance [-8,000]
Initiative to Base.
018 MULTI SENSOR ABN RECON (MIP)...... 33,475 -29,475 4,000
Realign European Reassurance [-29,475]
Initiative to Base.
023 EMARSS SEMA MODS (MIP)............ 36,000 36,000
025 UTILITY HELICOPTER MODS........... 34,809 34,809
Unfunded requirement.......... [34,809]
027 COMMS, NAV SURVEILLANCE........... 4,289 4,289
GROUND SUPPORT AVIONICS
033 CMWS.............................. 139,742 24 61,800 24 201,542
Unfunded requirement--B kits.. [24] [61,800]
034 COMMON INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES 43,440 43,440
(CIRCM).
OTHER SUPPORT
037 AIRCREW INTEGRATED SYSTEMS........ 12,100 12,100
Unfunded requirement.......... [12,100]
TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 13 424,686 24 110,234 37 534,920
ARMY.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SYSTEM
002 MSE MISSILE....................... 147 633,570 147 633,570
Meet inventory requirements [147] [633,570]
for COCOMS.
AIR-TO-SURFACE MISSILE SYSTEM
005 HELLFIRE SYS SUMMARY.............. 2,927 278,073 106 10,000 3,033 288,073
Unfunded requirement.......... [106] [10,000]
ANTI-TANK/ASSAULT MISSILE SYS
008 JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY... 47 8,112 326 139,188 373 147,300
Realign European Reassurance [-47] [-8,112]
Initiative to Base.
Unfunded requirement.......... [373] [147,300]
009 TOW 2 SYSTEM SUMMARY.............. 49 3,907 -49 -3,907 0
Realign European Reassurance [-49] [-3,907]
Initiative to Base.
011 GUIDED MLRS ROCKET (GMLRS)........ 1,542 191,522 13,000 1,542 204,522
Unfunded requirement.......... [13,000]
012 MLRS REDUCED RANGE PRACTICE 576 6,330 576 6,330
ROCKETS (RRPR).
Unfunded requirement.......... [576] [6,330]
013 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET 41,000 -41,000 0
SYSTEM (HIMARS.
Realign European Reassurance [-41,000]
Initiative to Base.
014 LETHAL MINIATURE AERIAL MISSILE 120 8,669 46,600 120 55,269
SYSTEM (LMAMS.
Unfunded requirement.......... [46,600]
MODIFICATIONS
016 ATACMS MODS....................... 75 69,400 75 69,400
Unfunded requirement.......... [75] [69,400]
018 STINGER MODS...................... 28,000 -28,000 0
Realign European Reassurance [-28,000]
Initiative to Base.
TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, 4,685 559,283 1,181 845,181 5,866 1,404,464
ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, ARMY
TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES
001 BRADLEY PROGRAM................... 60 200,000 -60 -200,000 0
Realign European Reassurance [-60] [-200,000]
Initiative to Base.
002 ARMORED MULTI PURPOSE VEHICLE 65 253,903 -65 -253,903 0
(AMPV).
Realign European Reassurance [-65] [-253,903]
Initiative to Base.
MODIFICATION OF TRACKED COMBAT
VEHICLES
004 STRYKER (MOD)..................... 177,000 177,000
Unfunded requirement - [177,000]
lethality upgrades.
006 BRADLEY PROGRAM (MOD)............. 30,000 -30,000 0
Realign European Reassurance [-30,000]
Initiative to Base.
008 PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT 12 125,736 -12 -125,736 0
(PIM).
Realign European Reassurance [-12] [-125,736]
Initiative to Base.
014 M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD).............. 138,700 -138,700 0
Realign European Reassurance [-138,700]
Initiative to Base.
015 ABRAMS UPGRADE PROGRAM............ 36 442,800 -36 -442,800 0
Realign European Reassurance [-36] [-442,800]
Initiative to Base.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF W&TCV, 173 1,191,139 -173 -1,014,139 177,000
ARMY.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY
SMALL/MEDIUM CAL AMMUNITION
001 CTG, 5.56MM, ALL TYPES............ 7,100 7,100
Unfunded requirement.......... [7,100]
002 CTG, 7.62MM, ALL TYPES............ 14,900 14,900
Unfunded requirement.......... [14,900]
003 CTG, HANDGUN, ALL TYPES........... 5 85 90
Realign European Reassurance [-5]
Initiative to Base.
Unfunded requirement.......... [90]
004 CTG, .50 CAL, ALL TYPES........... 121 8,769 8,890
Realign European Reassurance [-121]
Initiative to Base.
Unfunded requirement.......... [8,890]
005 CTG, 20MM, ALL TYPES.............. 1,605 1,605
006 CTG, 25MM, ALL TYPES.............. 31,862 31,862
Unfunded requirement.......... [31,862]
007 CTG, 30MM, ALL TYPES.............. 35,000 -22,850 12,150
Realign European Reassurance [-25,000]
Initiative to Base.
Unfunded requirement.......... [2,150]
008 CTG, 40MM, ALL TYPES.............. 17,191 17,191
Unfunded requirement.......... [17,191]
MORTAR AMMUNITION
009 60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES............ 2,500 2,500
Unfunded requirement.......... [2,500]
010 81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES............ 3,109 3,109
Unfunded requirement.......... [3,109]
011 120MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES........... 18,192 18,192
Unfunded requirement.......... [18,192]
TANK AMMUNITION
012 CARTRIDGES, TANK, 105MM AND 120MM, 3228 40,300 3,228 40,300
ALL TYPES.
Unfunded requirement.......... [3,228] [40,300]
ARTILLERY AMMUNITION
014 ARTILLERY PROJECTILE, 155MM, ALL 159,181 159,181
TYPES.
Unfunded requirement.......... [159,181]
015 PROJ 155MM EXTENDED RANGE M982.... 266 23,234 -19,045 266 4,189
Realign European Reassurance [-19,045]
Initiative to Base.
016 ARTILLERY PROPELLANTS, FUZES AND 20,023 64,044 84,067
PRIMERS, ALL.
Realign European Reassurance [-16,678]
Initiative to Base.
Unfunded requirement.......... [80,722]
MINES
017 MINES & CLEARING CHARGES, ALL 11,615 -8,615 3,000
TYPES.
Realign European Reassurance [-11,615]
Initiative to Base.
Unfunded requirement.......... [3,000]
ROCKETS
019 SHOULDER LAUNCHED MUNITIONS, ALL 25,000 61,881 86,881
TYPES.
Unfunded requirement.......... [61,881]
020 ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES....... 75,820 1245 88,000 1,245 163,820
Unfunded requirement.......... [1,245] [20,000]
Unfunded requirement--APKWS [68,000]
and M282 warheads.
OTHER AMMUNITION
022 DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES... 2,261 2,261
Unfunded requirement.......... [2,261]
023 GRENADES, ALL TYPES............... 25,361 25,361
Unfunded requirement.......... [25,361]
024 SIGNALS, ALL TYPES................ 1,013 829 1,842
Unfunded requirement.......... [829]
025 SIMULATORS, ALL TYPES............. 450 450
Unfunded requirement.......... [450]
MISCELLANEOUS
027 NON-LETHAL AMMUNITION, ALL TYPES.. 150 150
Unfunded requirement.......... [150]
028 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (AMMO). 3,665 3,665
Unfunded requirement.......... [3,665]
PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT
033 CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS 53,000 53,000
DEMILITARIZATION.
Unfunded requirement.......... [53,000]
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF 266 193,436 4,473 552,320 4,739 745,756
AMMUNITION, ARMY.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
TACTICAL VEHICLES
010 FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES 25,874 -25,874 0
(FHTV).
Realign European Reassurance [-25,874]
Initiative to Base.
012 HVY EXPANDED MOBILE TACTICAL TRUCK 38,628 -38,628 0
EXT SERV.
Realign European Reassurance [-38,628]
Initiative to Base.
014 MODIFICATION OF IN SVC EQUIP...... 64,647 71,253 135,900
Realign European Reassurance [-2,599]
Initiative to Base.
Unfunded requirement--route [73,852]
clearance and mine protected
vehicles.
015 MINE-RESISTANT AMBUSH-PROTECTED 17,508 17,508
(MRAP) MODS.
COMM--JOINT COMMUNICATIONS
020 SIGNAL MODERNIZATION PROGRAM...... 4,900 4,900
COMM--COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS
041 TRACTOR RIDE...................... 1,000 1,000
COMM--BASE COMMUNICATIONS
062 INSTALLATION INFO INFRASTRUCTURE 2,500 -2,500 0
MOD PROGRAM.
Realign European Reassurance [-2,500]
Initiative to Base.
ELECT EQUIP--TACT INT REL ACT
(TIARA)
068 DCGS-A (MIP)...................... 39,515 106 13,000 106 52,515
Unfunded requirement.......... [106] [13,000]
070 TROJAN (MIP)...................... 21,310 -6,000 15,310
Realign European Reassurance [-6,000]
Initiative to Base.
071 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (INTEL SPT) 2,300 2,300
(MIP).
072 CI HUMINT AUTO REPRTING AND 14,460 14,460
COLL(CHARCS).
075 BIOMETRIC TACTICAL COLLECTION 5,180 5,180
DEVICES (MIP).
ELECT EQUIP--ELECTRONIC WARFARE
(EW)
079 CREW.............................. 10 17,500 10 17,500
Unfunded requirement--EOD DR [10] [17,500]
SKOs.
080 FAMILY OF PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE 16,935 3 5,000 3 21,935
CAPABILITIE.
Unfunded requirement.......... [3] [5,000]
081 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE/SECURITY 18,874 -5,900 12,974
COUNTERMEASURES.
Realign European Reassurance [-5,900]
Initiative to Base.
ELECT EQUIP--TACTICAL SURV. (TAC
SURV)
084 NIGHT VISION DEVICES.............. 377 377
085 SMALL TACTICAL OPTICAL RIFLE 60 150 2,150 150 2,210
MOUNTED MLRF.
Unfunded requirement.......... [150] [2,150]
086 BASE EXPEDITIARY TARGETING AND 53 29,462 53 29,462
SURV SYS.
Unfunded requirement.......... [53] [29,462]
087 INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION FAMILY OF 57,500 13 142,610 13 200,110
SYSTEMS.
Unfunded requirement--Air and [13] [142,610]
Missile Defense (SHORAD).
091 JOINT BATTLE COMMAND--PLATFORM -2,300 -2,300
(JBC-P).
Realign European Reassurance [-2,300]
Initiative to Base.
093 MOD OF IN-SVC EQUIP (LLDR)........ 3,974 -3,974 0
Realign European Reassurance [-3,974]
Initiative to Base.
095 MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM........ 2,947 -75 2,872
Realign European Reassurance [-75]
Initiative to Base.
ELECT EQUIP--TACTICAL C2 SYSTEMS
098 AIR & MSL DEFENSE PLANNING & 9,100 -9,100 0
CONTROL SYS.
Realign European Reassurance [-9,100]
Initiative to Base.
CHEMICAL DEFENSIVE EQUIPMENT
119 BASE DEFENSE SYSTEMS (BDS)........ 3,726 3,726
ENGINEER (NON-CONSTRUCTION)
EQUIPMENT
126 GRND STANDOFF MINE DETECTN SYSM 10,800 10,800
(GSTAMIDS).
Unfunded requirement.......... [10,800]
128 HUSKY MOUNTED DETECTION SYSTEM 4 2,400 4 2,400
(HMDS).
Unfunded requirement.......... [4] [2,400]
COMBAT SERVICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
136 HEATERS AND ECU'S................. 270 270
142 FIELD FEEDING EQUIPMENT........... 145 145
143 CARGO AERIAL DEL & PERSONNEL 1,980 1,980
PARACHUTE SYSTEM.
MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
148 COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL............ 25,690 -21,122 4,568
Realign European Reassurance [-21,122]
Initiative to Base.
MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT
149 MOBILE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT 1,124 -1,124 0
SYSTEMS.
Realign European Reassurance [-1,124]
Initiative to Base.
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
153 HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR............... 3,850 3,850
157 HIGH MOBILITY ENGINEER EXCAVATOR 1,932 1,932
(HMEE).
GENERATORS
164 GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP... 569 569
TRAINING EQUIPMENT
168 TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM....... 2,700 -2,700 0
Realign European Reassurance [-2,700]
Initiative to Base.
TEST MEASURE AND DIG EQUIPMENT
(TMD)
173 INTEGRATED FAMILY OF TEST 7,500 -7,500 0
EQUIPMENT (IFTE).
Realign European Reassurance [-7,500]
Initiative to Base.
OTHER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
176 RAPID EQUIPPING SOLDIER SUPPORT 8,500 5,000 13,500
EQUIPMENT.
Unfunded requirement.......... [5,000]
TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY 405,575 339 172,378 339 577,953
JOINT IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE
DEFEAT FUND
NETWORK ATTACK
001 RAPID ACQUISITION AND THREAT 483,058 483,058
RESPONSE.
TOTAL JOINT IMPROVISED-THREAT 483,058 483,058
DEFEAT FUND.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
OTHER AIRCRAFT
027 STUASL0 UAV....................... 3,900 3,900
MODIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT
033 F-18 SERIES....................... 34 16,000 34 16,000
Unfunded requirement -ALR- [34] [16,000]
67(V)3 Retrofit A and B Kits.
034 H-53 SERIES....................... 950 950
035 SH-60 SERIES...................... 15,382 15,382
037 EP-3 SERIES....................... 7,220 7,220
047 SPECIAL PROJECT AIRCRAFT.......... 19,855 19,855
051 COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT.............. 75,530 75,530
062 QRC............................... 15,150 15,150
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
064 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS........... 18,850 18,850
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIP &
FACILITIES
066 AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES.... 463 463
TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 157,300 34 16,000 34 173,300
NAVY.
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY
STRATEGIC MISSILES
003 TOMAHAWK.......................... 66 100,086 66 100,086
TACTICAL MISSILES
004 AMRAAM............................ 12,000 12,000
Unfunded requirement--AIM-120 [12,000]
Captive Air Training Missiles
Guidance sections.
007 STANDARD MISSILE.................. 8 35,208 8 35,208
011 HELLFIRE.......................... 110 8,771 110 8,771
012 LASER MAVERICK.................... 5,040 5,040
MODIFICATION OF MISSILES
017 ESSM.............................. 1 1,768 1 1,768
GUNS AND GUN MOUNTS
035 SMALL ARMS AND WEAPONS............ 1,500 1,500
TOTAL WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, 185 152,373 12,000 185 164,373
NAVY.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, NAVY & MC
NAVY AMMUNITION
001 GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS............. 74,021 74,021
002 JDAM.............................. 4,717 106,941 4,717 106,941
003 AIRBORNE ROCKETS, ALL TYPES....... 1,184 1,184
007 AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES.... 15,700 15,700
008 JATOS............................. 540 540
012 OTHER SHIP GUN AMMUNITION......... 13,789 13,789
013 SMALL ARMS & LANDING PARTY AMMO... 1,963 1,963
014 PYROTECHNIC AND DEMOLITION........ 765 765
016 AMMUNITION LESS THAN $5 MILLION... 866 866
MARINE CORPS AMMUNITION
019 60MM, ALL TYPES................... 11,000 11,000
Unfunded requirement--Full [11,000]
range practice rounds.
020 MORTARS........................... 1,290 1,290
021 81MM, ALL TYPES................... 14,500 14,500
Unfunded requirement--Full [14,500]
range practice rounds.
023 DIRECT SUPPORT MUNITIONS.......... 1,355 1,355
024 INFANTRY WEAPONS AMMUNITION....... 1,854 1,854
027 ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES.............. 17,000 17,000
Unfunded requirement--HE [17,000]
Training Rounds.
033 ARTILLERY MUNITIONS............... 5,319 5,319
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF AMMO, 4,717 225,587 42,500 4,717 268,087
NAVY & MC.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY
OTHER SHIPBOARD EQUIPMENT
025 UNDERWATER EOD PROGRAMS........... 12,348 -4,016 8,332
Realign European Reassurance [-4,016]
Initiative to Base.
SMALL BOATS
032 STANDARD BOATS.................... 18,000 18,000
SHIP SONARS
046 SSN ACOUSTIC EQUIPMENT............ 43,500 -43,500 0
Realign European Reassurance [-43,500]
Initiative to Base.
AVIATION ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
078 NAVAL MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS.... 2,550 2,550
OTHER SHORE ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
080 TACTICAL/MOBILE C4I SYSTEMS....... 7,900 -7,900 0
Realign European Reassurance [-7,900]
Initiative to Base.
081 DCGS-N............................ 6,392 -1,900 4,492
Realign European Reassurance [-1,900]
Initiative to Base.
CRYPTOLOGIC EQUIPMENT
101 CRYPTOLOGIC COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP.. 2,280 2,280
AIRCRAFT SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
119 AVIATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT........ 29,245 29,245
SHIP MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT
121 SHIP MISSILE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.... 2,436 2,436
OTHER ORDNANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
126 EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DISPOSAL EQUIP. 31,970 31,970
CIVIL ENGINEERING SUPPORT
EQUIPMENT
132 GENERAL PURPOSE TRUCKS............ 496 -106 390
Realign European Reassurance [-106]
Initiative to Base.
134 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT........... 2,304 2,304
135 TACTICAL VEHICLES................. 2,336 2,336
SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
141 SUPPLY EQUIPMENT.................. 164 -164 0
Realign European Reassurance [-164]
Initiative to Base.
143 FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION.. 420 420
COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
147 COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT......... 21,650 21,650
152 OPERATING FORCES SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 15,800 15,800
154 ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT... 1,000 -1,000 0
Realign European Reassurance [-1,000]
Initiative to Base.
155 PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT....... 15,890 15,890
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
161A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 2,200 2,200
SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
161 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS........... 1,178 1,178
TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY 220,059 -58,586 161,473
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
ARTILLERY AND OTHER WEAPONS
006 HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET 5,360 5,360
SYSTEM.
GUIDED MISSILES
011 JAVELIN........................... 11 2,833 11 2,833
012 FOLLOW ON TO SMAW................. 49 49
013 ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS SYSTEM-HEAVY 5,024 5,024
(AAWS-H).
REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT
017 REPAIR AND TEST EQUIPMENT......... 8,241 8,241
OTHER SUPPORT (TEL)
019 MODIFICATION KITS................. 750 750
COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (NON-
TEL)
020 ITEMS UNDER $5 MILLION (COMM & 200 374 20,200 374 20,400
ELEC).
Unfunded requirement--night [374] [20,200]
optics for sniper rifles.
RADAR + EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL)
023 GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED RADAR (G/ 1 39,200 1 39,200
ATOR).
Unfunded requirement--CEG [1,500]
Shelters.
Unfunded requirement--G/ATOR [1] [37,700]
acceleration.
024 RQ-21 UAS......................... 8,400 8,400
INTELL/COMM EQUIPMENT (NON-TEL)
026 FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM............... 50 50
027 INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.... 3,000 3,000
029 UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS (INTEL)...... 10 16,600 10 16,600
Unfunded requirement - UUNS [10] [16,600]
for long endurance small UAS.
OTHER SUPPORT (NON-TEL)
037 COMMAND POST SYSTEMS.............. 5,777 70,000 75,777
Additional NOTM-A Systems for [70,000]
emerging operational
requirements.
038 RADIO SYSTEMS..................... 4,590 4,590
ENGINEER AND OTHER EQUIPMENT
053 EOD SYSTEMS....................... 21,000 21,000
SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
062 SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS........... 3,129 3,129
Unfunded requirement--G/ATOR [3,129]
spares.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, MARINE 11 65,274 385 149,129 396 214,403
CORPS.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
OTHER AIRCRAFT
017 MQ-9.............................. 16 271,080 16 271,080
AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT
033 C-17A............................. 26,850 26,850
OTHER AIRCRAFT
048 C-130J MODS....................... 8,400 8,400
051 COMPASS CALL MODS................. 56,720 56,720
056 E-8............................... 3,000 3,000
061 RQ-4 MODS......................... 4 39,600 4 39,600
Unfunded requirement--Tactical [4] [39,600]
Field Terminal Antennaes.
062 HC/MC-130 MODIFICATIONS........... 153,080 153,080
063 OTHER AIRCRAFT.................... 10,381 10,381
065 MQ-9 MODS......................... 56,400 56,400
AIRCRAFT SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS
067 INITIAL SPARES/REPAIR PARTS....... 129,450 129,450
COMMON SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
068 AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT SUPPORT EQUIP 25,417 -25,417 0
Realign European Reassurance [-25,417]
Initiative to Base.
TOTAL AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, 16 740,778 4 14,183 20 754,961
AIR FORCE.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
TACTICAL
006 PREDATOR HELLFIRE MISSILE......... 3,230 294,480 3,230 294,480
007 SMALL DIAMETER BOMB............... 2,273 90,920 2,273 90,920
CLASS IV
011 AGM-65D MAVERICK.................. 10,000 10,000
TOTAL MISSILE PROCUREMENT, 5,503 395,400 5,503 395,400
AIR FORCE.
SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
SPACE PROGRAMS
010 MILSATCOM......................... 2,256 2,256
TOTAL SPACE PROCUREMENT, AIR 2,256 2,256
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR
FORCE
ROCKETS
001 ROCKETS........................... 49,050 49,050
CARTRIDGES
002 CARTRIDGES........................ 11,384 11,384
BOMBS
006 JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION...... 16,990 390,577 16,990 390,577
FLARES
015 FLARES............................ 3,498 3,498
FUZES
016 FUZES............................. 47,000 47,000
TOTAL PROCUREMENT OF 16,990 501,509 16,990 501,509
AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES
001 PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES....... 3,855 101 4,522 101 8,377
Realign European Reassurance [-1,350]
Initiative to Base.
Unfunded requirement.......... [101] [5,872]
CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES
002 MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE........... 113 13,300 113 13,300
Unfunded requirement.......... [113] [13,300]
004 CARGO AND UTILITY VEHICLES........ 1,882 2447 98,796 2,447 100,678
Unfunded requirement.......... [2,447] [98,796]
SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES
005 SECURITY AND TACTICAL VEHICLES.... 1,100 60 9,964 60 11,064
Unfunded requirement.......... [60] [9,964]
006 SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES.......... 32,479 60 -21,214 60 11,265
Realign European Reassurance [-31,821]
Initiative to Base.
Unfunded requirement.......... [60] [10,607]
FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT
007 FIRE FIGHTING/CRASH RESCUE 22,583 -22,583 0
VEHICLES.
Realign European Reassurance [-22,583]
Initiative to Base.
MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT
008 MATERIALS HANDLING VEHICLES....... 5,353 469 75,031 469 80,384
Realign European Reassurance [-4,026]
Initiative to Base.
Unfunded requirement.......... [469] [79,057]
BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT
009 RUNWAY SNOW REMOV & CLEANING EQUIP 11,315 44 -1,040 44 10,275
Realign European Reassurance [-9,161]
Initiative to Base.
Unfunded requirement.......... [44] [8,121]
010 BASE MAINTENANCE SUPPORT VEHICLES. 40,451 68 -26,462 68 13,989
Realign European Reassurance [-39,692]
Initiative to Base.
Unfunded requirement.......... [68] [13,230]
INTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS
013 INTERNATIONAL INTEL TECH & 8,873 8,873
ARCHITECTURES.
015 INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIPMENT....... 2,000 2,000
ELECTRONICS PROGRAMS
016 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL & LANDING SYS. 56,500 1 38,700 1 95,200
Unfunded requirement-- [1] [16,500]
deployable RAPCON systems.
Unfunded requirement--digital [6,000]
air traffic control radios.
Unfunded requirement--D-ILS... [16,200]
018 BATTLE CONTROL SYSTEM--FIXED...... 1,400 1,400
Unfunded requirement.......... [1,400]
019 THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS 4,970 4,970
IMPROVEMENTS.
SPCL COMM-ELECTRONICS PROJECTS
029 AIR FORCE PHYSICAL SECURITY SYSTEM 3,000 34,500 37,500
Unfunded requirement-- [18,000]
Intrusion Detection Systems.
Unfunded requirement--PL2 BPSS [16,500]
systems.
ORGANIZATION AND BASE
048 BASE COMM INFRASTRUCTURE.......... 55,000 -55,000 0
Realign European Reassurance [-55,000]
Initiative to Base.
PERSONAL SAFETY & RESCUE EQUIP
051 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 8,469 63,400 71,869
Unfunded requirement-- [59,400]
battlefield airman combat
equipment.
Unfunded requirements......... [4,000]
BASE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
053 BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT........... 7,500 -7,500 0
Realign European Reassurance [-7,500]
Initiative to Base.
054 ENGINEERING AND EOD EQUIPMENT..... 80,427 32,550 112,977
Unfunded requirement.......... [32,550]
055 MOBILITY EQUIPMENT................ 37,000 37,000
Unfunded requirement--Basic [37,000]
Expeditionary Airfield
Resources.
056 ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION........ 110,405 -104,015 6,390
Realign European Reassurance [-104,015]
Initiative to Base.
SPECIAL SUPPORT PROJECTS
058 DARP RC135........................ 700 700
059 DCGS-AF........................... 9,200 91,200 100,400
Unfunded requirement.......... [91,200]
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
062A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 3,542,825 3,542,825
TOTAL OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR 4,008,887 3,363 262,549 3,363 4,271,436
FORCE.
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DISA
008 TELEPORT PROGRAM.................. 1,979 1,979
018 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS 12,000 12,000
NETWORK.
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, MISSILE DEFENSE
AGENCY
034 IRON DOME......................... 50,000 50,000
Additional funds for Iron Dome [50,000]
Tamir interceptors.
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
045A CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............... 43,653 43,653
AVIATION PROGRAMS
046 MANNED ISR........................ 15,900 15,900
047 MC-12............................. 20,000 20,000
050 UNMANNED ISR...................... 38,933 38,933
051 NON-STANDARD AVIATION............. 9,600 9,600
052 U-28.............................. 8,100 8,100
053 MH-47 CHINOOK..................... 10,270 10,270
057 MQ-9 UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE...... 19,780 19,780
061 C-130 MODIFICATIONS............... 3,750 3,750
AMMUNITION PROGRAMS
063 ORDNANCE ITEMS <$5M............... 62,643 62,643
OTHER PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS
064 INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS.............. 12,000 12,000
069 TACTICAL VEHICLES................. 38,527 38,527
070 WARRIOR SYSTEMS <$5M.............. 20,215 20,215
073 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS 7,134 7,134
INTELLIGENCE.
075 OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS.......... 193,542 17,525 211,067
Unfunded requirement- Joint [15,900]
Task Force Platform Expansion.
Unfunded requirement- Publicly [1,625]
Available Information (PAI)
Capability Acceleration.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE- 518,026 67,525 585,551
WIDE.
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE
EQUIPMENT
UNDISTRIBUTED
007 UNDISTRIBUTED..................... 500,000 500,000
Program increase.............. [500,000]
TOTAL NATIONAL GUARD AND 500,000 500,000
RESERVE EQUIPMENT.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT............ 32,559 10,244,626 9,630 1,671,274 42,189 11,915,900
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4103. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4103. PROCUREMENT FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 Request House Change House Authorized
Line Item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qty Cost Qty Cost Qty Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY
OTHER WARSHIPS
003 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 200,000 200,000
CVN 81 AP..................... [200,000]
009 DDG-51............................ 1 1,896,800 1 1,896,800
DDG........................... [1] [1,862,800]
Ship Signal Exploitation [34,000]
Equipment.
010 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY)....... 45,000 45,000
DDG AP........................ [45,000]
011 LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP.............. 2 1,033,000 2 1,033,000
LCS........................... [2] [1,033,000]
AMPHIBIOUS SHIPS
012A AMPHIBIOUS SHIP REPLACEMENT LX(R) 100,000 100,000
ADVANCE PROCUREMENT (CY).
Program increase.............. [100,000]
013 LPD-17............................ 1 1,786,000 1 1,786,000
LPD-30........................ [1] [1,786,000]
014 EXPEDITIONARY SEA BASE (ESB)...... 1 635,000 1 635,000
ESB........................... [1] [635,000]
AUXILIARIES, CRAFT AND PRIOR YR
PROGRAM COST
025 SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR........... 5 312,000 5 312,000
SSC........................... [5] [312,000]
026 SERVICE CRAFT..................... 39,000 39,000
Berthing Barge................ [39,000]
TOTAL SHIPBUILDING AND 10 6,046,800 10 6,046,800
CONVERSION, NAVY.
TOTAL PROCUREMENT............ 10 6,046,800 10 6,046,800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 House
Line Program Element Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, ARMY
......................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601101A IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 12,010 12,010
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
002 0601102A DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 263,590 263,590
003 0601103A UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 67,027 67,027
INITIATIVES.
004 0601104A UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY 87,395 87,395
RESEARCH CENTERS.
......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 430,022 430,022
.........................
......................... APPLIED RESEARCH
005 0602105A MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY....... 29,640 29,640
006 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC 35,730 35,730
SURVIVABILITY.
007 0602122A TRACTOR HIP................ 8,627 8,627
008 0602211A AVIATION TECHNOLOGY........ 66,086 66,086
009 0602270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 27,144 27,144
TECHNOLOGY.
010 0602303A MISSILE TECHNOLOGY......... 43,742 43,742
011 0602307A ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 22,785 22,785
012 0602308A ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 28,650 28,650
SIMULATION.
013 0602601A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 67,232 67,232
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY.
014 0602618A BALLISTICS TECHNOLOGY...... 85,309 85,309
015 0602622A CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND 4,004 4,004
EQUIPMENT DEFEATING
TECHNOLOGY.
016 0602623A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 5,615 5,615
PROGRAM.
017 0602624A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 41,455 41,455
TECHNOLOGY.
018 0602705A ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC 58,352 58,352
DEVICES.
019 0602709A NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY.... 34,723 34,723
020 0602712A COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS........ 26,190 26,190
021 0602716A HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING 24,127 24,127
TECHNOLOGY.
022 0602720A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 21,678 21,678
TECHNOLOGY.
023 0602782A COMMAND, CONTROL, 33,123 33,123
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY.
024 0602783A COMPUTER AND SOFTWARE 14,041 14,041
TECHNOLOGY.
025 0602784A MILITARY ENGINEERING 67,720 67,720
TECHNOLOGY.
026 0602785A MANPOWER/PERSONNEL/TRAINING 20,216 20,216
TECHNOLOGY.
027 0602786A WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY...... 39,559 5,000 44,559
......................... Program increase....... [5,000]
028 0602787A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY......... 83,434 83,434
......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 889,182 5,000 894,182
RESEARCH.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
029 0603001A WARFIGHTER ADVANCED 44,863 44,863
TECHNOLOGY.
030 0603002A MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 67,780 67,780
031 0603003A AVIATION ADVANCED 160,746 160,746
TECHNOLOGY.
032 0603004A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 84,079 84,079
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
033 0603005A COMBAT VEHICLE AND 125,537 125,537
AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
034 0603006A SPACE APPLICATION ADVANCED 12,231 12,231
TECHNOLOGY.
035 0603007A MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND 6,466 6,466
TRAINING ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
036 0603009A TRACTOR HIKE............... 28,552 28,552
037 0603015A NEXT GENERATION TRAINING & 16,434 16,434
SIMULATION SYSTEMS.
039 0603125A COMBATING TERRORISM-- 26,903 26,903
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
040 0603130A TRACTOR NAIL............... 4,880 4,880
041 0603131A TRACTOR EGGS............... 4,326 4,326
042 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 31,296 31,296
TECHNOLOGY.
043 0603313A MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED 62,850 10,000 72,850
TECHNOLOGY.
......................... Simulation upgrades for [10,000]
land based anti-ship
missile development.
044 0603322A TRACTOR CAGE............... 12,323 12,323
045 0603461A HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING 182,331 182,331
MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.
046 0603606A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 17,948 17,948
BARRIER ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
047 0603607A JOINT SERVICE SMALL ARMS 5,796 5,796
PROGRAM.
048 0603710A NIGHT VISION ADVANCED 47,135 47,135
TECHNOLOGY.
049 0603728A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 10,421 10,421
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS.
050 0603734A MILITARY ENGINEERING 32,448 32,448
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
051 0603772A ADVANCED TACTICAL COMPUTER 52,206 52,206
SCIENCE AND SENSOR
TECHNOLOGY.
052 0603794A C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY..... 33,426 33,426
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 1,070,977 10,000 1,080,977
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
053 0603305A ARMY MISSLE DEFENSE SYSTEMS 9,634 9,634
INTEGRATION.
055 0603327A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 33,949 15,000 48,949
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
......................... Realign European [15,000]
Reassurance Initiative
to Base.
056 0603619A LANDMINE WARFARE AND 72,909 72,909
BARRIER--ADV DEV.
057 0603627A SMOKE, OBSCURANT AND TARGET 7,135 7,135
DEFEATING SYS-ADV DEV.
058 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER 41,452 2,450 43,902
AMMUNITION.
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [2,450]
RF countermeasures.
059 0603645A ARMORED SYSTEM 32,739 22,000 54,739
MODERNIZATION--ADV DEV.
......................... Unfunded requirement... [22,000]
060 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 10,157 10,157
SURVIVABILITY.
061 0603766A TACTICAL ELECTRONIC 27,733 1,620 29,353
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--ADV
DEV.
......................... Unfunded requirement... [1,620]
062 0603774A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS 12,347 12,347
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT.
063 0603779A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 10,456 10,456
TECHNOLOGY--DEM/VAL.
064 0603790A NATO RESEARCH AND 2,588 2,588
DEVELOPMENT.
065 0603801A AVIATION--ADV DEV.......... 14,055 14,055
066 0603804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 35,333 35,333
EQUIPMENT--ADV DEV.
067 0603807A MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV... 33,491 33,491
068 0603827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--ADVANCED 20,239 25,000 45,239
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... Enhanced lightweight [25,000]
body armor and combat
helmets technology.
069 0604017A ROBOTICS DEVELOPMENT....... 39,608 39,608
070 0604100A ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES... 9,921 9,921
071 0604114A LOWER TIER AIR MISSILE 76,728 76,728
DEFENSE (LTAMD) SENSOR.
072 0604115A TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 115,221 -15,000 100,221
INITIATIVES.
......................... Program Reduction...... [-15,000]
073 0604117A MANEUVER--SHORT RANGE AIR 20,000 20,000
DEFENSE (M-SHORAD).
074 0604118A TRACTOR BEAM............... 10,400 10,400
075 0604120A ASSURED POSITIONING, 164,967 164,967
NAVIGATION AND TIMING
(PNT).
076 0604121A SYNTHETIC TRAINING 1,600 1,600
ENVIRONMENT REFINEMENT &
PROTOTYPING.
077 0604319A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION 11,303 11,303
CAPABILITY INCREMENT 2-
INTERCEPT (IFPC2).
078 0305251A CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS 56,492 56,492
FORCES AND FORCE SUPPORT.
079 1206308A ARMY SPACE SYSTEMS 20,432 20,432
INTEGRATION.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 890,889 51,070 941,959
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.........................
......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
080 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS.......... 30,153 30,153
081 0604270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 71,671 71,671
DEVELOPMENT.
083 0604290A MID-TIER NETWORKING 10,589 10,589
VEHICULAR RADIO (MNVR).
084 0604321A ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM. 4,774 4,774
085 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE............... 17,252 17,252
086 0604601A INFANTRY SUPPORT WEAPONS... 87,643 1,600 89,243
......................... Program increase-- [3,000]
soldier enhancement
program.
......................... Program reduction- [-5,000]
obligation delays.
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [3,600]
air soldier system.
087 0604604A MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES... 6,039 6,039
088 0604611A JAVELIN.................... 21,095 21,095
089 0604622A FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL 10,507 10,507
VEHICLES.
090 0604633A AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL........ 3,536 3,536
092 0604642A LIGHT TACTICAL WHEELED 7,000 7,000
VEHICLES.
093 0604645A ARMORED SYSTEMS 36,242 36,242
MODERNIZATION (ASM)--ENG
DEV.
094 0604710A NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS--ENG 108,504 17,500 126,004
DEV.
......................... Unfunded requirement... [17,500]
095 0604713A COMBAT FEEDING, CLOTHING, 3,702 3,702
AND EQUIPMENT.
096 0604715A NON-SYSTEM TRAINING 43,575 43,575
DEVICES--ENG DEV.
097 0604741A AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, 28,726 28,726
CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE--
ENG DEV.
098 0604742A CONSTRUCTIVE SIMULATION 18,562 18,562
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
099 0604746A AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT 8,344 8,344
DEVELOPMENT.
100 0604760A DISTRIBUTIVE INTERACTIVE 11,270 11,270
SIMULATIONS (DIS)--ENG DEV.
101 0604768A BRILLIANT ANTI-ARMOR 10,000 10,000
SUBMUNITION (BAT).
102 0604780A COMBINED ARMS TACTICAL 18,566 18,566
TRAINER (CATT) CORE.
103 0604798A BRIGADE ANALYSIS, 145,360 145,360
INTEGRATION AND EVALUATION.
104 0604802A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS--ENG 145,232 12,178 157,410
DEV.
......................... Unfunded requirement... [8,000]
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [4,178]
40mm low velocity M320
cartridge.
105 0604804A LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER 90,965 2,000 92,965
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
......................... Next generation vehicle [2,000]
camouflage technology.
106 0604805A COMMAND, CONTROL, 9,910 9,910
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS--
ENG DEV.
107 0604807A MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL 39,238 39,238
BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE
EQUIPMENT--ENG DEV.
108 0604808A LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER-- 34,684 34,684
ENG DEV.
109 0604818A ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & 164,409 24,000 188,409
CONTROL HARDWARE &
SOFTWARE.
......................... Unfunded requirement... [5,000]
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [19,000]
Assured Communications.
110 0604820A RADAR DEVELOPMENT.......... 32,968 32,968
111 0604822A GENERAL FUND ENTERPRISE 49,554 49,554
BUSINESS SYSTEM (GFEBS).
112 0604823A FIREFINDER................. 45,605 45,605
113 0604827A SOLDIER SYSTEMS--WARRIOR 16,127 7,000 23,127
DEM/VAL.
......................... Program increase- [7,000]
soldier power
development initiatives.
114 0604852A SUITE OF SURVIVABILITY 98,600 35,000 133,600
ENHANCEMENT SYSTEMS--EMD.
......................... Unfunded requirements.. [35,000]
115 0604854A ARTILLERY SYSTEMS--EMD..... 1,972 2,000 3,972
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [2,000]
IT3 demonstrator.
116 0605013A INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 81,776 81,776
DEVELOPMENT.
117 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 172,361 172,361
PAY SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A).
118 0605028A ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE 199,778 199,778
VEHICLE (AMPV).
119 0605029A INTEGRATED GROUND SECURITY 4,418 4,418
SURVEILLANCE RESPONSE
CAPABILITY (IGSSR-C).
120 0605030A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 15,877 15,877
CENTER (JTNC).
121 0605031A JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 44,150 44,150
(JTN).
122 0605032A TRACTOR TIRE............... 34,670 78,900 113,570
......................... Unfunded requirement... [78,900]
123 0605033A GROUND-BASED OPERATIONAL 5,207 5,207
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM--
EXPEDITIONARY (GBOSS-E).
124 0605034A TACTICAL SECURITY SYSTEM 4,727 4,727
(TSS).
125 0605035A COMMON INFRARED 105,778 105,778
COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM).
126 0605036A COMBATING WEAPONS OF MASS 6,927 6,927
DESTRUCTION (CWMD).
127 0605037A EVIDENCE COLLECTION AND 214 214
DETAINEE PROCESSING.
128 0605038A NUCLEAR BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL 16,125 16,125
RECONNAISSANCE VEHICLE
(NBCRV) SENSOR SUITE.
129 0605041A DEFENSIVE CYBER TOOL 55,165 55,165
DEVELOPMENT.
130 0605042A TACTICAL NETWORK RADIO 20,076 20,076
SYSTEMS (LOW-TIER).
131 0605047A CONTRACT WRITING SYSTEM.... 20,322 20,322
132 0605049A MISSILE WARNING SYSTEM 55,810 55,810
MODERNIZATION (MWSM).
133 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY 30,879 30,879
DEVELOPMENT.
134 0605052A INDIRECT FIRE PROTECTION 175,069 175,069
CAPABILITY INC 2--BLOCK 1.
135 0605053A GROUND ROBOTICS............ 70,760 70,760
137 0605380A AMF JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 8,965 8,965
SYSTEM (JTRS).
138 0605450A JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE 34,626 34,626
(JAGM).
140 0605457A ARMY INTEGRATED AIR AND 336,420 -84,100 252,320
MISSILE DEFENSE (AIAMD).
......................... Program Reduction...... [-84,100]
143 0605766A NATIONAL CAPABILITIES 6,882 2,500 9,382
INTEGRATION (MIP).
......................... Unfunded requirement... [2,500]
144 0605812A JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 23,467 23,467
VEHICLE (JLTV) ENGINEERING
AND MANUFACTURING
DEVELOPMENT PH.
145 0605830A AVIATION GROUND SUPPORT 6,930 6,930
EQUIPMENT.
146 0210609A PALADIN INTEGRATED 6,112 6,112
MANAGEMENT (PIM).
147 0303032A TROJAN--RH12............... 4,431 4,431
150 0304270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 14,616 14,616
DEVELOPMENT.
151 1205117A TRACTOR BEARS.............. 17,928 17,928
......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 3,012,840 98,578 3,111,418
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.........................
......................... RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
152 0604256A THREAT SIMULATOR 22,862 22,862
DEVELOPMENT.
153 0604258A TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 13,902 13,902
154 0604759A MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT....... 102,901 102,901
155 0605103A RAND ARROYO CENTER......... 20,140 20,140
156 0605301A ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL....... 246,663 246,663
157 0605326A CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION 29,820 29,820
PROGRAM.
159 0605601A ARMY TEST RANGES AND 307,588 307,588
FACILITIES.
160 0605602A ARMY TECHNICAL TEST 49,242 49,242
INSTRUMENTATION AND
TARGETS.
161 0605604A SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY 41,843 41,843
ANALYSIS.
162 0605606A AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATION..... 4,804 4,804
163 0605702A METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT TO 7,238 7,238
RDT&E ACTIVITIES.
164 0605706A MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS.. 21,890 21,890
165 0605709A EXPLOITATION OF FOREIGN 12,684 12,684
ITEMS.
166 0605712A SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL 51,040 51,040
TESTING.
167 0605716A ARMY EVALUATION CENTER..... 56,246 56,246
168 0605718A ARMY MODELING & SIM X-CMD 1,829 1,829
COLLABORATION & INTEG.
169 0605801A PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES..... 55,060 55,060
170 0605803A TECHNICAL INFORMATION 33,934 33,934
ACTIVITIES.
171 0605805A MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, 43,444 43,444
EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY.
172 0605857A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 5,087 5,087
TECHNOLOGY MGMT SUPPORT.
173 0605898A ARMY DIRECT REPORT 54,679 54,679
HEADQUARTERS--R&D - MHA.
174 0606001A MILITARY GROUND-BASED CREW 7,916 7,916
TECHNOLOGY.
175 0606002A RONALD REAGAN BALLISTIC 61,254 61,254
MISSILE DEFENSE TEST SITE.
176 0303260A DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION 1,779 1,779
INITIATIVE.
......................... SUBTOTAL RDT&E 1,253,845 1,253,845
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
178 0603778A MLRS PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 8,929 8,929
PROGRAM.
179 0603813A TRACTOR PULL............... 4,014 4,014
180 0605024A ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 4,094 4,094
SUPPORT.
181 0607131A WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS 15,738 15,738
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS.
182 0607133A TRACTOR SMOKE.............. 4,513 4,513
183 0607134A LONG RANGE PRECISION FIRES 102,014 102,014
(LRPF).
184 0607135A APACHE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 59,977 59,977
PROGRAM.
185 0607136A BLACKHAWK PRODUCT 34,416 9,300 43,716
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [9,300]
UH-60V development.
186 0607137A CHINOOK PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 194,567 194,567
PROGRAM.
187 0607138A FIXED WING PRODUCT 9,981 9,981
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
188 0607139A IMPROVED TURBINE ENGINE 204,304 204,304
PROGRAM.
189 0607140A EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES FROM 1,023 1,023
NIE.
190 0607141A LOGISTICS AUTOMATION....... 1,504 1,504
191 0607142A AVIATION ROCKET SYSTEM 10,064 10,064
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT.
192 0607143A UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM 38,463 38,463
UNIVERSAL PRODUCTS.
193 0607665A FAMILY OF BIOMETRICS....... 6,159 6,159
194 0607865A PATRIOT PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT 90,217 90,217
195 0202429A AEROSTAT JOINT PROJECT-- 6,749 6,749
COCOM EXERCISE.
196 0203728A JOINT AUTOMATED DEEP 33,520 33,520
OPERATION COORDINATION
SYSTEM (JADOCS).
197 0203735A COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT 343,175 8,000 351,175
PROGRAMS.
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [8,000]
M88A2E1.
198 0203740A MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM.... 6,639 6,639
199 0203743A 155MM SELF-PROPELLED 40,784 40,784
HOWITZER IMPROVEMENTS.
200 0203744A AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/ 39,358 39,358
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAMS.
201 0203752A AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 145 145
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
202 0203758A DIGITIZATION............... 4,803 4,803
203 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT 2,723 15,000 17,723
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
......................... Realign European [15,000]
Reassurance Initiative
to Base.
204 0203802A OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT 5,000 5,000
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.
205 0203808A TRACTOR CARD............... 37,883 37,883
206 0205402A INTEGRATED BASE DEFENSE-- 4,500 4,500
OPERATIONAL SYSTEM DEV.
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [4,500]
modal passive detection
system.
207 0205410A MATERIALS HANDLING 1,582 1,582
EQUIPMENT.
208 0205412A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 195 195
TECHNOLOGY--OPERATIONAL
SYSTEM DEV.
209 0205456A LOWER TIER AIR AND MISSILE 78,926 78,926
DEFENSE (AMD) SYSTEM.
210 0205778A GUIDED MULTIPLE-LAUNCH 102,807 102,807
ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS).
213 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE 13,807 13,807
ACTIVITIES.
214 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS 132,438 132,438
SECURITY PROGRAM.
215 0303141A GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 64,370 64,370
SYSTEM.
217 0303150A WWMCCS/GLOBAL COMMAND AND 10,475 10,475
CONTROL SYSTEM.
220 0305172A COMBINED ADVANCED 1,100 1,100
APPLICATIONS.
222 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 9,433 7,492 16,925
VEHICLES.
......................... Realign European [7,492]
Reassurance Initiative
to Base.
223 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 5,080 15,000 20,080
SYSTEMS.
......................... Realign European [15,000]
Reassurance Initiative
to Base.
224 0305208A DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 24,700 24,700
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
225 0305219A MQ-1C GRAY EAGLE UAS....... 9,574 9,574
226 0305232A RQ-11 UAV.................. 2,191 2,191
227 0305233A RQ-7 UAV................... 12,773 12,773
228 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED 2,537 2,537
INTELLIGENCE.
229 0310349A WIN-T INCREMENT 2--INITIAL 4,723 4,723
NETWORKING.
230 0708045A END ITEM INDUSTRIAL 60,877 5,000 65,877
PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES.
......................... Development of improved [5,000]
manufacturing
technology for
separation, extraction,
smelter, sintering,
leaching, processing,
beneficiation, or
production of specialty
metals such as
lanthanide elements,
yttrium or scandium.
231 1203142A SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT 11,959 11,959
(SPACE).
232 1208053A JOINT TACTICAL GROUND 10,228 10,228
SYSTEM.
232A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 7,154 7,154
......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 1,877,685 64,292 1,941,977
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 9,425,440 228,940 9,654,380
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
.........................
......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, NAVY
......................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601103N UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 118,130 20,000 138,130
INITIATIVES.
......................... Defense University [20,000]
Research
Instrumentation Program.
002 0601152N IN-HOUSE LABORATORY 19,438 19,438
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.
003 0601153N DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 458,333 458,333
......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 595,901 20,000 615,901
.........................
......................... APPLIED RESEARCH
004 0602114N POWER PROJECTION APPLIED 13,553 13,553
RESEARCH.
005 0602123N FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED 125,557 125,557
RESEARCH.
006 0602131M MARINE CORPS LANDING FORCE 53,936 53,936
TECHNOLOGY.
007 0602235N COMMON PICTURE APPLIED 36,450 36,450
RESEARCH.
008 0602236N WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT 48,649 48,649
APPLIED RESEARCH.
009 0602271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 79,598 79,598
APPLIED RESEARCH.
010 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING 42,411 42,411
ENVIRONMENT APPLIED
RESEARCH.
011 0602651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 6,425 6,425
APPLIED RESEARCH.
012 0602747N UNDERSEA WARFARE APPLIED 56,094 56,094
RESEARCH.
013 0602750N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 156,805 156,805
APPLIED RESEARCH.
014 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 32,733 32,733
WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH.
015 0602792N INNOVATIVE NAVAL PROTOTYPES 171,146 171,146
(INP) APPLIED RESEARCH.
016 0602861N SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 62,722 62,722
MANAGEMENT--ONR FIELD
ACITIVITIES.
......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 886,079 886,079
RESEARCH.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
019 0603123N FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED 26,342 26,342
TECHNOLOGY.
020 0603271N ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS 9,360 9,360
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
021 0603640M USMC ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 154,407 154,407
DEMONSTRATION (ATD).
022 0603651M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 13,448 13,448
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
023 0603673N FUTURE NAVAL CAPABILITIES 231,772 231,772
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
024 0603680N MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 57,797 10,000 67,797
PROGRAM.
......................... Program increase for [10,000]
manufacturing
capability industrial
partnerships for
undersea vehicles.
025 0603729N WARFIGHTER PROTECTION 4,878 4,878
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.
027 0603758N NAVY WARFIGHTING 64,889 64,889
EXPERIMENTS AND
DEMONSTRATIONS.
028 0603782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 15,164 15,164
WARFARE ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY.
029 0603801N INNOVATIVE NAVAL PROTOTYPES 108,285 24,000 132,285
(INP) ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... Program increase for [24,000]
railgun tactical
demonstrator.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 686,342 34,000 720,342
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
030 0603207N AIR/OCEAN TACTICAL 48,365 48,365
APPLICATIONS.
031 0603216N AVIATION SURVIVABILITY..... 5,566 5,566
033 0603251N AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS........... 695 695
034 0603254N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.... 7,661 7,661
035 0603261N TACTICAL AIRBORNE 3,707 3,707
RECONNAISSANCE.
036 0603382N ADVANCED COMBAT SYSTEMS 61,381 61,381
TECHNOLOGY.
037 0603502N SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER 154,117 23,000 177,117
MINE COUNTERMEASURES.
......................... LDUUV.................. [23,000]
038 0603506N SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO 14,974 14,974
DEFENSE.
039 0603512N CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 9,296 9,296
040 0603525N PILOT FISH................. 132,083 132,083
041 0603527N RETRACT LARCH.............. 15,407 15,407
042 0603536N RETRACT JUNIPER............ 122,413 122,413
043 0603542N RADIOLOGICAL CONTROL....... 745 745
044 0603553N SURFACE ASW................ 1,136 1,136
045 0603561N ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM 100,955 100,955
DEVELOPMENT.
046 0603562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE 13,834 13,834
SYSTEMS.
047 0603563N SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED 36,891 36,891
DESIGN.
048 0603564N SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & 12,012 12,012
FEASIBILITY STUDIES.
049 0603570N ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER 329,500 329,500
SYSTEMS.
050 0603573N ADVANCED SURFACE MACHINERY 29,953 29,953
SYSTEMS.
051 0603576N CHALK EAGLE................ 191,610 191,610
052 0603581N LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS). 40,991 40,991
053 0603582N COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION.. 24,674 24,674
054 0603595N OHIO REPLACEMENT........... 776,158 776,158
055 0603596N LCS MISSION MODULES........ 116,871 116,871
056 0603597N AUTOMATED TEST AND ANALYSIS 8,052 8,052
057 0603599N FRIGATE DEVELOPMENT........ 143,450 143,450
058 0603609N CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS..... 8,909 8,909
060 0603635M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/ 1,428 1,428
SUPPORT SYSTEM.
061 0603654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 53,367 53,367
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
063 0603713N OCEAN ENGINEERING 8,212 8,212
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
064 0603721N ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION... 20,214 20,214
065 0603724N NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM........ 50,623 50,623
066 0603725N FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT..... 2,837 2,837
067 0603734N CHALK CORAL................ 245,143 245,143
068 0603739N NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY. 2,995 2,995
069 0603746N RETRACT MAPLE.............. 306,101 306,101
070 0603748N LINK PLUMERIA.............. 253,675 253,675
071 0603751N RETRACT ELM................ 55,691 55,691
072 0603764N LINK EVERGREEN............. 48,982 48,982
074 0603790N NATO RESEARCH AND 9,099 9,099
DEVELOPMENT.
075 0603795N LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY..... 33,568 33,568
076 0603851M JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS 29,873 29,873
TESTING.
077 0603860N JOINT PRECISION APPROACH 106,391 106,391
AND LANDING SYSTEMS--DEM/
VAL.
078 0603925N DIRECTED ENERGY AND 107,310 26,000 133,310
ELECTRIC WEAPON SYSTEMS.
......................... Program increase for [26,000]
railgun tactical
demonstrator.
079 0604112N GERALD R. FORD CLASS 83,935 83,935
NUCLEAR AIRCRAFT CARRIER
(CVN 78--80).
081 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL 46,844 46,844
INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
(TADIRCM).
083 0604286M MARINE CORPS ADDITIVE 6,200 6,200
MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
085 0604320M RAPID TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITY 7,055 7,055
PROTOTYPE.
086 0604454N LX (R)..................... 9,578 9,578
087 0604536N ADVANCED UNDERSEA 66,543 10,000 76,543
PROTOTYPING.
......................... XLUUV.................. [10,000]
089 0604659N PRECISION STRIKE WEAPONS 31,315 31,315
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
090 0604707N SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 42,851 42,851
WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/
ENGINEERING SUPPORT.
091 0604786N OFFENSIVE ANTI-SURFACE 160,694 160,694
WARFARE WEAPON DEVELOPMENT.
093 0303354N ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT-- 8,278 8,278
MIP.
094 0304240M ADVANCED TACTICAL UNMANNED 7,979 7,979
AIRCRAFT SYSTEM.
095 0304270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 527 527
DEVELOPMENT--MIP.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 4,218,714 59,000 4,277,714
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.........................
......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
096 0603208N TRAINING SYSTEM AIRCRAFT... 16,945 16,945
097 0604212N OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT..... 26,786 26,786
098 0604214N AV-8B AIRCRAFT--ENG DEV.... 48,780 48,780
099 0604215N STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT...... 2,722 2,722
100 0604216N MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER 5,371 5,371
UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT.
101 0604218N AIR/OCEAN EQUIPMENT 782 782
ENGINEERING.
102 0604221N P-3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.. 1,361 1,361
103 0604230N WARFARE SUPPORT SYSTEM..... 14,167 14,167
104 0604231N TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM.... 55,695 55,695
105 0604234N ADVANCED HAWKEYE........... 292,535 292,535
106 0604245N H-1 UPGRADES............... 61,288 61,288
107 0604261N ACOUSTIC SEARCH SENSORS.... 37,167 37,167
108 0604262N V-22A...................... 171,386 15,000 186,386
......................... Unfunded requirement... [15,000]
109 0604264N AIR CREW SYSTEMS 13,235 10,000 23,235
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... Air Crew Sensor [10,000]
Improvements.
110 0604269N EA-18...................... 173,488 173,488
111 0604270N ELECTRONIC WARFARE 54,055 29,000 83,055
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [5,500]
EWSA.
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [3,000]
Intrepid Tiger II (V)3
UH-1Y jettison
capability.
......................... Unfunded requirements-- [20,500]
range improvements and
upgrades.
112 0604273N EXECUTIVE HELO DEVELOPMENT. 451,938 451,938
113 0604274N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 632,936 -8,800 624,136
(NGJ).
......................... Unjustified cost growth [-8,800]
114 0604280N JOINT TACTICAL RADIO 4,310 4,310
SYSTEM--NAVY (JTRS-NAVY).
115 0604282N NEXT GENERATION JAMMER 66,686 66,686
(NGJ) INCREMENT II.
116 0604307N SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT 390,238 390,238
SYSTEM ENGINEERING.
117 0604311N LPD-17 CLASS SYSTEMS 689 689
INTEGRATION.
118 0604329N SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB).. 112,846 112,846
119 0604366N STANDARD MISSILE 158,578 158,578
IMPROVEMENTS.
120 0604373N AIRBORNE MCM............... 15,734 15,734
122 0604378N NAVAL INTEGRATED FIRE 25,445 25,445
CONTROL--COUNTER AIR
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
124 0604501N ADVANCED ABOVE WATER 87,233 5,000 92,233
SENSORS.
......................... SPY-1 Solid State [5,000]
Advancement.
125 0604503N SSN-688 AND TRIDENT 130,981 130,981
MODERNIZATION.
126 0604504N AIR CONTROL................ 75,186 75,186
127 0604512N SHIPBOARD AVIATION SYSTEMS. 177,926 177,926
128 0604518N COMBAT INFORMATION CENTER 8,062 8,062
CONVERSION.
129 0604522N AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 32,090 32,090
RADAR (AMDR) SYSTEM.
130 0604558N NEW DESIGN SSN............. 120,087 120,087
131 0604562N SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE 50,850 50,850
SYSTEM.
132 0604567N SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/ LIVE 67,166 20,000 87,166
FIRE T&E.
......................... CVN 80 DFA............. [20,000]
133 0604574N NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER 4,817 4,817
RESOURCES.
134 0604580N VIRGINIA PAYLOAD MODULE 72,861 72,861
(VPM).
135 0604601N MINE DEVELOPMENT........... 25,635 25,635
136 0604610N LIGHTWEIGHT TORPEDO 28,076 28,076
DEVELOPMENT.
137 0604654N JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE 7,561 7,561
ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT.
138 0604703N PERSONNEL, TRAINING, 40,828 40,828
SIMULATION, AND HUMAN
FACTORS.
139 0604727N JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON 435 435
SYSTEMS.
140 0604755N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (DETECT & 161,713 161,713
CONTROL).
141 0604756N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: 212,412 31,000 243,412
HARD KILL).
......................... OTH Weapon Development. [31,000]
142 0604757N SHIP SELF DEFENSE (ENGAGE: 103,391 103,391
SOFT KILL/EW).
143 0604761N INTELLIGENCE ENGINEERING... 34,855 34,855
144 0604771N MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT........ 9,353 9,353
145 0604777N NAVIGATION/ID SYSTEM....... 92,546 9,000 101,546
......................... Program increase....... [9,000]
146 0604800M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)-- 152,934 152,934
EMD.
147 0604800N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)-- 108,931 108,931
EMD.
148 0604810M JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER FOLLOW 144,958 144,958
ON MODERNIZATION (FOM)--
MARINE CORPS.
149 0604810N JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER FOLLOW 143,855 143,855
ON MODERNIZATION (FOM)--
NAVY.
150 0605013M INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 14,865 14,865
DEVELOPMENT.
151 0605013N INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 152,977 152,977
DEVELOPMENT.
152 0605024N ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 3,410 3,410
SUPPORT.
153 0605212N CH-53K RDTE................ 340,758 340,758
154 0605215N MISSION PLANNING........... 33,430 33,430
155 0605217N COMMON AVIONICS............ 58,163 58,163
156 0605220N SHIP TO SHORE CONNECTOR 22,410 22,410
(SSC).
157 0605327N T-AO 205 CLASS............. 1,961 1,961
158 0605414N UNMANNED CARRIER AVIATION 222,208 222,208
(UCA).
159 0605450N JOINT AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILE 15,473 15,473
(JAGM).
160 0605500N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 11,795 11,795
AIRCRAFT (MMA).
161 0605504N MULTI-MISSION MARITIME 181,731 181,731
(MMA) INCREMENT III.
162 0605611M MARINE CORPS ASSAULT 178,993 178,993
VEHICLES SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
163 0605813M JOINT LIGHT TACTICAL 20,710 20,710
VEHICLE (JLTV) SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
164 0204202N DDG-1000................... 140,500 140,500
168 0304785N TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC 28,311 28,311
SYSTEMS.
170 0306250M CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY 4,502 4,502
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 6,362,102 110,200 6,472,302
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.........................
......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
171 0604256N THREAT SIMULATOR 91,819 91,819
DEVELOPMENT.
172 0604258N TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT. 23,053 23,053
173 0604759N MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT....... 52,634 7,000 59,634
......................... Program increase....... [7,000]
174 0605126N JOINT THEATER AIR AND 141 141
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION.
175 0605152N STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 3,917 3,917
SUPPORT--NAVY.
176 0605154N CENTER FOR NAVAL ANALYSES.. 50,432 50,432
179 0605804N TECHNICAL INFORMATION 782 782
SERVICES.
180 0605853N MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & 94,562 94,562
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.
181 0605856N STRATEGIC TECHNICAL SUPPORT 4,313 4,313
182 0605861N RDT&E SCIENCE AND 1,104 1,104
TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT.
183 0605863N RDT&E SHIP AND AIRCRAFT 105,666 105,666
SUPPORT.
184 0605864N TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT 373,667 40,000 413,667
......................... Program increase....... [40,000]
185 0605865N OPERATIONAL TEST AND 20,298 20,298
EVALUATION CAPABILITY.
186 0605866N NAVY SPACE AND ELECTRONIC 17,341 17,341
WARFARE (SEW) SUPPORT.
188 0605873M MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE 21,751 21,751
SUPPORT.
189 0605898N MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D......... 44,279 44,279
190 0606355N WARFARE INNOVATION 28,841 28,841
MANAGEMENT.
191 0902498N MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS 1,749 1,749
(DEPARTMENTAL SUPPORT
ACTIVITIES).
194 1206867N SEW SURVEILLANCE/ 9,408 9,408
RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT.
......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 945,757 47,000 992,757
SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
196 0607658N COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT 92,571 11,000 103,571
CAPABILITY (CEC).
......................... CEC IFF Mode 5 [11,000]
Acceleration.
197 0607700N DEPLOYABLE JOINT COMMAND 3,137 3,137
AND CONTROL.
198 0101221N STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS 135,219 135,219
SYSTEM SUPPORT.
199 0101224N SSBN SECURITY TECHNOLOGY 36,242 36,242
PROGRAM.
200 0101226N SUBMARINE ACOUSTIC WARFARE 12,053 12,053
DEVELOPMENT.
201 0101402N NAVY STRATEGIC 18,221 18,221
COMMUNICATIONS.
203 0204136N F/A-18 SQUADRONS........... 224,470 -11,000 213,470
......................... Program reduction- [-11,000]
delayed procurement
rates.
204 0204163N FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS 33,525 33,525
(TACTICAL).
205 0204228N SURFACE SUPPORT............ 24,829 24,829
206 0204229N TOMAHAWK AND TOMAHAWK 133,617 9,000 142,617
MISSION PLANNING CENTER
(TMPC).
......................... Tomahawk Modernization. [9,000]
207 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE 38,972 11,600 50,572
SYSTEM.
......................... Realign European [11,600]
Reassurance Initiative
to Base.
208 0204413N AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL SUPPORT 3,940 3,940
UNITS (DISPLACEMENT CRAFT).
209 0204460M GROUND/AIR TASK ORIENTED 54,645 54,645
RADAR (G/ATOR).
210 0204571N CONSOLIDATED TRAINING 66,518 10,000 76,518
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
......................... Modernization of [10,000]
Barking Sands Tactical
Underwater Range.
211 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT SUPPORT. 1,155 1,155
212 0204575N ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) 51,040 51,040
READINESS SUPPORT.
213 0205601N HARM IMPROVEMENT........... 87,989 10,000 97,989
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [10,000]
AARGM Derivative
Program.
214 0205604N TACTICAL DATA LINKS........ 89,852 89,852
215 0205620N SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM 29,351 29,351
INTEGRATION.
216 0205632N MK-48 ADCAP................ 68,553 68,553
217 0205633N AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS...... 119,099 119,099
218 0205675N OPERATIONAL NUCLEAR POWER 127,445 127,445
SYSTEMS.
219 0206313M MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS 123,825 -3,500 120,325
SYSTEMS.
......................... Excess growth--tactical [-3,500]
radio systems.
220 0206335M COMMON AVIATION COMMAND AND 7,343 7,343
CONTROL SYSTEM (CAC2S).
221 0206623M MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/ 66,009 66,009
SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS.
222 0206624M MARINE CORPS COMBAT 25,258 25,258
SERVICES SUPPORT.
223 0206625M USMC INTELLIGENCE/ 30,886 30,886
ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS
(MIP).
224 0206629M AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT VEHICLE. 58,728 58,728
225 0207161N TACTICAL AIM MISSILES...... 42,884 9,000 51,884
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [9,000]
AIM-9X Blk II Systems
Improvement program.
226 0207163N ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 25,364 25,364
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
232 0303138N CONSOLIDATED AFLOAT NETWORK 24,271 24,271
ENTERPRISE SERVICES
(CANES).
233 0303140N INFORMATION SYSTEMS 50,269 50,269
SECURITY PROGRAM.
236 0305192N MILITARY INTELLIGENCE 6,352 6,352
PROGRAM (MIP) ACTIVITIES.
237 0305204N TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 7,770 7,770
VEHICLES.
238 0305205N UAS INTEGRATION AND 39,736 39,736
INTEROPERABILITY.
239 0305208M DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 12,867 12,867
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
240 0305208N DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 46,150 46,150
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
241 0305220N MQ-4C TRITON............... 84,115 84,115
242 0305231N MQ-8 UAV................... 62,656 62,656
243 0305232M RQ-11 UAV.................. 2,022 2,022
245 0305234N SMALL (LEVEL 0) TACTICAL 4,835 4,835
UAS (STUASL0).
246 0305239M RQ-21A..................... 8,899 8,899
247 0305241N MULTI-INTELLIGENCE SENSOR 99,020 99,020
DEVELOPMENT.
248 0305242M UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS 18,578 -7,100 11,478
(UAS) PAYLOADS (MIP).
......................... Program reduction...... [-7,100]
249 0305421N RQ-4 MODERNIZATION......... 229,404 229,404
250 0308601N MODELING AND SIMULATION 5,238 5,238
SUPPORT.
251 0702207N DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF). 38,227 38,227
252 0708730N MARITIME TECHNOLOGY 4,808 4,808
(MARITECH).
253 1203109N SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS 37,836 37,836
(SPACE).
253A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 1,364,347 1,364,347
......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 3,980,140 39,000 4,019,140
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 17,675,035 309,200 17,984,235
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
.........................
......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, AF
......................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601102F DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 342,919 342,919
002 0601103F UNIVERSITY RESEARCH 147,923 147,923
INITIATIVES.
003 0601108F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH 14,417 14,417
INITIATIVES.
......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 505,259 505,259
.........................
......................... APPLIED RESEARCH
004 0602102F MATERIALS.................. 124,264 124,264
005 0602201F AEROSPACE VEHICLE 124,678 5,000 129,678
TECHNOLOGIES.
......................... Program increase....... [5,000]
006 0602202F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED 108,784 108,784
RESEARCH.
007 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION....... 192,695 5,000 197,695
......................... Educational Partnership [5,000]
Agreements.
008 0602204F AEROSPACE SENSORS.......... 152,782 152,782
009 0602298F SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 8,353 8,353
MANAGEMENT-- MAJOR
HEADQUARTERS ACTIVITIES.
010 0602601F SPACE TECHNOLOGY........... 116,503 116,503
011 0602602F CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS..... 112,195 112,195
012 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY. 132,993 132,993
013 0602788F DOMINANT INFORMATION 167,818 167,818
SCIENCES AND METHODS.
014 0602890F HIGH ENERGY LASER RESEARCH. 43,049 43,049
......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 1,284,114 10,000 1,294,114
RESEARCH.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
015 0603112F ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR 37,856 10,000 47,856
WEAPON SYSTEMS.
......................... Metals affordability [10,000]
research.
016 0603199F SUSTAINMENT SCIENCE AND 22,811 22,811
TECHNOLOGY (S&T).
017 0603203F ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS. 40,978 40,978
018 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/ 115,966 115,966
DEMO.
019 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND 104,499 5,000 109,499
POWER TECHNOLOGY.
......................... Program Increase for [5,000]
Robust Electronical
Power System.
020 0603270F ELECTRONIC COMBAT 60,551 60,551
TECHNOLOGY.
021 0603401F ADVANCED SPACECRAFT 58,910 58,910
TECHNOLOGY.
022 0603444F MAUI SPACE SURVEILLANCE 10,433 10,433
SYSTEM (MSSS).
023 0603456F HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS 33,635 33,635
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
024 0603601F CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS 167,415 167,415
TECHNOLOGY.
025 0603605F ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 45,502 45,502
026 0603680F MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 46,450 46,450
PROGRAM.
027 0603788F BATTLESPACE KNOWLEDGE 49,011 49,011
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 794,017 15,000 809,017
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
028 0603260F INTELLIGENCE ADVANCED 5,652 2,700 8,352
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [1,200]
OSINT exploitation and
fusion.
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [1,500]
SIGINT Tactical
Analysis Reporting
Gateway.
030 0603742F COMBAT IDENTIFICATION 24,397 24,397
TECHNOLOGY.
031 0603790F NATO RESEARCH AND 3,851 3,851
DEVELOPMENT.
033 0603851F INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC 10,736 10,736
MISSILE--DEM/VAL.
034 0603859F POLLUTION PREVENTION--DEM/ 2 2
VAL.
035 0604015F LONG RANGE STRIKE--BOMBER.. 2,003,580 2,003,580
036 0604201F INTEGRATED AVIONICS 65,458 65,458
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
037 0604257F ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND 68,719 26,200 94,919
SENSORS.
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [11,500]
ASARS-2B.
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [14,700]
Hyperspectral Chip
Development.
038 0604288F NATIONAL AIRBORNE OPS 7,850 7,850
CENTER (NAOC) RECAP.
039 0604317F TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER........ 3,295 3,295
040 0604327F HARD AND DEEPLY BURIED 17,365 17,365
TARGET DEFEAT SYSTEM
(HDBTDS) PROGRAM.
041 0604414F CYBER RESILIENCY OF WEAPON 32,253 32,253
SYSTEMS-ACS.
044 0604776F DEPLOYMENT & DISTRIBUTION 26,222 26,222
ENTERPRISE R&D.
046 0604858F TECH TRANSITION PROGRAM.... 840,650 95,000 935,650
......................... Program Increase....... [10,000]
......................... Unfunded Requirement... [70,000]
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [15,000]
Long-Endurance Aerial
Platform(LEAP) Ahead
Prototyping.
047 0605230F GROUND BASED STRATEGIC 215,721 215,721
DETERRENT.
049 0207110F NEXT GENERATION AIR 294,746 127,000 421,746
DOMINANCE.
......................... Unfunded Requirement... [127,000]
050 0207455F THREE DIMENSIONAL LONG- 10,645 10,645
RANGE RADAR (3DELRR).
052 0305236F COMMON DATA LINK EXECUTIVE 41,509 41,509
AGENT (CDL EA).
053 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY 226,287 226,287
DEVELOPMENT.
054 0306415F ENABLED CYBER ACTIVITIES... 16,687 16,687
055 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT 4,500 4,500
CONTROL.
056 0901410F CONTRACTING INFORMATION 15,867 15,867
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM.
057 1203164F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING 253,939 10,000 263,939
SYSTEM (USER EQUIPMENT)
(SPACE).
......................... Demonstration of Backup [10,000]
and Complementary PNT
Capabilities of GPS.
058 1203710F EO/IR WEATHER SYSTEMS...... 10,000 10,000
059 1206422F WEATHER SYSTEM FOLLOW-ON... 112,088 112,088
060 1206425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 34,764 34,764
SYSTEMS.
061 1206434F MIDTERM POLAR MILSATCOM 63,092 63,092
SYSTEM.
062 1206438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY... 7,842 7,842
063 1206730F SPACE SECURITY AND DEFENSE 41,385 41,385
PROGRAM.
064 1206760F PROTECTED TACTICAL 18,150 18,150
ENTERPRISE SERVICE (PTES).
065 1206761F PROTECTED TACTICAL SERVICE 24,201 24,201
(PTS).
066 1206855F PROTECTED SATCOM SERVICES 16,000 16,000
(PSCS)--AGGREGATED.
067 1206857F OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE 87,577 30,000 117,577
SPACE.
......................... Responsive Launch [30,000]
vehicles,
infrastructure, and
small sats.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 4,605,030 290,900 4,895,930
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
.........................
......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
068 0604200F FUTURE ADVANCED WEAPON 5,100 5,100
ANALYSIS & PROGRAMS.
069 0604201F INTEGRATED AVIONICS 101,203 101,203
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
070 0604222F NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUPPORT.... 3,009 3,009
071 0604270F ELECTRONIC WARFARE 2,241 2,241
DEVELOPMENT.
072 0604281F TACTICAL DATA NETWORKS 38,250 38,250
ENTERPRISE.
073 0604287F PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT 19,739 19,739
074 0604329F SMALL DIAMETER BOMB (SDB)-- 38,979 38,979
EMD.
078 0604429F AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK. 7,091 7,091
080 0604602F ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE 46,540 46,540
DEVELOPMENT.
081 0604604F SUBMUNITIONS............... 2,705 2,705
082 0604617F AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT....... 31,240 3,000 34,240
......................... Joint Expeditionary [3,000]
Airfield Damage Repair.
084 0604706F LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS....... 9,060 9,060
085 0604735F COMBAT TRAINING RANGES..... 87,350 87,350
086 0604800F F-35--EMD.................. 292,947 292,947
088 0604932F LONG RANGE STANDOFF WEAPON. 451,290 451,290
089 0604933F ICBM FUZE MODERNIZATION.... 178,991 178,991
090 0605030F JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 12,736 12,736
CENTER (JTNC).
091 0605031F JOINT TACTICAL NETWORK 9,319 9,319
(JTN).
092 0605213F F-22 MODERNIZATION 13,600 13,600
INCREMENT 3.2B.
094 0605221F KC-46...................... 93,845 -93,845
......................... Under execution........ [-93,845]
095 0605223F ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING.... 105,999 105,999
096 0605229F COMBAT RESCUE HELICOPTER... 354,485 354,485
100 0605458F AIR & SPACE OPS CENTER 10.2 119,745 -70,000 49,745
RDT&E.
......................... Program reduction...... [-70,000]
101 0605931F B-2 DEFENSIVE MANAGEMENT 194,570 194,570
SYSTEM.
102 0101125F NUCLEAR WEAPONS 91,237 91,237
MODERNIZATION.
103 0207171F F-15 EPAWSS................ 209,847 209,847
104 0207328F STAND IN ATTACK WEAPON..... 3,400 3,400
105 0207701F FULL COMBAT MISSION 16,727 16,727
TRAINING.
109 0307581F JSTARS RECAP............... 417,201 417,201
110 0401310F C-32 EXECUTIVE TRANSPORT 6,017 6,017
RECAPITALIZATION.
111 0401319F PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT 434,069 434,069
RECAPITALIZATION (PAR).
112 0701212F AUTOMATED TEST SYSTEMS..... 18,528 18,528
113 1203176F COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER 24,967 24,967
LOCATOR.
114 1203940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 10,029 10,029
OPERATIONS.
115 1206421F COUNTERSPACE SYSTEMS....... 66,370 66,370
116 1206425F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 48,448 48,448
SYSTEMS.
117 1206426F SPACE FENCE................ 35,937 35,937
118 1206431F ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM 145,610 145,610
(SPACE).
119 1206432F POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE).... 33,644 33,644
120 1206433F WIDEBAND GLOBAL SATCOM 14,263 14,263
(SPACE).
121 1206441F SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM 311,844 311,844
(SBIRS) HIGH EMD.
122 1206442F EVOLVED SBIRS.............. 71,018 71,018
123 1206853F EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH 297,572 297,572
VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE) -
EMD.
......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 4,476,762 -160,845 4,315,917
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
.........................
......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
124 0604256F THREAT SIMULATOR 35,405 35,405
DEVELOPMENT.
125 0604759F MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT....... 82,874 5,000 87,874
......................... Unfunded requirement... [5,000]
126 0605101F RAND PROJECT AIR FORCE..... 34,346 34,346
128 0605712F INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & 15,523 15,523
EVALUATION.
129 0605807F TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT 678,289 60,800 739,089
......................... Program Increase....... [32,400]
......................... Testing, evaluation, [1,000]
and certification of
additional suppliers
for arresting gear
systems for fighter
aircraft.
......................... Unfunded requirement... [27,400]
130 0605826F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL POWER 219,809 219,809
131 0605827F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL VIG & 223,179 223,179
COMBAT SYS.
132 0605828F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL REACH 138,556 138,556
133 0605829F ACQ WORKFORCE- CYBER, 221,393 221,393
NETWORK, & BUS SYS.
134 0605830F ACQ WORKFORCE- GLOBAL 152,577 152,577
BATTLE MGMT.
135 0605831F ACQ WORKFORCE- CAPABILITY 196,561 196,561
INTEGRATION.
136 0605832F ACQ WORKFORCE- ADVANCED 28,322 28,322
PRGM TECHNOLOGY.
137 0605833F ACQ WORKFORCE- NUCLEAR 126,611 126,611
SYSTEMS.
140 0605898F MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D......... 9,154 9,154
141 0605976F FACILITIES RESTORATION AND 135,507 135,507
MODERNIZATION--TEST AND
EVALUATION SUPPORT.
142 0605978F FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT-- 28,720 28,720
TEST AND EVALUATION
SUPPORT.
143 0606017F REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS AND 35,453 75,000 110,453
MATURATION.
......................... Unfunded requirement... [50,000]
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [25,000]
Penetrating Counter air
(PCA) Risk Reduction.
146 0308602F ENTEPRISE INFORMATION 29,049 29,049
SERVICES (EIS).
147 0702806F ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT 14,980 14,980
SUPPORT.
148 0804731F GENERAL SKILL TRAINING..... 1,434 1,434
150 1001004F INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES... 4,569 4,569
151 1206116F SPACE TEST AND TRAINING 25,773 25,773
RANGE DEVELOPMENT.
152 1206392F SPACE AND MISSILE CENTER 169,887 169,887
(SMC) CIVILIAN WORKFORCE.
153 1206398F SPACE & MISSILE SYSTEMS 9,531 9,531
CENTER--MHA.
154 1206860F ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH 20,975 20,975
PROGRAM (SPACE).
155 1206864F SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP)... 25,398 25,398
......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 2,663,875 140,800 2,804,675
SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
157 0604222F NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUPPORT.... 27,579 27,579
158 0604233F SPECIALIZED UNDERGRADUATE 5,776 5,776
FLIGHT TRAINING.
159 0604445F WIDE AREA SURVEILLANCE..... 16,247 16,247
161 0605018F AF INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND 21,915 21,915
PAY SYSTEM (AF-IPPS).
162 0605024F ANTI-TAMPER TECHNOLOGY 33,150 33,150
EXECUTIVE AGENCY.
163 0605117F FOREIGN MATERIEL 66,653 66,653
ACQUISITION AND
EXPLOITATION.
164 0605278F HC/MC-130 RECAP RDT&E...... 38,579 38,579
165 0606018F NC3 INTEGRATION............ 12,636 12,636
166 0101113F B-52 SQUADRONS............. 111,910 111,910
167 0101122F AIR-LAUNCHED CRUISE MISSILE 463 463
(ALCM).
168 0101126F B-1B SQUADRONS............. 62,471 62,471
169 0101127F B-2 SQUADRONS.............. 193,108 193,108
170 0101213F MINUTEMAN SQUADRONS........ 210,845 210,845
......................... Increase ICBM [20,000]
Cryptopgraphy Upgrade
II.
......................... Reduce MM Ground and [-10,000]
Communications
Equipment.
......................... Reduce MM Support [-10,000]
Equipment.
171 0101313F INTEGRATED STRATEGIC 25,736 25,736
PLANNING AND ANALYSIS
NETWORK (ISPAN)--
USSTRATCOM.
173 0101316F WORLDWIDE JOINT STRATEGIC 6,272 64,000 70,272
COMMUNICATIONS.
......................... Enhances E-4B cyber [64,000]
security.
174 0101324F INTEGRATED STRATEGIC 11,032 11,032
PLANNING & ANALYSIS
NETWORK.
176 0102110F UH-1N REPLACEMENT PROGRAM.. 108,617 108,617
177 0102326F REGION/SECTOR OPERATION 3,347 3,347
CONTROL CENTER
MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.
179 0205219F MQ-9 UAV................... 201,394 201,394
182 0207131F A-10 SQUADRONS............. 17,459 17,459
183 0207133F F-16 SQUADRONS............. 246,578 25,000 271,578
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [25,000]
MIDS-JTRS software
changes.
184 0207134F F-15E SQUADRONS............ 320,271 320,271
185 0207136F MANNED DESTRUCTIVE 15,106 20,000 35,106
SUPPRESSION.
......................... HTS pod block upgrade [20,000]
program.
186 0207138F F-22A SQUADRONS............ 610,942 610,942
187 0207142F F-35 SQUADRONS............. 334,530 334,530
188 0207161F TACTICAL AIM MISSILES...... 34,952 34,952
189 0207163F ADVANCED MEDIUM RANGE AIR- 61,322 61,322
TO-AIR MISSILE (AMRAAM).
191 0207227F COMBAT RESCUE--PARARESCUE.. 693 693
193 0207249F PRECISION ATTACK SYSTEMS 1,714 1,714
PROCUREMENT.
194 0207253F COMPASS CALL............... 14,040 14,040
195 0207268F AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT 109,243 109,243
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
197 0207325F JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE 29,932 29,932
STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM).
198 0207410F AIR & SPACE OPERATIONS 26,956 26,956
CENTER (AOC).
199 0207412F CONTROL AND REPORTING 2,450 2,450
CENTER (CRC).
200 0207417F AIRBORNE WARNING AND 151,726 151,726
CONTROL SYSTEM (AWACS).
201 0207418F TACTICAL AIRBORNE CONTROL 3,656 3,656
SYSTEMS.
203 0207431F COMBAT AIR INTELLIGENCE 13,420 13,420
SYSTEM ACTIVITIES.
204 0207444F TACTICAL AIR CONTROL PARTY- 10,623 10,623
MOD.
205 0207448F C2ISR TACTICAL DATA LINK... 1,754 1,754
206 0207452F DCAPES..................... 17,382 17,382
207 0207573F NATIONAL TECHNICAL NUCLEAR 2,307 2,307
FORENSICS.
208 0207590F SEEK EAGLE................. 25,397 25,397
209 0207601F USAF MODELING AND 10,175 10,175
SIMULATION.
210 0207605F WARGAMING AND SIMULATION 12,839 12,839
CENTERS.
211 0207697F DISTRIBUTED TRAINING AND 4,190 4,190
EXERCISES.
212 0208006F MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS... 85,531 85,531
213 0208007F TACTICAL DECEPTION......... 3,761 3,761
214 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 35,693 35,693
OPERATIONS.
215 0208088F AF DEFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 20,964 20,964
OPERATIONS.
218 0301017F GLOBAL SENSOR INTEGRATED ON 3,549 3,549
NETWORK (GSIN).
219 0301112F NUCLEAR PLANNING AND 4,371 4,371
EXECUTION SYSTEM (NPES).
227 0301401F AIR FORCE SPACE AND CYBER 3,721 3,721
NON-TRADITIONAL ISR FOR
BATTLESPACE AWARENESS.
228 0302015F E-4B NATIONAL AIRBORNE 35,467 35,467
OPERATIONS CENTER (NAOC).
230 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY 48,841 48,841
COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
(MEECN).
231 0303140F INFORMATION SYSTEMS 42,973 42,973
SECURITY PROGRAM.
232 0303141F GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 105 105
SYSTEM.
233 0303142F GLOBAL FORCE MANAGEMENT-- 2,147 2,147
DATA INITIATIVE.
236 0304260F AIRBORNE SIGINT ENTERPRISE. 121,948 121,948
237 0304310F COMMERCIAL ECONOMIC 3,544 3,544
ANALYSIS.
240 0305020F CCMD INTELLIGENCE 1,542 1,542
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.
241 0305099F GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC 4,453 4,453
MANAGEMENT (GATM).
243 0305111F WEATHER SERVICE............ 26,654 5,000 31,654
......................... Commercial weather [5,000]
pilot program.
244 0305114F AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, 6,306 1,500 7,806
APPROACH, AND LANDING
SYSTEM (ATCALS).
......................... Unfunded requirement-- [1,500]
ground based sense and
avoid.
245 0305116F AERIAL TARGETS............. 21,295 21,295
248 0305128F SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIVE 415 415
ACTIVITIES.
250 0305146F DEFENSE JOINT 3,867 3,867
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
ACTIVITIES.
257 0305202F DRAGON U-2................. 34,486 34,486
259 0305206F AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 4,450 12,800 17,250
SYSTEMS.
......................... WAMI Technology [12,800]
Upgrades.
260 0305207F MANNED RECONNAISSANCE 14,269 14,269
SYSTEMS.
261 0305208F DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 27,501 11,500 39,001
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
......................... Unfunded requierment... [11,500]
262 0305220F RQ-4 UAV................... 214,849 214,849
263 0305221F NETWORK-CENTRIC 18,842 18,842
COLLABORATIVE TARGETING.
265 0305238F NATO AGS................... 44,729 44,729
266 0305240F SUPPORT TO DCGS ENTERPRISE. 26,349 26,349
269 0305600F INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE 3,491 3,491
TECHNOLOGY AND
ARCHITECTURES.
271 0305881F RAPID CYBER ACQUISITION.... 4,899 4,899
275 0305984F PERSONNEL RECOVERY COMMAND 2,445 2,445
& CTRL (PRC2).
276 0307577F INTELLIGENCE MISSION DATA 8,684 8,684
(IMD).
278 0401115F C-130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON..... 10,219 10,219
279 0401119F C-5 AIRLIFT SQUADRONS (IF). 22,758 22,758
280 0401130F C-17 AIRCRAFT (IF)......... 34,287 34,287
281 0401132F C-130J PROGRAM............. 26,821 26,821
282 0401134F LARGE AIRCRAFT IR 5,283 5,283
COUNTERMEASURES (LAIRCM).
283 0401218F KC-135S.................... 9,942 9,942
284 0401219F KC-10S..................... 7,933 7,933
285 0401314F OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AIRLIFT 6,681 6,681
286 0401318F CV-22...................... 22,519 22,519
287 0401840F AMC COMMAND AND CONTROL 3,510 3,510
SYSTEM.
288 0408011F SPECIAL TACTICS / COMBAT 8,090 8,090
CONTROL.
289 0702207F DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF). 1,528 1,528
290 0708055F MAINTENANCE, REPAIR & 31,677 31,677
OVERHAUL SYSTEM.
291 0708610F LOGISTICS INFORMATION 33,344 33,344
TECHNOLOGY (LOGIT).
292 0708611F SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 9,362 9,362
293 0804743F OTHER FLIGHT TRAINING...... 2,074 2,074
294 0808716F OTHER PERSONNEL ACTIVITIES. 107 107
295 0901202F JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY 2,006 2,006
AGENCY.
296 0901218F CIVILIAN COMPENSATION 3,780 3,780
PROGRAM.
297 0901220F PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION... 7,472 7,472
298 0901226F AIR FORCE STUDIES AND 1,563 1,563
ANALYSIS AGENCY.
299 0901538F FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 91,211 91,211
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
300 1201921F SERVICE SUPPORT TO 14,255 14,255
STRATCOM--SPACE ACTIVITIES.
301 1202247F AF TENCAP.................. 31,914 31,914
302 1203001F FAMILY OF ADVANCED BLOS 32,426 32,426
TERMINALS (FAB-T).
303 1203110F SATELLITE CONTROL NETWORK 18,808 2,500 21,308
(SPACE).
......................... Program increase....... [2,500]
305 1203165F NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING 10,029 10,029
SYSTEM (SPACE AND CONTROL
SEGMENTS).
306 1203173F SPACE AND MISSILE TEST AND 25,051 25,051
EVALUATION CENTER.
307 1203174F SPACE INNOVATION, 11,390 11,390
INTEGRATION AND RAPID
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
308 1203179F INTEGRATED BROADCAST 8,747 8,747
SERVICE (IBS).
309 1203182F SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM 10,549 10,549
(SPACE).
310 1203265F GPS III SPACE SEGMENT...... 243,435 243,435
311 1203400F SPACE SUPERIORITY 12,691 12,691
INTELLIGENCE.
312 1203614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM....... 99,455 99,455
313 1203620F NATIONAL SPACE DEFENSE 18,052 18,052
CENTER.
314 1203699F SHARED EARLY WARNING (SEW). 1,373 1,373
315 1203906F NCMC--TW/AA SYSTEM......... 5,000 5,000
316 1203913F NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM 31,508 31,508
(SPACE).
317 1203940F SPACE SITUATION AWARENESS 99,984 99,984
OPERATIONS.
318 1206423F GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM 510,938 510,938
III--OPERATIONAL CONTROL
SEGMENT.
318A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 14,938,002 36,000 14,974,002
......................... Program increase....... [36,000]
......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 20,585,302 178,300 20,763,602
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... UNDISTRIBUTED
319 0901560F UNDISTRIBUTED.............. -195,900 -195,900
......................... Bomber Modernization-- [-195,900]
Excess to Need.
......................... SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED.. -195,900 -195,900
.........................
......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 34,914,359 278,255 35,192,614
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
.........................
......................... RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, DW
......................... BASIC RESEARCH
001 0601000BR DTRA BASIC RESEARCH........ 37,201 37,201
002 0601101E DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES.. 432,347 432,347
003 0601110D8Z BASIC RESEARCH INITIATIVES. 40,612 40,612
004 0601117E BASIC OPERATIONAL MEDICAL 43,126 43,126
RESEARCH SCIENCE.
005 0601120D8Z NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION 74,298 74,298
PROGRAM.
006 0601228D8Z HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES 25,865 10,000 35,865
AND UNIVERSITIES/MINORITY
INSTITUTIONS.
......................... Program Increase....... [10,000]
007 0601384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 43,898 43,898
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
......................... SUBTOTAL BASIC RESEARCH. 697,347 10,000 707,347
.........................
......................... APPLIED RESEARCH
008 0602000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY. 19,111 19,111
009 0602115E BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY...... 109,360 109,360
011 0602234D8Z LINCOLN LABORATORY RESEARCH 49,748 49,748
PROGRAM.
012 0602251D8Z APPLIED RESEARCH FOR THE 49,226 49,226
ADVANCEMENT OF S&T
PRIORITIES.
013 0602303E INFORMATION & 392,784 392,784
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY.
014 0602383E BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE. 13,014 13,014
015 0602384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 201,053 201,053
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
016 0602668D8Z CYBER SECURITY RESEARCH.... 14,775 14,775
017 0602702E TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY........ 343,776 343,776
018 0602715E MATERIALS AND BIOLOGICAL 224,440 224,440
TECHNOLOGY.
019 0602716E ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY..... 295,447 295,447
020 0602718BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS 157,908 157,908
DESTRUCTION APPLIED
RESEARCH.
021 0602751D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 8,955 8,955
INSTITUTE (SEI) APPLIED
RESEARCH.
022 1160401BB SOF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. 34,493 34,493
......................... SUBTOTAL APPLIED 1,914,090 1,914,090
RESEARCH.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
023 0603000D8Z JOINT MUNITIONS ADVANCED 25,627 25,627
TECHNOLOGY.
024 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 76,230 5,000 81,230
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
......................... Program increase-- [5,000]
conventional EOD
equipment.
025 0603133D8Z FOREIGN COMPARATIVE TESTING 24,199 24,199
026 0603160BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS 268,607 268,607
DESTRUCTION ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
027 0603176C ADVANCED CONCEPTS AND 12,996 12,996
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.
029 0603178C WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY......... 5,495 55,100 60,595
......................... Restore funding for [55,100]
directed energy
prioritization in DoD's
BMD efforts.
031 0603180C ADVANCED RESEARCH.......... 20,184 20,184
032 0603225D8Z JOINT DOD-DOE MUNITIONS 18,662 18,662
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
035 0603286E ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS. 155,406 155,406
036 0603287E SPACE PROGRAMS AND 247,435 247,435
TECHNOLOGY.
037 0603288D8Z ANALYTIC ASSESSMENTS....... 13,154 13,154
038 0603289D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 37,674 -7,000 30,674
ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS.
......................... Program decrease....... [-7,000]
039 0603291D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 15,000 15,000
ANALYSIS AND CONCEPTS--MHA.
040 0603294C COMMON KILL VEHICLE 252,879 252,879
TECHNOLOGY.
041 0603342D8W DEFENSE INNOVATION UNIT 29,594 29,594
EXPERIMENTAL (DIUX).
042 0603375D8Z TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION...... 59,863 -35,000 24,863
......................... Unjustified growth..... [-35,000]
043 0603384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 145,359 145,359
DEFENSE PROGRAM--ADVANCED
DEVELOPMENT.
044 0603527D8Z RETRACT LARCH.............. 171,120 171,120
045 0603618D8Z JOINT ELECTRONIC ADVANCED 14,389 14,389
TECHNOLOGY.
046 0603648D8Z JOINT CAPABILITY TECHNOLOGY 105,871 105,871
DEMONSTRATIONS.
047 0603662D8Z NETWORKED COMMUNICATIONS 12,661 12,661
CAPABILITIES.
048 0603680D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE MANUFACTURING 136,159 136,159
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
PROGRAM.
049 0603680S MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY 40,511 40,511
PROGRAM.
050 0603699D8Z EMERGING CAPABILITIES 57,876 -8,000 49,876
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
......................... SOCOM ATL effort....... [-8,000]
051 0603712S GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D 10,611 10,611
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS.
053 0603716D8Z STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL 71,832 10,000 81,832
RESEARCH PROGRAM.
......................... Environmental [10,000]
resiliency.
054 0603720S MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY 219,803 219,803
DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT.
055 0603727D8Z JOINT WARFIGHTING PROGRAM.. 6,349 6,349
056 0603739E ADVANCED ELECTRONICS 79,173 79,173
TECHNOLOGIES.
057 0603760E COMMAND, CONTROL AND 106,787 106,787
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS.
058 0603766E NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE 439,386 439,386
TECHNOLOGY.
059 0603767E SENSOR TECHNOLOGY.......... 210,123 210,123
060 0603769D8Z DISTRIBUTED LEARNING 11,211 11,211
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT.
062 0603781D8Z SOFTWARE ENGINEERING 15,047 15,047
INSTITUTE.
063 0603826D8Z QUICK REACTION SPECIAL 69,203 69,203
PROJECTS.
064 0603833D8Z ENGINEERING SCIENCE & 25,395 25,395
TECHNOLOGY.
065 0603941D8Z TEST & EVALUATION SCIENCE & 89,586 89,586
TECHNOLOGY.
066 0604055D8Z OPERATIONAL ENERGY 38,403 38,403
CAPABILITY IMPROVEMENT.
067 0303310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS............... 33,382 33,382
068 1160402BB SOF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 72,605 72,605
DEVELOPMENT.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 3,445,847 20,100 3,465,947
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES
069 0603161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 32,937 32,937
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E ADC&P.
070 0603600D8Z WALKOFF.................... 101,714 101,714
072 0603821D8Z ACQUISITION ENTERPRISE DATA 2,198 2,198
& INFORMATION SERVICES.
073 0603851D8Z ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY 54,583 54,583
TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION
PROGRAM.
074 0603881C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 230,162 230,162
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT.
075 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 828,097 21,996 850,093
MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT.
......................... Improve Discrimination [21,996]
Capability for GMD.
076 0603884BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 148,518 148,518
DEFENSE PROGRAM--DEM/VAL.
077 0603884C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 247,345 78,862 326,207
SENSORS.
......................... Funding increase to [21,000]
accelerate development
and deployment of
interim and perm MD
enhancements for HI.
......................... Improve Discrimination [57,862]
Capability for GMD.
078 0603890C BMD ENABLING PROGRAMS...... 449,442 29,442 478,884
......................... GMD Discrimination..... [23,342]
......................... Improve High Fidelity [6,100]
Modeling and Simulation
for GMD.
079 0603891C SPECIAL PROGRAMS--MDA...... 320,190 320,190
080 0603892C AEGIS BMD.................. 852,052 852,052
083 0603896C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 430,115 430,115
COMMAND AND CONTROL,
BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND
COMMUNICATI.
084 0603898C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 48,954 48,954
JOINT WARFIGHTER SUPPORT.
085 0603904C MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION 53,265 53,265
& OPERATIONS CENTER
(MDIOC).
086 0603906C REGARDING TRENCH........... 9,113 9,113
087 0603907C SEA BASED X-BAND RADAR 130,695 130,695
(SBX).
088 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE 105,354 105,354
PROGRAMS.
089 0603914C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 305,791 305,791
TEST.
090 0603915C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 410,425 410,425
TARGETS.
091 0603920D8Z HUMANITARIAN DEMINING...... 10,837 10,837
092 0603923D8Z COALITION WARFARE.......... 10,740 10,740
093 0604016D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 3,837 3,837
CORROSION PROGRAM.
094 0604115C TECHNOLOGY MATURATION 128,406 130,000 258,406
INITIATIVES.
......................... Acceleration of [100,000]
kintetic and nonkinetic
boost phase BMD.
......................... Program increase....... [30,000]
095 0604132D8Z MISSILE DEFEAT PROJECT..... 98,369 98,369
096 0604181C HYPERSONIC DEFENSE......... 75,300 75,300
097 0604250D8Z ADVANCED INNOVATIVE 1,175,832 -22,000 1,153,832
TECHNOLOGIES.
......................... Program decrease....... [-22,000]
098 0604294D8Z TRUSTED & ASSURED 83,626 83,626
MICROELECTRONICS.
099 0604331D8Z RAPID PROTOTYPING PROGRAM.. 100,000 100,000
101 0604400D8Z DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) 3,967 3,967
UNMANNED SYSTEM COMMON
DEVELOPMENT.
102 0604682D8Z WARGAMING AND SUPPORT FOR 3,833 3,833
STRATEGIC ANALYSIS (SSA).
104 0604826J JOINT C5 CAPABILITY 23,638 23,638
DEVELOPMENT, INTEGRATION
AND INTEROPERABILITY
ASSESSMENTS.
105 0604873C LONG RANGE DISCRIMINATION 357,659 357,659
RADAR (LRDR).
106 0604874C IMPROVED HOMELAND DEFENSE 465,530 80,000 545,530
INTERCEPTORS.
......................... C3 Booster Development. [80,000]
107 0604876C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 36,239 36,239
TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT
TEST.
108 0604878C AEGIS BMD TEST............. 134,468 26,351 160,819
......................... To provide AAW at Aegis [26,351]
Ashore sites,
consistent w/ FY16 and
FY17 NDAAs.
109 0604879C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 84,239 84,239
SENSOR TEST.
110 0604880C LAND-BASED SM-3 (LBSM3).... 30,486 67,275 97,761
......................... To provide AAW at Aegis [67,275]
Ashore sites,
consistent w/ FY16 and
FY17 NDAAs.
111 0604881C AEGIS SM-3 BLOCK IIA CO- 9,739 9,739
DEVELOPMENT.
112 0604887C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 76,757 76,757
MIDCOURSE SEGMENT TEST.
113 0604894C MULTI-OBJECT KILL VEHICLE.. 6,500 6,500
114 0303191D8Z JOINT ELECTROMAGNETIC 2,902 2,902
TECHNOLOGY (JET) PROGRAM.
115 0305103C CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE.. 986 986
116 1206893C SPACE TRACKING & 34,907 34,907
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
117 1206895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 16,994 16,994
SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS.
......................... SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 7,736,741 411,926 8,148,667
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT
AND PROTOTYPES.
.........................
......................... SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION
118 0604161D8Z NUCLEAR AND CONVENTIONAL 12,536 12,536
PHYSICAL SECURITY
EQUIPMENT RDT&E SDD.
119 0604165D8Z PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE 201,749 201,749
CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT.
120 0604384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 406,789 406,789
DEFENSE PROGRAM--EMD.
122 0604771D8Z JOINT TACTICAL INFORMATION 15,358 15,358
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
(JTIDS).
123 0605000BR COUNTER WEAPONS OF MASS 6,241 6,241
DESTRUCTION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT.
124 0605013BL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 12,322 12,322
DEVELOPMENT.
125 0605021SE HOMELAND PERSONNEL SECURITY 4,893 4,893
INITIATIVE.
126 0605022D8Z DEFENSE EXPORTABILITY 3,162 3,162
PROGRAM.
127 0605027D8Z OUSD(C) IT DEVELOPMENT 21,353 21,353
INITIATIVES.
128 0605070S DOD ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS 6,266 6,266
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
129 0605075D8Z DCMO POLICY AND INTEGRATION 2,810 2,810
130 0605080S DEFENSE AGENCY INITIATIVES 24,436 24,436
(DAI)--FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
131 0605090S DEFENSE RETIRED AND 13,475 13,475
ANNUITANT PAY SYSTEM
(DRAS).
133 0605210D8Z DEFENSE-WIDE ELECTRONIC 11,870 11,870
PROCUREMENT CAPABILITIES.
134 0605294D8Z TRUSTED & ASSURED 61,084 61,084
MICROELECTRONICS.
135 0303141K GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT 2,576 2,576
SYSTEM.
136 0305304D8Z DOD ENTERPRISE ENERGY 3,669 3,669
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
(EEIM).
137 0305310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: SYSTEM 8,230 8,230
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
......................... SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 818,819 818,819
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
.........................
......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
138 0604774D8Z DEFENSE READINESS REPORTING 6,941 6,941
SYSTEM (DRRS).
139 0604875D8Z JOINT SYSTEMS ARCHITECTURE 4,851 4,851
DEVELOPMENT.
140 0604940D8Z CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION 211,325 211,325
INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT
(CTEIP).
141 0604942D8Z ASSESSMENTS AND EVALUATIONS 30,144 20,000 50,144
......................... Program increase for [20,000]
cyber vulnerability
assessments and
hardening.
142 0605001E MISSION SUPPORT............ 63,769 63,769
143 0605100D8Z JOINT MISSION ENVIRONMENT 91,057 91,057
TEST CAPABILITY (JMETC).
144 0605104D8Z TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT 22,386 22,386
AND ANALYSIS.
145 0605126J JOINT INTEGRATED AIR AND 36,581 36,581
MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION (JIAMDO).
147 0605142D8Z SYSTEMS ENGINEERING........ 37,622 37,622
148 0605151D8Z STUDIES AND ANALYSIS 5,200 5,200
SUPPORT--OSD.
149 0605161D8Z NUCLEAR MATTERS-PHYSICAL 5,232 5,232
SECURITY.
150 0605170D8Z SUPPORT TO NETWORKS AND 12,583 12,583
INFORMATION INTEGRATION.
151 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD 31,451 31,451
(INTELLIGENCE).
152 0605384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 104,348 104,348
DEFENSE PROGRAM.
161 0605790D8Z SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION 2,372 2,372
RESEARCH (SBIR)/ SMALL
BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER.
162 0605798D8Z DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS 24,365 24,365
163 0605801KA DEFENSE TECHNICAL 54,145 54,145
INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC).
164 0605803SE R&D IN SUPPORT OF DOD 30,356 30,356
ENLISTMENT, TESTING AND
EVALUATION.
165 0605804D8Z DEVELOPMENT TEST AND 20,571 20,571
EVALUATION.
166 0605898E MANAGEMENT HQ--R&D......... 14,017 14,017
167 0605998KA MANAGEMENT HQ--DEFENSE 4,187 4,187
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
CENTER (DTIC).
168 0606100D8Z BUDGET AND PROGRAM 3,992 3,992
ASSESSMENTS.
169 0606225D8Z ODNA TECHNOLOGY AND 1,000 1,000
RESOURCE ANALYSIS.
170 0203345D8Z DEFENSE OPERATIONS SECURITY 2,551 2,551
INITIATIVE (DOSI).
171 0204571J JOINT STAFF ANALYTICAL 7,712 7,712
SUPPORT.
174 0303166J SUPPORT TO INFORMATION 673 673
OPERATIONS (IO)
CAPABILITIES.
175 0303260D8Z DEFENSE MILITARY DECEPTION 1,006 1,006
PROGRAM OFFICE (DMDPO).
177 0305172K COMBINED ADVANCED 16,998 16,998
APPLICATIONS.
180 0305245D8Z INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES 18,992 18,992
AND INNOVATION INVESTMENTS.
181 0306310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: RDT&E 1,231 1,231
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT.
183 0804767J COCOM EXERCISE ENGAGEMENT 44,500 44,500
AND TRAINING
TRANSFORMATION (CE2T2)--
MHA.
184 0901598C MANAGEMENT HQ--MDA......... 29,947 29,947
187 0903235K JOINT SERVICE PROVIDER 5,113 5,113
(JSP).
187A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 63,312 63,312
......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 1,010,530 20,000 1,030,530
SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
188 0604130V ENTERPRISE SECURITY SYSTEM 4,565 4,565
(ESS).
189 0605127T REGIONAL INTERNATIONAL 1,871 1,871
OUTREACH (RIO) AND
PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
INFORMATION MANA.
190 0605147T OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN 298 298
ASSISTANCE SHARED
INFORMATION SYSTEM
(OHASIS).
191 0607210D8Z INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS 10,882 5,000 15,882
AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT.
......................... Program increase for [5,000]
increase analytical
support.
192 0607310D8Z CWMD SYSTEMS: OPERATIONAL 7,222 7,222
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
193 0607327T GLOBAL THEATER SECURITY 14,450 14,450
COOPERATION MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEMS (G-
TSCMIS).
194 0607384BP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL 45,677 45,677
DEFENSE (OPERATIONAL
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT).
195 0208043J PLANNING AND DECISION AID 3,037 3,037
SYSTEM (PDAS).
196 0208045K C4I INTEROPERABILITY....... 59,490 59,490
198 0301144K JOINT/ALLIED COALITION 6,104 6,104
INFORMATION SHARING.
202 0302016K NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND 1,863 1,863
SYSTEM-WIDE SUPPORT.
203 0302019K DEFENSE INFO INFRASTRUCTURE 21,564 21,564
ENGINEERING AND
INTEGRATION.
204 0303126K LONG-HAUL COMMUNICATIONS-- 15,428 15,428
DCS.
205 0303131K MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY 15,855 15,855
COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
(MEECN).
206 0303135G PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE 4,811 4,811
(PKI).
207 0303136G KEY MANAGEMENT 33,746 33,746
INFRASTRUCTURE (KMI).
208 0303140D8Z INFORMATION SYSTEMS 9,415 10,000 19,415
SECURITY PROGRAM.
......................... Cyber Scholarship [10,000]
Program.
209 0303140G INFORMATION SYSTEMS 227,652 8,000 235,652
SECURITY PROGRAM.
......................... Program increase to [8,000]
support cyber defense
education of reservists
and the National Guard.
210 0303150K GLOBAL COMMAND AND CONTROL 42,687 42,687
SYSTEM.
211 0303153K DEFENSE SPECTRUM 8,750 8,750
ORGANIZATION.
214 0303228K JOINT INFORMATION 4,689 4,689
ENVIRONMENT (JIE).
216 0303430K FEDERAL INVESTIGATIVE 50,000 50,000
SERVICES INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY.
222 0305103K CYBER SECURITY INITIATIVE.. 1,686 1,686
227 0305186D8Z POLICY R&D PROGRAMS........ 6,526 6,526
228 0305199D8Z NET CENTRICITY............. 18,455 18,455
230 0305208BB DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 5,496 5,496
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
233 0305208K DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/ 3,049 3,049
SURFACE SYSTEMS.
236 0305327V INSIDER THREAT............. 5,365 5,365
237 0305387D8Z HOMELAND DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY 2,071 2,071
TRANSFER PROGRAM.
243 0307577D8Z INTELLIGENCE MISSION DATA 13,111 13,111
(IMD).
245 0708012S PACIFIC DISASTER CENTERS... 1,770 1,770
246 0708047S DEFENSE PROPERTY 2,924 2,924
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM.
248 1105219BB MQ-9 UAV................... 37,863 37,863
251 1160403BB AVIATION SYSTEMS........... 259,886 7,500 267,386
......................... Per SOCOM requested [7,500]
realignment.
252 1160405BB INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS 8,245 8,245
DEVELOPMENT.
253 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS... 79,455 79,455
254 1160431BB WARRIOR SYSTEMS............ 45,935 45,935
255 1160432BB SPECIAL PROGRAMS........... 1,978 1,978
256 1160434BB UNMANNED ISR............... 31,766 31,766
257 1160480BB SOF TACTICAL VEHICLES...... 2,578 2,578
258 1160483BB MARITIME SYSTEMS........... 42,315 12,800 55,115
......................... Per SOCOM requested [12,800]
realignment.
259 1160489BB GLOBAL VIDEO SURVEILLANCE 4,661 4,661
ACTIVITIES.
260 1160490BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS 12,049 12,049
INTELLIGENCE.
261 1203610K TELEPORT PROGRAM........... 642 642
261A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS........ 3,689,646 3,689,646
......................... SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 4,867,528 43,300 4,910,828
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RESEARCH, 20,490,902 505,326 20,996,228
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
.........................
......................... OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL,
DEFENSE
......................... MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
001 0605118OTE OPERATIONAL TEST AND 83,503 83,503
EVALUATION.
002 0605131OTE LIVE FIRE TEST AND 59,500 59,500
EVALUATION.
003 0605814OTE OPERATIONAL TEST ACTIVITIES 67,897 67,897
AND ANALYSES.
......................... SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 210,900 210,900
SUPPORT.
.........................
......................... TOTAL OPERATIONAL TEST 210,900 210,900
& EVAL, DEFENSE.
.........................
......................... TOTAL RDT&E........... 82,716,636 1,321,721 84,038,357
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 House
Line Program Element Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
006 0602120A SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC v
SURVIVABILITY.
........................
........................ ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
055 0603327A AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE 15,000 -15,000
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING.
........................ Realign European [-15,000]
Reassurance Initiative
to Base.
058 0603639A TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER 4,000 4,000
AMMUNITION.
........................ Unfunded requirement-- [4,000]
JLTV lethality 30mm
upgrade.
060 0603747A SOLDIER SUPPORT AND 3,000 3,000
SURVIVABILITY.
........................ SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 18,000 -11,000 7,000
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
........................
........................ SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
080 0604201A AIRCRAFT AVIONICS........... 12,000 12,000
........................ Unfunded requirement--A- [12,000]
PNT measures.
122 0605032A TRACTOR TIRE................ 5,000 5,000
125 0605035A COMMON INFRARED 21,540 21,540
COUNTERMEASURES (CIRCM).
132 0605049A MISSILE WARNING SYSTEM 155,000 155,000
MODERNIZATION (MWSM).
........................ Unfunded requirements-- [155,000]
LIMWS.
133 0605051A AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY 30,100 30,100
DEVELOPMENT.
147 0303032A TROJAN--RH12................ 1,200 1,200
........................ SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 57,840 167,000 224,840
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
........................
........................ OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
183 0607134A LONG RANGE PRECISION FIRES 56,731 56,731
(LRPF).
........................ Unfunded requirement.... [42,731]
........................ Unfunded requirement-- [14,000]
CDAEM Bridging Strategy.
191 0607142A AVIATION ROCKET SYSTEM 8,000 8,000
PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT.
........................ Unfunded requirement-- [8,000]
M282 warhead
qualification.
203 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT 15,000 -15,000
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
........................ Realign European [-15,000]
Reassurance Initiative
to Base.
222 0305204A TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 7,492 -7,492
VEHICLES.
........................ Realign European [-7,492]
Reassurance Initiative
to Base.
223 0305206A AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 15,000 -15,000
SYSTEMS.
........................ Realign European [-15,000]
Reassurance Initiative
to Base.
228 0307665A BIOMETRICS ENABLED 6,036 6,036
INTELLIGENCE.
........................ SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 43,528 27,239 70,767
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 119,368 183,239 302,607
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
........................
........................ ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
041 0603527N RETRACT LARCH............... 22,000 22,000
081 0604272N TACTICAL AIR DIRECTIONAL 5,710 5,710
INFRARED COUNTERMEASURES
(TADIRCM).
........................ SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 27,710 27,710
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
........................
........................ OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
207 0204311N INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE 11,600 -11,600
SYSTEM.
........................ Realign European [-11,600]
Reassurance Initiative
to Base.
211 0204574N CRYPTOLOGIC DIRECT SUPPORT.. 1,200 1,200
253A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......... 89,855 89,855
........................ SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 102,655 -11,600 91,055
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 130,365 -11,600 118,765
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
........................
........................ ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
029 0603438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY.... 7,800 7,800
053 0306250F CYBER OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY 5,400 5,400
DEVELOPMENT.
........................ SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 13,200 13,200
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
........................
........................ OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
196 0207277F ISR INNOVATIONS............. 5,750 5,750
214 0208087F AF OFFENSIVE CYBERSPACE 4,000 4,000
OPERATIONS.
286 0401318F CV-22....................... 14,000 14,000
........................ Unfunded requirement-- [7,000]
common eletrical
interface.
........................ Unfunded requirement-- [7,000]
intelligence broadcast
system.
318A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......... 112,408 112,408
........................ SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 122,158 14,000 136,158
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 135,358 14,000 149,358
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
........................
........................ ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
024 0603122D8Z COMBATING TERRORISM 25,000 25,000
TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT.
........................ SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 25,000 25,000
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES
088 0603913C ISRAELI COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS 507,646 507,646
........................ Additional Cooperative [507,646]
funds, consistent with
Title XVI authorizations.
........................ SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 507,646 507,646
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND
PROTOTYPES.
........................
........................ OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
253 1160408BB OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS.... 1,920 2,000 3,920
........................ Unfunded Requirement- [2,000]
Publicly Available
Information (PAI)
Capability Acceleration.
256 1160434BB UNMANNED ISR................ 3,000 3,000
261A 9999999999 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS......... 196,176 196,176
........................ SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 201,096 2,000 203,096
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 226,096 509,646 735,742
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
........................
........................ TOTAL RDT&E............ 611,187 695,285 1,306,472
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4203. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4203. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS
(In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 House
Line Program Element Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........................ RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, ARMY
........................ ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
042 0603270A ELECTRONIC WARFARE 3,000 3,000
TECHNOLOGY.
........................ Multi-Domain Battle [3,000]
Exercise Capability.
........................ SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 3,000 3,000
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION
085 0604328A TRACTOR CAGE................ 13,000 13,000
........................ Unfunded Requirement.... [13,000]
117 0605018A INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PAY 15,000 15,000
SYSTEM-ARMY (IPPS-A).
........................ Unfunded Requirement.... [15,000]
........................ SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 28,000 28,000
DEVELOPMENT &
DEMONSTRATION.
........................
........................ OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
203 0203801A MISSILE/AIR DEFENSE PRODUCT 26,000 26,000
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
........................ Unfunded requirement-- [26,000]
Stinger PIP.
213 0303028A SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE 21,845 21,845
ACTIVITIES.
........................ Unfunded Requirement.... [21,845]
214 0303140A INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY 7,021 7,021
PROGRAM.
........................ Unfunded Requirement.... [7,021]
........................ SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 54,866 54,866
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 85,866 85,866
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, ARMY.
........................
........................ RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, NAVY
........................ APPLIED RESEARCH
010 0602435N OCEAN WARFIGHTING 15,000 15,000
ENVIRONMENT APPLIED
RESEARCH.
........................ AGOR SLEP............... [15,000]
014 0602782N MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY 23,500 23,500
WARFARE APPLIED RESEARCH.
........................ MS-177A Maritime Senson. [23,500]
........................ SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH 38,500 38,500
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 38,500 38,500
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, NAVY.
........................
........................ RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, AF
........................ APPLIED RESEARCH
007 0602203F AEROSPACE PROPULSION........ 2,500 2,500
........................ Unfunded Requirement.... [2,500]
012 0602605F DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY.. 8,300 8,300
........................ Unfunded Requirement.... [8,300]
........................ SUBTOTAL APPLIED RESEARCH 10,800 10,800
........................
........................ ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT
018 0603211F AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/ 5,700 5,700
DEMO.
........................ Unfunded requirement.... [5,700]
019 0603216F AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND 13,500 13,500
POWER TECHNOLOGY.
........................ Unfunded requirement.... [13,500]
........................ SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 19,200 19,200
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPES
041 0604414F CYBER RESILIENCY OF WEAPON 10,200 10,200
SYSTEMS-ACS.
........................ Unfunding requirement... [10,200]
062 1206438F SPACE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY.... 56,900 56,900
........................ AF UPL.................. [56,900]
........................ SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 67,100 67,100
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT &
PROTOTYPES.
........................
........................ OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
230 0303131F MINIMUM ESSENTIAL EMERGENCY 11,000 11,000
COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
(MEECN).
........................ AF UPL--support for AEHF [11,000]
terminals.
302 1203001F FAMILY OF ADVANCED BLOS 58,400 58,400
TERMINALS (FAB-T).
........................ AF UPL--FAB-T testing [7,400]
activities.
........................ AF UPL--POTUS voice [31,900]
conference configuration.
........................ AF UPL--spares for [6,600]
testing.
........................ AF UPL -spares for [12,500]
testing.
312 1203614F JSPOC MISSION SYSTEM........ 24,250 24,250
........................ AF UPL--BMC2 software... [24,250]
........................ SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 93,650 93,650
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 190,750 190,750
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, AF.
........................
........................ RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST
& EVAL, DW
........................ ADVANCED COMPONENT
DEVELOPMENT AND PROTOTYPES
075 0603882C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 351,000 351,000
MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT.
........................ Increase GBI magazine [208,000]
capacity at Fort Greely.
........................ Procure 3 additional [45,000]
EKVs.
........................ Procure 7 additional [98,000]
boosters.
117 1206895C BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE 27,500 27,500
SYSTEM SPACE PROGRAMS.
........................ Initiates BMDS Global [27,500]
Sensors AoA
reccommendations for
space sensor
architecture.
........................ SUBTOTAL ADVANCED 378,500 378,500
COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT AND
PROTOTYPES.
........................
........................ SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION
137A 0604XXX RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF 50,000 50,000
MILITARY RESPONSE OPTIONS
FOR RUSSIAN INF TREATY
VIOLATION.
........................ Program increase........ [50,000]
........................ SUBTOTAL SYSTEM 50,000 50,000
DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION.
........................
........................ MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
151 0605200D8Z GENERAL SUPPORT TO USD 30,000 30,000
(INTELLIGENCE).
........................ PROJECT Maven........... [30,000]
........................ SUBTOTAL MANAGEMENT 30,000 30,000
SUPPORT.
........................
........................ OPERATIONAL SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
236 0305327V INSIDER THREAT.............. 5,000 5,000
........................ Defense Insider Threat [5,000]
Management and Analysis
Center.
........................ SUBTOTAL OPERATIONAL 5,000 5,000
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
........................
........................ TOTAL RESEARCH, 463,500 463,500
DEVELOPMENT, TEST &
EVAL, DW.
........................
........................ TOTAL RDT&E............ 778,616 778,616
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLIII--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 House
Line Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 1,455,366 738,291 2,193,657
Improve unit training and maintenance [54,700]
readiness...................................
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [683,591]
Base........................................
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 105,147 7,700 112,847
Execute the National Military Strategy...... [7,700]
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 604,117 88,300 692,417
Improve training readiness.................. [88,300]
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 793,217 27,300 820,517
Decisive Action training and operations..... [27,300]
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 1,169,478 37,700 1,207,178
Combat Training Center Operations and [37,700]
Maintenance.................................
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 1,496,503 178,300 1,674,803
Aviation and ISR Maintenance Requirements... [28,200]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [150,100]
Base........................................
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 3,675,901 91,969 3,767,870
Maintenance of organizational clothing and [26,500]
equipment...................................
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [8,969]
Base........................................
SOUTHCOM--Maritime Patrol Aircraft Expansion [38,500]
SOUTHCOM--Mission and Other Ship Operations. [18,000]
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 466,720 466,720
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 1,443,516 150,749 1,594,265
Depot maintenance of hardware and munitions. [46,600]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [104,149]
Base........................................
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 8,080,357 61,907 8,142,264
C4I / Cyber capabilities enabling support... [13,200]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [48,707]
Base........................................
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 3,401,155 32,000 3,433,155
MODERNIZATION..................................
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [32,000]
Base........................................
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS......... 443,790 443,790
140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES........................... 135,150 135,150
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [126,250]
Base........................................
Training, supplies, spares, and repair site [8,900]
support.....................................
180 US AFRICA COMMAND............................... 225,382 225,382
190 US EUROPEAN COMMAND............................. 141,352 44,250 185,602
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [44,250]
Base........................................
200 US SOUTHERN COMMAND............................. 190,811 3,500 194,311
Mission and Other Ship Operations........... [3,500]
210 US FORCES KOREA................................. 59,578 59,578
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 23,752,390 1,597,116 25,349,506
MOBILIZATION
220 STRATEGIC MOBILITY.............................. 346,667 1,124 347,791
Sustainment of strategically positioned [1,124]
assets enabling force projection............
230 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS....................... 422,108 61,738 483,846
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [56,500]
Base........................................
Sustain Army War Reserve Secondary Items for [5,238]
deployed forces.............................
240 INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS......................... 7,750 7,750
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 776,525 62,862 839,387
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
250 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 137,556 137,556
260 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 58,872 58,872
270 ONE STATION UNIT TRAINING....................... 58,035 58,035
280 SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.......... 505,089 505,089
290 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 1,015,541 3,144 1,018,685
Leadership development and training......... [3,144]
300 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 1,124,115 1,124,115
310 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 220,688 220,688
320 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 618,164 3,526 621,690
Department of the Army directed training.... [3,526]
330 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 613,586 613,586
340 EXAMINING....................................... 171,223 171,223
350 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 214,738 214,738
360 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 195,099 195,099
370 JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING CORPS........... 176,116 176,116
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 5,108,822 6,670 5,115,492
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
390 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 555,502 154,050 709,552
Logistics associated with increased end [57,900]
strength....................................
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [96,150]
Base........................................
400 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES....................... 894,208 11,449 905,657
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [11,449]
Base........................................
410 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES..................... 715,462 715,462
420 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT........................... 446,931 446,931
430 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 493,616 493,616
440 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 2,084,922 17,900 2,102,822
Annual maintenance of Enterprise License [17,900]
Agreements..................................
450 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 259,588 259,588
460 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 326,387 326,387
470 OTHER SERVICE SUPPORT........................... 1,087,602 -9,000 1,078,602
Program decrease............................ [-9,000]
480 ARMY CLAIMS ACTIVITIES.......................... 210,514 210,514
490 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 243,584 243,584
500 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDIT READINESS........ 284,592 8,400 292,992
DISA migration cost and system support...... [8,400]
510 INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS............. 415,694 415,694
520 MISC. SUPPORT OF OTHER NATIONS.................. 46,856 46,856
565 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,242,222 70,825 1,313,047
Army Analytics Group........................ [5,000]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [65,825]
Base........................................
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES......... 9,307,680 253,624 9,561,304
UNDISTRIBUTED
570 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -426,100 -426,100
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-20,600]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-146,400]
Historical unobligated balances............. [-259,100]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -426,100 -426,100
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY........ 38,945,417 1,494,172 40,439,589
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 11,461 11,461
020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 577,410 577,410
030 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 117,298 117,298
040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 552,016 552,016
050 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 80,302 1,159 81,461
Increase aviation readiness................. [1,159]
060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 399,035 223 399,258
Pay and allowances for career development [223]
training....................................
070 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 102,687 102,687
080 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 56,016 56,016
090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 599,947 599,947
100 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 273,940 273,940
MODERNIZATION..................................
110 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS......... 22,909 22,909
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 2,793,021 1,382 2,794,403
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
120 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 11,116 11,116
130 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 17,962 17,962
140 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 18,550 2,400 20,950
Annual maintenance of Enterprise License [2,400]
Agreements..................................
150 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 6,166 6,166
160 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 60,027 60,027
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 113,821 2,400 116,221
UNDISTRIBUTED
190 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -2,500 -2,500
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-2,500]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -2,500 -2,500
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.... 2,906,842 1,282 2,908,124
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 777,883 33,100 810,983
Unit training and maintenance readiness..... [33,100]
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 190,639 190,639
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 807,557 11,900 819,457
Improve training readiness.................. [11,900]
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 85,476 7,900 93,376
Decisive Action training and operations..... [7,900]
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 36,672 2,225 38,897
Aviation contract support for rotary wing [2,225]
aircraft....................................
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 956,381 18,200 974,581
Increase aviation readiness................. [18,200]
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 777,756 185 777,941
Pay and allowances for career development [185]
training....................................
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 51,506 51,506
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 244,942 244,942
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 1,144,726 1,144,726
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 781,895 781,895
MODERNIZATION..................................
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS......... 999,052 999,052
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 6,854,485 73,510 6,927,995
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 7,703 7,703
140 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 79,236 2,000 81,236
Department of Defense State Partnership [2,000]
Program.....................................
150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 85,160 9,600 94,760
Annual maintenance of Enterprise License [9,600]
Agreements..................................
160 MANPOWER MANAGEMENT............................. 8,654 8,654
170 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 268,839 268,839
180 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 3,093 3,093
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 452,685 11,600 464,285
UNDISTRIBUTED
190 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -10,700 -10,700
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-10,700]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -10,700 -10,700
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG........ 7,307,170 74,410 7,381,580
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 5,544,165 26,750 5,570,915
Cbt logistics Mnt for TAO-187............... [22,000]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [4,750]
Base........................................
020 FLEET AIR TRAINING.............................. 2,075,000 2,075,000
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES.. 46,801 46,801
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT............... 119,624 119,624
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT............................. 552,536 42,000 594,536
Fund aviation spt to max executable......... [42,000]
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 1,088,482 1,088,482
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 40,584 40,584
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 723,786 120,000 843,786
Fund aviation logistics to max executable... [120,000]
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 4,067,334 3,677 4,071,011
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [3,677]
Base........................................
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 977,701 977,701
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 7,165,858 9,500 7,175,358
Western Pacific Ship Repair................. [9,500]
120 SHIP DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT................... 2,193,851 2,193,851
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE.... 1,288,094 11,400 1,299,494
Logistics support for legacy C41 systems.... [6,000]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [5,400]
Base........................................
150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE.................. 206,678 4,400 211,078
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [4,400]
Base........................................
160 WARFARE TACTICS................................. 621,581 1,000 622,581
Operational Range and Environmental [1,000]
Compliance..................................
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY........ 370,681 370,681
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 1,437,966 22,984 1,460,950
Coastal Riverine Force meet operational [7,000]
requirements................................
COMPACFLT C41 Upgrade....................... [10,000]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [5,984]
Base........................................
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND DEPOT OPERATIONS 162,705 162,705
SUPPORT........................................
210 COMBATANT COMMANDERS CORE OPERATIONS............ 65,108 65,108
220 COMBATANT COMMANDERS DIRECT MISSION SUPPORT..... 86,892 69,100 155,992
Joint Training Capability and Exercise [64,100]
Programs....................................
No-Notice Agile Logistics Exercise.......... [5,000]
230 MILITARY INFORMATION SUPPORT OPERATIONS......... 8,427 8,427
240 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES........................... 385,212 385,212
260 FLEET BALLISTIC MISSILE......................... 1,278,456 1,278,456
280 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE............................. 745,680 6,300 751,980
Munitions wholeness......................... [5,000]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [1,300]
Base........................................
290 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................... 380,016 380,016
300 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.......................... 914,428 914,428
310 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 1,905,679 1,905,679
320 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 4,333,688 23,000 4,356,688
Operational range clearance................. [11,000]
Port Operations Service Craft Maintenance... [12,000]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 38,787,013 340,111 39,127,124
MOBILIZATION
330 SHIP PREPOSITIONING AND SURGE................... 417,450 10,000 427,450
Strategic sealift management................ [10,000]
360 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.................. 198,341 198,341
370 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS........... 66,849 66,849
390 COAST GUARD SUPPORT............................. 21,870 21,870
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 704,510 10,000 714,510
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
400 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 143,924 143,924
410 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 8,975 8,975
420 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS................. 144,708 144,708
430 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 812,708 812,708
450 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 180,448 2,000 182,448
Naval Sea Cadets............................ [2,000]
460 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 234,596 234,596
470 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 177,517 177,517
480 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 103,154 103,154
490 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 72,216 72,216
500 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 53,262 53,262
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 1,931,508 2,000 1,933,508
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
510 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 1,135,429 -9,000 1,126,429
Program decrease............................ [-9,000]
530 CIVILIAN MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 149,365 149,365
540 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 386,749 386,749
590 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 165,301 165,301
610 PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND PROGRAM SUPPORT...... 311,616 311,616
620 ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND OVERSIGHT........... 665,580 665,580
660 INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES............. 659,143 659,143
775 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 543,193 10,000 553,193
Research and Technology Protection.......... [10,000]
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 4,016,376 1,000 4,017,376
UNDISTRIBUTED
780 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -356,800 -356,800
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-143,600]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-35,300]
Historical unobligated balances............. [-177,900]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -356,800 -356,800
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY........ 45,439,407 -3,689 45,435,718
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.............................. 967,949 164,733 1,132,682
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [164,733]
Base........................................
020 FIELD LOGISTICS................................. 1,065,090 1,065,090
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 286,635 286,635
040 MARITIME PREPOSITIONING......................... 85,577 85,577
050 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES........................... 181,518 181,518
060 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION........ 785,264 785,264
070 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 2,196,252 2,196,252
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 5,568,285 164,733 5,733,018
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
080 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 16,163 16,163
090 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 1,154 1,154
100 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 100,398 100,398
110 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 46,474 46,474
120 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 405,039 405,039
130 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 201,601 201,601
140 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 32,045 32,045
150 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 24,394 24,394
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 827,268 827,268
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
160 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 28,827 28,827
170 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 378,683 -3,000 375,683
Program decrease............................ [-3,000]
190 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 77,684 77,684
215 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 52,661 52,661
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 537,855 -3,000 534,855
UNDISTRIBUTED
220 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -38,000 -38,000
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-1,800]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-11,400]
Historical unobligated balances............. [-24,800]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -38,000 -38,000
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS 6,933,408 123,733 7,057,141
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 596,876 596,876
020 INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE........................ 5,902 5,902
030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 94,861 94,861
040 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 381 381
050 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 13,822 13,822
060 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 571 571
070 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS........................... 16,718 16,718
080 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 118,079 118,079
090 CYBERSPACE ACTIVITIES........................... 308 308
100 ENTERPRISE INFORMATION.......................... 28,650 28,650
110 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 86,354 86,354
120 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 103,596 103,596
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 1,066,118 1,066,118
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
130 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 1,371 1,371
140 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 13,289 13,289
160 ACQUISITION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.............. 3,229 3,229
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 17,889 17,889
UNDISTRIBUTED
180 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -9,800 -9,800
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-9,800]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -9,800 -9,800
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.... 1,084,007 -9,800 1,074,207
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES................................ 103,468 103,468
020 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 18,794 18,794
030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 32,777 32,777
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 111,213 111,213
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 266,252 266,252
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
060 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 12,585 12,585
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 12,585 12,585
UNDISTRIBUTED
080 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -300 -300
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-300]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -300 -300
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.. 278,837 -300 278,537
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 694,702 33,100 727,802
Adversarial Air Training- mission [10,200]
qualification...............................
B-2 Replenishment spares.................... [9,000]
PACAF Contingency response group............ [4,200]
Rocket system launch program................ [8,000]
Training equipment shortfalls............... [1,700]
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES....................... 1,392,326 154,722 1,547,048
Battlefield airman equipment assembly....... [8,300]
Personnel recovery requirements............. [500]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [96,522]
Base........................................
TARP contractor specialist.................. [800]
Training equipment shortfalls............... [6,000]
Training specialist contract................ [400]
Unified capabilities........................ [42,200]
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS).. 1,128,640 51,300 1,179,940
F-35 maintenance instructors................ [49,700]
Readiness decision support enterprise....... [1,600]
040 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE............ 2,755,367 117,721 2,873,088
Aircraft depot level reparables............. [92,100]
Battlefield airman equipment................ [7,100]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [18,521]
Base........................................
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 3,292,553 22,700 3,315,253
MODERNIZATION..................................
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [22,700]
Base........................................
060 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT. 6,555,186 201,779 6,756,965
Aircraft depot level repairables............ [177,700]
E4B maintenance personnel................... [1,000]
EC-130H service life extension.............. [12,000]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [4,279]
Base........................................
Sustain C-37B............................... [6,800]
070 FLYING HOUR PROGRAM............................. 4,135,330 66,667 4,201,997
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [66,667]
Base........................................
080 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 5,985,232 105,305 6,090,537
Application hosting/MSO..................... [27,000]
Cloud migration............................. [25,600]
Enterprise svcs in FY18..................... [39,000]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [13,705]
Base........................................
090 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING.................... 847,516 129,700 977,216
Aviation readiness shortfalls............... [2,000]
Cyber readiness shortfalls.................. [35,300]
Cyber security readiness shortfalls......... [57,500]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [2,000]
Base........................................
Space based readiness shortfalls............ [32,900]
100 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS................... 1,131,817 121,562 1,253,379
Anti-terrorism force protection............. [10,000]
Cyber readiness shortfalls.................. [4,000]
Cyber training readiness shortfalls......... [11,000]
EOD training and readiness shortfalls....... [5,400]
Installation processing nodes............... [51,400]
ISR sustainment and readiness............... [9,800]
PACAF- restore contingency response group... [10,100]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [19,562]
Base........................................
Tailored OPIR intel products................ [300]
120 LAUNCH FACILITIES............................... 175,457 175,457
130 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS........................... 353,458 188,300 541,758
Command and Control sustainment and [47,100]
readiness...................................
Operationalizing commercial SSA............. [15,000]
Space based sustainment and readiness [126,200]
shortfalls..................................
160 US NORTHCOM/NORAD............................... 189,891 189,891
170 US STRATCOM..................................... 534,236 534,236
180 US CYBERCOM..................................... 357,830 357,830
190 US CENTCOM...................................... 168,208 168,208
200 US SOCOM........................................ 2,280 2,280
210 US TRANSCOM..................................... 533 533
215 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,091,655 1,091,655
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 30,792,217 1,192,856 31,985,073
MOBILIZATION
220 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.............................. 1,570,697 6,400 1,577,097
C-37B flying hours.......................... [1,800]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [4,600]
Base........................................
230 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS....................... 130,241 158,070 288,311
Basic Expeditionary Airfield Resources PACOM [22,600]
BEAR PACOM.................................. [22,600]
BEAR PACOM spares........................... [2,900]
PACAF Contingency response group............ [10,100]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [99,870]
Base........................................
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 1,700,938 164,470 1,865,408
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
270 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 113,722 113,722
280 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 24,804 24,804
290 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC).......... 95,733 95,733
320 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 395,476 395,476
330 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 501,599 501,599
340 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 287,500 287,500
350 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 91,384 91,384
370 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 166,795 166,795
380 EXAMINING....................................... 4,134 4,134
390 OFF-DUTY AND VOLUNTARY EDUCATION................ 222,691 222,691
400 CIVILIAN EDUCATION AND TRAINING................. 171,974 171,974
410 JUNIOR ROTC..................................... 60,070 60,070
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 2,135,882 2,135,882
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
420 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS............................ 805,453 3,000 808,453
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [3,000]
Base........................................
430 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.................... 127,379 127,379
470 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 911,283 911,283
480 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 432,172 -10,000 422,172
Program decrease............................ [-10,000]
490 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.................... 1,175,658 -9,000 1,166,658
Program decrease............................ [-9,000]
500 CIVIL AIR PATROL................................ 26,719 3,100 29,819
Civil Air Patrol............................ [3,100]
530 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT........................... 76,878 76,878
535 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,244,653 1,244,653
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 4,800,195 -12,900 4,787,295
UNDISTRIBUTED
540 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -389,600 -389,600
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-135,400]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-84,300]
Historical unobligated balances............. [-169,900]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -389,600 -389,600
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE... 39,429,232 954,826 40,384,058
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 1,801,007 1,801,007
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 210,642 210,642
030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE............ 403,867 403,867
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 124,951 124,951
MODERNIZATION..................................
050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT. 240,835 17,800 258,635
C-17 CLS workload........................... [5,700]
C-17 depot-level repairable................. [12,100]
060 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 371,878 371,878
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 3,153,180 17,800 3,170,980
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
070 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 74,153 74,153
080 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 19,522 19,522
090 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERS MGMT (ARPC).......... 12,765 12,765
100 OTHER PERS SUPPORT (DISABILITY COMP)............ 7,495 7,495
110 AUDIOVISUAL..................................... 392 392
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE 114,327 114,327
ACTIVITIES..................................
UNDISTRIBUTED
120 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -21,900 -21,900
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-21,900]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -21,900 -21,900
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.. 3,267,507 -4,100 3,263,407
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
010 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS............................. 3,175,055 90,900 3,265,955
Additional training man days................ [54,900]
Two C-130 simulators........................ [36,000]
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 746,082 55,600 801,682
Additional training man days................ [37,100]
Restore support operations.................. [18,500]
030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE............ 867,063 867,063
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 325,090 325,090
MODERNIZATION..................................
050 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT. 1,100,829 51,300 1,152,129
C-130 propulsion improvements............... [16,100]
Maintenance for RC-26 a/c................... [28,700]
Sustain DCGS................................ [6,500]
060 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 583,664 9,800 593,464
Additional training man days................ [9,800]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 6,797,783 207,600 7,005,383
ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE ACTIVITIES
070 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 44,955 44,955
080 RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING...................... 97,230 97,230
SUBTOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-WIDE 142,185 142,185
ACTIVITIES..................................
UNDISTRIBUTED
090 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -43,300 -43,300
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-43,300]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -43,300 -43,300
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG......... 6,939,968 164,300 7,104,268
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF........................... 440,853 440,853
020 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF--CE2T2.................... 551,511 551,511
040 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES..... 5,008,274 95,970 5,104,244
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [95,970]
Base........................................
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 6,000,638 95,970 6,096,608
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
050 DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY.................. 144,970 144,970
060 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF........................... 84,402 84,402
080 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/TRAINING AND 379,462 379,462
RECRUITING.....................................
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 608,834 608,834
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
090 CIVIL MILITARY PROGRAMS......................... 183,000 26,500 209,500
National Guard Youth Challenge.............. [1,500]
STARBASE.................................... [20,000]
World War I Centennial Commission........... [5,000]
110 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY................... 597,836 597,836
120 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.............. 1,439,010 1,439,010
130 DEFENSE HUMAN RESOURCES ACTIVITY................ 807,754 807,754
140 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.............. 2,009,702 2,009,702
160 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY................... 24,207 24,207
170 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY........................ 400,422 14,500 414,922
Procurement Technical Assistance Program [14,500]
(PTAP)......................................
180 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.......................... 217,585 -2,131 215,454
Program decrease............................ [-2,500]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [369]
Base........................................
190 DEFENSE PERSONNEL ACCOUNTING AGENCY............. 131,268 131,268
200 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY............. 722,496 150,000 872,496
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [150,000]
Base........................................
210 DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE........................ 683,665 20,000 703,665
Joint Acquisition Protection and [20,000]
Exploitation Cell (JAPEC)...................
230 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ADMINISTRATION...... 34,712 34,712
240 DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY................. 542,604 -25,000 517,604
Efficiencies from DTRA/JIDO integration..... [-25,000]
260 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY........ 2,794,389 50,000 2,844,389
Impact Aid.................................. [50,000]
270 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.......................... 504,058 504,058
290 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT................... 57,840 57,840
300 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.............. 1,488,344 26,766 1,515,110
Implementation of Military Housing Fall [16,000]
Prevention..................................
Implementation of transparency of Defense [25,000]
Business System Data........................
Program decrease............................ [-17,234]
Support for Commission to Assess the Threat [3,000]
from Electromagnetic Pulse Attacks and
Events......................................
310 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/ADMIN & SVC-WIDE 94,273 94,273
ACTIVITIES.....................................
320 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES................ 436,776 436,776
325 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 14,806,404 55,320 14,861,724
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [55,320]
Base........................................
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES......... 27,976,345 315,955 28,292,300
UNDISTRIBUTED
330 UNDISTRIBUTED................................... -204,900 -204,900
Excessive standard price for fuel........... [-6,500]
Foreign Currency adjustments................ [-19,400]
Historical unobligated balances............. [-179,000]
SUBTOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED...................... -204,900 -204,900
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE- 34,585,817 207,025 34,792,842
WIDE.......................................
MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS
010 US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES, 14,538 14,538
DEFENSE........................................
020 OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER AND CIVIC AID... 104,900 104,900
030 COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION.................... 324,600 324,600
050 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY................. 215,809 215,809
Department of Defense Cleanup and Removal of [6,000]
Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant associated
with the Prinz Eugen........................
Program decrease............................ [-6,000]
060 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY................. 281,415 42,234 323,649
PFOA/PFOS Remediation....................... [30,000]
Program increase............................ [12,234]
070 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE............ 293,749 30,000 323,749
PFOA/PFOS Remediation....................... [30,000]
080 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE.............. 9,002 9,002
090 ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FORMERLY USED SITES... 208,673 208,673
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS APPROPRIATIONS.......... 1,452,686 72,234 1,524,920
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.............. 188,570,298 3,074,093 192,294,497
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4302. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 House
Line Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 828,225 -683,591 144,634
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-683,591]
Base........................................
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 25,474 25,474
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 1,778,644 1,778,644
050 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 260,575 260,575
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 284,422 -150,100 134,322
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-150,100]
Base........................................
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 2,784,525 -8,969 2,775,556
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-8,969]
Base........................................
080 LAND FORCES SYSTEMS READINESS................... 502,330 502,330
090 LAND FORCES DEPOT MAINTENANCE................... 104,149 -104,149 0
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-104,149]
Base........................................
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 80,249 -48,707 31,542
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-48,707]
Base........................................
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 32,000 -32,000 0
MODERNIZATION..................................
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-32,000]
Base........................................
140 ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES........................... 6,151,378 -126,250 6,025,128
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-126,250]
Base........................................
150 COMMANDERS EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM........... 5,000 5,000
160 RESET........................................... 864,926 864,926
180 US AFRICA COMMAND............................... 186,567 186,567
190 US EUROPEAN COMMAND............................. 44,250 -44,250 0
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-44,250]
Base........................................
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 13,932,714 -1,198,016 12,734,698
MOBILIZATION
230 ARMY PREPOSITIONED STOCKS....................... 56,500 -56,500 0
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-56,500]
Base........................................
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 56,500 -56,500 0
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
390 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 755,029 -96,150 658,879
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-96,150]
Base........................................
400 CENTRAL SUPPLY ACTIVITIES....................... 16,567 -11,449 5,118
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-11,449]
Base........................................
410 LOGISTIC SUPPORT ACTIVITIES..................... 6,000 6,000
420 AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT........................... 5,207 5,207
460 OTHER PERSONNEL SUPPORT......................... 107,091 107,091
490 REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT.......................... 165,280 165,280
565 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,082,015 -65,825 1,016,190
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-65,825]
Base........................................
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES......... 2,137,189 -173,424 1,963,765
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY........ 16,126,403 -1,427,940 14,698,463
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
020 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 4,179 15,643 19,822
Training and operations of USAR early [15,643]
deploying units.............................
030 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 4,718 4,718
Training and operations of USAR early [4,718]
deploying units.............................
040 LAND FORCES OPERATIONS SUPPORT.................. 2,132 12,918 15,050
Training and operations of USAR early [12,918]
deploying units.............................
060 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 779 779
090 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 17,609 17,609
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 24,699 33,279 57,978
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.... 24,699 33,279 57,978
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
010 MANEUVER UNITS.................................. 41,731 41,731
020 MODULAR SUPPORT BRIGADES........................ 762 762
030 ECHELONS ABOVE BRIGADE.......................... 11,855 11,855
040 THEATER LEVEL ASSETS............................ 204 204
060 AVIATION ASSETS................................. 27,583 27,583
070 FORCE READINESS OPERATIONS SUPPORT.............. 5,792 5,792
100 BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT......................... 18,507 18,507
120 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL HEADQUARTERS......... 937 937
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 107,371 107,371
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
150 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 740 740
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 740 740
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG........ 108,111 108,111
AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND
MINISTRY OF DEFENSE
010 SUSTAINMENT..................................... 2,660,855 2,660,855
020 INFRASTRUCTURE.................................. 21,000 21,000
030 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION.................... 684,786 684,786
040 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS......................... 405,117 405,117
SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF DEFENSE................ 3,771,758 3,771,758
MINISTRY OF INTERIOR
050 SUSTAINMENT..................................... 955,574 955,574
060 INFRASTRUCTURE.................................. 39,595 39,595
070 EQUIPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION.................... 75,976 75,976
080 TRAINING AND OPERATIONS......................... 94,612 94,612
SUBTOTAL MINISTRY OF INTERIOR............... 1,165,757 1,165,757
TOTAL AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND..... 4,937,515 4,937,515
COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN & EQUIP FUND
COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND (CTEF)
010 IRAQ............................................ 1,269,000 1,269,000
020 SYRIA........................................... 500,000 500,000
SUBTOTAL COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN AND EQUIP FUND 1,769,000 1,769,000
(CTEF)......................................
TOTAL COUNTER-ISIS TRAIN & EQUIP FUND...... 1,769,000 1,769,000
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
010 MISSION AND OTHER FLIGHT OPERATIONS............. 412,710 -4,750 407,960
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-4,750]
Base........................................
030 AVIATION TECHNICAL DATA & ENGINEERING SERVICES.. 1,750 1,750
040 AIR OPERATIONS AND SAFETY SUPPORT............... 2,989 2,989
050 AIR SYSTEMS SUPPORT............................. 144,030 144,030
060 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 211,196 211,196
070 AIRCRAFT DEPOT OPERATIONS SUPPORT............... 1,921 1,921
080 AVIATION LOGISTICS.............................. 102,834 102,834
090 MISSION AND OTHER SHIP OPERATIONS............... 855,453 -3,677 851,776
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-3,677]
Base........................................
100 SHIP OPERATIONS SUPPORT & TRAINING.............. 19,627 19,627
110 SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE.......................... 2,483,179 65,000 2,548,179
Repairs related to USS Fitzgerald........... [65,000]
130 COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE.... 58,886 -5,400 53,486
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-5,400]
Base........................................
150 SPACE SYSTEMS AND SURVEILLANCE.................. 4,400 -4,400 0
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-4,400]
Base........................................
160 WARFARE TACTICS................................. 21,550 21,550
170 OPERATIONAL METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY........ 21,104 21,104
180 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 605,936 -5,984 599,952
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-5,984]
Base........................................
190 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND DEPOT OPERATIONS 11,433 11,433
SUPPORT........................................
280 WEAPONS MAINTENANCE............................. 325,011 -1,300 323,711
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-1,300]
Base........................................
290 OTHER WEAPON SYSTEMS SUPPORT.................... 9,598 9,598
310 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 31,898 31,898
320 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 228,246 228,246
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 5,553,751 39,489 5,593,240
MOBILIZATION
360 SHIP ACTIVATIONS/INACTIVATIONS.................. 1,869 1,869
370 EXPEDITIONARY HEALTH SERVICES SYSTEMS........... 11,905 11,905
390 COAST GUARD SUPPORT............................. 161,885 161,885
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 175,659 175,659
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
430 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 43,369 43,369
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 43,369 43,369
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
510 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 3,217 3,217
540 MILITARY MANPOWER AND PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT...... 7,356 7,356
590 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 67,938 67,938
620 ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND OVERSIGHT........... 9,446 9,446
660 INVESTIGATIVE AND SECURITY SERVICES............. 1,528 1,528
775 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 12,751 12,751
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 102,236 102,236
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY........ 5,875,015 39,489 5,914,504
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATIONAL FORCES.............................. 710,790 -164,733 546,057
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-164,733]
Base........................................
020 FIELD LOGISTICS................................. 242,150 242,150
030 DEPOT MAINTENANCE............................... 52,000 52,000
070 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 17,529 17,529
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 1,022,469 -164,733 857,736
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
120 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 29,421 29,421
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 29,421 29,421
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
160 SERVICEWIDE TRANSPORTATION...................... 61,600 61,600
215 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 3,150 3,150
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 64,750 64,750
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS 1,116,640 -164,733 951,907
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
030 AIRCRAFT DEPOT MAINTENANCE...................... 14,964 14,964
080 COMBAT SUPPORT FORCES........................... 9,016 9,016
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 23,980 23,980
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.... 23,980 23,980
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
010 OPERATING FORCES................................ 2,548 2,548
040 BASE OPERATING SUPPORT.......................... 819 819
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 3,367 3,367
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.. 3,367 3,367
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
010 PRIMARY COMBAT FORCES........................... 248,235 248,235
020 COMBAT ENHANCEMENT FORCES....................... 1,394,962 -96,522 1,298,440
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-96,522]
Base........................................
030 AIR OPERATIONS TRAINING (OJT, MAINTAIN SKILLS).. 5,450 5,450
040 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE............ 699,860 19,479 719,339
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-18,521]
Base........................................
Restoration of Damaged U-2 Aircraft......... [38,000]
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 113,131 -22,700 90,431
MODERNIZATION..................................
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-22,700]
Base........................................
060 CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT AND SYSTEM SUPPORT. 2,039,551 -4,279 2,035,272
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-4,279]
Base........................................
070 FLYING HOUR PROGRAM............................. 2,059,363 -66,667 1,992,696
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-66,667]
Base........................................
080 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 1,088,946 -13,705 1,075,241
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-13,705]
Base........................................
090 GLOBAL C3I AND EARLY WARNING.................... 15,274 -2,000 13,274
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-2,000]
Base........................................
100 OTHER COMBAT OPS SPT PROGRAMS................... 198,090 -19,562 178,528
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-19,562]
Base........................................
120 LAUNCH FACILITIES............................... 385 385
130 SPACE CONTROL SYSTEMS........................... 22,020 22,020
160 US NORTHCOM/NORAD............................... 381 381
170 US STRATCOM..................................... 698 698
180 US CYBERCOM..................................... 35,239 35,239
190 US CENTCOM...................................... 159,520 159,520
200 US SOCOM........................................ 19,000 19,000
215 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 58,098 58,098
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 8,158,203 -205,956 7,952,247
MOBILIZATION
220 AIRLIFT OPERATIONS.............................. 1,430,316 -4,600 1,425,716
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-4,600]
Base........................................
230 MOBILIZATION PREPAREDNESS....................... 213,827 -99,870 113,957
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-99,870]
Base........................................
SUBTOTAL MOBILIZATION....................... 1,644,143 -104,470 1,539,673
TRAINING AND RECRUITING
270 OFFICER ACQUISITION............................. 300 300
280 RECRUIT TRAINING................................ 298 298
290 RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS (ROTC).......... 90 90
320 SPECIALIZED SKILL TRAINING...................... 25,675 25,675
330 FLIGHT TRAINING................................. 879 879
340 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION.............. 1,114 1,114
350 TRAINING SUPPORT................................ 1,426 1,426
SUBTOTAL TRAINING AND RECRUITING............ 29,782 29,782
ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES
420 LOGISTICS OPERATIONS............................ 151,847 -3,000 148,847
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-3,000]
Base........................................
430 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.................... 8,744 8,744
470 ADMINISTRATION.................................. 6,583 6,583
480 SERVICEWIDE COMMUNICATIONS...................... 129,508 129,508
490 OTHER SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES.................... 84,110 84,110
530 INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT........................... 120 120
535 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 53,255 53,255
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWD ACTIVITIES........... 434,167 -3,000 431,167
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE... 10,266,295 -313,426 9,952,869
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
030 DEPOT PURCHASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE............ 52,323 52,323
060 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 6,200 6,200
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 58,523 58,523
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.. 58,523 58,523
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
020 MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS...................... 3,468 3,468
060 BASE SUPPORT.................................... 11,932 11,932
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 15,400 15,400
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG......... 15,400 15,400
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
OPERATING FORCES
010 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF........................... 4,841 4,841
040 SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND/OPERATING FORCES..... 3,305,234 -68,830 3,236,404
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-95,970]
Base........................................
Unfunded Requirement- Joint Task Force [6,300]
Platform Expansion..........................
Unfunded Requirement- Publicly Available [20,840]
Information (PAI) Capability Acceleration...
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 3,310,075 -68,830 3,241,245
ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES
110 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY................... 9,853 9,853
120 DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY.............. 21,317 21,317
140 DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY.............. 64,137 64,137
160 DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY................... 115,000 115,000
180 DEFENSE MEDIA ACTIVITY.......................... 13,255 -369 12,886
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-369]
Base........................................
200 DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCY............. 2,312,000 -300,000 2,012,000
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-150,000]
Base........................................
Transfer of funds to Ukraine Security [-150,000]
Assistance..................................
260 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDUCATION ACTIVITY........ 31,000 31,000
300 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.............. 34,715 34,715
320 WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES................ 3,179 3,179
325 CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS............................. 1,797,549 -55,320 1,742,229
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to [-55,320]
Base........................................
SUBTOTAL ADMIN & SRVWIDE ACTIVITIES......... 4,402,005 -355,689 4,046,316
TOTAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE- 7,712,080 -424,519 7,287,561
WIDE.......................................
UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE
UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE
010 UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE..................... 150,000 150,000
Transfer from DSCA.......................... [150,000]
SUBTOTAL UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE........ 150,000 150,000
TOTAL UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.......... 150,000 150,000
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.............. 48,037,028 -2,107,850 45,929,178
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4303. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4303. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS (In Thousands
of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 House
Line Item Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY
OPERATING FORCES
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 629,047 629,047
MODERNIZATION..................................
Demolition of excess facilities............. [50,000]
Restore restoration and modernization [154,500]
shortfalls..................................
Restore sustainment shortfalls.............. [424,547]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 629,047 629,047
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY........ 629,047 629,047
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES
OPERATING FORCES
100 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 82,619 82,619
MODERNIZATION..................................
Demolition of excess facilities............. [25,000]
Restore restoration and modernization [12,300]
shortfalls..................................
Restore sustainment shortfalls.............. [45,319]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 82,619 82,619
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARMY RES.... 82,619 82,619
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG
OPERATING FORCES
110 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 173,900 173,900
MODERNIZATION..................................
Demolition of excess facilities............. [25,000]
Restore restoration and modernization [35,200]
shortfalls..................................
Restore sustainment shortfalls.............. [113,700]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 173,900 173,900
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ARNG........ 173,900 173,900
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY
OPERATING FORCES
310 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 414,200 414,200
Demolition of excess facilities............. [50,000]
Restore restoration and modernization [87,200]
shortfalls..................................
Restore sustainment shortfalls.............. [277,000]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 414,200 414,200
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY........ 414,200 414,200
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
OPERATING FORCES
060 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & MODERNIZATION........ 217,487 217,487
Demolition of excess facilities............. [50,000]
Restore restoration and modernization [35,300]
shortfalls..................................
Restore sustainment shortfalls.............. [132,187]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 217,487 217,487
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS 217,487 217,487
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES
OPERATING FORCES
110 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 11,500 11,500
Restore restoration and modernization [1,500]
shortfalls..................................
Restore sustainment shortfalls.............. [10,000]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 11,500 11,500
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, NAVY RES.... 11,500 11,500
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
030 SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION...... 7,246 7,246
Restore restoration and modernization [3,900]
shortfalls..................................
Restore sustainment shortfalls.............. [3,346]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 7,246 7,246
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, MC RESERVE.. 7,246 7,246
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
OPERATING FORCES
050 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 507,700 507,700
MODERNIZATION..................................
Demolition of excess facilities............. [50,000]
Restore restoration and modernization [153,300]
shortfalls..................................
Restore sustainment shortfalls.............. [304,400]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 507,700 507,700
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE... 507,700 507,700
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE
OPERATING FORCES
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 15,300 15,300
MODERNIZATION..................................
Restore restoration and modernization [5,600]
shortfalls..................................
Restore sustainment shortfalls.............. [9,700]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 15,300 15,300
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, AF RESERVE.. 15,300 15,300
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG
OPERATING FORCES
040 FACILITIES SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION & 47,600 47,600
MODERNIZATION..................................
Restore restoration and modernization [14,600]
shortfalls..................................
Restore sustainment shortfalls.............. [33,000]
SUBTOTAL OPERATING FORCES................... 47,600 47,600
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE, ANG......... 47,600 47,600
TOTAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE.............. 2,106,599 2,106,599
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLIV--MILITARY PERSONNEL
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4401. MILITARY PERSONNEL (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2018 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel Appropriations................... 133,881,636 184,389 134,066,025
Military Personnel Pay Raise................... [206,400]
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to Base [214,289]
Freeze BAH reduction for Military Housing [125,000]
Privatization Initiative.......................
Historical unobligated balances................ [-363,300]
Department of Defense State Partnership Program [2,000]
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions. 7,804,427 7,804,427
Total, Military Personnel........................... 141,686,063 182,389 141,870,452
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4402. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2018 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel Appropriations................... 4,276,276 -214,289 4,061,987
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to Base [-214,289]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4403. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4403. MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS FOR BASE REQUIREMENTS. (In Thousands of
Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2018 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel Appropriations................... 1,017,700 1,017,700
Increase Active Army end strength by 10k....... [829,400]
Increase Army National Guard end strength by 4k [105,500]
Increase Army Reserve end strength by 3k....... [82,800]
Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Fund Contributions. 44,140 44,140
Accrual payment associated with increased Army [44,140]
end strength...................................
Total, Military Personnel........................... 1,061,840 1,061,840
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLV--OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4501. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2018 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS............................... 43,140 43,140
SUPPLY MANAGEMENT--ARMY............................. 40,636 50,111 90,747
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to Base [50,111]
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............. 83,776 50,111 133,887
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE
SUPPLY MANAGEMENT................................... 66,462 66,462
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, AIR FORCE........ 66,462 66,462
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA
COMMISSARY OPERATIONS............................... 1,389,340 -45,000 1,344,340
Civilian Personnel Compensation and Benefits... [-20,000]
Commissary operations.......................... [-25,000]
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DECA............. 1,389,340 -45,000 1,344,340
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT--DEFENSE.................... 47,018 47,018
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..... 47,018 47,018
NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND
LG MED SPD RO/RO MAINTENANCE........................ 135,800 135,800
DOD MOBILIZATION ALTERATIONS........................ 11,197 11,197
TAH MAINTENANCE..................................... 54,453 54,453
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT............................ 18,622 18,622
READY RESERVE FORCES................................ 289,255 7,000 296,255
Strategic Sealift SLEP......................... [7,000]
TOTAL NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND.......... 509,327 7,000 516,327
CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION
CHEM DEMILITARIZATION--O&M.......................... 104,237 104,237
CHEM DEMILITARIZATION--RDT&E........................ 839,414 839,414
CHEM DEMILITARIZATION--PROC......................... 18,081 18,081
TOTAL CHEM AGENTS & MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION.... 961,732 961,732
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 674,001 17,000 691,001
DEFENSE............................................
Administrative Overhead........................ [-2,000]
SOUTHCOM ISR................................... [21,000]
Travel, Infrastructure, Support................ [-2,000]
DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION PROGRAM....................... 116,813 116,813
TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG 790,814 17,000 807,814
ACTIVITIES, DEF..............................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 334,087 334,087
RDT&E............................................... 2,800 2,800
TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........ 336,887 336,887
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
IN-HOUSE CARE....................................... 9,457,768 18,000 9,475,768
Maintenance of inpatient capabilities of OCONUS [10,000]
MTFs...........................................
Pre-mobilization health care under section [8,000]
12304b.........................................
PRIVATE SECTOR CARE................................. 15,317,732 15,317,732
CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT......................... 2,193,045 2,193,045
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.............................. 1,803,733 1,803,733
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES............................... 330,752 -9,000 321,752
Program decrease............................... [-9,000]
EDUCATION AND TRAINING.............................. 737,730 737,730
BASE OPERATIONS/COMMUNICATIONS...................... 2,255,163 2,255,163
RDT&E
RESEARCH............................................ 9,796 9,796
EXPLORATRY DEVELOPMENT.............................. 64,881 64,881
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT................................ 246,268 30,000 276,268
Program increase for hypoxia research.......... [5,000]
Research of chronic traumatic encephalopathy... [25,000]
DEMONSTRATION/VALIDATION............................ 99,039 99,039
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT............................. 170,602 170,602
MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT.............................. 69,191 69,191
CAPABILITIES ENHANCEMENT............................ 13,438 13,438
PROCUREMENT
INITIAL OUTFITTING.................................. 26,978 26,978
REPLACEMENT & MODERNIZATION......................... 360,831 360,831
THEATER MEDICAL INFORMATION PROGRAM
JOINT OPERATIONAL MEDICINE INFORMATION SYSTEM....... 8,326 8,326
DOD HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MODERNIZATION...... 499,193 499,193
UNDISTRIBUTED
UNDISTRIBUTED....................................... -149,600 -149,600
Foreign Currency adjustments................... [-15,500]
Historical unobligated balances................ [-134,100]
TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................. 33,664,466 -118,600 33,545,866
TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS................... 37,849,822 -89,489 37,760,333
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4502. OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item FY 2018 Request House Change House Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY
INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS
SUPPLY MANAGEMENT--ARMY............................. 50,111 -50,111
Realign European Reassurance Initiative to Base [-50,111]
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, ARMY............. 50,111 -50,111
WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE
ENERGY MANAGEMENT--DEFENSE.......................... 70,000 70,000
SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT--DEFENSE.................... 28,845 28,845
TOTAL WORKING CAPITAL FUND, DEFENSE-WIDE..... 98,845 98,845
DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEF
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, 196,300 196,300
DEFENSE............................................
TOTAL DRUG INTERDICTION & CTR-DRUG 196,300 196,300
ACTIVITIES, DEF..............................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................... 24,692 24,692
TOTAL OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL........ 24,692 24,692
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
IN-HOUSE CARE....................................... 61,857 61,857
PRIVATE SECTOR CARE................................. 331,968 331,968
CONSOLIDATED HEALTH SUPPORT......................... 1,980 1,980
TOTAL DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM................. 395,805 395,805
TOTAL OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS................... 765,753 -50,111 715,642
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE XLVI--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4601. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 House
Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request House Change Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army ALABAMA Fort Rucker TRAINING SUPPORT 38,000 38,000
FACILITY.
Army ARIZONA Davis-Monthan AFB GENERAL INSTRUCTION 22,000 22,000
BUILDING.
Army ARIZONA Fort Huachuca GROUND TRANSPORT 30,000 30,000
EQUIPMENT BUILDING.
Army CALIFORNIA Fort Irwin LAND ACQUISITION....... 3,000 3,000
Army COLORADO Fort Carson AMMUNITION SUPPLY POINT 21,000 21,000
Army COLORADO Fort Carson BATTLEFIELD WEATHER 8,300 8,300
FACILITY.
Army FLORIDA Eglin AFB MULTIPURPOSE RANGE 18,000 18,000
COMPLEX.
Army GEORGIA Fort Benning AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 0 10,800 10,800
TOWER.
Army GEORGIA Fort Benning TRAINING SUPPORT 28,000 28,000
FACILITY.
Army GEORGIA Fort Gordon ACCESS CONTROL POINT... 33,000 33,000
Army GEORGIA Fort Gordon AUTOMATION-AIDED 18,500 18,500
INSTRUCTIONAL BUILDING.
Army GERMANY Stuttgart COMMISSARY............. 40,000 40,000
Army GERMANY Wiesbaden ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING 43,000 43,000
Army HAWAII Fort Shafter COMMAND AND CONTROL 90,000 90,000
FACILITY, INCR 3.
Army INDIANA Crane Army Ammunition SHIPPING AND RECEIVING 24,000 24,000
Plant BUILDING.
Army KOREA Kunsan AB UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE 53,000 53,000
HANGAR.
Army NEW YORK U.S. Military Academy CEMETERY............... 22,000 22,000
Army SOUTH CAROLINA Fort Jackson RECEPTION BARRACKS 60,000 60,000
COMPLEX, PH1.
Army SOUTH CAROLINA Shaw AFB MISSION TRAINING 25,000 25,000
COMPLEX.
Army TEXAS Camp Bullis VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 13,600 13,600
SHOP.
Army TEXAS Fort Hood VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 0 33,000 33,000
SHOP.
Army TEXAS Fort Hood BATTALION HEADQUARTERS 37,000 37,000
COMPLEX.
Army TURKEY Turkey Various FORWARD OPERATING SITE. 6,400 -6,400 0
Army VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir SECURE ADMIN/OPERATIONS 14,124 14,124
FACILITY, INCR 3.
Army VIRGINIA Joint Base Langley- AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE 34,000 34,000
Eustis INSTRUCTIONAL BLDG.
Army VIRGINIA Joint Base Myer- SECURITY FENCE......... 20,000 20,000
Henderson
Army WASHINGTON Joint Base Lewis-McChord CONFINEMENT FACILITY... 66,000 66,000
Army WASHINGTON Yakima FIRE STATION........... 19,500 19,500
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide HOST NATION SUPPORT.... 28,700 28,700
Locations
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 72,770 72,770
Locations
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS: 0 -10,000 -10,000
Locations UNSPECIFIED MINOR
CONSTRUCTION, ARMY.
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 31,500 10,000 41,500
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Military Construction, Army Total 920,394 37,400 957,794
.................................. ........................
Navy ARIZONA Yuma ENLISTED DINING 36,358 36,358
FACILITY & COMMUNITY
BLDGS.
Navy CALIFORNIA Barstow COMBAT VEHICLE REPAIR 36,539 36,539
FACILITY.
Navy CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton, AMMUNITION SUPPLY POINT 61,139 61,139
California UPGRADE.
Navy CALIFORNIA Coronado UNDERSEA RESCUE COMMAND 0 36,000 36,000
OPERATIONS BUILDING.
Navy CALIFORNIA Lemoore F/A 18 AVIONICS REPAIR 60,828 60,828
FACILITY REPLACEMENT.
Navy CALIFORNIA Miramar AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE 39,600 39,600
HANGAR (INC 2).
Navy CALIFORNIA Miramar F-35 SIMULATOR FACILITY 0 47,600 47,600
Navy CALIFORNIA Twentynine Palms, POTABLE WATER TREATMENT/ 55,099 55,099
California BLENDING FACILITY.
Navy DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NSA Washington ELECTRONICS SCIENCE AND 37,882 37,882
TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY.
Navy DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NSA Washington WASHINGTON NAVY YARD AT/ 60,000 -45,190 14,810
FP.
Navy DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonier, Djibouti AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON 13,390 -13,390 0
EXPANSION.
Navy FLORIDA Mayport ADVANCED WASTEWATER 74,994 74,994
TREATMENT PLANT
(AWWTP).
Navy FLORIDA Mayport MISSILE MAGAZINES...... 9,824 9,824
Navy GEORGIA Albany COMBAT VEHICLE 0 43,300 43,300
WAREHOUSE.
Navy GREECE Souda Bay STRATEGIC AIRCRAFT 22,045 22,045
PARKING APRON
EXPANSION.
Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE 75,233 75,233
HANGAR #2.
Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas CORROSION CONTROL 66,747 66,747
HANGAR.
Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas MALS FACILITIES........ 49,431 49,431
Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas NAVY-COMMERCIAL TIE-IN 37,180 37,180
HARDENING.
Navy GUAM Joint Region Marianas WATER WELL FIELD....... 56,088 56,088
Navy HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor- SEWER LIFT STATION & 73,200 73,200
Hickam RELIEF SEWER LINE.
Navy HAWAII Kaneohe Bay LHD PAD CONVERSIONS MV- 19,012 19,012
22 LANDING PADS.
Navy HAWAII Wahiawa COMMUNICATIONS/CRYPTO 65,864 65,864
FACILITY.
Navy JAPAN Iwakuni KC-130J ENLISTED 21,860 21,860
AIRCREW TRAINER
FACILITY.
Navy MAINE Kittery PAINT, BLAST, AND 61,692 61,692
RUBBER FACILITY.
Navy NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune BACHELOR ENLISTED 37,983 37,983
QUARTERS.
Navy NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune WATER TREATMENT PLANT 65,784 65,784
REPLACEMENT HADNOT PT.
Navy NORTH CAROLINA Marine Corps Air F-35B VERTICAL LIFT FAN 15,671 15,671
Station Cherry Point TEST FACILITY.
Navy VIRGINIA Dam Neck ISR OPERATIONS FACILITY 29,262 29,262
EXPANSION.
Navy VIRGINIA Joint Expeditionary Base ACU-4 ELECTRICAL 2,596 2,596
Little Creek--Story UPGRADES.
Navy VIRGINIA Norfolk CHAMBERS FIELD MAGAZINE 34,665 34,665
RECAP PH 1.
Navy VIRGINIA Portsmouth SHIP REPAIR TRAINING 72,990 72,990
FACILITY.
Navy VIRGINIA Yorktown BACHELOR ENLISTED 36,358 36,358
QUARTERS.
Navy WASHINGTON Indian Island MISSILE MAGAZINES...... 44,440 44,440
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 219,069 219,069
Locations
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS: 0 -10,000 -10,000
Locations UNSPECIFIED MINOR
CONSTRUCTION.
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 23,842 23,842
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Military Construction, Navy Total 1,616,665 58,320 1,674,985
.................................. ........................
AF ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A ADAL CONVENTIONAL 2,500 2,500
MUNITIONS FACILITY.
AF ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A AGE FACILITY / 21,000 21,000
FILLSTAND.
AF ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A CONSOLIDATED 27,000 27,000
MUNITIONS ADMIN
FACILITY.
AF ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A EXTEND UTILIDUCT 48,000 48,000
TO SOUTH LOOP.
AF ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A OSS/WEAPONS/INTEL 11,800 11,800
FACILITY.
AF ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A R-11 FUEL TRUCK 9,600 9,600
SHELTER.
AF ALASKA Eielson AFB F-35A SATELLITE DINING 8,000 8,000
FACILITY.
AF ALASKA Eielson AFB REPAIR CENTRAL HEAT/ 41,000 41,000
POWER PLANT BOILER PH
4.
AF AUSTRALIA Darwin APR--BULK FUEL STORAGE 76,000 76,000
TANKS.
AF CALIFORNIA Travis Air Force Base KC-46A ADAL B14 FUEL 0 1,400 1,400
CELL HANGAR.
AF CALIFORNIA Travis Air Force Base KC-46A AIRCRAFT 3-BAY 0 107,000 107,000
MAINTENANCE HANGAR.
AF CALIFORNIA Travis Air Force Base KC-46A ALTER B181/185/ 0 6,400 6,400
187 SQUAD OPS/AMU.
AF CALIFORNIA Travis Air Force Base KC-46A ALTER B811 0 7,700 7,700
CORROSION CONTROL
HANGAR.
AF COLORADO Buckley Air Force Base SBIRS OPERATIONS 38,000 38,000
FACILITY.
AF COLORADO Fort Carson, Colorado 13 ASOS EXPANSION...... 13,000 13,000
AF COLORADO U.S. Air Force Academy AIR FORCE CYBERWORX.... 30,000 30,000
AF FLORIDA Eglin AFB F-35A ARMAMENT RESEARCH 8,700 8,700
FAC ADDITION (B614).
AF FLORIDA Eglin AFB LONG-RANGE STAND-OFF 38,000 38,000
ACQUISITION FAC.
AF FLORIDA Eglin AFB DORMITORIES (288 RM)... 0 44,000 44,000
AF FLORIDA MacDill AFB KC-135 BEDDOWN OG/MXG 8,100 8,100
HQ.
AF FLORIDA Tyndall Air Force Base FIRE STATION........... 0 17,000 17,000
AF GEORGIA Robins AFB COMMERCIAL VEHICLE 9,800 9,800
VISITOR CONTROL
FACILITY.
AF ITALY Aviano AB GUARDIAN ANGEL 27,325 -27,325 0
OPERATIONS FACILITY.
AF KANSAS McConnell AFB COMBAT ARMS FACILITY... 17,500 17,500
AF MARIANA ISLANDS Tinian APR LAND ACQUISITION... 12,900 12,900
AF MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews PAR LAND ACQUISITION... 17,500 17,500
AF MARYLAND Joint Base Andrews PRESIDENTIAL AIRCRAFT 254,000 -130,000 124,000
RECAP COMPLEX.
AF MASSACHUSETTS Hanscom AFB VANDENBERG GATE COMPLEX 11,400 11,400
AF NEVADA Nellis AFB RED FLAG 5TH GEN 23,000 23,000
FACILITY ADDITION.
AF NEVADA Nellis AFB VIRTUAL WARFARE CENTER 38,000 38,000
OPERATIONS FACILITY.
AF NEW JERSEY McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst KC-46A ADAL B1749 FOR 0 2,000 2,000
ATGL & LST SERVICING.
AF NEW JERSEY McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst KC-46A ADAL B1816 FOR 0 6,900 6,900
SUPPLY.
AF NEW JERSEY McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst KC-46A ADAL B2319 FOR 0 6,100 6,100
BOOM OPERATOR TRAINER.
AF NEW JERSEY McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst KC-46A ADAL B2324 0 18,000 18,000
REGIONAL MX TRAINING
FAC.
AF NEW JERSEY McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst KC-46A ADAL B3209 FOR 0 3,300 3,300
FUSELAGE TRAINER.
AF NEW JERSEY McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst KC-46A ADD TO B1837 FOR 0 2,300 2,300
BODY TANKS STORAGE.
AF NEW JERSEY McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst KC-46A AEROSPACE GROUND 0 4,100 4,100
EQUIPMENT STORAGE.
AF NEW JERSEY McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst KC-46A ALTER APRON & 0 17,000 17,000
FUEL HYDRANTS.
AF NEW JERSEY McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst KC-46A ALTER BLDGS FOR 0 9,000 9,000
OPS AND TFI AMU-AMXS.
AF NEW JERSEY McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst KC-46A ALTER FACILITIES 0 5,800 5,800
FOR MAINTENANCE.
AF NEW JERSEY McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst KC-46A TWO-BAY GENERAL 0 72,000 72,000
PURPOSE MAINTENANCE
HANGER.
AF NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB DANGEROUS CARGO PAD 42,000 42,000
RELOCATE CATM.
AF NEW MEXICO Holloman AFB RPA FIXED GROUND 4,250 4,250
CONTROL STATION
FACILITY.
AF NEW MEXICO Kirtland Air Force Base FIRE STATION........... 0 9,300 9,300
AF NORTH DAKOTA Minot AFB INDOOR FIRING RANGE.... 27,000 27,000
AF OKLAHOMA Altus AFB KC-46A FTU FUSELAGE 4,900 4,900
TRAINER PHASE 2.
AF QATAR Al Udeid CONSOLIDATED SQUADRON 15,000 -15,000 0
OPERATIONS FACILITY.
AF TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 10,000 10,000
TOWER.
AF TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio BMT CLASSROOMS/DINING 38,000 38,000
FACILITY 4.
AF TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio BMT RECRUIT DORMITORY 7 90,130 90,130
AF TEXAS Joint Base San Antonio CAMP BULLIS DINING 18,500 18,500
FACILITY.
AF TURKEY Incirlik AB DORMITORY--216 PN...... 25,997 -25,997 0
AF UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force Fairford EIC RC-135 2,150 2,150
INFRASTRUCTURE.
AF UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force Fairford EIC RC-135 INTEL AND 38,000 38,000
SQUAD OPS FACILITY.
AF UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force Fairford EIC RC-135 RUNWAY 5,500 5,500
OVERRUN
RECONFIGURATION.
AF UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force CONSOLIDATED CORROSION 20,000 20,000
Lakenheath CONTROL FACILITY.
AF UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A 6-BAY HANGAR..... 24,000 24,000
Lakenheath
AF UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A F-15 PARKING..... 10,800 10,800
Lakenheath
AF UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A FIELD TRAINING 12,492 12,492
Lakenheath DETACHMENT FACILITY.
AF UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A FLIGHT SIMULATOR 22,000 22,000
Lakenheath FACILITY.
AF UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A INFRASTRUCTURE... 6,700 6,700
Lakenheath
AF UNITED KINGDOM Royal Air Force F-35A SQUADRON 41,000 41,000
Lakenheath OPERATIONS AND AMU.
AF UTAH Hill AFB UTTR CONSOLIDATED 28,000 28,000
MISSION CONTROL CENTER.
AF WORLDWIDE Unspecified Worldwide KC-46A MAIN OPERATING 269,000 -269,000 0
Locations BASE 4.
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 97,852 97,852
Locations
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Various Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 31,400 31,400
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
AF WYOMING F. E. Warren AFB CONSOLIDATED HELO/TRF 62,000 62,000
OPS/AMU AND ALERT FAC.
Military Construction, Air Force Total 1,738,796 -128,022 1,610,774
.................................. ........................
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton AMBULATORY CARE CENTER 26,400 26,400
REPLACEMENT.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton SOF MARINE BATTALION 9,958 9,958
COMPANY/TEAM
FACILITIES.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Camp Pendleton SOF MOTOR TRANSPORT 7,284 7,284
FACILITY EXPANSION.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF BASIC TRAINING 96,077 96,077
COMMAND.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF LOGISTICS SUPPORT 46,175 46,175
UNIT ONE OPS FAC. #3.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF SEAL TEAM OPS 66,218 66,218
FACILITY.
Def-Wide CALIFORNIA Coronado SOF SEAL TEAM OPS 50,265 50,265
FACILITY.
Def-Wide COLORADO Schriever AFB AMBULATORY CARE CENTER/ 10,200 10,200
DENTAL ADD./ALT..
Def-Wide CONUS CLASSIFIED Classified Location BATTALION COMPLEX, PH 1 64,364 64,364
Def-Wide FLORIDA Eglin AFB SOF SIMULATOR FACILITY. 5,000 5,000
Def-Wide FLORIDA Eglin AFB UPGRADE OPEN STORAGE 4,100 4,100
YARD.
Def-Wide FLORIDA Hurlburt Field SOF COMBAT AIRCRAFT 34,700 34,700
PARKING APRON.
Def-Wide FLORIDA Hurlburt Field SOF SIMULATOR & 11,700 11,700
FUSELAGE TRAINER
FACILITY.
Def-Wide GEORGIA Fort Gordon BLOOD DONOR CENTER 10,350 10,350
REPLACEMENT.
Def-Wide GERMANY Rhine Ordnance Barracks MEDICAL CENTER 106,700 106,700
REPLACEMENT INCR 7.
Def-Wide GERMANY Spangdahlem AB SPANGDAHLEM ELEMENTARY 79,141 79,141
SCHOOL REPLACEMENT.
Def-Wide GERMANY Stuttgart ROBINSON BARRACKS ELEM. 46,609 46,609
SCHOOL REPLACEMENT.
Def-Wide GREECE Souda Bay CONSTRUCT HYDRANT 18,100 18,100
SYSTEM.
Def-Wide GUAM Andersen AFB CONSTRUCT TRUCK LOAD & 23,900 23,900
UNLOAD FACILITY.
Def-Wide HAWAII Kunia NSAH KUNIA TUNNEL 5,000 5,000
ENTRANCE.
Def-Wide ITALY Sigonella CONSTRUCT HYDRANT 22,400 -22,400 0
SYSTEM.
Def-Wide ITALY Vicenza VICENZA HIGH SCHOOL 62,406 62,406
REPLACEMENT.
Def-Wide JAPAN Iwakuni CONSTRUCT BULK STORAGE 30,800 30,800
TANKS PH 1.
Def-Wide JAPAN Kadena AB SOF MAINTENANCE HANGAR. 3,972 3,972
Def-Wide JAPAN Kadena AB SOF SPECIAL TACTICS 27,573 27,573
OPERATIONS FACILITY.
Def-Wide JAPAN Okinawa REPLACE MOORING SYSTEM. 11,900 11,900
Def-Wide JAPAN Sasebo UPGRADE FUEL WHARF..... 45,600 45,600
Def-Wide JAPAN Torri Commo Station SOF TACTICAL EQUIPMENT 25,323 25,323
MAINTENANCE Facility.
Def-Wide JAPAN Yokota AB AIRFIELD APRON......... 10,800 10,800
Def-Wide JAPAN Yokota AB HANGAR/AIRCRAFT 12,034 12,034
MAINTENANCE UNIT.
Def-Wide JAPAN Yokota AB OPERATIONS AND 8,590 8,590
WAREHOUSE FACILITIES.
Def-Wide JAPAN Yokota AB SIMULATOR FACILITY..... 2,189 2,189
Def-Wide MARYLAND Bethesda Naval Hospital MEDICAL CENTER ADDITION/ 123,800 123,800
ALTERATION INCR 2.
Def-Wide MARYLAND Fort Meade NSAW RECAPITALIZE 313,968 313,968
BUILDING #2 INCR 3.
Def-Wide MISSOURI Fort Leonard Wood BLOOD PROCESSING CENTER 11,941 -11,941 0
REPLACEMENT.
Def-Wide MISSOURI Fort Leonard Wood HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT... 250,000 -100,000 150,000
Def-Wide MISSOURI St Louis NEXT NGA WEST (N2W) 381,000 -181,000 200,000
COMPLEX.
Def-Wide NEW MEXICO Cannon AFB SOF C-130 AGE FACILITY. 8,228 8,228
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune AMBULATORY CARE CENTER 15,300 15,300
ADDITION/ALTERATION.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune AMBULATORY CARE CENTER/ 21,400 21,400
DENTAL CLINIC.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune AMBULATORY CARE CENTER/ 22,000 22,000
DENTAL CLINIC.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune SOF HUMAN PERFORMANCE 10,800 10,800
TRAINING CENTER.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Camp Lejeune SOF MOTOR TRANSPORT 20,539 20,539
MAINTENANCE EXPANSION.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF HUMAN PERFORMANCE 20,260 20,260
TRAINING Center.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF SUPPORT BATTALION 13,518 13,518
ADMIN FACILITY.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF TACTICAL EQUIPMENT 20,000 20,000
MAINTENANCE FACILITY.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Fort Bragg SOF TELECOMM 4,000 4,000
RELIABILITY
IMPROVEMENTS.
Def-Wide NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB CONSTRUCT TANKER TRUCK 20,000 20,000
DELIVERY SYSTEM.
Def-Wide PUERTO RICO Punta Borinquen RAMEY UNIT SCHOOL 61,071 61,071
REPLACEMENT.
Def-Wide SOUTH CAROLINA Shaw AFB CONSOLIDATE FUEL 22,900 22,900
FACILITIES.
Def-Wide TEXAS Fort Bliss BLOOD PROCESSING CENTER 8,300 -8,300 0
Def-Wide TEXAS Fort Bliss HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT 251,330 251,330
INCR 8.
Def-Wide UNITED KINGDOM Menwith Hill Station RAFMH MAIN GATE 11,000 11,000
REHABILITATION.
Def-Wide UTAH Hill AFB REPLACE POL FACILITIES. 20,000 20,000
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Joint Expeditionary Base SOF SATEC RANGE 23,000 23,000
Little Creek--Story EXPANSION.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Norfolk REPLACE HAZARDOUS 18,500 18,500
MATERIALS WAREHOUSE.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon PENTAGON CORR 8 8,140 8,140
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
CONTROL PT.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon S.E. SAFETY TRAFFIC AND 28,700 28,700
PARKING IMPROVEMENTS.
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Pentagon SECURITY UPDATES....... 13,260 13,260
Def-Wide VIRGINIA Portsmouth REPLACE HAZARDOUS 22,500 22,500
MATERIALS WAREHOUSE.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide CONTINGENCY 10,000 -10,000 0
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ENERGY RESILIENCE AND 150,000 150,000
Locations CONSERV. INVEST. PROG..
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERCIP DESIGN........... 10,000 10,000
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide EXERCISE RELATED MINOR 11,490 11,490
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING & DESIGN...... 23,012 23,012
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING & DESIGN MDA 0 10,000 10,000
Locations EAST COAST SITE.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 26,147 26,147
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 39,746 39,746
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 1,942 1,942
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 1,150 1,150
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 40,220 40,220
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 20,000 20,000
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 13,500 13,500
Locations
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS: 0 -27,440 -27,440
Locations DEFENSE WIDE
UNSPECIFIED MINOR
CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 3,000 3,000
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 7,384 7,384
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 3,000 3,000
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 3,000 3,000
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 8,000 8,000
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 2,039 2,039
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 10,000 10,000
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Military Construction, Defense-Wide Total 3,114,913 -351,081 2,763,832
.................................. ........................
NATO WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED NATO Security Investment NATO SECURITY 154,000 23,932 177,932
Program INVESTMENT PROGRAM.
NATO WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED NATO Security Investment PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS: 0 -25,000 -25,000
Program NATO SECURITY
INVESTMENT PROGRAM.
NATO Security Investment Program Total 154,000 -1,068 152,932
.................................. ........................
Army NG DELAWARE New Castle COMBINED SUPPORT 36,000 36,000
MAINTENANCE SHOP.
Army NG IDAHO MTC Gowen ENLISTED BARRACKS 0 9,000 9,000
TRANSIENT TRAINING.
Army NG IDAHO Orchard Training Area DIGITAL AIR/GROUND 22,000 22,000
INTEGRATION RANGE.
Army NG MAINE Presque Isle NATIONAL GUARD 17,500 17,500
READINESS CENTER.
Army NG MARYLAND Sykesville NATIONAL GUARD 19,000 19,000
READINESS CENTER.
Army NG MINNESOTA Arden Hills NATIONAL GUARD 39,000 39,000
READINESS CENTER.
Army NG MISSOURI Springfield AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE 0 32,000 32,000
CENTER.
Army NG NEW MEXICO Las Cruces NATIONAL GUARD 8,600 8,600
READINESS CENTER
ADDITION.
Army NG VIRGINIA Fort Belvoir READINESS CENTER ADD/ 0 15,000 15,000
ALT.
Army NG VIRGINIA Fort Pickett TRAINING AIDS CENTER... 4,550 4,550
Army NG WASHINGTON Turnwater NATIONAL GUARD 31,000 31,000
READINESS CENTER.
Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 16,271 16,271
Locations
Army NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 16,731 16,731
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Military Construction, Army National Guard Total 210,652 56,000 266,652
.................................. ........................
Army Res CALIFORNIA Fallbrook ARMY RESERVE CENTER.... 36,000 36,000
Army Res PUERTO RICO Aguadilla ARMY RESERVE CENTER.... 12,400 12,400
Army Res PUERTO RICO Fort Buchanan RESERVE CENTER......... 0 26,000 26,000
Army Res WASHINGTON Lewis-McCord RESERVE CENTER......... 0 30,000 30,000
Army Res WISCONSIN Fort McCoy AT/MOB DINING FACILITY- 13,000 13,000
1428 PN.
Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 6,887 6,887
Locations
Army Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 5,425 5,425
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Military Construction, Army Reserve Total 73,712 56,000 129,712
.................................. ........................
N/MC Res CALIFORNIA Lemoore NAVAL OPERATIONAL 17,330 17,330
SUPPORT CENTER LEMOORE.
N/MC Res GEORGIA Fort Gordon NAVAL OPERATIONAL 17,797 17,797
SUPPORT CENTER FORT
GORDON.
N/MC Res NEW JERSEY Joint Base McGuire-Dix- AIRCRAFT APRON, TAXIWAY 11,573 11,573
Lakehurst & SUPPORT FACILITIES.
N/MC Res TEXAS Fort Worth KC130-J EACTS FACILITY. 12,637 12,637
N/MC Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING & DESIGN...... 4,430 4,430
Locations
N/MC Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 1,504 1,504
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Military Construction, Naval Reserve Total 65,271 0 65,271
.................................. ........................
Air NG CALIFORNIA March AFB TFI CONSTRUCT RPA 15,000 15,000
FLIGHT TRAINING UNIT.
Air NG COLORADO Peterson AFB SPACE CONTROL FACILITY. 8,000 8,000
Air NG CONNECTICUT Bradley IAP CONSTRUCT BASE ENTRY 7,000 7,000
COMPLEX.
Air NG INDIANA Fort Wayne International ADD TO BUILDING 764 FOR 0 1,900 1,900
Airport WEAPONS RELEASE.
Air NG INDIANA Hulman Regional Airport CONSTRUCT SMALL ARMS 0 8,000 8,000
RANGE.
Air NG KENTUCKY Louisville IAP ADD/ALTER RESPONSE 9,000 9,000
FORCES FACILITY.
Air NG MISSISSIPPI Jackson International CONSTRUCT SMALL ARMS 0 8,000 8,000
Airport RANGE.
Air NG MISSOURI Rosecrans Memorial REPLACE COMMUNICATIONS 10,000 10,000
Airport FACILITY.
Air NG NEW YORK Hancock Field ADD TO FLIGHT TRAINING 6,800 6,800
UNIT, BUILDING 641.
Air NG OHIO Rickenbacker CONSTRUCT SMALL ARMS 0 8,000 8,000
International Airport RANGE.
Air NG OHIO Toledo Express Airport NORTHCOM--CONSTRUCT 15,000 15,000
ALERT HANGAR.
Air NG OKLAHOMA Tulsa International CONSTRUCT SMALL ARMS 0 8,000 8,000
Airport RANGE.
Air NG OREGON Klamath Falls IAP CONSTRUCT CORROSION 10,500 10,500
CONTROL HANGAR.
Air NG OREGON Klamath Falls IAP CONSTRUCT INDOOR RANGE. 8,000 8,000
Air NG SOUTH DAKOTA Joe Foss Field AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE 12,000 12,000
SHOPS.
Air NG TENNESSEE McGhee-Tyson Airport REPLACE KC-135 25,000 25,000
MAINTENANCE HANGAR AND
SHOPS.
Air NG WISCONSIN Dane County Regional CONSTRUCT SMALL ARMS 0 8,000 8,000
Airport/Truax Field RANGE.
Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING AND DESIGN.... 18,000 18,000
Locations
Air NG WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 17,191 17,191
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Military Construction, Air National Guard Total 161,491 41,900 203,391
.................................. ........................
AF Res FLORIDA Patrick AFB GUARDIAN ANGEL FACILITY 25,000 25,000
AF Res GEORGIA Robins Air Force Base CONSOLIDATED MISSION 0 32,000 32,000
COMPLEX PHASE 2.
AF Res GUAM Joint Region Marianas RESERVE MEDICAL 5,200 5,200
TRAINING FACILITY.
AF Res HAWAII Joint Base Pearl Harbor- CONSOLIDATED TRAINING 5,500 5,500
Hickam FACILITY.
AF Res MASSACHUSETTS Westover ARB INDOOR SMALL ARMS RANGE 10,000 10,000
AF Res MINNESOTA Minneapolis-St Paul IAP INDOOR SMALL ARMS RANGE 0 9,000 9,000
AF Res NORTH CAROLINA Seymour Johnson AFB KC-46A ADAL FOR ALT 6,400 6,400
MISSION STORAGE.
AF Res TEXAS NAS JRB Fort Worth MUNITIONS TRAINING/ 0 3,100 3,100
ADMIN FACILITY.
AF Res UTAH Hill AFB ADD/ALTER LIFE SUPPORT 3,100 3,100
FACILITY.
AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING & DESIGN...... 4,725 4,725
Locations
AF Res WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNSPECIFIED MINOR 3,610 3,610
Locations CONSTRUCTION.
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve Total 63,535 44,100 107,635
.................................. ........................
FH Con Army GEORGIA Fort Gordon FAMILY HOUSING NEW 6,100 6,100
CONSTRUCTION.
FH Con Army GERMANY Baumholder CONSTRUCTION 34,156 34,156
IMPROVEMENTS.
FH Con Army GERMANY South Camp Vilseck FAMILY HOUSING NEW 22,445 22,445
CONSTRUCTION (36
UNITS).
FH Con Army KOREA Camp Humphreys FAMILY HOUSING NEW 34,402 34,402
CONSTRUCTION INCR 2.
FH Con Army KWAJALEIN Kwajalein Atoll FAMILY HOUSING 31,000 31,000
REPLACEMENT
CONSTRUCTION.
FH Con Army MASSACHUSETTS Natick FAMILY HOUSING 21,000 21,000
REPLACEMENT
CONSTRUCTION.
FH Con Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING & DESIGN...... 33,559 33,559
Locations
FH Con Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS: 0 -18,000 -18,000
Locations FAMILY HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION, ARMY.
Family Housing Construction, Army Total 182,662 -18,000 164,662
.................................. ........................
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide FURNISHINGS............ 12,816 12,816
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide HOUSING PRIVATIZATION 20,893 20,893
Locations SUPPORT.
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide LEASING................ 148,538 148,538
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MAINTENANCE............ 57,708 57,708
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MANAGEMENT............. 37,089 37,089
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MISCELLANEOUS.......... 400 400
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide SERVICES............... 8,930 8,930
Locations
FH Ops Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UTILITIES.............. 60,251 60,251
Locations
Family Housing Operation And Maintenance, Army Total 346,625 0 346,625
.................................. ........................
FH Con Navy BAHRAIN ISLAND SW Asia CONSTRUCT ON-BASE GFOQ. 2,138 2,138
FH Con Navy MARIANA ISLANDS Guam REPLACE ANDERSEN 40,875 40,875
HOUSING PH II.
FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide CONSTRUCTION 36,251 36,251
Locations IMPROVEMENTS.
FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING & DESIGN...... 4,418 4,418
Locations
FH Con Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS: 0 -8,000 -8,000
Locations FAMILY HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION, N/MC.
Family Housing Construction, Navy And Marine Corps Total 83,682 -8,000 75,682
.................................. ........................
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide FURNISHINGS............ 14,529 14,529
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide HOUSING PRIVATIZATION 27,587 27,587
Locations SUPPORT.
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide LEASING................ 61,921 61,921
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MAINTENANCE............ 95,104 95,104
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MANAGEMENT............. 50,989 50,989
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MISCELLANEOUS.......... 336 336
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide SERVICES............... 15,649 15,649
Locations
FH Ops Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UTILITIES.............. 62,167 62,167
Locations
Family Housing Operation And Maintenance, Navy And Marine Corps Total 328,282 0 328,282
.................................. ........................
FH Con AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide CONSTRUCTION 80,617 80,617
Locations IMPROVEMENTS.
FH Con AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PLANNING & DESIGN...... 4,445 4,445
Locations
FH Con AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS: 0 -20,000 -20,000
Locations FAMILY HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION.
Family Housing Construction, Air Force Total 85,062 -20,000 65,062
.................................. ........................
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide FURNISHINGS............ 29,424 29,424
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide HOUSING PRIVATIZATION.. 21,569 21,569
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide LEASING................ 16,818 16,818
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MAINTENANCE............ 134,189 134,189
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MANAGEMENT............. 53,464 53,464
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MISCELLANEOUS.......... 1,839 1,839
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide SERVICES............... 13,517 13,517
Locations
FH Ops AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UTILITIES.............. 47,504 47,504
Locations
Family Housing Operation And Maintenance, Air Force Total 318,324 0 318,324
.................................. ........................
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide FURNISHINGS............ 407 407
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide FURNISHINGS............ 641 641
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide FURNISHINGS............ 6 6
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide LEASING................ 12,390 12,390
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide LEASING................ 39,716 39,716
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MAINTENANCE............ 567 567
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MAINTENANCE............ 655 655
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide MANAGEMENT............. 319 319
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide SERVICES............... 14 14
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UTILITIES.............. 268 268
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UTILITIES.............. 4,100 4,100
Locations
FH Ops DW WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UTILITIES.............. 86 86
Locations
Family Housing Operation And Maintenance, Defense-Wide Total 59,169 0 59,169
.................................. ........................
FHIF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ADMINISTRATIVE 2,726 2,726
Locations EXPENSES--FHIF.
DOD Family Housing Improvement Fund Total 2,726 0 2,726
.................................. ........................
UHIF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unaccompanied Housing ADMINISTRATIVE 623 623
Improvement Fund EXPENSES--UHIF.
Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund Total 623 0 623
.................................. ........................
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & BASE REALIGNMENT AND 58,000 58,000
Closure, Army CLOSURE.
Base Realignment and Closure--Army Total 58,000 0 58,000
.................................. ........................
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Base Realignment & BASE REALIGNMENT & 93,474 35,000 128,474
Closure, Navy CLOSURE.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-100: PLANNING, 8,428 8,428
Locations DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-101: VARIOUS 23,753 23,753
Locations LOCATIONS.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-138: NAS BRUNSWICK, 647 647
Locations ME.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-157: MCSA KANSAS 40 40
Locations CITY, MO.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-172: NWS SEAL 5,355 5,355
Locations BEACH, CONCORD, CA.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DON-84: JRB WILLOW 4,737 4,737
Locations GROVE & CAMBRIA REG AP.
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide UNDISTRIBUTED.......... 7,210 7,210
Locations
Base Realignment and Closure--Navy Total 143,644 35,000 178,644
.................................. ........................
BRAC WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide DOD BRAC ACTIVITIES-- 54,223 54,223
Locations AIR FORCE.
Base Realignment and Closure--Air Force Total 54,223 0 54,223
.................................. ........................
Total, Military Construction 9,782,451 -197,451 9,585,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 4602. MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (In Thousands of Dollars)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2018 House
Account State/ Country Installation Project Title Request House Change Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army CUBA Guantanamo Bay OCO: BARRACKS.............. 115,000 115,000
Army TURKEY Various Locations FORWARD OPERATING SITE..... 0 6,400 6,400
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERI: PLANNING AND DESIGN... 15,700 15,700
Locations
Army WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide OCO: PLANNING AND DESIGN... 9,000 9,000
Locations
Military Construction, Army Total 139,700 6,400 146,100
........................... ...........................
Navy DJIBOUTI Camp Lemonier AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON 0 13,390 13,390
EXPANSION.
Navy WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERI: PLANNING AND DESIGN... 18,500 18,500
Locations
Military Construction, Navy Total 18,500 13,390 31,890
........................... ...........................
AF ESTONIA Amari Air Base ERI: POL CAPACITY PHASE II. 4,700 4,700
AF ESTONIA Amari Air Base ERI: TACTICAL FIGHTER 9,200 9,200
AIRCRAFT PARKING APRON.
AF HUNGARY Kecskemet AB ERI: AIRFIELD UPGRADES..... 12,900 -12,900 0
AF HUNGARY Kecskemet AB ERI: CONSTRUCT PARALLEL 30,000 -30,000 0
TAXIWAY.
AF HUNGARY Kecskemet AB ERI: INCREASE POL STORAGE 12,500 -12,500 0
CAPACITY.
AF ICELAND Keflavik ERI: AIRFIELD UPGRADES..... 14,400 14,400
AF ITALY Aviano AB GUARDIAN ANGEL OPERATIONS 0 27,325 27,325
FACILITY.
AF JORDAN Azraq OCO: MSAB DEVELOPMENT...... 143,000 143,000
AF LATVIA Lielvarde Air Base ERI: EXPAND STRATEGIC RAMP 3,850 3,850
PARKING.
AF LUXEMBOURG Sanem ERI: ECAOS DEPLOYABLE 67,400 67,400
AIRBASE SYSTEM STORAGE.
AF NORWAY Rygge ERI: REPLACE/EXPAND QUICK 10,300 -10,300 0
REACTION ALERT PAD.
AF QATAR Al Udeid CONSOLIDATION SQUADRON 0 15,000 15,000
OPERATIONS FACILITY.
AF ROMANIA Campia Turzii ERI: UPGRADE UTILITIES 2,950 2,950
INFRASTRUCTURE.
AF SLOVAKIA Malacky ERI: AIRFIELD UPGRADES..... 4,000 -4,000 0
AF SLOVAKIA Malacky ERI: INCREASE POL STORAGE 20,000 -20,000 0
CAPACITY.
AF SLOVAKIA Sliac Airport ERI: AIRFIELD UPGRADES..... 22,000 -22,000 0
AF TURKEY Incirlik AB DORMITORY--216PN........... 0 25,997 25,997
AF TURKEY Incirlik AB OCO: RELOCATE BASE MAIN 14,600 14,600
ACCESS CONTROL POINT.
AF TURKEY Incirlik AB OCO: REPLACE PERIMETER 8,100 8,100
FENCE.
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERI: PLANNING AND DESIGN... 56,630 56,630
Locations
AF WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide OCO--PLANNING AND DESIGN... 41,500 41,500
Locations
Military Construction, Air Force Total 478,030 -43,378 434,652
........................... ...........................
Def-Wide ITALY Sigonella CONSTRUCT HYDRANT SYSTEM... 0 22,400 22,400
Def-Wide WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED Unspecified Worldwide ERI: PLANNING AND DESIGN... 1,900 1,900
Locations
Military Construction, Defense-Wide Total 1,900 22,400 24,300
........................... ...........................
Total, Military Construction 638,130 -1,188 636,942
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House
Program FY 2018 Request House Change Authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Summary By Appropriation
Energy And Water Development, And Related Agencies
Appropriation Summary:
Energy Programs
Nuclear Energy...................................... 133,000 0 133,000
Atomic Energy Defense Activities
National nuclear security administration:
Weapons activities................................ 10,239,344 184,200 10,423,544
Defense nuclear nonproliferation.................. 1,793,310 80,000 1,873,310
Naval reactors.................................... 1,479,751 0 1,479,751
Federal salaries and expenses..................... 418,595 -11,000 407,595
Total, National nuclear security administration..... 13,931,000 253,200 14,184,200
Environmental and other defense activities:
Defense environmental cleanup..................... 5,537,186 70,000 5,607,186
Other defense activities.......................... 815,512 3,000 818,512
Defense nuclear waste disposal.................... 30,000 0 30,000
Total, Environmental & other defense activities..... 6,382,698 73,000 6,455,698
Total, Atomic Energy Defense Activities............... 20,313,698 326,200 20,639,898
Total, Discretionary Funding.............................. 20,446,698 326,200 20,772,898
Nuclear Energy
Idaho sitewide safeguards and security.................. 133,000 133,000
Total, Nuclear Energy..................................... 133,000 0 133,000
Weapons Activities
Directed stockpile work
Life extension programs
B61 Life extension program.......................... 788,572 788,572
W76 Life extension program.......................... 224,134 224,134
W88 Alteration program.............................. 332,292 332,292
W80-4 Life extension program........................ 399,090 399,090
Total, Life extension programs........................ 1,744,088 0 1,744,088
Stockpile systems
B61 Stockpile systems............................... 59,729 59,729
W76 Stockpile systems............................... 51,400 51,400
W78 Stockpile systems............................... 60,100 60,100
W80 Stockpile systems............................... 80,087 80,087
B83 Stockpile systems............................... 35,762 35,762
W87 Stockpile systems............................... 83,200 83,200
W88 Stockpile systems............................... 131,576 131,576
Total, Stockpile systems.............................. 501,854 0 501,854
Weapons dismantlement and disposition
Operations and maintenance.......................... 52,000 52,000
Stockpile services
Production support.................................. 470,400 470,400
Research and development support.................... 31,150 31,150
R&D certification and safety........................ 196,840 196,840
Management, technology, and production.............. 285,400 285,400
Total, Stockpile services............................. 983,790 0 983,790
Strategic materials
Uranium sustainment................................. 20,579 20,579
Plutonium sustainment............................... 210,367 210,367
Tritium sustainment................................. 198,152 198,152
Domestic uranium enrichment......................... 60,000 60,000
Strategic materials sustainment..................... 206,196 206,196
Total, Strategic materials............................ 695,294 0 695,294
Total, Directed stockpile work.......................... 3,977,026 0 3,977,026
Research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E)
Science
Advanced certification.............................. 57,710 57,710
Primary assessment technologies..................... 89,313 89,313
Dynamic materials properties........................ 122,347 122,347
Advanced radiography................................ 37,600 37,600
Secondary assessment technologies................... 76,833 -2,000 74,833
Program decrease.................................. [-2,000]
Academic alliances and partnerships................. 52,963 52,963
Enhanced Capabilities for Subcritical Experiments... 50,755 50,755
Total, Science........................................ 487,521 -2,000 485,521
Engineering
Enhanced surety..................................... 39,717 39,717
Weapon systems engineering assessment technology.... 23,029 23,029
Nuclear survivability............................... 45,230 4,000 49,230
Program increase.................................. [4,000]
Enhanced surveillance............................... 45,147 45,147
Stockpile Responsiveness............................ 40,000 40,000
Total, Engineering ................................... 193,123 4,000 197,123
Inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield
Ignition............................................ 79,575 -3,000 76,575
Program decrease.................................. [-3,000]
Support of other stockpile programs................. 23,565 23,565
Diagnostics, cryogenics and experimental support.... 77,915 77,915
Pulsed power inertial confinement fusion............ 7,596 7,596
Joint program in high energy density laboratory 9,492 9,492
plasmas............................................
Facility operations and target production........... 334,791 -3,000 331,791
Program decrease.................................. [-3,000]
Total, Inertial confinement fusion and high yield..... 532,934 -6,000 526,934
Advanced simulation and computing
Advanced simulation and computing................... 709,244 709,244
Construction:
18-D-670, Exascale Class Computer Cooling 22,000 22,000
Equipment, LNL...................................
18-D-620, Exascale Computing Facility 3,000 3,000
Modernization Project............................
Total, Construction................................. 25,000 0 25,000
Total, Advanced simulation and computing.............. 734,244 0 734,244
Advanced manufacturing
Additive manufacturing.............................. 12,000 12,000
Component manufacturing development................. 38,644 38,644
Processing technology development................... 29,896 29,896
Total, Advanced manufacturing......................... 80,540 0 80,540
Total, RDT&E............................................ 2,028,362 -4,000 2,024,362
Infrastructure and operations (formerly RTBF)
Operations of facilities.............................. 868,000 868,000
Safety and environmental operations................... 116,000 116,000
Maintenance and repair of facilities.................. 360,000 35,000 395,000
Program increase to address high-priority [35,000]
preventative maintenance through FIRRP.............
Recapitalization...................................... 427,342 115,000 542,342
Program increase to address high-priority deferred [115,000]
maintenance through FIRRP..........................
Construction:
18-D-670, Material Staging Facility, PX............. 0 5,200 5,200
Project initiation................................ [5,200]
18-D-660, Fire Station, Y-12........................ 28,000 28,000
18-D-650, Tritium Production Capability, SRS........ 6,800 6,800
17-D-640 U1a Complex Enhancements Project, NNSS..... 22,100 22,100
17-D-630 Expand Electrical Distribution System, LLNL 6,000 6,000
16-D-515 Albuquerque complex project................ 98,000 98,000
15-D-613 Emergency Operations Center, Y-12.......... 7,000 7,000
07-D-220 Radioactive liquid waste treatment facility 2,100 2,100
upgrade project, LANL..............................
07-D-220-04 Transuranic liquid waste facility, LANL. 17,895 17,895
06-D-141 Uranium processing facility Y-12, Oak 663,000 663,000
Ridge, TN..........................................
04-D-125 Chemistry and metallurgy research facility 180,900 180,900
replacement project, LANL..........................
Total, Construction................................... 1,031,795 5,200 1,036,995
Total, Infrastructure and operations.................... 2,803,137 155,200 2,958,337
Secure transportation asset
Operations and equipment.............................. 219,464 219,464
Program direction..................................... 105,600 105,600
Total, Secure transportation asset...................... 325,064 0 325,064
Defense nuclear security
Operations and maintenance............................ 686,977 33,000 719,977
Support to physical security infrastructure [33,000]
recapitalization and CSTART........................
Total, Defense nuclear security......................... 686,977 33,000 719,977
Information technology and cybersecurity................ 186,728 186,728
Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 232,050 232,050
Total, Weapons Activities................................. 10,239,344 184,200 10,423,544
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs
Global material security
International nuclear security...................... 46,339 46,339
Radiological security............................... 146,340 146,340
Nuclear smuggling detection......................... 144,429 -5,000 139,429
Program decrease.................................. [-5,000]
Total, Global material security....................... 337,108 -5,000 332,108
Material management and minimization
HEU reactor conversion.............................. 125,500 125,500
Nuclear material removal............................ 32,925 5,000 37,925
Acceleration of priority programs.......... [5,000]
Material disposition................................ 173,669 173,669
Total, Material management & minimization............. 332,094 5,000 337,094
Nonproliferation and arms control..................... 129,703 129,703
Defense nuclear nonproliferation R&D.................. 446,095 5,000 451,095
Acceleration of low-yield detection experiments [5,000]
and 3D printing efforts........................
Nonproliferation Construction:
18-D-150 Surplus Plutonium Disposition Project...... 9,000 9,000
99-D-143 Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication 270,000 70,000 340,000
Facility, SRS......................................
Program increase........................... [70,000]
Total, Nonproliferation construction.................. 279,000 70,000 349,000
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Programs........ 1,524,000 75,000 1,599,000
Low Enriched Uranium R&D for Naval Reactors............. 0 5,000 5,000
Direct support to low-enriched uranium R&D for Naval [5,000]
Reactors.............................................
Legacy contractor pensions.............................. 40,950 40,950
Nuclear counterterrorism and incident response program.. 277,360 277,360
Rescission of prior year balances....................... -49,000 -49,000
Total, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation................... 1,793,310 80,000 1,873,310
Naval Reactors
Naval reactors development.............................. 473,267 473,267
Columbia-Class reactor systems development.............. 156,700 156,700
S8G Prototype refueling................................. 190,000 190,000
Naval reactors operations and infrastructure............ 466,884 466,884
Construction:
15-D-904 NRF Overpack Storage Expansion 3............. 13,700 13,700
15-D-903 KL Fire System Upgrade....................... 15,000 15,000
14-D-901 Spent fuel handling recapitalization project, 116,000 116,000
NRF..................................................
Total, Construction..................................... 144,700 0 144,700
Program direction....................................... 48,200 48,200
Total, Naval Reactors..................................... 1,479,751 0 1,479,751
Federal Salaries And Expenses
Program direction....................................... 418,595 -11,000 407,595
Program decrease to support maximum of 1,690 employees [-11,000]
Total, Office Of The Administrator........................ 418,595 -11,000 407,595
Defense Environmental Cleanup
Closure sites:
Closure sites administration.......................... 4,889 4,889
Hanford site:
River corridor and other cleanup operations........... 58,692 35,000 93,692
Acceleration of priority programs............ [35,000]
Central plateau remediation........................... 637,879 8,000 645,879
Acceleration of priority programs............ [8,000]
Richland community and regulatory support............. 5,121 5,121
Construction:
18-D-404 WESF Modifications and Capsule Storage..... 6,500 6,500
15-D-401 Containerized sludge removal annex, RL..... 8,000 8,000
Total, Construction................................... 14,500 0 14,500
Total, Hanford site..................................... 716,192 43,000 759,192
Idaho National Laboratory:
SNF stabilization and disposition--2012............... 19,975 19,975
Solid waste stabilization and disposition............. 170,101 170,101
Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 111,352 111,352
disposition..........................................
Soil and water remediation--2035...................... 44,727 44,727
Idaho community and regulatory support................ 4,071 4,071
Total, Idaho National Laboratory........................ 350,226 0 350,226
NNSA sites
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory................ 1,175 1,175
Separations Process Research Unit..................... 1,800 1,800
Nevada................................................ 60,136 60,136
Sandia National Laboratories.......................... 2,600 2,600
Los Alamos National Laboratory........................ 191,629 191,629
Total, NNSA sites and Nevada off-sites.................. 257,340 0 257,340
Oak Ridge Reservation:
OR Nuclear facility D & D
OR-0041--D&D - Y-12................................. 29,369 29,369
OR-0042--D&D -ORNL.................................. 48,110 48,110
Construction:
17-D-401 On-site waste disposal facility.......... 5,000 5,000
14-D-403 Outfall 200 Mercury Treatment facility... 17,100 17,100
Total, OR Nuclear facility D & D...................... 82,479 0 82,479
U233 Disposition Program.............................. 33,784 33,784
OR cleanup and disposition.......................... 66,632 66,632
OR reservation community and regulatory support..... 4,605 4,605
OR Solid waste stabilization and disposition 3,000 3,000
technology development.............................
Total, Oak Ridge Reservation............................ 207,600 0 207,600
Office of River Protection:
Waste treatment and immobilization plant
Construction:
01-D-416 A-D WTP Subprojects A-D............... 655,000 655,000
01-D-416 E--Pretreatment Facility.............. 35,000 35,000
Total, 01-D-416 Construction........................ 690,000 0 690,000
WTP Commissioning...................... 8,000 8,000
Total, Waste treatment and immobilization plant....... 698,000 0 698,000
Tank farm activities
Rad liquid tank waste stabilization and disposition. 713,311 713,311
Construction:
15-D-409 Low activity waste pretreatment system, 93,000 93,000
ORP..............................................
Total, Tank farm activities........................... 806,311 0 806,311
Total, Office of River protection....................... 1,504,311 0 1,504,311
Savannah River Sites:
Nuclear Material Management........................... 323,482 27,000 350,482
Acceleration of priority programs............ [27,000]
Environmental Cleanup
Environmental Cleanup............................... 159,478 159,478
Construction:
08-D-402, Emergency Operations Center............. 500 500
Total, Environmental Cleanup.......................... 159,978 0 159,978
SR community and regulatory support................... 11,249 11,249
Radioactive liquid tank waste:
Radioactive liquid tank waste stabilization and 597,258 597,258
disposition........................................
Construction:
18-D-401, SDU #8/9................................ 500 500
17-D-402--Saltstone Disposal Unit #7.............. 40,000 40,000
05-D-405 Salt waste processing facility, Savannah 150,000 150,000
River Site.......................................
Total, Construction................................. 190,500 0 190,500
Total, Radioactive liquid tank waste.................. 787,758 0 787,758
Total, Savannah River site.............................. 1,282,467 27,000 1,309,467
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Operations and maintenance............................ 206,617 206,617
Central characterization project...................... 22,500 22,500
Transportation........................................ 21,854 21,854
Construction:
15-D-411 Safety significant confinement ventilation 46,000 46,000
system, WIPP.......................................
15-D-412 Exhaust shaft, WIPP........................ 19,600 19,600
Total, Construction................................... 65,600 0 65,600
Total, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant...................... 316,571 0 316,571
Program direction....................................... 300,000 300,000
Program support......................................... 6,979 6,979
WCF Mission Related Activities.......................... 22,109 22,109
Minority Serving Institution Partnership................ 6,000 6,000
Safeguards and Security
Oak Ridge Reservation................................. 16,500 16,500
Paducah............................................... 14,049 14,049
Portsmouth............................................ 12,713 12,713
Richland/Hanford Site................................. 75,600 75,600
Savannah River Site................................... 142,314 142,314
Waste Isolation Pilot Project......................... 5,200 5,200
West Valley........................................... 2,784 2,784
Total, Safeguards and Security.......................... 269,160 0 269,160
Cyber Security.......................................... 43,342 43,342
Technology development.................................. 25,000 25,000
HQEF-0040--Excess Facilities............................ 225,000 225,000
Total, Defense Environmental Cleanup...................... 5,537,186 70,000 5,607,186
Other Defense Activities
Environment, health, safety and security
Environment, health, safety and security.............. 130,693 130,693
Program direction..................................... 68,765 68,765
Total, Environment, Health, safety and security......... 199,458 0 199,458
Independent enterprise assessments
Independent enterprise assessments.................... 24,068 24,068
Program direction..................................... 50,863 50,863
Total, Independent enterprise assessments............... 74,931 0 74,931
Specialized security activities......................... 237,912 3,000 240,912
Classified topic...................................... [3,000]
Office of Legacy Management
Legacy management..................................... 137,674 137,674
Program direction..................................... 16,932 16,932
Total, Office of Legacy Management...................... 154,606 0 154,606
Defense-related activities
Defense related administrative support
Chief financial officer............................... 48,484 48,484
Chief information officer............................. 91,443 91,443
Project management oversight and assessments.......... 3,073 3,073
Total, Defense related administrative support........... 143,000 0 143,000
Office of hearings and appeals.......................... 5,605 5,605
Subtotal, Other defense activities........................ 815,512 3,000 818,512
Total, Other Defense Activities........................... 815,512 3,000 818,512
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Yucca mountain and interim storage...................... 30,000 30,000
Total, Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal..................... 30,000 0 30,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
The Department of Defense requested legislation, in
accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by
the correspondence set out below:
May 25, 2017.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find a draft of proposed
legislation, titled the ``National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2018'', which the Department of Defense
requests be enacted during the first session of the 115th
Congress.
The purpose of each provision in the proposed bill is
stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis.
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
E. Peter Giambastiani, III.
Enclosure: As Stated.
------
June 16, 2017.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed please find additional
legislative proposals that the Department of Defense requests
be enacted during the first session of the 115th Congress. The
purpose of each proposal is stated in the accompanying section-
by-section analysis. These proposals are submitted by the
Department as a follow-on to the earlier transmittal of our
request for enactment of proposed legislation titled the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.''
The Department is currently working with the Administration
on additional legislative initiatives, which the Department
hopes to transmit to Congress for its consideration in the
coming weeks.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presenting of these legislative proposals for
your consideration and the consideration of Congress.
Sincerely,
E. Peter Giambastiani, III.
Enclosure: As Stated.
------
COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC, June 29, 2017.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Thornberry: I am writing to you concerning the
bill H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018. There are certain provisions in the
legislation which fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the
Committee on House Administration.
In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed
expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I
am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential
referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving
consideration of the bill the Committee on House Administration
does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject
matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X
jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name
members of this committee to any conference committee which is
named to consider such provisions.
Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.
2810 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative
spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and
others between our respective committees.
Sincerely,
Gregg Harper,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. Gregg Harper,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018. I agree that the Committee on House Administration has
valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to request a referral in the interest of
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing
a sequential referral, the Committee on House Administration is
not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters
will be included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Thornberry: I am writing concerning H.R. 2810, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.
This legislation contains provisions within the Committee
on Agriculture's Rule X jurisdiction. As a result of your
having consulted with the Committee and in order to expedite
this bill for floor consideration, the Committee on Agriculture
will forego action on the bill. This is being done on the basis
of our mutual understanding that doing so will in no way
diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Agriculture with respect to the appointment of conferees, or to
any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters
contained in the bill or similar legislation.
I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming
this understanding, and would request that you include a copy
of this letter and your response in the Committee Report and in
the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of this
bill. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
K. Michael Conaway,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018. I agree that the Committee on Agriculture has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Agriculture is not waiving its jurisdiction.
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the
committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Thornberry: I am writing regarding H.R. 2810, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, which
the Committee on Armed Services ordered reported on June 28,
2017.
The bill contains provisions that fall within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. In order to
expedite House consideration of H.R. 2810, the Committee on the
Budget will forgo action on the bill. This is being done with
the understanding that it does not waive any jurisdiction over
the subject matter contained in H.R. 2810 or similar
legislation and that the Committee will be appropriately
consulted and involved as this bill or similar legislation
moves forward so that the Committee may address any remaining
issues that fall within its jurisdiction. The Committee on the
Budget also reserves the right to seek appointment of an
appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference
involving this or similar legislation and requests your support
of any such request.
I also request that you include this letter and your
response as part of your committee's report on H.R. 2810 and in
the Congressional Record during its consideration on the House
floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. I look
forward to working with you as this bill moves through the
Congress.
Sincerely,
Diane Black,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. Diane Black,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2018. I agree that the Committee on the Budget has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on the Budget is not waiving its jurisdiction.
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the
committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 2810, the ``National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.'' While the legislation
does contain provisions within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee will not
request a sequential referral so that it can proceed
expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.
The Committee takes this action with the understanding that
its jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation
are in no way diminished or altered, and that the Committee
will be appropriately consulted and involved as such
legislation moves forward. The Committee also reserves the
right to seek appointment to any House-Senate conference on
such legislation and requests your support when such a request
is made.
Finally, I would appreciate a response to this letter
confirming this understanding and ask that a copy of our
exchange of letters be included in the Congressional Record
during consideration of H.R. 2810 on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Greg Walden,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. Greg Walden,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018. I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has
valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to request a referral in the interest of
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing
a sequential referral, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is
not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters
will be included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual
understanding with respect to H.R. 2810, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. Thank you for
consulting with the Committee on Education and the Workforce
with regard to H.R. 2810 on those matters within the
Committee's jurisdiction.
In the interest of expediting the House's consideration of
H.R. 2810, the Committee on Education and the Workforce will
forgo further consideration of this bill. However, I do so only
with the understanding this procedural route will not be
construed to prejudice my committee's jurisdictional interest
and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar legislation
and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of
matters of jurisdictional interest to my committee in the
future.
I respectfully request your support for the appointment of
outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the
Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in a
conference with the Senate. I also request you include our
exchange of letters on this matter in the Committee Report on
H.R. 2810 and in the Congressional Record during consideration
of this bill on the House Floor. Thank you for your attention
to these matters.
Sincerely,
Virginia Foxx,
Chairwoman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. Virginia Foxx,
Chairwoman, Committee on Education and the Workforce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Chairwoman: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2018. I agree that the Committee on Education and the
Workforce has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions
in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of
your decision not to request a referral in the interest of
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing
a sequential referral, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this
exchange of letters will be included in the committee report on
the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC, June 30, 2017.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you regarding H.R. 2810,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.
There are certain provisions in the legislation which fall
within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial
Services.
In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed
expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill, I
am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential
referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving
consideration of the bill the Committee on Financial Services
does not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject
matters contained in the bill which fall within its Rule X
jurisdiction. I request that you urge the Speaker to name
members of this committee to any conference committee which is
named to consider such provisions.
Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.
2810 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative
spirit in which you have worked regarding this matter and
others between our respective committees.
Sincerely,
Jeb Hensarling,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. Jeb Hensarling,
Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018. I agree that the Committee on Financial Services has
valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this
important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to request a referral in the interest of
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing
a sequential referral, the Committee on Financial Services is
not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters
will be included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC, June 30, 2017.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 2810, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, which contains
substantial matter that falls within the Rule X legislative
jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I appreciate the
cooperation that allowed us to work out mutually agreeable text
on numerous matters prior to your markup.
Based on that cooperation and our associated
understandings, the Foreign Affairs Committee will not seek a
sequential referral or object to floor consideration of the
bill text approved at your Committee markup. This decision in
no way diminishes or alters the jurisdictional interests of the
Foreign Affairs Committee in this bill, any subsequent
amendments, or similar legislation. I request your support for
the appointment of House Foreign Affairs conferees during any
House-Senate conference on this legislation.
Finally, I respectfully request that you include this
letter and your response in your committee report on the bill
and in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R.
2810 on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Edward R. Royce,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. Edward R. Royce,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018. I agree that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Foreign Affairs is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
Washington, DC, July 3, 2017.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to you concerning H.R. 2810,
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, which
contains provisions within the Rule X jurisdiction of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (``the Committee'').
The Committee recognizes the need for proceeding expeditiously
to Floor consideration of this important bill. Therefore, I do
not intend to request a sequential referral.
This waiver is conditional on our mutual understanding that
my decision to forego Committee consideration of this
legislation does not diminish or otherwise affect any future
claim over the matters in the bill which fall within the
Committee's jurisdiction, and that a copy of this letter and
your response acknowledging the Committee's jurisdictional
interest will be included in the committee report accompanying
H.R. 2810 and submitted into the Congressional Record during
consideration of this bill on the House Floor.
I also intend to seek the appointment of Committee Members
to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and request
your support if such a request is made. Thank you for the
cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this and
other matters between our respective committees.
Sincerely,
Devin Nunes,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. Devin Nunes,
Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018. I agree that the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most
appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the
interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that
by foregoing a sequential referral, the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence is not waiving its jurisdiction.
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the
committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, June 30, 2017.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thornberry: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 2810, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. This legislation
contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on the Judiciary. However, in order to expedite floor
consideration of this important legislation, the committee
waives consideration of the bill.
The Judiciary Committee takes this action only with the
understanding that the committee's jurisdictional interests
over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or
altered.
The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment
to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests
your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would
appreciate your including this letter in your committee report
on this bill and in the Congressional Record during
consideration of H.R. 2810 on the House Floor. Thank you for
your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018. I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on the Judiciary is not waiving its jurisdiction.
Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the
committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, June 29, 2017.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning H.R. 2810, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. That
bill, as ordered reported, contains provisions within the Rule
X jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee, including
those affecting public lands, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Corps, and matters regarding the
Freely Associated States and insular areas of the United
States.
In the interest of permitting you to proceed expeditiously
to floor consideration of this very important bill, I waive
this committee's right to a sequential referral. I do so with
the understanding that the Natural Resources Committee does not
waive any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matter
contained in the bill that fall within its Rule X jurisdiction.
I also request that you urge the Speaker to name members of the
Natural Resources committee to any conference committee to
consider such provisions.
Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.
2810 and into the Congressional Record during consideration of
the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the cooperative
spirit in which you and your staff have worked regarding this
matter and others between our respective committees, and
congratulations on this significant achievement.
Sincerely,
Rob Bishop,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018. I agree that the Committee on Natural Resources has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Natural Resources is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform,
Washington, DC, June 29, 2017.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform in matters being considered in H.R. 2810, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.
Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 2810 and
the need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over the bill, I do
not intend to request a sequential referral. This, of course,
is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this
legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral
waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and that a copy
of this letter and your response acknowledging our
jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee
Report and as part of the Congressional Record during
consideration of this bill by the House.
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform also asks
that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions
over which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate
conference.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Trey Gowdy,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. Trey Gowdy,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018. I agree that the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in
this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your
decision not to request a referral in the interest of
expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing
a sequential referral, the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further,
this exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Small Business,
Washington, DC, June 27, 2017.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thornberry: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 2810, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. This legislation
contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Small Business. However, in order to expedite
floor consideration of this important legislation, the
committee waives consideration of the bill.
The Committee on Small Business takes this action only with
the understanding that the committee's jurisdictional interests
over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or
altered.
The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment
to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests
your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would
appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional
Record during consideration of H.R. 2810 on the House Floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Steve Chabot,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. Steve Chabot,
Chairman, Committee on Small Business,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018. I agree that the Committee on Small Business has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Small Business is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Thornberry: I write concerning H.R. 2810, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, as
amended. There are certain provisions in the legislation that
fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor
consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill.
This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding
that forgoing consideration of the bill does not prejudice the
Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or to
any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters
contained in the bill or similar legislation that fall within
the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. I request you urge the
Speaker to name members of the Committee to any conference
committee named to consider such provisions.
Please place a copy of this letter and your response
acknowledging our jurisdictional interest into the committee
report on H.R. 2810 and into the Congressional Record during
consideration of the measure on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Bill Shuster,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. Bill Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018. I agree that the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most
appreciative of your decision not to request a referral in the
interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that
by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC, June 30, 2017.
Hon. William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Thornberry: I write to confirm our mutual
understanding regarding H.R. 2810, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. This legislation
contains subject matter within the jurisdiction of the
Veterans' Affairs Committee. However, in order to expedite
floor consideration of this important legislation, the
committee waives consideration of the bill.
The Veterans' Affairs Committee takes this action only with
the understanding that the committee's jurisdictional interests
over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or
altered.
The committee also reserves the right to seek appointment
to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests
your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would
appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional
Record during consideration of H.R. 2810 on the House Floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
David P. Roe, M.D.,
Chairman.
------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2017.
Hon. David P. Roe, M.D.,
Chairman, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2018. I agree that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request a referral in the interest of expediting consideration
of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral,
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs is not waiving its
jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be
included in the committee report on the bill.
Sincerely,
William M. ``Mac'' Thornberry,
Chairman.
------
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House
of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
July 5, 2017.
Hon. Mac Thornberry,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
completed a preliminary estimate of the direct spending and
revenue effects of H.R. 2810, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, as ordered reported by
the House Committee on Armed Services on June 28, 2017. This
preliminary estimate is based on the Committee Print 115-23 of
H.R. 2810 that was posted to the website of the House Committee
on Rules on June 30, 2017. CBO's complete cost estimate for
H.R. 2810, including discretionary costs, will be provided
shortly.
Several provisions of the legislation would have
insignificant effects on direct spending over the 2017-2026
period, primarily as a result of changes to military health
care benefits. On a preliminary basis, CBO estimates that in
total enacting H.R. 2810 would increase or decrease net direct
spending by less than $500,000 over the 2018-2027 period.
The bill also would add a specified offense under the
military justice system that CBO expects would increase the
amount of fines and forfeitures of pay, which are classified as
revenues, that are assessed at military courts-martial. Those
increases would total less than $500,000 over the next 10
years, CBO estimates. Because enacting the bill would affect
direct spending and revenues, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is David Newman,
who can be reached at 226-2840.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.
Attachment.
STATEMENT REQUIRED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
Pursuant to clause (3)(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344):
(1) this legislation does not provide budget authority
subject to an allocation made pursuant to section 302(b) of
Public Law 93-344;
(2) the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Estimate included
in this report pursuant to clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives contains CBO's projection
of how this legislation will affect the levels of budget
authority, budget outlays, revenues, and tax expenditures for
fiscal year 2018 and for the ensuring 5 fiscal years; and
(3) the CBO Estimate does not identify any new budget
authority for assistance to state and local governments by this
measure at the time that this report was filed.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(2)(B) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Congressional Budget
Office Estimate included in this report satisfies the
requirement for the committee to include an estimate by the
committee of the costs incurred in carrying out this bill.
ADVISORY OF EARMARKS
The committee finds that H.R. 2810, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, as reported, does not
contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or
limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule XXI of
the Rules of the House of Representatives.
OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, this legislation results from
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The findings
are reflected in the body of this report.
GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the general goal and objective of
H.R. 2810 is to begin the restoration of our national defense,
to prepare the warfighter for the threats of tomorrow as well
as today, and to do so in a fiscally responsible manner.
The world is growing increasingly dangerous. In just the
last year, the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant (ISIL) in the Republic of Iraq and the Syrian Arab
Republic has intensified, the Russian Federation has continued
an aggressive push to destabilize the United States and its
allies, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has
tested increasingly sophisticated ballistic missiles.
Unfortunately, constraints on defense funding are directly
affecting our country's ability to address threats to our
security, interests, and values and to deter aggression from
adversaries and rising regional powers. As a result of the
increased threat to national security and our concurrent
military drawdown, there is a significant gap between what the
American people expect the military to be able to do and what
it actually could do effectively if called upon today. Much of
the funding provided to the Department of Defense has been
consumed by current operations and to keep the next to deploy
forces ready. We have allowed other capabilities to atrophy,
capacity to shrink, and the readiness of forces training at
home station to suffer.
This legislation is a continuation of efforts of the
Committee on Armed Services to reverse these trends and restore
our national defense to a level the American people can, and
should expect. The bill provides $621.5 billion to support core
Department of Defense requirements, and an increase of $18.5
billion over the budget request. It also includes an additional
$74.6 billion of Overseas Contingency Operations, $10.0 billion
of which is set aside for additional base requirements. This
includes money to fully fund the 2.4 percent pay raise troops
are entitled to by law, to increase the size of the Army, Navy,
and Air Force, to expand funding for maintenance and readiness,
and to deter Russian aggression in Europe and their continued
violations of bilateral treaty obligations.
The bill also refocuses the Armed Forces on crucial areas
that have been neglected. The United States must be prepared to
fight the wars of tomorrow, not just today. To that end, this
legislation creates a Space Corps within the Department of the
Air Force to ensure the Armed Forces are adequately focused on
warfighting in space; it increases congressional oversight of
military cyber operations, and it funds numerous upgrades to
equipment that will ensure the warfighter is entering battle
with 21st century weapon systems.
Finally, this bill cuts waste. Though we must increase our
commitment to national defense, we must also ensure that
increase is spent efficiently and effectively. This legislation
includes numerous reforms to streamline the Department of
Defense so that dollars invested in national defense are spent
to secure the Nation, not on overhead or unnecessary red tape.
The bill increases oversight of service contracts, which
constitute a majority of Department of Defense contracting
dollars; it improves purchasing of off-the-shelf goods, so that
the Government is not paying needlessly high prices for items
easily available on the commercial market; and it reforms
contract auditing to return the most value for invested
resources.
STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES
Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this
legislation contains no Federal mandates with respect to state,
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no Federal
intergovernmental mandates.
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
Consistent with the requirements of section 5(b) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, the committee finds that the
functions of the proposed advisory committee authorized in the
bill are not currently being nor could they be performed by one
or more agencies, an advisory committee already in existence or
by enlarging the mandate of an existing advisory committee.
APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The committee finds that this legislation does not relate
to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
No provision of H.R. 2810 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS
The committee estimates that H.R. 2810 requires six
instances of directed rule makings. They are contained in the
following provisions:
(1) section 815;
(2) section 822;
(3) section 833;
(4) section 851;
(5) section 856; and
(6) section 1722.
COMMITTEE VOTES
In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, record votes were taken with
respect to the committee's consideration of H.R. 2810. The
record of these votes is contained in the following pages.
The committee ordered H.R. 2810 to be reported to the House
with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 60-1, a quorum
being present.
committee on armed services
roll call vote no. 1
h.r. 2810
On Moulton Log 121r1--Reduces amount of Littoral Combat
Ship by a quantity of 1 and adds corresponding cost to PACOM
and EUCOM munitions shortfalls.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Ms. Rosen....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... Mr. McEachin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carbajal.... x ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Brown....... ........ x ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Murphy..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Khanna...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... Mr. O'Halleran.. ........ x ..........
Dr. DesJarlais................ ........ x .......... Mr. Suozzi...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Abraham................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ ........ x ..........
Mr. Kelly..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gallagher................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gaetz..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bacon..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Banks..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Cheney.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 19 43 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
roll call vote no. 2
h.r. 2810
On Speier Log 096--Extend the application of military
selective service registration and conscription requirements to
female citizens and US residents between ages of 18 and 26.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Ms. Rosen....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... Mr. McEachin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carbajal.... x ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Brown....... x ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Murphy..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Khanna...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... Mr. O'Halleran.. x ........ ..........
Dr. DesJarlais................ ........ x .......... Mr. Suozzi...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Abraham................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mr. Kelly..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gallagher................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gaetz..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bacon..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Banks..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Cheney.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 28 33 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
roll call vote no. 3
h.r. 2810
On Speier Log 095--This amendment requires TRICARE to offer
similar contraceptive coverage currently provided through the
Affordable Care Act by removing cost sharing through the mail
order pharmacy and removal of cost sharing for related
contraceptive care, education and counseling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Ms. Rosen....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... Mr. McEachin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carbajal.... x ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Brown....... x ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Murphy..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Khanna...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... Mr. O'Halleran.. x ........ ..........
Dr. DesJarlais................ ........ x .......... Mr. Suozzi...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Abraham................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mr. Kelly..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gallagher................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gaetz..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bacon..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Banks..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Cheney.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 30 31 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
roll call vote no. 4
h.r. 2810
On Byrne Log 345--Substitute Amendment to O'Halleran Log
220r1 requiring DOD to submit an annual report on the costs to
DOD in support of travel of the President, Vice President, and
members of the cabinet.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Moulton..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... Ms. Rosen....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... x ........ .......... Mr. McEachin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Graves.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Carbajal.... ........ x ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Brown....... ........ x ..........
Ms. McSally................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Murphy..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Knight.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Khanna...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... Mr. O'Halleran.. ........ x ..........
Dr. DesJarlais................ x ........ .......... Mr. Suozzi...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Abraham................... x ........ .......... Mr. Walz........ ........ x ..........
Mr. Kelly..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gallagher................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gaetz..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bacon..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Banks..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Cheney.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 25 36 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
roll call vote no. 5
h.r. 2810
On Veasey Log 151--Directs the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a study on the feasibility of establishing a standalone
cyber service tasked with the overall cybersecurity of the
United States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... ........ x .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Ms. Rosen....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... Mr. McEachin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carbajal.... x ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Brown....... ........ x ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Murphy..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Khanna...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... Mr. O'Halleran.. x ........ ..........
Dr. DesJarlais................ ........ x .......... Mr. Suozzi...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Abraham................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ ........ x ..........
Mr. Kelly..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gallagher................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gaetz..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bacon..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Banks..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Cheney.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 13 48 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
roll call vote no. 6
h.r. 2810
On Rogers Log 116--Would require the Army to transfer
excess .45 caliber M1911A1 pistols to the Civilian Marksmanship
Program (CMP).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... ........ x ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. Norcross.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Moulton..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... Ms. Rosen....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... x ........ .......... Mr. McEachin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Graves.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Carbajal.... ........ x ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Brown....... ........ x ..........
Ms. McSally................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Murphy..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Knight.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Khanna...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... Mr. O'Halleran.. ........ x ..........
Dr. DesJarlais................ x ........ .......... Mr. Suozzi...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Abraham................... x ........ .......... Mr. Walz........ ........ x ..........
Mr. Kelly..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gallagher................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gaetz..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bacon..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Banks..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Cheney.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 35 26 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
roll call vote no. 7
h.r. 2810
On Speier Log 100--Prohibits DOD funds from being obligated
or expended to pay for expenses incurred at a property owned or
operated by the President or an immediate family member if the
payments will result in their financial benefit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Ms. Rosen....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... Mr. McEachin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carbajal.... x ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Brown....... x ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Murphy..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Khanna...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... Mr. O'Halleran.. x ........ ..........
Dr. DesJarlais................ ........ x .......... Mr. Suozzi...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Abraham................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mr. Kelly..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gallagher................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gaetz..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bacon..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Banks..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Cheney.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 30 32 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
roll call vote no. 8
h.r. 2810
On O'Halleran Log 220r1--Requires DOD to provide the
committee with a quarterly report detailing costs in support of
presidential travel, including costs incurred for travel to
property owned by the President or his immediate family.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ ........ x .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... ........ x .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... ........ x .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... ........ x .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... ........ x .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... ........ x .......... Ms. Gabbard..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. ........ x .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... ........ x .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... ........ x .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... ........ x .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. ........ x .......... Ms. Rosen....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... ........ x .......... Mr. McEachin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... ........ x .......... Mr. Carbajal.... x ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. ........ x .......... Mr. Brown....... x ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... ........ x .......... Mrs. Murphy..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Khanna...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... ........ x .......... Mr. O'Halleran.. x ........ ..........
Dr. DesJarlais................ ........ x .......... Mr. Suozzi...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Abraham................... ........ x .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mr. Kelly..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gallagher................. ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gaetz..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bacon..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Banks..................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Cheney.................... ........ x .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 31 31 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
roll call vote no. 9
h.r. 2810
On Franks Log 274r2--Establishes a Space Test Bed and
begins development of a Space Based Missile Defense Layer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... ........ x ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... ........ x ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Moulton..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. ........ x ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... Ms. Rosen....... ........ x ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... x ........ .......... Mr. McEachin.... ........ x ..........
Mr. Graves.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Carbajal.... ........ x ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Brown....... ........ x ..........
Ms. McSally................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Murphy..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Knight.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Khanna...... ........ x ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... Mr. O'Halleran.. ........ x ..........
Dr. DesJarlais................ x ........ .......... Mr. Suozzi...... ........ x ..........
Dr. Abraham................... x ........ .......... Mr. Walz........ ........ x ..........
Mr. Kelly..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gallagher................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gaetz..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bacon..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Banks..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Cheney.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 36 26 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee on armed services
roll call vote no. 10
h.r. 2810
On the motion by Mr. Wilson to report the bill H.R. 2810 as
amended favorably to the House, with a recommendation that it
do pass.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member Aye No Present Member Aye No Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Thornberry................ x ........ .......... Mr. Smith....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Jones..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Brady....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wilson.................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Davis...... x ........ ..........
Mr. LoBiondo.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Langevin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bishop.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Larsen...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Turner.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Cooper...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Rogers.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Bordallo.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Franks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Courtney.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Shuster................... x ........ .......... Ms. Tsongas..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Conaway................... x ........ .......... Mr. Garamendi... x ........ ..........
Mr. Lamborn................... x ........ .......... Ms. Speier...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Wittman................... x ........ .......... Mr. Veasey...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Hunter.................... x ........ .......... Ms. Gabbard..... ........ x ..........
Mr. Coffman................... x ........ .......... Mr. O'Rourke.... x ........ ..........
Mrs. Hartzler................. x ........ .......... Mr. Norcross.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Scott..................... x ........ .......... Mr. Gallego..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Brooks.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Moulton..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Cook...................... x ........ .......... Ms. Hanabusa.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Bridenstine............... x ........ .......... Ms. Shea-Porter. x ........ ..........
Dr. Wenstrup.................. x ........ .......... Ms. Rosen....... x ........ ..........
Mr. Byrne..................... x ........ .......... Mr. McEachin.... x ........ ..........
Mr. Graves.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Carbajal.... x ........ ..........
Ms. Stefanik.................. x ........ .......... Mr. Brown....... x ........ ..........
Ms. McSally................... x ........ .......... Mrs. Murphy..... x ........ ..........
Mr. Knight.................... x ........ .......... Mr. Khanna...... x ........ ..........
Mr. Russell................... x ........ .......... Mr. O'Halleran.. x ........ ..........
Dr. DesJarlais................ x ........ .......... Mr. Suozzi...... x ........ ..........
Dr. Abraham................... x ........ .......... Mr. Walz........ x ........ ..........
Mr. Kelly..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gallagher................. x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Gaetz..................... ........ ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Bacon..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Mr. Banks..................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
Ms. Cheney.................... x ........ .......... ........ ........ ..........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roll Call Vote Total:......... 60 1 0 ........ ........ ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
The committee has taken steps to make available the
analysis of changes in existing law made by the bill, as
required by clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, and will make the analysis available as
soon as possible.
RANKING MEMBER ADAM SMITH'S ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON H.R. 2810, THE NATIONAL
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
I thank Chairman Thornberry for his efficient, bipartisan
work in developing the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018, and I congratulate him for successfully
passing the bill out of committee. I appreciate that this bill
includes needed measures to strengthen deterrence and to boost
unity against Russia's campaign to undermine democracy
worldwide. I also appreciate the steps the bill takes to fill
genuine military readiness gaps; to require strategies from
President Trump and the Department of Defense on Russia, Syria,
Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia; and to acknowledge and to plan
for the real threat that climate change poses to national
security. However; I am concerned by several aspects of the
bill, and I look forward to working with Chairman Thornberry to
further improve it.
My chief concern relates to the bill's funding. While we
have marked this bill up to support an overall top line of
$696.1 billion in discretionary budget authority for the
national defense budget function, including $621.5 billion in
base budget authority, it is unlikely that, at the end of this
legislative process, we will have that much money. The budget
cap for defense spending for fiscal year 2018 is $549 billion,
and if the House, the Senate, and the President do not come to
an agreement to lift or modify the budget caps, the base budget
supported by the bill would fall from $621.5 billion to $549
billion as a matter or law. The constraints imposed by the
Budget Control Act of 2011 (the BCA) continue to pose
significant challenges for the military, and the bill currently
does nothing to alleviate the situation.
The bill also authorizes $74.6 billion for overseas
contingency operations (OCO). Of that amount, nearly $10
billion is reserved for base budget requirements. So, the bill
not only fails to comply with the discretionary caps imposed by
the BCA, it also misuses the BCNs off-book allowance for OCO by
using it for significant non-OCO purposes. If this same
approach is ultimately taken to buffer sequestration, then
$147.1 billion in OCO funding would need to be authorized to
support a top line of $696.1 billion. That would be a
tremendous abuse since only $64.6 billion has been requested
for actual OCO. We need to exercise better fiscal discipline.
Unfortunately, this bill does not attempt to make really
hard choices regarding national security priorities. That is a
serious mistake, the consequences of which Congress will
eventually be forced to confront. We cannot indiscriminately
fund every single program on every defense wish list, while
cutting taxes, refusing to raise revenue, refusing to reform
mandatory spending, imposing draconian cuts on non-defense
discretionary programs that keep our country safe and
prosperous, and insisting on a balanced budget. It doesn't add
up.
Moreover, President Trump's budget has thrown into stark
relief the relationship between defense spending and non-
defense spending, by requesting trade-off cuts to domestic
discretionary spending to subsidize increases for defense. It
would be unconscionable and a net loss for national security to
plus up defense, while imposing a requested cut of 28% to the
State Department and USAID. As Secretary Mattis said, ``If you
don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more
ammunition ultimately.''
I am disappointed that the bill extends provisions, which
effectively prevent closure of the detention facility at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO). The bill prohibits the transfer of
detainees from GTMO to the United States and the construction
or modification of facilities within the United States to house
GTMO detainees for another calendar year. Our perennial failure
to close the detention facility at GTMO continues to undermine
our standing within the international community.
I run disappointed that the bill includes provisions that
would prohibit funding for the extension of the New START
treaty; abrogate the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty by 2019
if Russia has not returned to compliance; limit funding for
nuclear weapons dismantlement; mandate the development of
space-based interceptors about which the director of the
Missile Defense Agency has said, ``I have serious concerns
about the technical feasibility of the interceptors in space
and I have serious concerns about the long-term affordability
of a program like that''; and mandate a test of the SM3-IIA
missile defense interceptor against an ICBM, which will
undermine strategic and regional stability. Strategic stability
is in the manifest interest of the United States, and we must
respond to Russia's aggressive actions in ways that seek to
preserve it, rather than adopting reckless measures that could
fuel a nuclear arms race or increase the risk of accidental
nuclear war.
I am also disappointed that the bill contains a provision
prohibiting a new base realignment and closure (BRAC) round,
rejecting DOD's request for flexibility to implement a BRAC for
the sixth year in a row.
Adam Smith.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS FOR H.R. 2810, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
We congratulate Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member
Smith on the passage of the committee mark for the 56th
National Defense Authorization Act, and appreciate the
attentions of all members of the House Armed Services Committee
on this important endeavor. However, a particular issue remains
of concern to us.
In 2012, Congress created U.S.C. Title 10, Sec. 12304b to
give combatant commanders the authority to utilize the reserve
component more broadly in order to meet combatant commander
requirements. Unfortunately, when involuntarily mobilized under
this authority, members of the National Guard and Reserves are
not granted the same benefits as the active-duty military
members with whom they serve. These reserve component troops
who mobilize under Sec. 12304b do not currently receive pre-
mobilization and transitional TRICARE access, eligibility for
educational benefits such as the Post-9/11 GI bill, high temp
deployment accounting, or early retirement credit.
While deployed in such places as the Sinai Peninsula,
Kosovo, the Americas, and across Eastern Europe, these reserve
component troops perform the same missions and duties as active
component troops, but are not entitled to the same benefits.
This is unjust and wrong. Along with their active-duty
counterparts, Reserve and Guard troops have served in a variety
of essential missions, including the European Reassurance
Initiative in Germany and Ukraine to counter Russian
aggression. Fixing this inequity--getting our reserve component
service members the benefits they earned for their active duty
service--is a high priority for the National Guard Bureau, the
Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve, other reserve
components, as well as many state governors across the country.
Drawn from H.R. 1384, the Reserve Component Benefits Parity
Act of which we are sponsors, a provision contained within H.R.
2810, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal
Year 2018 corrects part of this inequity by providing pre-
mobilization and transitional TRICARE benefits for those
mobilized under Sec. 12304b. Upon final passage of the NDAA,
this will allow Guard and Reserve troops to access the
healthcare they need before and after mobilization. This is a
step in the right direction, and we thank the Chairman and
Ranking Member for assenting to its inclusion.
H.R. 1384 corrects the remainder of inequities under
Sec. 12304b, and has been endorsed by a host of organizations,
including: the National Guard Association of the United States
(NGAUS), the Military Coalition (TMC), the Reserve Officers
Association (ROA), the Enlisted Association of the National
Guard of the United States (EANGUS), the Minnesota National
Guard Enlisted Association (MNGEA), The American Legion, the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW), the United
States Army Warrant Officers Association (USAWOA), the Student
Veterans of America (SVA), the Military Order of the Purple
Heart (MOPH), VoteVets.org, the Fleet Reserve Association
(FRA), the Air Force Association, the Air Force Sergeants
Association, the Military Officers Association of America
(MOAA), AMVETS, Army Aviation Association of America, National
Military Family Association, AMSUS, Naval Enlisted Reserve
Association, Association of the Unites States Army (AUSA),
Association of the United States Navy (AUSN), The Military
Chaplains Association of the USA, Commissioned Officers
Association of the US Public Health Service, INC, the Retired
Enlisted Association, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors,
the USCG Chief Petty Officers Association, Gold Star Wives of
America, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and the
Jewish War Veterans of the USA.
It is our hope that the rest of this bill will pass without
delay, as it is needed to provide the reserve component full
parity in benefits with their active duty counterparts in this
time of increasing operational utilization of the reserve
components. We thank you for your consideration of this
important matter and for your continued support of the men and
women of our Armed Forces.
Carol Shea-Porter.
Walter Jones.
Jim Bridenstine.
Tim Walz.
Madeleine Z. Bordallo.
Anthony G. Brown.
Jacky Rosen.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF MR. LARSEN
This bill includes many provisions which will contribute to
overall warfighter readiness. I am pleased that many of my
proposals have been included in this legislation and the
committee report, and I will work with Chairman Thornberry and
Ranking Member Smith to ensure they remain in the final text of
the legislation.
Congress is considering this NOAA in the absence of a
budget resolution to guide the committee's work. In addition,
the topline authority granted in this law greatly exceeds the
defense discretionary cap in the Budget Control Act (BCA). The
bipartisan BCA was enacted to mollify House Republicans who
threatened default on the national debt absent discretionary
spending cuts. As much as members may dislike it, the BCA
remains the law of the land. Authorizing $624 billion for base
requirements against a $549 billion cap is irresponsible,
because it forces others to make the difficult decisions about
how to set priorities for the Department of Defense.
As Ranking Member Smith observed, the trade-offs in
President Trump's 2018 budget request exposed as a myth the
oft-repeated refrain that HASC must ignore the non-defense
budget when considering the NOAA. Paying for defense increases
with dollar-for-dollar cuts to non-defense spending is not just
harmful to working Americans--it's also self-defeating. As
witness after witness has told this committee, our national
security is based on more than our strength of arms. National
security depends on capable diplomacy, scientific leadership,
and healthy, educated young Americans willing to wear the
uniform. The President's proposed cuts to these building blocks
of national security would force our military to shoulder even
more of the burden in keeping Americans safe from harm.
It is my hope that the whole Congress will address these
larger budget issues. And I will work with my colleagues to
ensure the conference bill includes important priorities I
support, including resources to address physiological episodes
on EA-18G Growler aircraft, justice for victims of child abuse,
and improved oversight of nuclear modernization programs.
Lastly, I would like the record to include an explanation
of my absence from the subcommittee mark-ups. Due to a request
by the Governor of Washington to lead the largest-ever state
delegation to the Paris Air Show, I was unable to participate
in HASC proceedings for the week of June 19-23, 2017.
The Paris Air Show brings together the world aerospace
industry, and provides Washington companies the opportunity to
showcase the products and services they provide that make my
state's aerospace sector the envy of the world.
Consequently, I would like to submit for the record how I
would have voted in subcommittee. During the Strategic Forces
subcommittee mark-up, I would have voted no on an amendment
offered by Mr. Franks because I am concerned it would have
reduced Congressional oversight of the Missile Defense Agency.
In addition, I would have spoken in favor of an amendment
offered by Ranking Member Cooper to strike a provision in the
underlying mark which prohibits funding to extend the New START
treaty. According to testimony from senior military leadership,
the New START treaty is in America's national security interest
and strengthens strategic stability.
I commend Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for
their leadership on this committee, and look forward to working
with them further on the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense
Authorization Act.
Rick Larsen.
CONGRESSMAN JOHN GARAMENDI ADDITIONAL VIEWS FOR H.R. 2810, THE NATIONAL
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
I congratulate Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith
on the passage of the committee mark for the 56th National
Defense Authorization Act. I also appreciate the efforts of the
House Armed Services Committee to prepare a committee mark that
aims to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the means
to protect our nation and advance American interests. However,
there are several areas of concern that I have with this bill,
and I look forward to our continued work to improve this
critically important legislation.
Most importantly, this bill and the associated budget
process demonstrate Congress's continued refusal to make the
difficult choices necessary to fund our national defense in a
responsible manner. It continues the annual cycle of debate
between defense hawks and budget hawks over spending levels
which is completely devoid of a thorough assessment of a
broader national security strategy. That strategy would
recognize that the United States will only be secure when we
adequately and responsibly fund all elements of our national
power and do not fund the military at the expense of important
domestic programs.
Just one example of our refusal to make difficult choices
is the continued march down a road to spending more than one
trillion dollars over the next 20-25 to operate, maintain, and
recapitalize a nuclear arsenal which is in excess to our real
security needs. This bill increases nuclear spending by more
than $300 million over and above the President's increase of
more than $1 billion. If we continue down this path, excessive
nuclear weapons spending will put significant pressure on the
rest of the procurement budget in the middle of next decade
when other areas of our national defense will also require
recapitalization.
I am pleased the Committee's mark requires the Department
of Defense to deliver assessments of US national security
interests in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and Somalia as well as
robust military strategies to advance those interests. But
piecemeal strategy is piecemeal security. We, as a Congress,
must engage with the Executive Branch to develop a
comprehensive national security strategy which is clearly
linked to stable and responsible funding. This bill does not
accomplish that goal and I look forward to working to improve
it as the legislative process continues.
John Garamendi.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REP. SALUD CARBAJAL
As a Marine veteran, I am honored to serve on the House
Armed Services Committee and be part of the 56th National
Defense Authorization Act. The purpose of this legislation is
to ensure the readiness of our military by providing the right
resources and implementing the right policies. Today, we face a
wide range of traditional and non-traditional security threats,
and these threats are evolving on a daily basis. Whether it is
the threat from countries like North Korea, Russia and Iran or
defending the nation from cybersecurity attacks, the United
States must be well-resourced and ready to protect the American
people and our interests here and abroad.
We must invest in the right capabilities and continue to
promote research and development in order to sustain our
technological edge. The Department of Defense must recognize
and address the increasing impacts of climate change on
national security. It is also imperative that the Department of
Defense implement non-discriminatory policies and protect
service members and civilian personnel against any forms of
discrimination.
Although I supported the overall bill, I remain deeply
concerned over the funding issue. This legislation is funded
well-beyond the caps imposed by the Budget Control Act. I
believe it is irresponsible and a disservice to the American
people to continue to impose arbitrary cuts on domestic
spending while increasing defense spending. As I have stated
before, I believe the question we must ask ourselves is, what
are we trying to defend? As we continue to impose cuts to this
country's education and health systems and not take steps to
protect our environment, we will ultimately be left with a
hollow nation--nothing for the military to protect.
Salud Carbajal.
CONGRESSMEN RO KHANNA'S ADDITIONAL VIEWS FOR H.R. 2810, THE FISCAL YEAR
2018 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
I voted in favor of this bill in committee. I commend the
bipartisan nature of the House Armed Services to make sure our
defense authorization is done on time in the interest of
national security. I support our troops and elements of this
bill. But I am very concerned with the size of the defense
spending increases, especially in light of the Administration's
proposed diplomatic funding cuts and the lack of a new strategy
for peace. Not only is this bill a massive increase in defense
spending, it will most likely be coupled with cuts to diplomacy
and foreign aid. I am also waiting to hear a newly articulated
foreign policy for how to best use this money. The
administration has asked for this increase in money without
offering a new strategy. In Silicon Valley, where I represent
California's 17th Congressional District, venture capitalists
would not fund businesses seeking more money if they do not
have a new strategy. Our recent foreign interventions have led
to more terrorism and violence across the world. Although we
must have a strong military that deters war and keeps the
peace, we should be smarter about when and how we use force
abroad.
I am pleased that this bill makes great strides towards
improving procurement transparency and aims to reduce waste,
fraud and abuse in defense spending. The committee worked with
me to secure an important provision that directs the
Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study of
Department of Defense (DoD) procurement processes to determine
``potential abuses by companies of such processes, and means of
improving such processes to improve transparency in commercial
acquisitions by the Department of Defense.'' The bill also
includes three of my amendments that will save money for the
American taxpayer by: (1) allowing the Chief Operating Officer
of Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) to acquire and lease
property, generating much needed revenue for the AFRH. (2)
requiring a cost-benefit analysis for future afghan military
uniform specifications considering the report showing millions
of dollars were wasted on forest camouflage in a desert
country, and (3) requiring an assessment of design trade
options and a cost-benefit analysis of the W80 thermonuclear
warhead.
I am also pleased that three amendments I cosponsored were
adopted. These amendments deem climate change a national
security issue, make it easier for the military to contact
soldiers following their discharge and require the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report on the dual-hat arrangement for the
Commander of U.S. Cyber Command.
In sum, I applaud the committee staff that worked with me
to include important provisions that will save the taxpayer
money. My main concern remains the increases in defense
spending without a new strategy for peace. I am hopeful that
this concern will be addressed during the fiscal year 2018 NDAA
consideration by the full House of Representatives, and I look
forward to working with my colleagues to make sure we are not
authorizing additional spending for missions that are not
succeeding.
Ro Khanna.
CONGRESSMAN THOMAS R. SUOZZI'S ADDITIONAL VIEWS FOR H.R. 2810, THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
I congratulate Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith
on the passage of the committee mark for the 56th National
Defense Authorization Act. I appreciate the efforts of my
colleagues of the House Armed Services to ensure the national
security and defense of the United States. I also applaud the
Chairman's reform efforts contained in the committee's mark.
While I share, and support,the Chairman's objectives, I
disagree with several of the methods contained in the mark
which seek to address the backlog of incurred cost audits at
the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA).
I share the Chairman's goal of reducing the backlog of
incurred costs by utilizing qualified private auditors. I
believe that qualified private auditors will assist the DCAA's
goal of reducing the incurred cost audit backlog. However, I am
opposed to adding additional layers of bureaucracy and setting
mandates on the amount of work that must be contracted out to
private contractors.
I believe that any reform should give the Director of the
DCAA the authority and discretion to hire all the necessary and
required qualified private auditors to address the backlog of
incurred cost audits instead of a committee. Resting the
authority and the discretion with the Director will expedite
the hiring of private contractors to address the backlog.
Additionally, I am opposed to legislators setting a mandated
minimum percentage of contracts that must be completed by
private auditors. While I want to ensure measures are in place
to prevent a reoccurrence of a backlog, Congress should rely on
the expertise of the Director of the DCAA to ensure capacity in
the private sector continues to exist whenever needed.
I will continue to work with Chairman Thornberry, Ranking
Member Smith and my colleagues to address this issue and to
achieve our shared objectives of reform to increase efficiency
and save the taxpayers' dollars. I will continue to work to
encourage the use of private auditors by the DCAA in their
efforts to eliminate the backlog of incurred cost audits, to
encourage the use of qualified private auditors to assist with
the burden created by the backlog of incurred cost audits to
allow the DCAA to reallocate agency resources to prioritize
high-risk audits with a higher rate of return on investment, to
ensure private sector capacity exists to conduct incurred costs
audits to assist the DCAA with any potential surge of incurred
costs audits in order to avoid the recurrence of a backlog, and
to foster collaboration between the DCAA and the private sector
to increase efficiencies and root out waste, fraud, and abuse,
and to maximize the return on investment of tax payer dollars.
Thomas R. Suozzi.